That's the rumor, based on the rumored fact that he is unable to eat certain things, notably cheese and Chianti wine. These are foods rich in tyramine, a chemical that's normally harmless, but can be toxic in people taking MAOis. So, if Brown is indeed on a Chianti-and-cheeseless regime, he almost certainly is taking one of the several MAOis on the market today.The original source for this idea is this blogger, who claims to have heard it from an unnamed Brown aide. Is he to be believed? A glance over his website shows he is hardly an impartial commentator, and he goes on to demonstrate his psychological insight with statements like
"Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is relatively common. Most of us display some obsessive features in everyday life, but under stress a minority of people become borderline or actual OCD in their behaviour, and need medication to control both this and the depression which almost always presents soon afterwards. ... Gordon Brown's symptoms are obvious when viewed in this light: the constant repetition of phrases, and an almost embarrassing (for his Party) need to spray every Parliamentary answer with statistics... they - and the constant speech repetition - represent Brown's unconscious means of controlling the severe anxiety that accompanies depression with OCD."So one might think that his credibility is somewhat questionable. This hasn't stopped certain corners of the British blogosphere from getting very excited, however, and even respected political journalist Andrew Marr yesterday quizzed Brown about the issue.
Unfortunately, while many are eager to write about Brown and his possible pills, few of them seem to know anything about psychiatry or antidepressants, which has led to some embarrassing errors. So, for the benefit of British pundits, here are some helpful facts.
MAOis -
- are not "powerful", "heavy duty" antidepressants. In terms of effectiveness, they are no better, on average, than Prozac. In fact, no antidepressant is much better than any other one. They differ in terms of side effects, but not "strength". For what it's worth, current opinion is that if there is a best antidepressant, it is escitalopram, a modern Prozac-like SSRI with very mild side effects, which is just about as unlike a MAOi as you can imagine.
- do not "impair" or "affect judgment". Antidepressants don't. Except that they treat depression, and someone who's happy might make different judgments to someone who's depressed. But these drugs do not affect judgment in the way that intoxicants like alcohol or cocaine do. You don't get high on them. This is why they have no street value. Most drugs which impair judgment get used recreationally, because having your judgment impaired can be fun. Antidepressants aren't.
- are not exclusively used in "severe depression". They are usually reserved for when a patient has not responded to other drugs. This is because of their troublesome side effects, including high blood pressure, and the fact that you can't eat cheese. But "treatment-resistant" depression is not the same as "severe" depression. In fact, the more severe the depression, the more likely it is to respond to treatment with conventional drugs. If Brown is on MAOis, he has probably tried at least two or three other drugs, but this is by no means uncommon because antidepressants just don't work especially well. According to the largest trial in a real-world setting, the STAR*D project, only 30% of people fully recover on their first antidepressant and only 30% of the rest respond to the second one.
- are not especially effective in OCD, as the source of the rumor claimed - "this older class of drugs has one huge advantage: for severe depression and obsessive compulsive disorder it remains very effective", emphasis in the original. This is just flat-out wrong. Other antidepressants are more useful in OCD. Here's a recent review of drug therapy for OCD. MAOis get a mention... right at the end, after (deep breath) SSRIs, clomipramine, atypical antipsychotics, SNRIs, pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, and benzodiazepines. Here's the only published trial comparing a monoamine oxidase inhibitor to another drug, Prozac, for OCD. The MAOi didn't work, Prozac did.
- were the first class of antidepressants to be discovered; the very first, iproniazid, was discovered in 1952. Others followed, such as tranylcypromine, phenelzine, and selegiline. Today, there are a handful of MAOis on the market. These include some newer drugs such as moclobemide (which has milder side effects) and the selegiline transdermal patch (which carries fewer dietary restrictions). MAOis are primarily used to treat depression, but are also used in Parkinson's disease.
Realistically, none of this is going to change people's minds. No-one is really concerned about the possibility that Gordon Brown is using MAOis, or even the possibility that he's depressed. Rather, a lot of people just really don't like him, and this rumor is the latest stick with which to beat him. Blogger Guido Fawkes has been asking "Is Brown Bonkers?" for months. As one journalist put it, "Whether literally the case or not, however, this rumor carries the kind of psychological truth that tends to be more damaging than fact." Which didn't stop him from repeating the rumor uncritically.
[BPSDB]

17 comments:
You don't get high on them.
Sorry, but I do get unpleasantly high on Escitalopram (Seroplex) with twitching eyes!
Currently using S-Adenosyl-L-Methionine without any noticeable side effects.
Well, drugs affect people differently. I've been high on a number of things, and citalopram isn't like that, for me, or for most people AFAIK. But it does happen.
To be fair, there are reports of people recreationally using certain MAOis, so I wouldn't like to say that you can never get high off them. But there are reports of people getting high off almost everything. It's not generally an issue with antidepressants.
Brown may be a lousy PM but he was a truly awful Chancellor, so things are improving.
You make some interesting points. However, I think some MAOi's can induce a mild euphoria even in normal patients. It's actually more common than you might think. See this thread for example. Of course this euphoria is different in the sense that it doesn't lend itself to abuse as much. The effect may take weeks to build up.
I would expect that a MAOi could have a better antidepressant response than other drugs if given in the right dosage. Especially since many of them alter serotonin/dopamine/norepinephrine at the same.
a no cheese / no red wine diet is also compatible with migraine avoidance.
Also there are non-psychiatric indications for MAO-class drugs. Azilect (rasagaline) is used for parkinsons. In the UK there is no cheese restriction but in the US there is.
True, I have heard of mild stimulant-like effects with some MAOis. But this might not be because they are MAOis, for example phenelzine (Nardil) is metabolised to phenylethylamine which is amphetamine-like (and phenelzine is amphetamine-like in structure as well).
And to be honest that post on Dr Bob sounds like someone who has gone hypomanic...
As to MAOis being more effective than others, I agree that pharmacologically they look as if they ought to be, but the clinical evidence is weak. On the other hand, that could be because the clinical evidence is flawed, which it certainly is.
Basically my goal here was to question what's being written about MAOis in the context of Gordon Brown. Some of the finer points might be debated.
There's also the fact that MAOIs aren't prescribed much at all these days. They're considered old-hat compared to the new super-duper (supposedly) SSRIs, and if you give them an SSRI they can still have their cheese and marmite.
I can't remember the last time I administered an MAOI
Anyway, may be depression is good for you, you should rejoyce having a more "focused" prime minister.
SSRI's can also impair judgement, regardless of what the pharmaceutical companies say. Raising someone's serotonin is NOT a natural thing in nature. The street drug Ecstasy also raises serotonin levels and while SSRIs are not as quick acting nor as powerful in normal usage, they CAN have the effect of making someone 'too happy'...in other words not have the 'normal' doubt and self-reflection that might make someone make a different decision than if they weren't on the drug. This usually happens when a non-depressed person is put on an SSRI for some other reason...like OCD, smoking cessation, migraines etc. The person's emotions were 'fine' but the SSRI now makes them 'too fine' and apathetic about things they oridinarily would have more caution or worry about which is natural. Don't assume just because a doctor or pharma company says they are always safe that they are. Doctors get their information FROM the pharma companies who have a vested financial interest in making their drugs appear safer and more effective than they really are so they can continue to make billions off of them.
Rob L, doctors don't get their information from the pharma companies. It would be lovely to think that we did and it was all a big conspiracy, but, as always it's a little bit more complicated than that. We get our information from our experience of treating patients, independent bodies like NICE and from the peer reviewed literature, of which a lot has links to pharma, this is true. But whilst much of the literature is drug company sponsored, and much of the rest of it often has questionable methodology, most of us have the sense not to take any notice of the stuff that's written by people who clearly have a vested interest (or just don't know what they're doing).
Besides, most of the antidepressants that are prescribed now are off-patent so the drug company gets nothing. You know how much a month's worth of Prozac costs the NHS? 28p. You pay more for Paracetamol from Boots.
Some other points from my experience- MAOis, and other ADs, certainly have the potential to make people 'high', but it seems rarer than one might think, and usually transient. Oftentimes people with depression recover briefly at the start of treatment just because 'something is being done'. MAOis do have some street value- I have come across them (Phenelzine and Moclobemide in particular) being used recreationally with LSD and other psychedelics to enhance the effect. In clinical practice we occasionally combine Phenelzine with Trimipramine, but generally speaking these drugs have fallen out of favour now, which is a pity perhaps because they suit some people very well.
Anyway, I digress. As for Gordon Brown being on a MAOi, who cares? MAOi or no MAOi, he'd still be the same ineffective leader.
Rob - I don't just trust what drug manufacturers say & I hope my other blog posts will confirm that. I'm speaking from personal experience & from talking to a lot of people who have taken SSRIs for depression or as part of research. Plus of course there's the published evidence, not all of which is linked to Pharma money.
Becoming "too happy" is very uncommon and even if some people do respond in that way, it's not as if Prozac is the only thing that can lift mood. We wouldn't consider someone who had just got engaged to have "impaired judgment"...
The one situation in which MAOi drugs are considered the "big guns" is treatment-resistant depression of the atypical subtype.
You can find a number of references to "MAOIs and atypical depression" in the literature. While I can't find much evidence for why that is, I suspect it's because MAOIs have a reputation for being more activating (less anxiolytic but better for anergic depressions) than the SSRIs, save perhaps for Prozac.
They are also a better choice than the TCAs (after SSRIs/SNRIs/NDRIs/NaSSAs) if there's a concern about suicide risk.
I can imagine limited street potential. Tranylcypromine is definitely buzzier than phenelzine. Selegiline is used to potentiate other drugs (for the wonky psychonauts, it's used when available in place of botanical MAO inhibitors like the harmala alkaloids). All three, I think, have amphetamine or methamphetamine metabolites that can show up as a positive on a drug test.
The selegiline transdermal patch was a great idea but it doesn't seem to be delivering so well (look at the studies on it, and you see an improvement in the HAM-D of only a few points over placebo). This might be because the dosages top out at 12mg patches, but I wouldn't know.
I still wonder why they made an antidepressant transdermal patch out of an MAOI that is primarily used as a Parkinsons drug, though. The advantage of transdermal systems, of course, is bypassing the first-pass hepatic metabolism and mostly bypassing the gut, where those nasty tyramine interactions occur. And selegiline is not as notorious as the totally nonselective antidepressant MAOIs for tyramine reactions. So you'd imagine there ought to be some incentive to make a transdermal patch out of tranylcypromine (Parnate) or some other depression-focused MAOI.
Lastly, MAOIs are generally considered more powerful among the patient community. This is probably because by the time you get to an MAOI, you've had ongoing depression (and depression degenerates and becomes a self-reinforcing spiral as you fail treatments - so I would argue that severe depression is perfectly likely to be treatment-resistant, or perhaps vice versa).
If you have a lifelong case of biological, recurrent depression, your chances of repeated tachyphylaxis (aka "Prozac poop-out") on the first- and second-line drugs is very high, simply because of the duration of treatment.
(Happened to me...)
So as each medication and class of medications either doesn't work, or eventually stops working, the MAOIs can be the "last stop" on the treatment line before ECT. If they work, then, they are considered a powerful miracle.
There is a good reason why he should be on an MAOI: PD, of which he has fairly clear signs. So I'd ease back on your scepticism, or at least on the authority with which you dish it out. And that diagnosis would certainly be relevant to his capacity for decision-making.
Parkinson's Disease - possible, but he's shown no symptoms of it; I haven't been looking very closely but the rumour mill would be in full swing by now if he had any motor symptoms. Anyway, even if he did have PD, the problem would be that he had PD, not that he was on MAOis.
I'll keep dishing out scepticism so long as people like Notbornyesterday keep dishing out rubbish...
Katusha - Yeah, the MAOis for atypical depression story is an old one, and expert opinion seems to be that it's true, although there's little hard evidence. I can believe it. There's also an interesting idea that MAOis work well in people who enjoy amphetamines (not everyone does), which makes sense (dopamine).
Atypical depression is not the same as "severe depression" though - most people would say quite the opposite, melancholia is considered worse - which further undermines the "powerful drugs for severe depression" idea.
The PD story needs no more than a look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ba7glghZ4w
If you know what you are looking at then you will know the clip is misnamed - this is not the tremor of anxiety.
What is interesting about all of this is that unless he suddenly drops dead it is bound to become apparent, in time. By then, of course, he will not be prime minister, but questions will be asked....
It's possible I 'spose. We have a sample of handwriting now as well thanks to the Sun - can that be used to diagnose PD?
Post a Comment