To provide one additional anecdote: I came off escitalopram with no taper after taking it for about five years (10mg). I got brain zaps for a while, got very irritated at times, but largely was fine after a few weeks. Not downplaying the withdrawal effects for some people, but they’re not as catastrophic as this article suggests for many (perhaps most).
And overall I’m very glad I took it! It got me through a rough patch, and seems (in combination with therapy, and some life changes) to have rewired me a little. Symptoms I had for a decade prior have not returned. And I’m not sure I could have made those life changes without it.
It can be catastrophic if one is managing family life, kids, taking them to and from activities on top of one’s own work. Then come misc stresses like tax returns, some expensive home repair, etc. Also dealing with depression without the anti-depressant. Switching mental health medication is no fun.
I am glad your experience was tolerable but it’s a whole arc and everyone’s tolerance + circumstances are unique which makes it all the more challenging (even for doctors).
Withdrawal effects, like the beneficial effects, are highly individual. I had no withdrawal effects from escitalopram after being on it for a couple of years but I know people who’ve had the issues described in the article.
It's been years since, but I too had brain zaps coming off of it. It took a few months for those to go away.
I tried to describe it to my doctor and he seemed like he never heard of it before and sort of look at me like I was crazy, or at least that is what I sensed. But I ended up researching online and found it was a thing that happens.
Interesting is your doctor a general practitioner or a psychiatrist? A psychiatrist definitely knows about this stuff. GPs in my experience know almost nothing about anything beyond what seems like a script they operate from.
Good news, exposure therapy is quite effective for arachnophobia and is the first-line treatment. SSRIs do not have the same level of supporting evidence, and the effects are not as durable.
Thanks, yeah, but if I’m honest I don’t really care enough to go through with it. I almost did once, years ago, the London Zoo have a programme.
I mentioned it though as one of the most stark changes I noticed after getting on an SSRI was pretty much immediately losing my fear of spiders. It was the first sign I had that showed it was doing something.
I used to literally, on occasion, launch my phone across the room if I was scrolling and came across a spider (sometimes drenching myself with coffee or whatever in the process!) and then one day, shortly after getting on it, I stumbled across some awful tarantula video or something and I just stared at it like “huh, why am I not freaking out”.
Though this article concentrates on the SSRIs, other meds like the SNRIs can have a similar or even worse withdrawal effect. We didn't call it "Side Effexor" for nothing.
People legitimately need these drugs, including in the short term. The problem for acute stressors once they resolve is how to get them back off.
> Though this article concentrates on the SSRIs, other meds like the SNRIs can have a similar or even worse withdrawal effect.
And don't even get me started on tricyclics or MAOIs... no, seriously, don't get me started on them! The current generation of first-line antidepressants (SSRIs/SNRIs) might as well be free compared to the old school crazy pills.
Much of medicine (especially mental health related) is rather primitive. We are literally reverse engineering discoveries that seem to work on some other animals, and then figuring out how (to the best of our limited ability).
I liken SSRIs to carpet bombing - also their mechanism to increase seratonin in the brain is by making something else not use it (reuptake inhibition). We’re guessing that other thing isn’t a big deal. But who knows. Serotonin is produced in the gut and it controls melatonin, which controls our sleep. It’s all connected in a bizarre way.
> I felt no different before, during or after them.
SSRI onset is slow, which is one of the common problems with treatment.
In studies where they survey both the patient and their family members, the family members actually start noticing improvements before the patient. Onset is slow and it takes a long time for patients to realize the positive effects.
It’s not surprising you didn’t feel anything noticeable after a few weeks. It’s also unfortunate, but not too surprising, that your doctor wasn’t informed enough to communicate these things. Some doctors are great about setting expectations and following up. Others write a prescription and send patients off to fill it without the necessary context.
I think exercise, sunlight, good sleep and diet, and good social relationships are all more effective than SSRIs. But anyone who's had bad depression knows how hard those things are to maintain if you're depressed. SSRIs make some portion of people functional enough where they can at least build a healthy life. But definitely not everyone, and they are definitely not "the cure"
Lexapro, noted in the article, was literally life changing for me. I felt better within 3d and I notice severe issues if I miss ~3d of doses in a row, even though the half-life should support ~7d without according to my physician.
That said, yes; walking is the best medicine for me.
TLDR: Rate is individualized and determined by the patient's tolerance. If symptoms appear, maintain or increase dose to stabilize, then try reducing again later. Use liquid medication for more granular dosing.
Doctors aren't "finally learning" how to manage withdrawals. This is essentially the common sense algorithm, and I'm pretty annoyed that they wrote this whole ass article just for that.
They work so well for some they are miracle drugs, and for others they do nothing or have negative effects. This is typical. We still don’t fully understand why or even why they work at all.
I forget exactly which antidepressant I was on, but when i finally stopped taking it, i was instructed to reduce dosage by half a pill every two weeks.
Anecdotally, that was not anywhere close to slow enough. I had panic attacks almost every day while I was reducing the dosage. Those weeks were hell. I couldn’t think straight. I honestly don’t remember much of what occurred during that time, because the withdrawal took over my life. The pills were too tiny to split into fourths easily, but I wish I had done something to reduce dosage in smaller increments or over a longer time period.
It makes me strongly reconsider ever taking any antidepressants ever again. They didn’t tell me when I started taking them that the withdrawal would be so terrible. Those months were easily some the worst of my life.
Best way to manage the withdrawal would be to dramatically reduce them being prescribed in the first place.
The linked article says they have "small to moderate effectiveness", but this is being far too generous. The correct way to measure drug effectiveness is if the treatment meets the standard of a minimal important difference. I.e. you measure depression on various rating scales, like the 17-point HAM-D, and research suggests a minimal important difference (i.e. one patients and clinicians can actually notice) needs to be about 3-5 points. But the average effects of almost all antidepressants do not meet these thresholds, i.e. the effect actually appears practically invisible. [1]
Then you'll get waffling like "oh, but it really has a big effect for some people", but, well, no, we've looked at that too, and the placebo groups get just as miraculous "big effects", i.e. evidence supporting the idea "they really help some people" is also largely lacking [2-3]. All the other attempted saves ("oh, but eventually you find one that works for you") are also not really well supported either [4].
Like, maybe they really help some people, but it is far, far less clear than most assume, and should be balanced with concerns like withdrawal and serious side effects like emotional blunting and sexual dysfunction.
EDIT: And just to be clear to anyone doing a drive-by downvote thinking this is about recent asinine US politics, it emphatically isn't. There are serious methodological concerns here that desperately need to be communicated to the public.
So did you take them and have a bad time? Because they definitely work for me and I doubt a placebo could have such a large effect on the 48 hour stomach pains I used to get alongside my frequent panic attacks.
I find it funny that people complain about emotional blunting when that is the entire purpose of the drug. I would prefer not to live on the razors edge ever again. I’ve had chronic anxiety and depression ever since I was a child, though.
SSRIs have much more clinical evidence of efficacy for addressing anxiety disorders vs a placebo than depression. The effect size is ~0.7 vs 0.2 in meta studies.
Totally agree, they really shouldn't be called antidepressants at all. Important to add tho that for many with depression they have comorbid anxiety and often the anxiety is harder to tolerate than depression, so removal of anxiety symptoms can be hugely beneficial.
Also, IME they are dosed completely wrong. So many people seem to be on very low doses, which has no improvement on placebo in the studies I've read.
Whereas, higher doses are _hugely_ better than placebo, especially for anxiety.
What's worse is a lot/most studies on SSRIs in general often don't adjust for dose. Which seems like an enormous oversight to me.
For some people the emotional blunting is desirable, especially as you said, if the problem is chronic anxiety. But for many other people, their depression is defined by a lack of positive affect and anhedonia, meaning that emotional blunting is literally making things worse.
Depression is highly heterogenous, and I am glad the medication helped you.
> I find it funny that people complain about emotional blunting when that is the entire purpose of the drug.
The ideal would be to blunt the negatives but not the positives. The effect of some of the older antidepressants can be to blunt both, across the board.
Some of the newer atypical antidepressants can address depression without making everything flat.
On an academic level, we have reined in much of the excess enthusiasm in antidepressants that was courtesy of 90s-era pharmaceutical reps and ad men, but I don't think this revision ever occurred in the cultural consciousness at large.
See also: The Serotonin Theory of Depression: a Systematic Umbrella Review of the Evidence (2022). It's worth reading the introduction and results in full, but here are two important quotes (footnote markers removed):
> Our comprehensive review of the major strands of research on
serotonin shows there is no convincing evidence that depression
is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or
activity. Most studies found no evidence of reduced serotonin
activity in people with depression compared to people without,
and methods to reduce serotonin availability using tryptophan
depletion do not consistently lower mood in volunteers. High
quality, well-powered genetic studies effectively exclude an
association between genotypes related to the serotonin system
and depression, including a proposed interaction with stress.
> The chemical imbalance theory of depression is still put forward
by professionals, and the serotonin theory, in particular, has
formed the basis of a considerable research effort over the last few
decades. The general public widely believes that depression
has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin
or other chemical abnormalities, and this belief shapes
how people understand their moods, leading to a pessimistic
outlook on the outcome of depression and negative expectancies
about the possibility of self-regulation of mood. The idea
that depression is the result of a chemical imbalance also
influences decisions about whether to take or continue anti-depressant medication and may discourage people from dis-continuing treatment, potentially leading to lifelong dependence
on these drugs.
The "chemical imbalance" theory is objectively wrong, but still useful in that it conveys the fact that mental disorders have physical causes. It's a purposeful simplification.
Personally, I both agree that SSRI antidepressants were likely overprescribed early on, and disagree with the notion that the chemical imbalance theory is unsupported. N = 1, they can absolutely work. It took a few to find one that really did, hence I am certain it is not a placebo effect.
The idea that simple serotonin deficiency is the whole entirety of all depressions is 100% discredited and completely incoherent in the face of current evidence, but yes, for sure it remains clear and plausible that some forms or aspects of depression involve a serotonin deficiency.
However, tianeptine is serotonin reuptake enhancer and also can help with depression, so any simple deficiency hypothesis also doesn't look good either.
Broadly, the "chemical imbalance" theory, left vague and unspecified, is still basically sane (though not specific enough to be super useful).
Yup, I would agree. The meta-research / methodological research and awareness here is really quite impressive, even though its conclusions are a bit grim and not well-known.
A good book on this is Mind Fixers: Psychiatry's Troubled Search for the Biology of Mental Illness. Describing the history of how many of these classes of drugs came about is pretty eye opening, I would say the book is pretty nuanced in its conclusions.
Because the 1 in 10 stat I find seems a bit low, at least in my circle, and those are the ones who are open about it.
And the people I know have been on them approximately a decade. What baffles me is that a fair number of them triggered their own depressive episodes, and likely did need therapy and something at the time - but have all long since move past those "moments".
> Best way to manage the withdrawal would be to dramatically reduce them being prescribed in the first place.
No, that will just hurt more people up front for longer. The truth is antidepressants have a larger effect on mental health than actually gets reported because of how improvements are measured. If you look at a patient who doesn't get out of bed, is in trouble at work/school for performance, doesn't spend social time with friends, etc, and 6 months after starting an SSRI they're indistinguishable from other people but still have other issues, we call that a "mild impact" because they self-report other problems.
The truth is we took someone from being passively suicidal to functioning normally, and we fail to look at the self-reported problems, we just report them. The self reported problems tend to change from "I don't care about anything" to "I'm unhappy at my job" or "I'm stressed at how much I have to do with work and my kids and home." These are actually major improvements, the patient has gone from being actually clinically depressed to significant improvement but continued unhappiness with life circumstances as opposed to unhappiness with life in general.
Antidepressants are amazing, we need to improve therapists and how they deal with medicated patients. Too many therapists dismiss meds and too many psychiatrists dismiss therapy. I've been in this space for a long time now, healthcare IT in the mental/behavioral health space. We're engaged in a long erm research study to help demonstrate the value of a tightly integrated therapy/psych team and more advanced treatments and when you get everyone in the room pulling in the same direction patient outcomes are amazing.
One actual issue that antidepressants face is that they're not the only treatment, but many doctors are reluctant to move to TMS or esketamine, despite the amaing success rates they have with patients who have not had success with two or more drugs. If two drugs failed you, the third has a 14% chance of helping. The 4th is single digits. But you pivot to TMS and you see 60-80 percent improvement rates. Esketamine is close too.
ADs aren't the problem, it's that we don't take mental health as serious as we take physical health.
> But you pivot to TMS and you see 60-80 percent improvement rates. Esketamine is close too.
I have received both rTMS and esketamine and the providers themselves told me they saw roughly a 30-40% response rate (not remission, that's even lower!). Upon researching the topic myself, I found that the meta analysis usually agreed with this 30% figure, but recent research papers mark eskatamine even lower. Both treatments can be miraculous for a few select people and it makes a good headline, but it's a total failure for the majority of people.
I agree with you that those treatments should be easier to access, though.
> Too many therapists dismiss meds and too many psychiatrists dismiss therapy.
This is the only factually true statement in your entire comment.
> The truth is antidepressants have a larger effect on mental health than actually gets reported because of how improvements are measured.
The truth is actually exactly the opposite, and I provided very high-quality evidence demonstrating this to be the case. You have nothing but bald assertions.
Well I think that we do not know enough about genesis of depression and other mental issues. So this is just symptomatic therapy. And as such it should be prescribed only for very short terms. Analogy: how would you perceive someone who prescribed his febrile patient paracetamol for 10 years just because it works? And in his defense he/she claims that febrile condition has well known metabolic chain and that paracetamol lowers fever mainly by interrupting the COX → PGE₂ part of the fever pathway in the brain.
"As effective as placebo" does not mean worthless. As you point out, placebo antidepressants are fairly effective.
It's a terrible bind. Patients want a pill to fix things, but if they know it's just a sugar pill, it doesn't work. It has to have active ingredients that might work. That's why there's little desire to change the status quo on antidepressants much. Anyone who reads the medical literature knows they're statistically underwhelming, but the experienced reality is that they help people a lot.
Talking therapies, CBT, exercise are all good alternatives but they take time and effort that a depressed person might not be able to manage. An antidepressant prescription they can get in 15 minutes.
> As you point out, placebo antidepressants are fairly effective.
This is a misunderstanding of concepts like regression to the mean, and also the active placebo elements involved.
> but the experienced reality is that they help people a lot
And the evidence is that the reality people think they are experiencing is wrong, i.e, they are improving and factually experiencing improvement, but misattributing the cause to the drug.
> "As effective as placebo" does not mean worthless
In one sense of worthless, perhaps, but since drugs have larger costs relative to placebo, well, we can argue they are worse than worseless in another.
Better instead to talk about cost-benefit tradeoffs, number-needed-to-treat vs number-needed-to-harm and etc though, and try to get better at prescribing more carefully to those they clearly benefit.
It’s unethical to prescribe a patient a placebo in a way that suggests that what they are receiving is scientifically proven.
In a clinical trial setting, you can prescribe a placebo, because the patient is fully aware and clearly consenting to the fact that they may receive a placebo. Lying to a patient, in a clinical setting, from a position of authority, is a completely different matter. The informed consent would be completely absent, and the provider would be deriving financial benefit from the patient and / or through insurance claims for what amounts to a scam.
The patient, who would be seeking a treatment from a trusted expert, believes that they are receiving proven treatments in exchange for their time, money, reduced quality of life due to side effects, and opportunity costs in terms of not going to a different provider or trying something else, but in reality they are being misled. Some people would die as a result. How could a patient possibly give informed consent in that scenario, for one thing?
My anecdotal experience going on and off Paxil is that it does work for me, and no matter how badly I want to live Rx-free, I consistently devolve into a moody mess without them.
Agreed. They have to be significantly helping at least some, but we can't say who these people are for certain yet, or how many there really are.
And yes, in some cases, no other options are possible, so even if the evidence is pretty dismal for their effectiveness, they are still broadly safe enough to definitely be worth a try. They probably just shouldn't be the first-line approach.
> I’m not trying to discount mental health, I just think there are better solutions than drugs to fix your state of mind.
Find one that's as effective on the general population.
I mean, sure, perhaps lifestyle changes are better. Can you get a higher percentage to change them and improve people's lives than we currently can with drugs?
As a top performer in school, I definitely think (and still point out), that you can get fantastically high results in SAT/GRE without paying any test prep service. I and many of my peers did it. There are better solutions than paying those services. But how many who don't pay do as well as those who do? I can tell them how to study as much as I can, but the reality is that statistically, people who attend will do better than if they don't.
From a medical standpoint, telling people to change how they live and think has a fairly low success rate. The best options usually don't work on the masses.
I don’t get why people are so negative about drugs. They’re just a medical treatment, with pluses and minuses. If they help and they’re not too costly then what’s the big deal? Half the population is addicted to caffeine and nobody cares. A huge number of people need medical intervention for other things and we don’t get this quasi moralistic opposition to them.
Agreed. The problem is largely that the pluses of antidepressants have been quite significantly overstated, and the minuses have been understated, meaning the cost-benefit equation is unfortunately quite different than what the general public assumes.
We don't want to get rid of them, we just need to recalibrate prescribing, and also to properly assess cessation at intervals more frequently than we have been.
Yeah, I’m open to the idea that their effectiveness may have been overestimated and they’re overprescribed as a result. But this “I can’t believe we’ve normalized antidepressants” “there are better solutions than drugs” stuff is just moralizing.
I suppose it can be moralizing, and probably is in the parent comment.
For me I still feel the surprise because I've followed the evidence carefully for well over a decade, and the methodological problems and lack of evidence for meaningful effectiveness have always been clear. I.e. it is clear standardized effect sizes are meaningless, and you need to determine important differences, as this is just basic science, but only a tiny handful of papers ever bothered.
So it feels very much like "how can we have normalized something so incredibly scientifically shaky", i.e. for me the moralizing is not "drugs are bad, how are we normalizing drugs" it is "how can an entire medical field and society so recklessly adopt something so obviously weakly supported". I.e. my dismay is more about the weak epistemic standards of society than it is about drugs.
There's hundreds of years of "depression isn't real and even if it was real the only treatment is to take a walk in the woods!!" and like a decade of "man, ssris are great, they really helped me".
Public responses have probably not finished overcorrecting.
What if the drugs just make us... better? As in happier, less stressed, and more suited to what modern life requires from us.
Happiness isn't necessary to pass on your genes. Most animals, especially prey animals, spend much of their lives scared, because death is inevitable otherwise. We've now created a safe and pleasant environment our ancestors could only dream of, yet many of us are still unhappy. There's no real evidence we were broadly happier in the distant past either, we're just a different kind of unhappy now.
Seems to me we've developed a tool that makes people feel better and function better, perhaps by blunting some of the vestigial leftover emotions we needed when every tree might have had a sabre-tooth tiger hiding behind it.
I am also shocked that every time an article about guitar playing is posted the sheer number of posters who play guitar themselves. I mean what are the chances?
Most of us have no idea how many non-commenting readers w/o first-hand experience are just reading, and so no ability to draw any conclusions about the number of ones who comment with first-hand experience. 100 people out of a 1000, and 100 people out of a million, are very different things.
An HN post like this will gather like what, at most two dozens of anecdotes from a highly self selected user pool of maybe a million top? Is this how you base your "sheer number" on? Is this how you judge what is good or bad for your definition of social good?
And overall I’m very glad I took it! It got me through a rough patch, and seems (in combination with therapy, and some life changes) to have rewired me a little. Symptoms I had for a decade prior have not returned. And I’m not sure I could have made those life changes without it.
Sadly my arachnophobia came back though. Oh well.
I am glad your experience was tolerable but it’s a whole arc and everyone’s tolerance + circumstances are unique which makes it all the more challenging (even for doctors).
This isn’t a one size fits all area of medicine.
I tried to describe it to my doctor and he seemed like he never heard of it before and sort of look at me like I was crazy, or at least that is what I sensed. But I ended up researching online and found it was a thing that happens.
I mentioned it though as one of the most stark changes I noticed after getting on an SSRI was pretty much immediately losing my fear of spiders. It was the first sign I had that showed it was doing something.
I used to literally, on occasion, launch my phone across the room if I was scrolling and came across a spider (sometimes drenching myself with coffee or whatever in the process!) and then one day, shortly after getting on it, I stumbled across some awful tarantula video or something and I just stared at it like “huh, why am I not freaking out”.
Very cool. What a great service for a zoo to offer. £195 to become comfortable with 25 quadrillion neighbors is such a deal.
People legitimately need these drugs, including in the short term. The problem for acute stressors once they resolve is how to get them back off.
And don't even get me started on tricyclics or MAOIs... no, seriously, don't get me started on them! The current generation of first-line antidepressants (SSRIs/SNRIs) might as well be free compared to the old school crazy pills.
I liken SSRIs to carpet bombing - also their mechanism to increase seratonin in the brain is by making something else not use it (reuptake inhibition). We’re guessing that other thing isn’t a big deal. But who knows. Serotonin is produced in the gut and it controls melatonin, which controls our sleep. It’s all connected in a bizarre way.
Yep, that’s how I associate SSRIs.
After a few weeks I was tapered off them.
I felt no different before, during or after them.
What helped was 3 daily walks around the park, around 9km per day after each meal.
Anecdotal but it is what it is. Right now I have bigger problems than just depression.
> I felt no different before, during or after them.
SSRI onset is slow, which is one of the common problems with treatment.
In studies where they survey both the patient and their family members, the family members actually start noticing improvements before the patient. Onset is slow and it takes a long time for patients to realize the positive effects.
It’s not surprising you didn’t feel anything noticeable after a few weeks. It’s also unfortunate, but not too surprising, that your doctor wasn’t informed enough to communicate these things. Some doctors are great about setting expectations and following up. Others write a prescription and send patients off to fill it without the necessary context.
That said, yes; walking is the best medicine for me.
Doctors aren't "finally learning" how to manage withdrawals. This is essentially the common sense algorithm, and I'm pretty annoyed that they wrote this whole ass article just for that.
Coming off of them wasn't too bad though. I got the brain zaps, but those were easy to cope with.
More than anything the whole experience was a waste of money, and what finally fixed my problems was retirement and a greater attention to my health.
Anecdotally, that was not anywhere close to slow enough. I had panic attacks almost every day while I was reducing the dosage. Those weeks were hell. I couldn’t think straight. I honestly don’t remember much of what occurred during that time, because the withdrawal took over my life. The pills were too tiny to split into fourths easily, but I wish I had done something to reduce dosage in smaller increments or over a longer time period.
It makes me strongly reconsider ever taking any antidepressants ever again. They didn’t tell me when I started taking them that the withdrawal would be so terrible. Those months were easily some the worst of my life.
The linked article says they have "small to moderate effectiveness", but this is being far too generous. The correct way to measure drug effectiveness is if the treatment meets the standard of a minimal important difference. I.e. you measure depression on various rating scales, like the 17-point HAM-D, and research suggests a minimal important difference (i.e. one patients and clinicians can actually notice) needs to be about 3-5 points. But the average effects of almost all antidepressants do not meet these thresholds, i.e. the effect actually appears practically invisible. [1]
Then you'll get waffling like "oh, but it really has a big effect for some people", but, well, no, we've looked at that too, and the placebo groups get just as miraculous "big effects", i.e. evidence supporting the idea "they really help some people" is also largely lacking [2-3]. All the other attempted saves ("oh, but eventually you find one that works for you") are also not really well supported either [4].
Like, maybe they really help some people, but it is far, far less clear than most assume, and should be balanced with concerns like withdrawal and serious side effects like emotional blunting and sexual dysfunction.
EDIT: And just to be clear to anyone doing a drive-by downvote thinking this is about recent asinine US politics, it emphatically isn't. There are serious methodological concerns here that desperately need to be communicated to the public.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33593736/
[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7451660/
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33175895/
[4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11844611/
I find it funny that people complain about emotional blunting when that is the entire purpose of the drug. I would prefer not to live on the razors edge ever again. I’ve had chronic anxiety and depression ever since I was a child, though.
Also, IME they are dosed completely wrong. So many people seem to be on very low doses, which has no improvement on placebo in the studies I've read.
Whereas, higher doses are _hugely_ better than placebo, especially for anxiety.
What's worse is a lot/most studies on SSRIs in general often don't adjust for dose. Which seems like an enormous oversight to me.
Depression is highly heterogenous, and I am glad the medication helped you.
The ideal would be to blunt the negatives but not the positives. The effect of some of the older antidepressants can be to blunt both, across the board.
Some of the newer atypical antidepressants can address depression without making everything flat.
> Our comprehensive review of the major strands of research on serotonin shows there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity. Most studies found no evidence of reduced serotonin activity in people with depression compared to people without, and methods to reduce serotonin availability using tryptophan depletion do not consistently lower mood in volunteers. High quality, well-powered genetic studies effectively exclude an association between genotypes related to the serotonin system and depression, including a proposed interaction with stress.
> The chemical imbalance theory of depression is still put forward by professionals, and the serotonin theory, in particular, has formed the basis of a considerable research effort over the last few decades. The general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities, and this belief shapes how people understand their moods, leading to a pessimistic outlook on the outcome of depression and negative expectancies about the possibility of self-regulation of mood. The idea that depression is the result of a chemical imbalance also influences decisions about whether to take or continue anti-depressant medication and may discourage people from dis-continuing treatment, potentially leading to lifelong dependence on these drugs.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/a-response-to-the-serotonin-theor...
Personally, I both agree that SSRI antidepressants were likely overprescribed early on, and disagree with the notion that the chemical imbalance theory is unsupported. N = 1, they can absolutely work. It took a few to find one that really did, hence I am certain it is not a placebo effect.
However, tianeptine is serotonin reuptake enhancer and also can help with depression, so any simple deficiency hypothesis also doesn't look good either.
Broadly, the "chemical imbalance" theory, left vague and unspecified, is still basically sane (though not specific enough to be super useful).
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/40180010-mind-fixers
The title is a play on the Pulitzer prize winning article from the 80's.
https://web.archive.org/web/20041125092022/http://www.byline...
Because the 1 in 10 stat I find seems a bit low, at least in my circle, and those are the ones who are open about it.
And the people I know have been on them approximately a decade. What baffles me is that a fair number of them triggered their own depressive episodes, and likely did need therapy and something at the time - but have all long since move past those "moments".
No, that will just hurt more people up front for longer. The truth is antidepressants have a larger effect on mental health than actually gets reported because of how improvements are measured. If you look at a patient who doesn't get out of bed, is in trouble at work/school for performance, doesn't spend social time with friends, etc, and 6 months after starting an SSRI they're indistinguishable from other people but still have other issues, we call that a "mild impact" because they self-report other problems.
The truth is we took someone from being passively suicidal to functioning normally, and we fail to look at the self-reported problems, we just report them. The self reported problems tend to change from "I don't care about anything" to "I'm unhappy at my job" or "I'm stressed at how much I have to do with work and my kids and home." These are actually major improvements, the patient has gone from being actually clinically depressed to significant improvement but continued unhappiness with life circumstances as opposed to unhappiness with life in general.
Antidepressants are amazing, we need to improve therapists and how they deal with medicated patients. Too many therapists dismiss meds and too many psychiatrists dismiss therapy. I've been in this space for a long time now, healthcare IT in the mental/behavioral health space. We're engaged in a long erm research study to help demonstrate the value of a tightly integrated therapy/psych team and more advanced treatments and when you get everyone in the room pulling in the same direction patient outcomes are amazing.
One actual issue that antidepressants face is that they're not the only treatment, but many doctors are reluctant to move to TMS or esketamine, despite the amaing success rates they have with patients who have not had success with two or more drugs. If two drugs failed you, the third has a 14% chance of helping. The 4th is single digits. But you pivot to TMS and you see 60-80 percent improvement rates. Esketamine is close too.
ADs aren't the problem, it's that we don't take mental health as serious as we take physical health.
I have received both rTMS and esketamine and the providers themselves told me they saw roughly a 30-40% response rate (not remission, that's even lower!). Upon researching the topic myself, I found that the meta analysis usually agreed with this 30% figure, but recent research papers mark eskatamine even lower. Both treatments can be miraculous for a few select people and it makes a good headline, but it's a total failure for the majority of people.
I agree with you that those treatments should be easier to access, though.
> Too many therapists dismiss meds and too many psychiatrists dismiss therapy.
This is the only factually true statement in your entire comment.
The truth is actually exactly the opposite, and I provided very high-quality evidence demonstrating this to be the case. You have nothing but bald assertions.
It's a terrible bind. Patients want a pill to fix things, but if they know it's just a sugar pill, it doesn't work. It has to have active ingredients that might work. That's why there's little desire to change the status quo on antidepressants much. Anyone who reads the medical literature knows they're statistically underwhelming, but the experienced reality is that they help people a lot.
Talking therapies, CBT, exercise are all good alternatives but they take time and effort that a depressed person might not be able to manage. An antidepressant prescription they can get in 15 minutes.
This is a misunderstanding of concepts like regression to the mean, and also the active placebo elements involved.
> but the experienced reality is that they help people a lot
And the evidence is that the reality people think they are experiencing is wrong, i.e, they are improving and factually experiencing improvement, but misattributing the cause to the drug.
> "As effective as placebo" does not mean worthless
In one sense of worthless, perhaps, but since drugs have larger costs relative to placebo, well, we can argue they are worse than worseless in another.
Better instead to talk about cost-benefit tradeoffs, number-needed-to-treat vs number-needed-to-harm and etc though, and try to get better at prescribing more carefully to those they clearly benefit.
In a clinical trial setting, you can prescribe a placebo, because the patient is fully aware and clearly consenting to the fact that they may receive a placebo. Lying to a patient, in a clinical setting, from a position of authority, is a completely different matter. The informed consent would be completely absent, and the provider would be deriving financial benefit from the patient and / or through insurance claims for what amounts to a scam.
The patient, who would be seeking a treatment from a trusted expert, believes that they are receiving proven treatments in exchange for their time, money, reduced quality of life due to side effects, and opportunity costs in terms of not going to a different provider or trying something else, but in reality they are being misled. Some people would die as a result. How could a patient possibly give informed consent in that scenario, for one thing?
I’m about to get downvoted into oblivion for this take though.
I’m not trying to discount mental health, I just think there are better solutions than drugs to fix your state of mind.
Also think that some people are dealt a tougher hand than most, and that for a small subset of humans, anti depressants are the most fitting cure.
And yes, in some cases, no other options are possible, so even if the evidence is pretty dismal for their effectiveness, they are still broadly safe enough to definitely be worth a try. They probably just shouldn't be the first-line approach.
Find one that's as effective on the general population.
I mean, sure, perhaps lifestyle changes are better. Can you get a higher percentage to change them and improve people's lives than we currently can with drugs?
As a top performer in school, I definitely think (and still point out), that you can get fantastically high results in SAT/GRE without paying any test prep service. I and many of my peers did it. There are better solutions than paying those services. But how many who don't pay do as well as those who do? I can tell them how to study as much as I can, but the reality is that statistically, people who attend will do better than if they don't.
From a medical standpoint, telling people to change how they live and think has a fairly low success rate. The best options usually don't work on the masses.
We don't want to get rid of them, we just need to recalibrate prescribing, and also to properly assess cessation at intervals more frequently than we have been.
For me I still feel the surprise because I've followed the evidence carefully for well over a decade, and the methodological problems and lack of evidence for meaningful effectiveness have always been clear. I.e. it is clear standardized effect sizes are meaningless, and you need to determine important differences, as this is just basic science, but only a tiny handful of papers ever bothered.
So it feels very much like "how can we have normalized something so incredibly scientifically shaky", i.e. for me the moralizing is not "drugs are bad, how are we normalizing drugs" it is "how can an entire medical field and society so recklessly adopt something so obviously weakly supported". I.e. my dismay is more about the weak epistemic standards of society than it is about drugs.
Public responses have probably not finished overcorrecting.
Happiness isn't necessary to pass on your genes. Most animals, especially prey animals, spend much of their lives scared, because death is inevitable otherwise. We've now created a safe and pleasant environment our ancestors could only dream of, yet many of us are still unhappy. There's no real evidence we were broadly happier in the distant past either, we're just a different kind of unhappy now.
Seems to me we've developed a tool that makes people feel better and function better, perhaps by blunting some of the vestigial leftover emotions we needed when every tree might have had a sabre-tooth tiger hiding behind it.
Not sure what you're basing this on -- hopefully not just your impression after reading things online.
I got some other news for you, buddy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49444514