More doubts about Prozac

[unixronin]

Recently, Prozac and related SSRI antidepressants were dealt a blow when it was made public that Eli Lilly, Glaxo-SmithKline and the other manufacturers of the drugs had failed to disclose data from unfavorable clinical studies that showed patients using SSRIs had an increase as much as four to one in suicide risk.  Now, a new study from Hull University, using the data submitted to the FDA to gain approval for the drugs, has found that for most patients, SSRIs are no more effective than a placebo.

Eli Lilly, of course, defends the drugs' effectiveness; and another researcher, the head of psychopharmacology at Bristol University, says that "if they provide some sort of placebo benefit, this shouldn't be discounted."

Now, the thing that immediately occurs to me is this: If you have the choice between a placebo that is medically inert, and has no side effects that aren't psychosomatic, or a drug that performs no better than the placebo, but has a vicious side-effect profile and may quadruple your likelihood of suicide ... aren't you better off with the placebo?

Clarification:

I should point out that I have not read the studies cited; I have only read summaries.  My intention here was not to discuss the studies per se, but rather to question the idea that it's still a good idea to use a drug with known severe side-effects for it's placebo-like effect if it's (allegedly) no better than a placebo.

Comments

[nephthys510.livejournal.com]

I've had a few glasses of wine, so I am not going to be as pithy as I would like, but I feel compelled to reply.

As for your friend and her doctor that settled on Prozac, that's their problem and should not reflect upon those that need and have benefited from pharmacological treatment, nor the manufacturers that they depend upon. This anecdata adds nothing to the debate.

House_pundit speaks to bipolar disorder, I speak for biologic depression. Please don't confuse situational with biological depression. I can't speak for your history, but it seems that if you deal with depression "in a different way" perhaps you deal with situational depression... which can be dealt with more effectively than biological. While it is very difficult to overcome any depression, it's a far sight easier to identify depression that is situational (I lost my SO, my job, and everything is going wrong) than if one can only identify exacerbating circumstances to one's lifelong feelings of worthlessness, apathy, and despair.

I don't trust big pharma any more than I trust that the government has "my" best interests at heart. I do know that I wouldn't be here to reply to you if it weren't for the Wellbutrin I have taken off and on (off by my misdirected choice) for many many years.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Wellbutrin is another interesting case, because not even the drug companies have a good working theory about how or why it works.

[laurarey.livejournal.com]

It is interesting. After having tried many varieties of anti-depressants over the last 15 years, I must say it is the only one that has done anything for me.

One of the things I'm researching these days is the link between niacin and nicotine....and wellbutrin and zyban.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

This anecdata adds nothing to the debate.

If we toss anecdotes - (which is fine by me; I use them to point out systematic flaws, not ones with the drugs per se) - then ... we have to toss yours and house_pundit's as well. That was really my complaint - success stories are anecdotal.

That's the problem with this issue - too many people want to toss the anecdotes from the other side, while celebrating the ones from the side they support. That's many things, but scientific isn't one of them.