课程报名咨询电话:010-51268840 51268841
英语 | 小语种 | 考研 | 在职研 | 财会 | 公务员 | 人力资源 | 出国留学 | 冬令营 | 企业管理 | 高校 | 高考 | 文体 | 0-18岁 | 网络课堂
 外语招生网
 外语报名咨询热线:010-51294614、51299614  ||  热点:环球雅思部分课程9.5折特惠 限时抢报!
 雅思·IELTS新托福·TOEFL四六级PETS商务英语职称英语小语种翻译少儿英语GREGMAT | 其他外语考试

Study undermines case for antidepressants

作者:不详   发布时间:2010-01-18 15:08:11  来源:网络
  • 文章正文
  • 调查
  • 热评
  • 论坛

Drugs are hardly better than a placebo for the mildly depressed, researchers find.

Mildly depressed Americans have spent billions of dollars over the past few decades hoping to relieve their blues by taking designer antidepressants. They might have done just as well by taking a placebo.

That’s the surprising implication of a new study by psychologists at the University of Pennsylvania, Vanderbilt University, the University of New Mexico and the University of Colorado. Many industry-sponsored studies have excluded patients with mild depression, even though these patients often end up in doctors’ offices looking for help. The new study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), culled the results from six antidepressant trials that did include mild and moderate cases, totaling 718 people overall.

It found that antidepressants drugs were virtually no better than a placebo for people with mild or moderate depression. Only in people with very severe depression did the antidepressant effect become substantially greater than that produced by a dummy pill.

It is unknown exactly how many patients taking antidepressants have milder cases of depression. But one survey cited by the researchers found that 71% of all patients seeking treatment for depression fall in the milder category, where placebos are likely to do as well.

"The evidence we now have suggests there is very little benefit [from antidepressants] for people with less than very severe depression," says study co-leader Robert DeRubeis, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania. He says doctors may want to consider alternative treatments, including exercise, cognitive therapy and self-help books, before using drugs to treat milder cases.

The Penn-led study only looked at two drugs, Paxil from GlaxoSmithKline and a well-known older drug called imipramine. But it follows on the heels of a larger 2008 study from University of Hull psychologist Irving Kirsch that compared 35 trials of four different antidepressant medications, including Prozac from Eli Lilly, Effexor from Pfizer and Paxil. This study, published in PLoS Medicine, also found "virtually no difference" between drugs and placebos for the moderately depressed, and only a relatively small difference even in the very severely depressed.

If antidepressants aren’t much better than a placebo for many patients, how is it that researchers are just figuring this out now? Kirsch says it’s a common pattern in medicine to think a new drug has great benefits, only to discover years later that the apparent efficacy is mostly due to the placebo effect.

Another reason the public may have gotten a skewed view of antidepressant efficacy is that drug companies have tended to publicize only their most positive studies. Until recently, some failed antidepressant trials weren’t published in medical journals, or were buried deep in the literature where they were hard to find. "The clinical trials showing the least benefits for drugs compared to placebo were just not published," says Kirsch. "We had to go to the FDA and [submit a Freedom of Information Act request] to get the data."

Dug studies also may overestimate benefits of antidepressants because many drug studies have a placebo "washout" period, which attempts to exclude people likely to respond to a placebo. To get around this potential problem, the University of Pennsylvania study only examined studies without a washout period. This resulted in over 200 studies being excluded from the analysis.

In response to the paper, GlaxoSmithKline said, "The studies used for the analysis in the JAMA paper differ methodologically from studies used to support the approval of Paxil for major depressive disorder, so it is difficult to make direct comparisons between the results." It added, "Since its approval by the FDA in 1992, Paxil has helped millions of people battling mental illness lead more productive, happier lives."

So-called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as Paxil, Prozac and Zoloft, gained widespread use on the theory that depressed people suffer from a deficit of the brain chemical serotonin. But little hard data supports the popular concept, Kirsch says. "This whole idea of serotonin deficiency is a myth."

以下网友留言只代表网友个人观点,不代表本站观点。 立即发表评论
提交评论后,请及时刷新页面!               [回复本贴]    
用户名: 密码:
验证码: 匿名发表
外语招生最新热贴:
【责任编辑:苏婧  纠错
阅读下一篇:下面没有链接了
【育路网版权与免责声明】  
    ① 凡本网注明稿件来源为"原创"的所有文字、图片和音视频稿件,版权均属本网所有。任何媒体、网站或个人转载、链接、转贴或以其他方式复制发表时必须注明"稿件来源:育路网",违者本网将依法追究责任;
    ② 本网部分稿件来源于网络,任何单位或个人认为育路网发布的内容可能涉嫌侵犯其合法权益,应该及时向育路网书面反馈,并提供身份证明、权属证明及详细侵权情况证明,育路网在收到上述法律文件后,将会尽快移除被控侵权内容。
外语报名咨询电话:010-51294614、51299614
外语课程分类
 
-- 大学英语---
专四专八英语四六级公共英语考研英语
-- 出国考试---
雅思托福GREGMAT
-- 职业英语---
BEC翻译职称英语金融英语托业
博思实用商务面试英语
-- 实用英语---
口语新概念外语沙龙口语梦工场口语
VIP翻译
-- 小语种----
日语法语德语韩语俄语阿拉伯语
西班牙语意大利语其它语种
热点专题·精品课程
 
外语课程搜索
课程关键词:
开课时间:
价格范围: 元 至
课程类别:
学员报名服务中心: 北京北三环西路32号恒润中心1803(交通位置图
咨询电话:北京- 010-51268840/41 传真:010-51418040 上海- 021-51567016/17
育路网-中国新锐教育社区: 北京站 | 上海站 | 郑州站| 天津站
本站法律顾问:邱清荣律师
北京育路互联科技有限公司版权所有1999-2010 | 京ICP备05012189号