Cymbalta and Effexor: Hype Over Science

Remember the hype around the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)? Effexor and Cymbalta impact both serotonin and norepinephrine, so they should be more effective than SSRI’s in treating depression? Mind you, that’s not a high bar to clear - it’s not like SSRI’s are much better than placebo. So get the hell outta the way, Prozac and Paxil, because Cymbalta and Effexor will unleash their incredible efficacy onto the world of psychiatry. Doubt me? Read this 2009 article regarding the wonders of Pristiq (son of Effexor) and learn about how “The emergence of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) antidepressants has improved the treatment of MDD.” Or this press release from Wyeth. Or Dr. Danny Carlat’s experience selling Effexor to his peers. I don’t think anyone who has followed drug marketing would deny that both Wyeth and Lilly tried to pimp Effexor and Cymbalta as working better because of their SNRI properties.

But is that actually true? A team of German researchers examined the data and concluded that neither Effexor nor Cymbalta really work better than SSRIs. They actually found a small advantage for Effexor over SSRIs for treatment response (but not depression remission), but they also found that the manufacturer was hiding studies from them (and the rest of the world). I haven’t said this for a while, but enter Charles Nemeroff. To understand the research by the Germans, we first need to recall that a 2008 study (lead author: Nemeroff) found

...the pooled effect size across all comparisons of venlafaxine versus SSRIs reflected an average difference in remission rates of 5.9%, which reflected a NNT of 17 (1/.059), that is, one would expect to treat approximately 17 patients with venlafaxine to see one more success than if all had been treated with another SSRI. Although this difference was reliable and would be important if applied to populations of depressed patients, it is also true that it is modest and might not be noticed by busy clinicians in everyday practice. Nonetheless, an NNT of 17 may be of public health relevance given the large number of patients treated for depression and the significant burden of illness associated with this disorder. [my emphasis]

As I wrote then, the benefit to public health claim is ridiculous. To understand the reasons why this is so laughable, please check out my prior post on the topic. This meta-analysis included a bunch of data from Wyeth that was previously unpublished...

Which leads to the freshly published meta-analysis on how Effexor compares to SSRIs. The German researchers requested unpublished data from Wyeth and only got some of it - you’d think that just maybe Wyeth sent them the “good news” data and maybe held back on some of the “bad news” data. So when an ever-so-small benefit emerged for Effexor (5% high treatment response rate), well, call me crazy, but I ignored it. We’re not playing with a full dataset because the manufacturer wants to keep some of it hidden, so shame on Wyeth and let’s look at Effexor with a little bit of suspicion. So Effexor vs. SSRIs - no difference. Except that more people drop out of clinical trials on Effexor due to side effects compared to SSRIs (about 3% more). So even if you believe that Wyeth’s hidden data really doesn’t impact these findings, we’re left with a very small advantage for Effexor that is probably negated by its slightly higher dropout rates.

Cymbalta. It had a 3% higher dropout rate due to adverse events and the same efficacy as SSRIs. So nothing to write home about, except that it costs a boatload more than generic SSRIs and is harder to tolerate. But Cymbalta has been marketed to the gills and is clearing $3 billion a year in sales. Hey, this is the company marketed Zyprexa for dementia (oops), and for, well, lots of other stuff (1, 2). So it’s not surprising at all that they can take a mediocre antidepressant like Cymbalta and turn it into a big moneymaker - the wonders of a good marketing department. But Depression Hurts and Cymbalta is a painkiller. Well, that’s fine and dandy until you actually look at the data which show Cymbalta doesn’t do much for pain in depression.

It’s time to get over the hype surrounding SNRIs. The next “advance” in antidepressants, well, who knows what it will be - but let’s hope it’s something a little more substantial than SNRIs. But I’m not hopeful. And no, I don’t want to hear anything more about agomelatine.

I know it’s been a long time between posts. So pardon me if my writing is more awful than usual. And it doesn’t mean I will be posting regularly. Thanks to the multiple readers who sent me a copy of this article.

Citation to new meta-analysis of Effexor and Cymbalta:
Schueler, Y., Koesters, M., Wieseler, B., Grouven, U., Kromp, M., Kerekes, M., Kreis, J., Kaiser, T., Becker, T., & Weinmann, S. (2010). A systematic review of duloxetine and venlafaxine in major depression, including unpublished data Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2010.01599.x

Eli Lilly: Our Drug Failed, So it Has Serious Potential

These folks at Lilly must think we are exceptionally stupid. As in can't tie our own shoes. A study in the Journal of Psychiatric Research recently found that their experimental antidepressant LY2216684 was no better than placebo. Here are a couple of quotes from the abstract:

LY2216684 did not show statistically significant improvement from baseline compared to placebo in the primary analysis of the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAM-D17) total score. Escitalopram demonstrated significant improvement compared to placebo on the HAM-D17 total score, suggesting adequate assay sensitivity.

On the primary outcome measure, the experimental drug failed whereas Lexapro worked to some extent. I know what you're thinking - "the sample size was probably too small to find a significant effect." Um, you're wrong. How about 269 people on the Lilly drug, 138 on placebo, and 62 on Lexapro.

But wait, here comes the good news...

Both LY2216684 and escitalopram showed statistically significant improvement from baseline on the patient-rated QIDS-SR total score compared to placebo... The results of this initial investigation of LY2216684’s efficacy suggest that it may have antidepressant potential.

The good news for Lilly is that most people who claim to "read journal articles" really just browse the abstract without actually looking at the full text of the paper. For the select few who have nothing better to do than read Lilly propaganda, take a look at Table 2. A total of 12 secondary outcome measures are listed. The Lilly drug beat placebo on... ONE of them. Lilly doesn't say much about how much better their drug was than placebo on the QIDS-SR measure beside throwing around that often meaningless term of "statistically significant." People on the drug improved by 10.2 points whereas placebo patients improved 8.3 points. So about a 20% difference. If you bother to calculate an effect size, it is d = .24, which is quite small and clinically insignificant. So on the ONE measure where the drug was better than placebo, it was by a small margin, and it missed the mark on 11 other secondary measures as well as on the primary outcome measure. But "it may have antidepressant potential." Hell yes, I've never been so exited about a new drug.

By the way, Lilly is apparently trying this wonder drug out in at least five trials. The journal in which this article appeared has published other dubious Eli Lilly research in the past. The editorial review process is clearly working wonders over at the Journal of Psychiatric Research. Sad, really. The journal publishes some really good work, but then runs this kind of junk as well.

Depression Self-Report Sidebar: The self-reported measure on which the drug had an advantage, the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms (QIDS) - it's really awesome, according to Lilly. Remember, it's the only measure on which their experimental failure drug had an advantage over placebo. So the authors wrote "Self-reported depression symptoms, such as those obtained by the QIDS-SR, may be more sensitive than clinician-administered scales for signal detection in clinical studies of depression."

What does Bristol-Myers Squibb think? In three trials of Abilify for depression, self-reports of depression were unfavorable. So the publications for these studies made sure to downplay these depression self-reports by saying that these measures were not sensitive, that they weren't picking up improvements in depression.

So if a self-report provided positive results, then BAM, it's an awesome measure of depression. But if it provided negative results, then it's a horrendously inaccurate measure and should never have been used in the first place.

Citation below. Yes, one of the authors' last names is Kielbasa.

Dubé, S., Dellva, M., Jones, M., Kielbasa, W., Padich, R., Saha, A., & Rao, P. (2010). A study of the effects of LY2216684, a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, in the treatment of major depression Journal of Psychiatric Research, 44 (6), 356-363 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.09.013

Do You Have Mild, Moderate, or Severe Depression? Here, Take This Placebo, er, Antidepressant

Yet another meta-analysis with the same damn result -- antidepressants for most cases of depression are placebos. This is in a paper with authors including Jay Amsterdam, Richard Shelton, and Jan Fawcett, who are not exactly cut from the Peter Breggin mold. This was based on six studies which compared antidepressant to placebo in patients who had a wide range of depression severity. Key results:

• Mild to moderate depression: Effect size of d = .11, which is tiny (and was not statistically significant)
  
• Severe depression: Effect size of d = .17, which is pretty darn small (and not statistically significant)
• Very severe depression: Effect size of d = .47, which is moderate.

Hmmmm. Not looking so hot. Of course, anyone who has paid attention to the clinical trial literature on antidepressants over the past 10 years or so already knew this. But now it's in JAMA, so a wider audience may now pay attention. Or ignore it. Good marketing usually beats science, so maybe this won't make any difference.

Antidepressants for all but very severe depression: All the benefits of placebo plus the added bonus of side effects. Sign me up! To quote the authors: "What makes our findings surprising is the high level of depression symptom severity that appears to be required for clinically meaningful drug/placebo differences to emerge, particularly given the evidence that the majority of patients receiving ADM in clinical practice present with scores below these levels." In other words, most people who receive antidepressants would likely have done just as well on placebo (without the side effects).

A few other posts on the topic:

• The long-lasting placebo effect
• Sexual side effects of SSRIs
• Paxil: How to lie
• The much-vaunted public health benefits of antidepressants
• Antidepressants offer weak efficacy for all but most severe depression
• Hiding negative data on antidepressants
• Suicidal tendencies? Nah, not here
  

I've linked the abstract of the latest JAMA study here. Enjoy.

Atypical Antipsychotics For Depression: Now With "Considerable Evidence"

I've been wanting to write about this for months. Here goes. We know that antipsychotics are the new panacea for all things mental health-related, including depression (1, 2, 3). But critics kept pointing to a pesky lack of evidence that such treatments actually worked. Bristol-Myers Squibb, manufacturer of Abilify, has been running a disinformation campaign in medical journals to tout its drug as an antidepressant. Their attempts to paint a positive picture of Abilify's antidepressant properties and its allegedly fantastic safety/tolerability profile have been simultaneously tragic and amusing (1, 2, 3).

We're now moving on to something bigger... It ain't just Abilify, folks. It's all the atypicals. They are all antidepressants. According to the authors of a recent meta-analysis, for atypical antipsychotics: "At present, this body of evidence is considerably larger than that for any other augmentation strategy in the treatment of major depressive disorder." In other words, if you are not prescribing atypicals for your patients who don't show adequate response to antidepressants, you are not practicing evidence-based medicine. You are a [bleeping] cowboy who is willfully disregarding science. You are denying your patients the best possible treatment. The authors don't actually say any of those things, but those are the implications. If the evidence for using antipsychotics is "considerably larger" than the evidence for anything else, then the implications are clear-cut. And this is exactly how this study will be cited. Salespeople, from drug reps to academic psychiatrists, to practitioners looking to earn a few thousand extra bucks on the side through pharma speaking gigs, will discuss this study as if it were a landmark finding.

Response and Remission: But the "evidence" is not all that convincing. Here's why... The authors pooled together the results of 16 randomized controlled trials. In these studies, patients had failed to respond adequately (using various definitions) to an antidepressant. Patients were then assigned to receive either an atypical antipsychotic or a placebo in addition to their antidepressant. Outcomes were then tabulated somewhere between 4 and 12 weeks later. The results seem clear cut -- if your brain is turned to "off" -- the response rates for atypicals was 44% compared to 30% for placebo. The remission rates were 31% for atypicals and 17% for placebo. The advantage for atypicals is statistically significant. Well, there you have it. Done deal. Ask your doctor about Abilify/Zyprexa/Seroquel today...

But the most important thing in a treatment outcome study is... the outcomes. The authors of the meta-analysis did not bother to actually measure change in scores on rating scales. Instead, they only used response and remission rates. There is absolutely no good reason for doing this. It's potentially quite misleading. Doctors like remission and response rates because they provide the illusion that we are measuring depression exactly. A "responder" got a lot better and is functioning reasonably well whereas a "non-responder" is in bed 12 hours a day while spending the rest of her time watching the E! Network, eating Bon-Bons, and sobbing constantly. But it's not nearly that scientific. A "responder" is usually defined as someone who got 50% better on his or her depression rating score during the study period. So Bob's depression rating score improved by 52% (he's a responder), but Amy's score only improved by 48%, so she's a nonresponder. Is this 4% difference really meaningful?

Let's look at the following dataset for 20 participants in a fictional study...

Improvements in depression over course of 10 week study

Drug	Placebo
40%	30%
55%	60%
50%	45%
55%	48%
52%	48%
60%	55%
60%	55%
10%	25%
20%	10%
25%	30%

Using a 50% improvement to determine if a patient is a "responder", we get a 60% response rate on drug and a 30% response rate on placebo. Lazy logic says: Oooh -- the drug is twice as effective as placebo. But is we take the average for each group, we get an average improvement of 42.7% on the drug compared to 40.6% on placebo. See the problem with response and remission rates? Similar arguments have been made by smarter people than myself.

Putting outcomes into convenient little categories makes good sense when the categories themselves make sense - events like having a heart attack, getting pregnant, or dying. If the death rate on a drug is 4% compared to 2% on a placebo, then the drug really reduced death by 50%. But if the "remission rate" or "response rate" for depression is 40% on drug compared to 20% on placebo, that does not mean the drug is twice as effective as placebo in treating depression. If you need to score a 7 or below on a depression rating scale to be "in remission", but you score an 8, are you really much worse off than the person who scored a 7?

Am I saying that the drugs really just squeaked by placebo in these studies? Well, I've read the Abilify studies and posted on them previously - in those studies, Abilify barely beat the placebo. And in the opinion of the patients themselves, Abilify didn't beat placebo at all. And the studies were designed to benefit Abilify, not to actually see if the drug worked. As I noted previously...

Patients were initially assigned to receive an antidepressant plus a placebo for eight weeks. Those who failed to respond to treatment were assigned to Abilify + antidepressant or placebo + antidepressant. Those who responded during the initial 8 weeks were then eliminated from the study. So we've already established that antidepressant + placebo didn't work for these people -- yet they were then assigned to treatment for 6 weeks with the same treatment (!) and compared to those who were assigned antidepressant + Abilify. So the antidepressant + placebo group started at a huge disadvantage because it was already established that they did not respond well to such a treatment regimen. No wonder Abilify came out on top (albeit by a modest margin).

Here's an analogy. A group of 100 students is assigned to be tutored by Tutor A regarding math. The students are all tutored for 8 weeks. The 50 students whose math skills improve are sent on their merry way. That leaves 50 students who did not improve under Tutor A's tutelage. So Tutor B comes along to tutor 25 of these students, while Tutor A sticks with 25 of them. Tutor B's students do somewhat better than Tutor A's students on a math test 6 weeks later. Is Tutor B better than tutor A? Not really a fair comparison between Tutor A and Tutor B, is it?

I've not read the other antipsychotics for depression studies. I'll even give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they were not designed in the same biased manner as the Abilify trials. It is, however, worth noting that the "benefit" of Abilify, in terms of response and remission rates compared to placebo, was about the same as for the other atypicals. Which leads me to think that the other atypicals probably show similar marginal benefits for depression.

But now, based solely on potentially quite misleading response and remission rates, an article appears in the American Journal of Psychiatry - a piece that has the potential to ramp up the prescribing of antipsychotics for depression to an even more ridiculous level. Let the good times roll.

Source of ironclad evidence that atypical antipsychotics are antidepressants (until you actually read the paper):

Nelson, J., & Papakostas, G. (2009). Atypical Antipsychotic Augmentation in Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials American Journal of Psychiatry, 166 (9), 980-991 DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09030312

Abilify for Depression: Patients Give it an Oh-For-Three

Abilify for depression: you've seen the ads. You've hopefully read this blog (1, 2) and the excellent series in the LA Times from Melissa Healy. The advantage over placebo is nothing to get particularly excited about. Especially from the patients' point of view. As I have mentioned previously, the two studies that were touted by key opinion leaders are supporting the efficacy of Abilify for depression suffered from a number of problems. Most germane to this post, the patient self-report rating scales did not indicate a significant advantage for Abilify in either study.

Well, yet another Abilify for depression study is out in CNS Spectrums and guess what... Still not a significant advantage over placebo according to patients. So in each of three large studies, Abilify has failed to beat a placebo according to patients' self-report. These three trials are the basis for the massive marketing campaign and an FDA approval. Abilify started off as an also-ran antipsychotic. But times have changed. Bristol-Myers Squibb's CEO prophetically stated in 2004 after Abilify's approval as a treatment for bipolar disorder:

This approval underscores our commitment to delivering innovative solutions that address unmet needs for a broad spectrum of patients with mental illness, as well as their families and health care providers.

He could as easily have stated: "This approval underscores our commitment to rebranding our unpopular antipsychotic as a Swiss Army Knife/broad spectrum psychotropic that treats everything under the sun. If I can get the FDA and the public to believe that this akathisia-inducing bottom feeder can treat depression, then I'll be LOADED, BWAAH, HA HA HA HA!!!"

OK, maybe he didn't actually say any of those things, but his "broad spectrum" comment was literally right on the money. Just don't ask those pesky patients what they think; they might tell you it's no better than a damn sugar pill.

Yes, I'm aware that on some other rating scales, Abilify was rated as superior to a placebo, but I'm thinking that if the patient self-report of depression is consistently not favorable for Abilify, then who are we kidding by calling it an antidepressant?



Robert M. Berman, Maurizio Fava, Michael E. Thase, Madhukar H. Trivedi, René Swanink, Robert D. McQuade, William H. Carson, David Adson, Leslie Taylor, James Hazel, & Ronald N. Marcus (2009). Aripiprazole Augmentation in Major Depressive Disorder: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study in Patients with Inadequate Response to Antidepressants CNS Spectrums, 14 (4), 197-206

Abilify Runs Amok, Runs Stealth Safety Campaign in Medical Journal

Furious Seasons has a rather distressing piece of news from a recent Bristol-Myers Squibb conference call. To sum it up quickly, BMS claims that 10.6% of depressed patients are now receiving atypical antipsychotics. Of those 10.6%, 21.7% are taking Abilify. So that would mean roughly 10-11 in 100 depressed patients are taking antipsychotics and 2 of them are on Abilify. I shudder to think how many are on Seroquel. Or Zyprexa. It made me think of a post I wrote a few weeks ago in which I described the marketing of Abilify for depression. A huge market of depressed people just ripe for the picking.

Going along with this, BMS is pushing back on the issue of akathisa, the side effect that has garnered the drug much bad publicity (at least in the blog world; 1, 2, 3) via a medical journal article that distracts attention from Abilify as an akathisia-inducer. More on that to come soon. Ghostwriters, ignoring contradictory evidence; basically, an attempt to completely obscure the evidence on the topic. It's not the first time BMS has successfully placed a study with major flaws into a medical journal (1, 2). Details will be forthcoming.

Abilify, Depression, and the Memory Hole

The Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry has a piece on Abilify for depression that illustrates many of psychiatry's woes. Full text of the article is here. The journal published an article titled "Examining the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole in major depressive disorder: A pooled analysis of two studies." The paper combines data from two previously published studies which examined the addition of Abilify to existing antidepressant treatment (1, 2). One of psychiatry's big-name academics, Michael Thase, signed on as lead author. I'm hoping that he didn't actually write the paper. Actually, there are eleven authors of the paper, which seems a little ridiculous given that the paper is an analysis of data which had already been collected for two previously published clinical trials. Seven of the authors are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) or Otsuka, which both market Abilify. Wait... If you look closely, you can see my favorite disclosure... In the fine print on the first page...

In case you can't read the fine print: In defense of Thase and the other academic authors, they may have not actually written any of the paper. Much or all of the writing appears to be creditable to Ogilvy Healthworld Medical Education. On their site, they note that they perform:

Clinical Development and Publications Management
Experienced medical writers work closely with authors, editors and publishers to provide our clients with a full range of publishing options.

Whatever BMS/Otsuka paid you for this one simply was not enough. Why? Because whomever wrote this thing did an admirable job of focusing on the positive and completely ignoring the negative.

Erasing the Patient's Opinions: Remember, the article's title states that it examines the efficacy of adjunctive Abilify (adding Abilify to existing antidepressant treatment). So you'd think the article would mention all of the relevant depression data from the two relevant studies. Well, no. In the two stuides which are discussed in the article, patients were assessed on depression using the following measures:

• Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)
• Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self Report Scale (IDS)
• Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms Self-Report Scale (QIDS)

Using the MADRS, the authors conclude that adding Abilify to antidepressant treatment is more effective than adding placebo to antidepressant treatment. OK, fine, though it's not by a particularly huge margin. Mysteriously, the authors do not even mention that the self-report scales (IDS and its subscale, the QIDS) were used in the two trials. And why would they? In both trials, Abilify was not significantly better than placebo on these measures. A letter to the editor pointed out this glaring weakness in Abilify's claims of efficacy, the response to which was weak:

Noting that Abilify did not outperform placebo on the self-report measure in the trial, he wrote that "this may be due to the lower sensitivity" of the measure. So the drug wasn't the failure -- blame the rating scale instead. The people at BMS picked the scale and when it doesn't give results they like, then suddenly it's a poor measurement of depression. I bet Dr. Berman would not have complained about the instrument had it yielded results in favor of Abilify.

In the publications of each of the two clinical trials, the authors tried to downplay the fact that Abilify was no better than placebo according to patient self-reports. Then, when publishing an analysis that combined the results of the two trials, the authors go a step further by not even mentioning that patients completed a self-report. Right down the memory hole. In my opinion, any reasonable academic author writing about such research would want to note the strengths and limitations of Abilify in treating depression. The lack of benefit on patient-rated measures is a major weakness. Yet several big-time academics signed off on this paper despite its complete scrubbing of negative data. For that, I hereby nominate each author for a coveted Golden Goblet Award. And I credit the ghostwriter at Ogilvy with a fantastic job of serving his/her corporate clients. You, sir or ma'am, deserve kudos for a marketing job well-done.

The instructions for authors who submit to the Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry state: "Conclusions should flow logically from the data presented, and methodological flaws and limitations should be acknowledged." Um, does completely scrubbing negative data count as failing to acknowledge limitations? I can see that the peer reviewers and/or editor really paid close attention to this paper.

Safety: The authors note that "adjunctive aripiprazole is relatively well-tolerated in patients with MDD." Relatively? Relative to what -- being hit with a baseball bat repeatedly? They note that akathisia occurred in 25% of patients on Abilify compared to 4% of patients on placebo. Restlessness: 12% vs. 2%; insomnia: 8% vs. 3%; fatigue: 8% vs. 4%; blurred vision: 6% vs 1%. The authors report that akathisia resolved in 52% of patients by the end of the study, which would also mean that for 48% of patients with akathisia, they were stuck with it at the end of the study. But don't worry, it's "relatively well-tolerated."

Overall, another example of a "research" publication being little more than a puff piece in favor of a drug. With big-name academics signed on as authors to add credibilty and just a fine print mention of a ghostwriter.

I thank an anonymous reader for alerting me to this study.

Citation:

Thase ME, Trivedi MH, Nelson JC, Fava M, Swanink R, Tran Q, Pikalov A, Yang H, Carlson BX, Marcus RN, Berman RM (2008). Examining the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole in major depressive disorder: A pooled analysis of 2 studies Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 10, 440-447

Sowing the Seeds of Lexapro

I'm reading an article with my jaw completely agape and I thought I'd share the pain. The good people at Forest Pharmaceuticals have put together a tragic waste of journal space. The editorial board at the journal Depression and Anxiety should call an emergency meeting to see how this thing got published. Any peer reviewer who put a stamp of approval on this should be forced to listen to Michael Bolton's Greatest Hits at maximum volume for 12 hours straight.

OK, so what am I having a fit about? Here's what happened in this so-called study. 109 primary care doctors were recruited to participate, for which they were doubtlessly paid a decent chunk per patient (not discussed in the manuscript). The lucky depressed patients of these physicians then received escitalopram (Lexapro) for six months. The manuscript mentions that the "investigators" (the primary care docs) "were not required to have previous clinical research experience to be selected for this study." Yeah, no kidding.

There was no control group, and there had already been dozens of studies on the effects of Lexapro in depression, so how are we getting any new info out of this study? Maybe because this is investigating Lexapro in primary care settings; maybe there was no research on that beforehand. Well, no. The manuscript writes that "The efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in MDD have been extensively evaluated in primary-care settings," citing four relevant studies. So the study is actually not an attempt to answer a scientific question. So what, exactly, is this study?

Looks and smells like a seeding trial, about which Harold Sox and Dummond Rennie wrote:

This practice—a seeding trial—is marketing in the guise of science. The apparent purpose is to test a hypothesis. The true purpose is to get physicians in the habit of prescribing a new drug. Why would a drug company go to the expense and bother of conducting a trial involving hundreds of practitioners— each recruiting a few patients—when a study based at a few large medical centers could accomplish the same scientific purposes much more efficiently? The main point of the seeding trial is not to get high-quality scientific information: It is to change the prescribing habits of large numbers of physicians. A secondary purpose is to transform physicians into advocates for the sponsor’s drug. The company flatters a physician by selecting him because he is “an opinion leader” and incorporates him in the research team with the title of “investigator.” Then, it pays him good money: a consulting fee to advise the company on the drug’s use and another fee for each patient he enrolls. The physician becomes invested in the drug’s future and praises its good features to patients and colleagues. Unwittingly, the physician joins the sponsor’s marketing team. Why do companies pursue this expensive tactic? Because it works.

So these primary care doctors now feel like "researchers," even though their investigation had essentially zero scientific merit. That probably makes these "investigators" feel important -- and the association between feeling important/scientific and Lexapro is a feeling Forest was banking on to increase Lexapro prescriptions in Canada.

Findings: So what did this extremely important piece of seeding, er, research find? Get ready... Lexapro is safe and effective. To quote the authors: "Escitalopram was well tolerated, safe, and efficacious. Escitalopram can be used with confidence to treat patients with MDD in Canadian primary-care settings." And "As adherence to antidepressant treatment is paramount to achieving long-term recovery, the present results suggest that escitalopram should be considered among the first-line choices of antidepressant used in primary care." So with no control group, we can determine that a Lexapro prescription should be among the first things that come to mind when treating depression. This is mind-boggling. This journal often published good work, but this is among the most uninformative pieces of research I have read. Unless one is thinking about marketing, in which case it is very enlightening.


Citation: Pratap Chokka, Mark Legault (2008). Escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary-care settings: an open-label trial Depression and Anxiety, 25 (12) DOI: 10.1002/da.20458

The Cymbalta Schatz-Storm: Duplicate Publication and Lying by Omission

This post details the duplicate publication of data on the antidepressant duloxetine (Cymbalta). Marketing and "science" collide to produce hideous offspring: an experimercial that pimps Lilly's bogus "Depression Hurts" marketing for Cymbalta using the exact same (weak) data twice. Data were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (JCP), and then the same data were published a second time in the Journal of Psychiatric Research (JPR), a blatant violation of JPR policy. Oh, and Alan Schatzberg, president-elect for the American Psychiatric Association is involved in the story.

The study: Lilly conducted a rather uninteresting study of Cymbalta, in which patients who had not shown a treatment response to an SSRI were then assigned to either a) Direct switch: Switch to Cymbalta and immediately discontinue the SSRI medication or b) Start-Taper-Switch: taper the SSRI over a 2 week period while also starting Cymbalta. Note that there was not a control group of any sort, an issue that the authors dance around (i.e., essentially ignore) in the papers based on this study's data.

Publication #1 -- Journal of Clinical Psychiatry: Data from this study were published in the January 2008 issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. The findings were that, in essence, there were no notable differences between patients who were directly switched to Cymbalta as opposed to those who did the start-taper-switch method. But what do the authors conclude?

Despite the lack of control group, the authors get the message out that not only was depression improved, so were "painful physical symptoms." As anyone who has a television has probably noticed, Lilly has been pushing hard for quite some time to convince patients and physicians that Cymbalta will relieve depression and pain in depressed patients. So if the marketing points can be pushed in one journal, why not pimp the same idea using the same data in another journal?

Publication #2 -- Journal of Psychiatric Research: Data from the same study were published online (to appear in print soon) in the Journal of Psychiatric Research (JPR). And I mean the exact same data appear again in this paper. This is a huge scientific no-no. Findings are supposed to be published once, not over and over again. Journals are struggling to find space for new and interesting findings, so there is no need to waste space on duplicate data. In fact, to quote from JPR's website

Submission of a paper to the Journal of Psychiatric Research is understood to imply that it is an original paper which has not previously been published, and is not being considered for publication elsewhere. Prior publication in abstract form should be indicated. Furthermore, authors should upload copies of any related manuscript that has been recently published, is in press or under consideration elsewhere. The following circumstances indicate that a paper is related to the manuscript submitted to the Journal: a) any overlap in the results presented; b) any overlap in the subjects, patients or materials the results are based on.

So it's pretty clear -- don't submit data that has already been published. Here is a figure from the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (JCP) article mentioned above:

And here is the same data, in a figure in JPR:

But wait -- that's just the beginning. How about the data tables... From JCP:

And the right-side half of this table in JCP:

And the exact same data appearing in JPR:

To be fair to these "researchers" in JPR, they reported data from subscales of two measures not reported in JCP. But the vast majority of the data is just reprinted from the article in JCP. Which is completely trouncing journal policy and, more importantly, conveying Lilly's marketing messages to the audiences of two different journals. Unfortunately, they apparently did not consider that some people might actually read both journals and notice that essentially the same article had appeared twice. Or, Lilly considered this prospect and said, "Who cares." I'll leave it to my readers to decide if they care.

Authors: The JCP paper was authored by David Perahia, Deborah Quail, Derisala Desaiah, Emmanuele Corruble, and Maurizio Fava. The JPR paper was "authored" by Perahia, Quail, Desaiah, Angel Montejo, and Alan Schaztberg. So to re-publish the same data, it was out with Corruble and Fava -- in with Montejo and Schatzberg. Why Schatzberg? We're almost there...

JPR describes the contributions of each author. For these two authors (Schatzberg and Montejo) who were not credited in the JCP paper, they were both described as "involved in data review and interpretation, including the development of this manuscript." How could they have been involved with data review and interpretation -- the vast majority of the data were already analyzed, interpreted and written up by other researchers in the JCP paper? Did they write the paper? Apparently not, since the JPR article mentioned that "Dr. Desaiah worked with Dr. Perahia to draft the manuscript..." So Montejo and Schatzberg could not conceivably have played any significant role in data analysis, interpretation, or writing the paper. It seems that if Desaiah and Perahia "drafted" the manuscript, then the most Montejo and Schatzberg could have done is to maybe review the paper.

So why is Schatzberg on the paper? Well, it just so happens, I'm sure by sheer coincidence, that Schatzberg is the co-editor in chief of JPR. So he'd be in a good position to help a paper that essentially republishes data from JCP with only minor additions make it into publication against his own journal's policies.

Nice work, Schatzberg. That's pimpin' it hard. That, my friend, is worthy of nomination for a coveted Golden Goblet Award. Congratulations. It is not the first time Schatzberg's "scientific" behavior has been noted. He has been stumping (in the face of much contradictory data) in favor of his pet drug RU-486/Corlux in the treatment of psychotic depression for some time. Between the bad science surrounding Corlux and Schaztberg's myriad conflicts of interest, much has been written (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) -- add another chapter to the chronicles of the storied American Psychiatric Association Leader. This reminds me of an earlier incident involving Charles Nemeroff.

Discussion: As I've noted previously, the discussion section of a journal article often contains key marketing points, science being relegated to secondary status at best. The JPR article provides a few good examples of Cymbalta's talking points:

The current paper focuses on pain-related outcomes, demonstrating that a switch of SSRI non- or partial-responders to duloxetine was associated with a significant improvement in all pain measures including six VAS pain scales, the SQ-SS and its pain subscale, and the SF-36 bodily pain domain.

Switch of SSRI non- and partial-responders to duloxetine resulted in mean improvements on all pain measures regardless of the switch method used.

Duloxetine, an SNRI, has previously been shown to be effective in the treatment of PPS associated with depression, and it is also effective in the treatment of chronic pain such as diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) for which it is approved in the US, Europe and elsewhere, so duloxetine’s effects on pain in our sample of SSRI non- or partial-responders was not unexpected.

Patients with MDD present with a broad range of symptoms including those related to alteration of mood and PPS, all of which may contribute to global functional impairment. Effective treatment of both mood symptoms and PPS associated with depression may therefore optimize the chances of functional improvement. Recent findings that residual PPS in depressed patients may be associated with impaired quality of life (Wise et al., 2005, 2007), decreased productivity and lower rates of help seeking (Demyttenaere et al., 2006) and a lower likelihood of attaining remission (Fava et al., 2004), further demonstrate the importance of effective treatment of PPS in patients with MDD, so duloxetine’s effects on PPS are reassuring.

Improvements in pain are consistent with previously reported studies demonstrating duloxetine’s efficacy for pain, either as part of depression, or as part of a chronic pain condition such as DPNP.

Where do I start? How about by mentioning that JPR states:

7. Discussion: The results of your study should be placed in the appropriate context of knowledge, with discussion of its limitations and implications for future work.

So maybe if there was research that questions Lilly's talking points about Cymbalta relieving pain in depression, such research should be discussed. Well, it just so happens that there is research, which analyzed Lilly's own clinical trials and found that Cymbalta was no better than a placebo or Paxil in treating pain in depression. This meta-analysis of Cymbalta trials was published in January 2008, yet the JPR article, which was originally received by JPR on March 26, 2008 did not mention the negative data. Hmmm, that doesn't exactly sound like placing the findings "in the appropriate context of knowledge," does it? All this talk about Cymbalta's fantastic analgesic effects despite Lilly's own data showing that Cymbalta is at best close to useless in treating pain among depressed patients. Another study that claimed to show Cymbalta was a helluva painkiller was also smacked in a letter to the editor a few months ago -- and the authors of the Lilly-sponsored trial conceded defeat by refusing to reply to the critiques of their study.

Better Than "Weak" SSRIs (Not Really): In the JPR study, it was mentioned that the evidence for SSRIs in treating pain is "weak." No disagreement on my end. But see, once SSRI patients switched to Cymbalta, their pain magically went away because Cymbalta, unlike SSRIs, relieves pain. Never mind the lack of control group, which was allotted a grand total of 15 words in the discussion as a potential limitation of the study. The authors also failed to note that prior research showed that Cymbalta was no better than Paxil in treating pain in depressed patients. And Perahia, the lead author of the JCP and JPR "studies" is certainly aware of the research showing that Cymbalta works no better than a "weak" SSRI, since he was the lead author on one such study! So he is quite aware that Cymbalta has never been shown superior to Paxil in treating pain, yet he accurately describes research indicating that SSRIs are "weak" pain treatments, but then neglects to mention that Cymbalta failed to demonstrate superiority to Paxil in treating pain in depression. This is called lying by omission.

I may pass along my concerns to the Journal of Psychiatric Research. My prior experiences in passing along such concerns to journals via my blog identity is that they either a) ignore my concerns entirely or b) instruct me to write a letter to the editor which would be considered for publication, with the stipulation that I use my real identity. Sorry, but a published letter to the editor is not worth blowing my cover.

Call for Action: Rather than my running into point b. from the last paragraph, how about one or more scientifically inclined readers submit your concerns to the journal, under the following condition: Make sure you read the original papers first to judge if my concerns are valid. Then, if you feel similarly, why not send a letter to the editor? This is bad science which does nothing to advance patient care -- it seeks only to advance sales of Cymbalta by pimping it as a painkiller in depression while ignoring all contradictory data. So let's try a little research of our own -- see if JPR is willing to address these issues or if they will be swept under the rug.

Reference to JPR article:

D PERAHIA, D QUAIL, D DESAIAH, A MONTEJO, A SCHATZBERG (2008). Switching to duloxetine in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor non- and partial-responders: Effects on painful physical symptoms of depression Journal of Psychiatric Research DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.07.001

Update: Also see an excellent follow-up post on the topic at Bad Science.

That Pesky Long-Lasting Placebo

You are depressed, take a placebo, and feel better. Conventional wisdom in the psychiatric community would have your depression coming back shortly because we all know that a placebo can't make you feel better for very long. Right? Um, sorry to crash the party, but... no. A study from Arif Khan and colleagues in the August 2008 Journal of Psychiatric Research debunks this myth by putting together results from 8 antidepressant trials which examined what happened to study participants who (a) showed a response to treatment in the short-term and (b) continued to take either an antidepressant or placebo in the long-term. Of those who continued to take antidepressants, 93% maintained their improvement 4 weeks to over a year afterwards. So did 79% of participants who took a placebo. So yeah, people on drugs did a bit better, but about 4 in 5 people taking a freaking sugar pill were still doing well in the long-term. Anyone still want to seriously argue that the vast majority of the antidepressant effect is not the placebo effect?

The authors, who incidentally are not exactly in the Peter Breggin camp, opine that: "The widely held – and probably erroneous – belief that the placebo response in depression is short-lived appears to be based largely on intuition and perhaps wishful thinking." Ouch. Wishful thinking about psychiatric medications? Hmmm, that is giving me Effexor flashbacks for some reason...

Investigative Journalism Par Excellence

I am a little late in reporting this story, but there is a must-read post from Jonathan Leo over at Chemical Imbalance that I must bring to your attention. Many bloggers have chimed in about the radio program The Infinite Mind broadcast about SSRIs. Most writers have focused, understandably, on the myriad unreported conflicts of interest of the guests on the show. But the conflicts of interest are not the most important part of this saga -- the terribly misleading information on the program, which aired on National Public Radio outlets, is the main problem.

Leo compares the data on SSRIs and suicide to the blatantly false statements made by the The Infinite Mind commentators. He notes, for example, that it is utter BS to state that nobody committed suicide in antidepressant trials submitted to the FDA -- in children there were no suicides, but among adults there certainly were. And kids who dropped out of the studies due to poor response or side effects, well, who knows what happened to them?

Leo also notes that the commentators were dead wrong about their alleged evidence linking decreased prescriptions of SSRIs to an increase in suicides. I also noted the same problem. He then proceeds to make point after point about the commentators overstating the efficacy of antidepressants.

As I've written before, conflicts of interest are important. But rather than just noting that people have conflicts, it is important to show the data -- are people with conflicts of interest misstating the evidence in a manner that reflects the conflict of interest? In the case of The Infinite Mind, the answer is a clear yes. Leo's post is quite lengthy, but well worth the time.

Update (08-31-08): My mistake. I had earlier called the program All in The Mind, which is vastly incorrect. The program was The Infinite Mind (as has been corrected above). This post has absolutely nothing to do with All in The Mind, which is a program which airs on Australia's Radio National. In fact, I've listened to a couple of All in the Mind broadcasts previously and found them to be well-done. Thanks to a commenter for catching my error.

Cymbalta Smacked Via Excellent Letter to Editor

Eli Lilly/Boehringer Ingelheim published a study claiming that duloxetine (Cymbalta) was an effective treatment for pain in depressed patients. Nothing new – they’ve run several such studies. The results were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry in November 2007. Three wise readers (Jay Griffith, Joseph Hasley, and Daniel Severn) noted serious issues with the study and submitted a letter to the editor, which was then published in the June 2008 issue. It was noted that the patients were unclearly described: What kind of pain were they experiencing? The study also noted that patients weren’t taking pain-relieving medications for six months prior to the start of the study, at least not on a “regular basis,” a term that was not defined in the paper. Don't most patients who experience serious pain take analgesic medication at least somewhat regularly? Finally, and most importantly, the difference between Cymbalta and placebo was “statistically significant,” but more importantly (and ignored by the study authors), the difference was small. On an 11-point rating scale, the average difference in pain ratings favored Cymbalta by less than a point. Griffith and colleagues note, accurately, that the small advantage for Cymbalta “is not robust from the standpoint of clinical practice.” I’m always glad to see that there are a few readers of medical journals who are willing to take the time to pen a good letter to the editor in which the massive inadequacies of a study are noted. If we’re going to have evidence based medicine, we might want to make sure the evidence is of somewhat palatable quality, eh?

The kicker is that the lead author of the Cymbalta study, Stephan Brecht of Boehringer Ingelheim opted not to offer a response to Griffith et al.’s letter. So I suppose Brecht is conceding that the patient population was poorly defined and that Cymbalta’s advantage over placebo was meager. So this kinda runs counter to the conclusions of the study, which claimed in part that duloxetine is an effective painkiller. Not a big surprise, given that a prior analysis also cried foul about Cymbalta’s claim to successfully treat pain in depression.

Yet Cymbalta continues to fly off pharmacy shelves. Are physicians really this poorly trained at understanding scientific literature? “Gee, the ads say that Depression Hurts and the rep handed me these journal reprints that prove it's a painkiller, so now I’m writing Cymbalta scripts like there’s no tomorrow!”

For failing to note that Cymbalta's effects over placebo were small, and for refusing to reply to the concerns about their study, I hereby nominate the authors of the November 2007 Cymbalta study (especially the lead author) for a Golden Goblet Award. Your dedication to obfuscation is notable -- keep up the bad work.

Cymbalta: Good For Whatever Ails You

I don't have time to write much on the topic, suffice to say that John Russell of the Indianapolis Star raises some good questions about Cymbalta, Eli Lilly's antidepressant/antianxiety/analgesic/good for whatever ails you pill.  He calls it a Swiss Army Knife, which is ironic given that Lilly gave out Swiss Army Knives as part of its Viva Zyprexa campaign, likely as a reminder that Zyprexa (much like Cymbalta) was a broad spectrum psychotropic that could be used to treat, um, a lot of things.  Despite Cymbalta being touted as a cure for both depression and all sorts of different types of physical pain, once again it appears that the science has failed to live up to the marketing, at least for treating pain in depressed patients. Russell's article asks whether it is reasonable to expect that one drug could really work for so many different conditions.  It's well worth a read.

Hat Tip: Furious Seasons and an anonymous reader.

Conflicts, Bad Science, and Corlux

Recently, the watchful eyes of Charles Grassley have been peering into the bank accounts of big name psychiatrists. Melissa DelBello and Joe Biederman (1, 2) from the Wonderful World of Child Bipolar were first, and now Alan Schatzberg has been hit. Schatzberg is the Chair of Psychiatry at Stanford University. He is also the President of the American Psychiatric Association. In other words, he's kind of a big deal.

Pharmalot hits the details, but the gist is that Schatzberg is deeply involved at Corcept Therapeutics, a company for which he is chair of the scientific advisory board and holds a large amount of stock. According to Grassley, he did not disclose some of his stock sale profits or the magnitude of his multimillion dollar stock holdings in the company. Additionally, Schatzberg allegedly underreported income received from other drug companies. It appears that Schatzberg was not really required to disclose some of this information, so according to my brief review of the information, it is quite possible that he has broken no rules. Now, whether the rules need to be changed is a different story. No offense to Grassley, but I was well ahead of him on part of this story, noting in April 2007 that Schatzberg had a mega-conflict of interest going with Corcept. I also noted previously that Schatzberg was on the Zyprexa bandwagon, helping to "educate" fellow physicians about the Lilly wonder drug.

The Real Problem: But amidst all this discussion of conflicts of interest, I am afraid that we are getting a bit diverted from the main problem, that of shoddy science. It is admittedly interesting noting that Schatzberg is somehow supposed to be an independent, disinterested scientist while standing to make an absolute truckload of money if his sponsored product succeeds. But it runs deeper. While Schatzberg is a bigwig at Corcept, let's review how Corcept's main product mifepristone (RU-486; yes, the abortion pill) has done.

Mifepristone (aka Corlux) is intended to work as a treatment for psychotic depression. One main problem: It doesn't relieve depressive symptoms. In multiple trials, it has failed to demonstrate antidepressant properties. The CEO of Corcept and another member of their scientific advisory board have previously tried to spin away such inconvenient data by painting negative results as positive. To give Corcept credit, their scientists are consistent spinmeisters, seemingly always able to dredge a positive from obviously negative findings. Schatzberg has been an author on a couple Corlux-related papers that were shredded by independent analysts, who found statistical problems and overly optimistic interpretations of the study results. As the senior member of the Scientific Advisory Board, I assume that Schatzberg had some input on the other study reports that also overstated the efficacy of Corlux.

Could his millions of dollars in Corcept holdings bias Schatzberg, either subconsciously or overtly? You be the judge. But remember that this is not just about conflicts of interest -- this is about science. There is hard evidence that the research on Corlux, which is tightly linked to Schatzberg, has been misinterpreted for the sake of marketing. Conflicts of interest sometimes lead to bad science, but rather than focus just on conflicts of interest, we need to dig a layer deeper and see the poor science -- the shoddy evidence that is used as the foundation for "evidence based medicine" in many cases.

Note also that David Healy has written an interesting piece on the topic of conflicts of interest and bad science, pointing out that a larger problem is lack of access to company-owned data. Think Paxil and suicide. He concludes:

If I were employed in a company marketing department I would much prefer to have the field think that all that is wrong is that a few corrupt academics fail to declare competing interests than to have the field think that company practices that restrict access to data while still claiming the moral high ground of science are the real source of the problem.

I'd love to know what American Psychiatric Association members think about this. The news had already broken about Schatzberg overstating the efficacy of Corlux before he was elected APA president. Do APA members not care that their president has a documented record of putting product promotion before scientific evidence?

Sexual Side Effects of SSRI's: Is the Blindfold Coming Off?

This is my 613th post. One of my most popular posts was called "Sexual Side Effects of SSRIs: Even More Troubling". Well, now there is more information on the topic, courtesy of Audrey Bahrick, a psychologist at the University of Iowa University Counseling Service. Dr. Bahrick has published an article in the Open Psychology Journal regarding the long-term sexual side effects of SSRIs. It is disturbing, important and one of the best articles I've read in quite some time. Quotes from the piece are interspersed with my commentary. [UPDATE: If the link to the article is not working, please scroll to the update at the bottom of the page and try the alternate link.]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Because they were often not assessed in clinical trials, sexual side effects were reported to be relatively rare occurrences. If you've followed this story much at all, this is not necessarily news, but it is certainly worth mentioning anyway.

Post market research has clearly established that the SSRIs and SNRIs can affect most every aspect of sexual functioning at rates significantly higher than the 2-16% rates reported in pre-market trials and currently listed in the drug insert literature. Large prospective studies in which baseline assessment excludes participants with pre-existing sexual dysfunction have found rates of treatment-emergent sexual dysfunctions such as decreased libido, delayed orgasm, anorgasmia, erectile dysfunction, and difficulties with arousal, of between 36 and 70%.

"Evidence-Based" Guidelines. Bahrick notes that the literature contains advice that sexual side effects are "medically benign" and "all data suggest return of sexual functioning to baseline once the medication is stopped." Which would be fine if such statements weren't wrong. A lot wrong. Bahrick cites research indicating that:

An estimated 5 to 10% of individuals may experience a diminution of the SSRI or SNRI emergent sexual side effects over time as they remain on the medication, but for the vast majority, the sexual side effects are intractable and will continue for at least as long as they take the medication.

Numb Genitals, Anyone? A variety of SSRI-induced sexual side effects have been reported. Bahrick goes into depth about some of those that are less commonly reported in the literature (maybe because nobody bothers to ask about such effects).

There are indications that some SSRI/SNRI sexual side effects thought to be rare are actually common. The most frequently documented sexual side effects are diminished libido, unspecified problems with arousal, and delayed orgasm or anorgasmia. Delayed ejaculation or orgasm, and anorgasmia have been those symptoms that the literature links most clearly and most frequently to SSRI treatment, vs. to depression itself. However the symptoms of genital anesthesia and pleasureless orgasm, outside the range of common experience and appearing to often occur together, are frequently reported among men and women in Internet communities, in an accumulating case reports literature, and in one research investigation.

Sounds like fun, no? Bahrick then briefly describes the cases of one man and one woman who clearly experienced treatment-induced genital anesthesia. Even after researchers belatedly began to examine the sexual side effects of SSRIs, their measures do not assess for the presence of genital anesthesia. Again, don't ask, don't tell. Only one measure (Rush Sexual Inventory) was reported to assess genital anesthesia, and here's what research found using this measure:

Ferguson did not report specific symptom results, and Zajecka et al. reported only partial results. Zajecka et al. found that among 42 depressed patients taking a variety of SSRIs, 28% of women reported treatment-emergent decreased genital sensitivity and 25% of men reported treatment-emergent decreased intensity of orgasm, suggesting the symptoms are not uncommon.

Zajecka et al. was a small study, to be sure, but this clearly indicates that more research needs to be done on the topic.

In the Long Term. Bahrick also went over some of the evidence she presented in an earlier paper, which I discussed months ago as follows...

According to Bahrick, there is only one study (Montejo et al., 1999) that has examined the emergence of sexual side effects after cessation of SSRI medication. In this study, patients who had experienced significant reductions in depressive symptoms in response to an SSRI were switched to amineptine (which impacts the dopaminergic system and noradrenergic systems to a much greater extent than it impacts serotonin) or to Paxil. A third group received amineptine only (they were not switched from an SSRI). Amineptine-only treatment resulted in 4% incidence of sexual dysfunction, whereas the switched-to-Paxil group had an 89% incidence of sexual dysfunction, and the switched-to-amineptine group decreased from a 100% to a 55% incidence of sexual side effects. Mind you, these treatments lasted for six months, so those who switched to amineptine, a drug that rarely induces sexual side effects, still had a high rate of sexual side effects six months after SSRI treatment discontinuation.

Bahrick also noted that there is quite credible evidence from two trials that SSRIs can prolong ejaculatory latency after the discontinuation of treatment. For some individuals, this is a desired effect. For others, not so much. Likely because they are perceived as so benign, it was also noted that, among urologists, SSRIs are the most widely used treatment for premature ejaculation.

The Internet. Over 1500 individuals belong to one internet-based group whose main focus is the discussion of SSRI-related sexual side effects. Bahrick's review of their discussion indicated:

Sexual side effects are reported also to sometimes change over time: for example, there are indications that what was initially experienced as a positive ejaculation delay evolved over time into persistent post-medication low libido, impotence, leaking semen, and a precipitous decline in quality of orgasm and genital sensation.

Again, sounds like fun, right? Some naysayers may say that this is just a bunch of internet crazies who bonded together based on some bogus perceptions, who blamed treatment for their psychological problems. Alternatively, one might note that the small body of available evidence all converges on SSRIs causing sexual dysfunction in a relatively high percentage of people, so the concerns of this internet group are likely well-founded in reality.

And More. Bahrick also notes that there are four published case reports, totaling eight cases, where the symptoms described in the article have occurred in patients who had no history of sexual difficulties prior to starting SSRIs. On top of that, another report recently appeared in Primary Psychiatry, which noted, among other items...

Sexual side effects manifest in a variety of presentations and severities, but sexual functioning is assumed to return to normal once antidepressants are discontinued. In the recent peer-reviewed literature, three separate case reports have detailed sustained persistence of sexual dysfunction and genital anesthesia well after termination of SSRIs in the absence of residual psychopathology or another identifiable disorder. In each report, the annoying symptoms were absent prior to antidepressant therapy. Oddly, these case reports have not appeared in the psychiatric or psychopharmacology literature, but rather, two have been published in psychology journals and the third in a gynecology/women’s health journal.

Starting a Movement. I often get hits to my site based on Google searches for genital anesthesia combined with various SSRI drugs. These hits have come from across the world. There appears to be a real problem with long-lasting sexual side effects from SSRIs, but the "key opinion leaders" in psychiatry seem much more interested in lining their pockets with drug company money, badly misinterpreting research findings, and looking the other way. And this is what passes for evidence-based medicine?

Read Bahrick's article regarding long-term sexual side effects of SSRIs and ask your doctor about these effects. You are certain to receive an awkward glance. When that happens, feel free to pass along a copy of the article to your physician. If continuing medical education and drug reps aren't going to educate doctors on this issue, I suppose a grassroots effort is in order. Let me know how it goes.

Update. Thanks to an alert commenter for noting that the link to the article does not work. A less direct way to access the article is to follow this link then look for the article in Volume 1. The journal publisher has not yet mastered decent web design. The point of an open access journal is to allow easy access!