DSM-5: A Little Mix Up

Proposals in the upcoming DSM-5 psychiatric manual for diagnosing "mixed" mood states may be muddled, according to a new paper.

The mixed state - the name alluding to a mix between depression and mania - has traditionally been viewed (more or less) as combining the dysphoria of depression with the energy of mania. Anger, agitation, restlessness and so forth.

I've been depressed and I know only too well the difference between that "active" depression and the "inactive" kind; if I had to choose, I'd always go for the latter, because at least you're in less danger of doing or saying something you later regret.

However, in the proposals for DSM-5, "mixed" episodes as such will be abolished. Instead, a depressive episode will have "mixed features" if it is associated with at least 3 of 7 symptoms normally seen in (hypo)mania. But - and here's the key novelty - those 7 are only the "good" symptoms of mania. Not things like anger, irritability, insomnia or 'aimless' hyperactivity. (Edit: There are also separate criteria for "mixed" manic and hypomanic episodes).

What will this mean? In a new paper, psychiatrists Perlis, Cusin, and Fava tried to find out. The large STAR*D antidepressant trial recruited people with depression, but it gave everyone the Psychiatric Diagnosis Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ), amongst many other measures. This helpfully included six items on "mania symptoms", which correspond pretty closely to the DSM-V proposed "mixed" features.

Perlis et al found that depressed patients who reported experiencing these "mixed" items had a better response to antidepressant treatment. The more mixed symptoms, the more likely they were to get better on the common SSRI citalopram, even adjusting for other variables.

That's the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a measure of "mixed states", as these are thought to be less responsive to antidepressants - maybe even caused by them. There was no placebo group, so it's unclear why they got better, but either way, it's unexpected; the authors declare themselves "surprised". Hmm. What a mystery...

Or maybe not. These manic symptoms are all things that you're not when you're depressed. The 6 items actually make a good summary of what depression, even agitated depression (except maybe #6) isn't.

So, one interpretation of these results is that people who endorsed these items just weren't depressed, at some point in the 6 months prior to doing the PDSQ. Assuming they were depressed at other points that means their mood was variable over time.

People whose depression is variable might well be more likely to recover than the ones whose depression was unrelenting.

Now Perlis et al do consider this -

further models were fit incorporating the IDS-C30 pleasure and reactivity items; results were essentially unchanged indicating that they are unlikely to be confounded by mood variability per se...

But this assumes that the IDS-C30 questionnaire is a good measure of mood variability in this sample. Maybe it's not, and these data are telling us so. I'd have said that's more likely than the idea that these people were actually both cheerful and depressed at the same time, which seems like a contradiction in terms.

Maybe I'm wrong, and these people did feel that, but the problem is, we can't tell, because no-one actually sat down and asked these people what was going on, or heard their account of what they meant by ticking both the "depressed" and "manic" boxes.

Did they experience a strange mixed emotional state in which they simultaneously depressed and happy? Did their mood see-saw from one day to the next? Or weekly, monthly? Were they depressed in the day and happier in the evening? Were they depressed, then back to normal, leading them to see the normal as a 'high', by comparison with the lows? Were they depressed when sober and happy when drunk? Vice versa? Are they experiencing normal ups and downs and interpreting them as 'mood swings' because they've become convinced, for whatever reason, that they have a mood disorder? Did they just have a poor command of English and weren't really trying to say what the highly-educated investigators assume they were?

Who knows? No-one, because no-one asked. Rely on questionnaire 'measures' (as if emotions can be measured) as a replacement for understanding, and you'll end up where this paper does - with a 'result' that's impossible to understand.

Don't seek, and ye shan't find.

It's not great news for the DSM-5 proposals, either way, although defenders could hold out hope that the differences between those criteria and the PDSQ measure might mean the DSM-5 will perform better...

 Perlis, R., Cusin, C., and Fava, M. (2012). Proposed DSM-5 mixed features are associated with greater likelihood of remission in out-patients with major depressive disorder Psychological Medicine, 1-7 DOI: 10.1017/S0033291712000281

Ketamine - Magic Antidepressant, or Expensive Illusion?

Not one but two new papers have appeared from the Carlos Zarate group at NIMH reporting that a single injection of the drug ketamine has rapid, powerful antidepressant effects.

One placebo-controlled study found a benefit in depressed bipolar patients who were already on mood stabilizers. The other found benefits in treatment-resistant major depression, though ketamine wasn't compared to placebo that time. Here's the bipolar trial:

There have now been several studies finding dramatic antidepressant effects of ketamine, a compound that all journalists seem contractually bound to call either a or a "club drug" or a "horse-tranquilizer". Great news?

If you believe it. But hold your, er, horses... there's a problem. As I said almost 3 years ago about one of the earlier ketamine trials:

In theory, the trial was double blind - neither the patients nor the doctors knew whether they were getting ketamine or placebo. But you'll know when you've been injected with 0.5mg/kg ketamine. You get high. That's why people take it [recreationally]. The study can't really be called double blind.

To their credit, Zarate et al did acknowledge this, and suggested that in future ketamine could be compared to another drug which produces noticeable effects. But they really should have done that to begin with.

It's now 2012, and there have still not been any published studies comparing ketamine to an active comparator i.e. a different drug that produces noticable psychoactive effects, to avoid unblinding. This means it's 12 years since the initial pilot report on ketamine in depression, and 6 years since the first large trial appeared.

The authors of the 2006 paper themselves wrote that "limitations in preserving study blind may have biased patient reporting... One potential study design in future studies with ketamine might be to include an active comparator" and suggested amphetamine for the big role.

Good idea. But six years later, we're still waiting. Which is really a bit silly. There have been dozens of papers written about the possible antidepressant effects of ketamine, from human trials to mouse work. That's a lot of research dollars (and dead mice) on something that might just be an active placebo.

Looking at the registered ketamine research on clinicaltrials.gov, I found that four active-comparator ketamine trials are in the pipeline (1,2,3,4), plus one cancelled (5). Only one is for depression though. The others being for OCD, cocaine dependence and suicidal ideation.

In all of these trials a benzodiazepine is the active comparator. Is that a good idea? Well, it's certainly better than nothing, but I wonder.

An active comparator has to "make an impression" on the patient equal to that produced by the real drug.  The null hypothesis, remember, is that ketamine has no specific antidepressant effect. That means it produces improvement through a combination of a) the placebo effect (expectation) and b) non-specific psychoactive changes.

More on that second one: any psychoactive drug might relieve depression by "taking your mind off it" and a change in mental state, as provided by a drug, also provides a demonstration that "I won't always feel this way". By showing that states of consciousness are products of brain chemistry, almost any drug could therefore offer a "glimmer of hope" to the depressed. If all this sounds very subjective, it is, but that's the point. Psychiatry is.

Would a benzo make as big an impression as 0.5 mg/kg ketamine IV? It's impossible to predict, really; so we'd need to ask people about the subjective strength of the drug effect. Personally, I worry that a lot of people just get sleepy on benzos and don't really feel much, so I'd prefer they used something a bit more hard-hitting like amphetamine, but maybe that's just me.

There's a deeper problem though. Suppose our ketamine-benzo trial finds no difference between ketamine and benzo. A critic could say, ah, but maybe it was just a "failed trial", so it doesn't overturn the positive studies. The patients weren't properly diagnosed, or weren't depressed enough, or were too depressed, etc.

Nitpicking such differences between studies is a well-practiced art.

Critics could complain in other ways if the study did find a benefit of ketamine. As I see it, the only way to settle this once and for all is to do a three-way randomized controlled trial - inactive placebo vs. active comparator vs. ketamine.

That way, if it's a failed trial, we'd know: there'd be no difference between ketamine and the inactive placebo. If there was a difference, but the active comparator was just as good as ketamine, that means it was all about nonspecific effets. Finally, if ketamine was better than the other two conditions, we could be pretty confident it was really working.

Also important is the question of volunteer expertise; subjects shouldn't be able to tell what drug they're on, but people who'd taken ketamine and/or the comparator drug before might be able to do that, so you'd want naive volunteers.

In conclusion: It's possible that ketamine has no specific antidepressant effects. To find out we ideally need a three-way trial, with both active and inactive comparators, careful monitoring of subjective drug effects and patient knowledge and expectations. Until that happens, I will be skeptical of ketamine in depression.

This is not because I just think it's impossible. Ketamine profoundly affects the brain in ways that we don't understand. I've suffered depression and I know it can come and go in a matter of minutes. So I think it's entirely possible that it works - but it's also possible that it's a nonspecific effect.

Look. I really want to know the answer to this. Both as a neuroscientist, and as a depression sufferer, this is very important to me. That's why we urgently need a good trial.

Link: See also the discussion and the comments over at The Neurocritic and this Scientific American piece which is pretty good except that it doesn't cover the active placebo issue.


Zarate CA Jr, Brutsche NE, Ibrahim L, Franco-Chaves J, Diazgranados N, Cravchik A, Selter J, Marquardt CA, Liberty V, and Luckenbaugh DA (2012). Replication of Ketamine's Antidepressant Efficacy in Bipolar Depression: A Randomized Controlled Add-On Trial. Biological psychiatry PMID: 22297150

Ibrahim, L., et al. (2012). Course of Improvement in Depressive Symptoms to a Single Intravenous Infusion of Ketamine vs Add-on Riluzole: Results from a 4-Week, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Neuropsychopharmacology DOI: 10.1038/npp.2011.338

Beware Reverse Publication Bias

In all the fuss over the pressure for scientists to publish positive results, we may have been missing an equally dangerous kind of publication bias operating in the opposite direction.

So say Luijendijk and Koolman in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology: The incentive to publish negative studies: how beta-blockers and depression got stuck in the publication cycle.

The background here is the possible link between beta blockers and depression. Beta blockers are drugs widely used to treat high blood pressure. Some studies have reported that they raise the risk of depression, though many others found no link. Propranolol is said by some to be the worst offender because it's best at entering the brain.

Luijendijk and Koolman say that beta blocker-depression studies have appeared in the form of "publication cycles" - first a positive study appears, and then negative ones follow. Then another study finds a positive link using a different method - and rebuttals, using those methods, soon appear. They sketch out several such positive-negative cycles based on different methods and particular hypotheses.

Now, there's two ways to look at this. You could explain this in terms of standard positive publication bias. Maybe lots of people looked into a possible link, the ones who found nothing didn't publish. Then someone, by chance, did find an association with depression, and they published it. Once that happens, the question became a hot topic so the unpublished negative studies were dusted off and submitted.

But there's a more worrying possibility. What if the original positive studies were correct, and the subsequent negative studies were the product of an inverse publication bias in favor of contrarian negative results?

The publication cycles in the literature about beta-blockers and depression seem to suggest that
the very publication of positive studies, whether true or false, increases the incentive to publish negative results, whether true or false... [in the case in question] the first as well as a significant number of subsequent negative studies were published in high-impact journals (8 of 19 journals with 2009 impact factor greater than 4.0). Third, power analysis showed thatd in two cycles, the first negative studies were underpowered...

If a true-positive study stimulated the publication of one or more false-negative studies, again an invalid picture of the true association would emerge. Publication of false-negative studies may thus give rise to publication bias, just like publication of false-positive studies. Research groups usually compete to get the first positive study published in a high-impact journal. It has been suggested that it could also be worthwhile to aim at getting the first study that challenges the former published.

This is not an entirely new idea. It was described in the classic Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, but only in passing.

To be honest it's impossible to know, in any particular case, whether inverse publication bias is at work. Depending upon whether you think beta blockers cause depression (and that's still controversial), your interpretation of the biases in the literature will probably differ.

However, I think the basic idea is important. Publication bias isn't a bias in favor of positive results per se. It's a bias towards "interesting" results - which in most cases means positive ones, but could equally well include negative ones, in certain contexts. In some ways, this could be a good thing, if the negative and positive biases eventually cancelled out, leaving a neutral playing field; but there's no guarantee that would ever happen.

As for how to fix publication bias - my opinions on that question are well known...

Luijendijk, H., and Koolman, X. (2012). The incentive to publish negative studies: how beta-blockers and depression got stuck in the publication cycle Journal of Clinical Epidemiology DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.022

The Trojan Horses of Medicine

Dodgy science is being smuggled into medical journals thanks to a loophole in the regulations, say Italian psychiatrists Barbui and Cipriani in an important article.

They focus on agomelatine, a recently-approved antidepressant. But their point applies to all of medicine, not just psychiatry.

Here's the problem. Nowadays, major medical journals have rules governing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trial data. If you want to review the evidence about how well a certain drug works, or its safety, you've got to do it properly. You have to consider all of the data, not just focus on the results that suit you. And so on.

However, these rules don't apply to "narrative" review papers, which is a broad term meaning any kind of article meant to give a discussion of the pharmacology, history, chemistry etc. behind a particular drug. For a narrative review, there are no rules.

In particular, you can write about the clinical trial data in such articles with no restrictions. Unlike in a proper systematic review, you can cherry-pick trials and so on to your heart's content. Some narrative reviews have so much clinical data in them that they end up being, in effect, a bad systematic review. One that would never have been deemed acceptable as a systematic review.

Barbui and Cipriani argue that narrative reviews are often used in this way, namely to paint drugs in a positive light. In the case of agomelatine, they mention a number of recent narrative reviews which were supposedly about the drug's mechanism of action, but which actually contained extensive (but biased) reviews of the clinical trial data.

It's not hard to see how pharmaceutical companies might take advantage of this process.

However, the problem is surely not limited to agomelatine. It's a loophole that affects every branch of medicine:

Most medical journals require adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). It is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Adherence to PRISMA is not required in review articles dealing with basic science issues as these articles are not focused on clinical trials.

In practice, however, the agomelatine case indicates that clinical data are regularly included and reviewed with no reference to the rigorous requirements of the PRISMA approach. These articles have this way became a modern Trojan horse for reintroducing the brave old world of narrative-based medicine into medical journals.

How do we stop this? It's simple, the authors say: just make all references to clinical data subject to PRISMA, or other accepted regulations, whatever the supposed 'primary focus' of the paper:

We argue that medical journals should urgently apply this higher standard of reporting, which is already available, easy to implement and inexpensive, to any form of clinical data presentation.

Of course, there are plenty of good narrative reviews that really do cover the pharmacology or other science in a useful way. The problem is not narrative reviews as such, but the way they're used.

Barbui, C., and Cipriani, A. (2012). Agomelatine and the brave old world of narrative-based medicine Evidence-Based Mental Health, 15 (1), 2-3 DOI: 10.1136/ebmh.2011.100485

Challenging the Antidepressant Severity Dogma?

Regular readers will be familiar with the idea that "antidepressants only work in severe depression".

A number of recent studies have shown this. I've noted some important questions over how we ought to define "severe" in this context, and see the comments here for some other caveats, but I'm not aware of any studies that directly contradict this idea.

Until now. A new paper has just come out which seeks to challenge this dogma - not the author's term, but I think it's fair to say that the severity theory is becoming a dogma, even if it's an evidence-based one (but then, all dogmas start out seeming reasonable).

However, while the new paper is interesting, I think the dogma survives intact.

The authors went through the archives of all of the trials of antidepressants for depressive disorders conducted at the famous New York State Psychiatric Institute for the past 30 years. They excluded any patients who were severely depressed, and just looked at the milder cases. The drugs were mostly the older tricyclic antidepressants.

With a mean HAMD17 score of about 14, the patients they looked at were certainly mild. By comparison, most trials today have a mean of well over 20, and according to the main studies supporting the severity dogma, you need a score of about 25ish to benefit substantially:

So what happened? They reanalyzed 6 trials with over 800 patients. Overall there was a highly significant effect of antidepressants over placebo in mild depression, with an effect size d=0.52, or about 3.5 HAMD points. This is actually better than most other studies have found in "severe" depression. If valid, these results would torpedo the severity theory.

This seems very interesting... but. There's a big but (I cannot lie). Although the authors say they wanted to include all the relevant trials from the NYSPI, they only had access to the data from 6. There were another 6 projects, but they were "pharmaceutical company studies from which data were not released to the investigators."

This pretty much wrecks the whole deal. If those 6 studies all found no benefit of the drug, the overall average results would be much less impressive. We have no way of knowing what those studies found, but I'd wager that most of them were negative, because of publication bias - we know that drug companies tend to publish positive studies and bury negative ones. Or at least they did, at the time these studies took place (there are better regulations now).

By contrast, severity dogma classic Kirsch et al (2008) avoided publication bias by looking at unpublished data. Fournier et al (2010), the other major severity study, didn't but the data were very similar to Kirsch et al so it's not hard to believe them.

So in my view, until we know what happened in the other 6 trials, we can't really interpret these results, and the severity theory stands.

Stewart, J., Deliyannides, D., Hellerstein, D., McGrath, P., and Stewart, J. (2011). Can People With Nonsevere Major Depression Benefit From Antidepressant Medication? The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry DOI: 10.4088/JCP.10m06760

The Real Story On That "Antidepressant Surge"

Remember last week's story about how depression rates are soaring in Britain? It was all triggered by "new data" about an increase in antidepressant prescriptions.

At the time I was skeptical, not least because the data wasn't actually new, but I've done a bit more digging and it turns out the media coverage was even more misleading than I thought.

Here's some pretty graphs from the NHS Information Centre. I reiterate that all of these are freely available and have been for ages. Here's the one for antidepressants:

They've been rising strongly! In total prescription rates are about 60% higher now compared to in 2006. Oh dear.

What the papers didn't tell you is that pretty much every other class of drug has also increased over that period, by even more in some cases. Here's ADHD drugs, and dementia pills, which have increased by about 75% and 100% respectively:

There have also been steady increases in anticonvulsants and a 40% increase in meds for Parkinson's disease. All of the graphs are here.

So this suggests that there's been a general increase in prescriptions for brain drugs. But in fact it's even wider than that because if we look at the same data for cardiovascular system drugs, we find the same picture for most (although not all) kinds of these medications.

And for painkillers, we find over 50% increases in prescriptions of the stronger opioid drugs, a 20% increase in migraine drugs etc etc. I swear I'm not just copying and pasting the same graph.

Now clearly, all of these increased prescriptions don't mean that there are simultaneous explosions in rates of dementia, heart disease, pain, migraine, Parkinson's and ADHD, all in the past 5 years. We would have noticed if that were the case.

What's happened, clearly, is that doctors are just writing more prescriptions nowadays.

So it's misleading to say that there's been a spike in antidepressant prescriptions. Yes it's technically true but it ignores the context. The truth is that we seem to be experiencing a cultural shift in our relationship to medications - perhaps evidence of the creeping medicalization of life (although there are more prosaic explanations that need to be ruled out before we conclude that; this could be a bureaucratic change in the way prescriptions are counted.)

However, "Escalating Depression Crisis - Antidepressant Use Soars" is a better headline than "Possible Medicalization Gradually Continues For Sixth Year In Row".

The truth, sadly, has an inherent disadvantage in the battle for news coverage. If we find the truth boring, it's easy for someone to come along and make up something attention grabbing. But the only easy way to make the truth more interesting is to make it, well, less true.

Antidepressants: Bad Drugs... Or Bad Patients?

Why is it that modern trials of antidepressant drugs increasingly show no benefit of the drugs over placebo? This is the question asked by Cornell psychiatrists Brody et al in an American Journal of Psychiatry opinion piece.

They suggest that maybe it's the patients fault:

Participation that is induced by cash payments may lead subjects to exaggerate their symptoms [i.e. in order to get included into the trial]... Another contributing factor to high placebo response rates may be the extent to which the volunteers in antidepressant trials are really generalizable to patients in clinical practice.

Since the initial antidepressant trials in the 1960s, participants have gone from being patients who were recruited primarily from inpatient psychiatric populations to outpatient volunteers who are often recruited by advertisements. At times, these symptomatic volunteers have participated in other trials. When we contact potential participants to schedule screening, they often ask to be reminded which trial we are screening for or mistake our research trial for a different protocol in which they recently participated.

They then recount the tale of two "professional subjects" who claimed to be depressed and enrolled in two antidepressant trials simultaneously, without telling the researchers; it only came to light when someone involved in both studies spotted the duplicate names.

I've been the victim of such nonsense myself, as have many of colleagues - it's a perennial watercooler topic. A few years ago I was running a study recruiting people who'd recovered from psychiatric illness. The main source of volunteers was online adverts.

That study was a learning experience. What I learned is that House was right. We recruited about 20 people. No fewer than 3 turned out to have enrolled in other studies and lied about it. After I realized this I Googled the offender's names and two of them turned up in the court pages of the local newspaper pleading guilty to various petty crimes.

Another volunteer was left handed and, upon realizing that I was only recruiting right-handed people, discretely switched his pen to his right hand and then took 5 minutes trying to fill out a form with his off hand. He didn't make it in, but if I hadn't been paying attention he would have.

So yes, it is a problem. However, it would have to be taking place on a massive scale for it to be having a significant effect on antidepressant trial results and this really seems pretty unlikely.

In my view, the authors miss out on the real problem with recruiting depressed people through adverts:  depressed people don't tend to respond to adverts, because depressed people don't do anything. That's why they call it depression.

Getting recruited into a modern clinical trial is actually quite a challenge. There are many pieces of paper to fill in, calls to return, appointments to attend. Turn up late to the screening visit, or otherwise make life difficult for the study staff, and you'll be marked down as "unreliable" and they'll find someone who plays by the rules. Modern trials are very expensive. The last thing a study sponsor wants is a volunteer who will end up forgetting to take their pills on time.

Depression, unfortunately, makes you bad at doing things. You procrastinate, you forget, you put things off until too late, you have a change of heart and decide not to, you get cold feet, you can't be bothered... That goes for things as simple as cooking dinner in severe cases, let alone something as complicated as taking part in a trial.

So while you wouldn't go looking for aquaphobic people in a swimming pool, I'm not sure we should be looking for depressed people through adverts.

Brody B, Leon AC, and Kocsis JH (2011). Antidepressant clinical trials and subject recruitment: just who are symptomatic volunteers? The American journal of psychiatry, 168 (12), 1245-7 PMID: 22193668

Britain - the Prozac Nation? Not So Fast...

Oh no! The stress of the recession has turned us into a nation of antidepressant addicts, according to every single British newspaper this morning.

The media coverage has been predictable with lots of scary, context-free statistics, and boilerplate quotes from the usual suspects. No doubt tomorrow we'll see a selection of moralistic op-eds about this.

But not one of the many nigh-identical articles provided a link to the original data, or even a useful description of where one might find it. After contacting one of the NHS organizations named as the source, I managed to track the numbers down.

It turns out that the key figures have been publicly available since April 2011, so I'm not sure why this story appeared in British "news"papers at all. Also, it would have been easy for journalists to link to the source, if they respected the intelligence of their readers enough to do that. I just did it and it wasn't terribly hard to click "Add Link".

On that note, I actually read a bizarre article today criticizing British journalists for providing too many links to their source data... if only.

Anyway, the data. Ben Goldacre has already written an excellent piece on this (in fact, he wrote it back in April 2011, curiously enough...see above), but here's some more detail.

First off, the data are all about antidepressants, not depression. A crucial distinction, there, because nowadays, antidepressants are widely used for all kinds of other things. Everything from other psychiatric disorders like anxiety and OCD, to non-psychiatric stuff like back and joint pain, premature ejaculation, and menopausal hot flushes.

We can't tell how much of the antidepressant use was for depression. But there are clues suggesting that a lot of it wasn't. It turns out that the second most popular antidepressant (after citalopram) was the very old drug amitriptyline, with nearly 9 million prescriptions per year - or 20% of the total.

Nowadays amitriptyline is rarely used for depression, because newer, less toxic alternatives are available. However it is used, in low doses, to treat chronic pain. So I suspect that pain accounts for a large % of amitriptyline use. That would also explain why the cost to the NHS per prescription of amitryptiline was by far the lowest of all antidepressants: low doses are cheap.

How about the increase over time?

The newspapers are correct that antidepressant use rose from 33.9 million prescriptions in the year 2007/8, to 43 million in 2010/2011. That's a 28% rise over 3 years. However, if we go 3 years further back to the equivalent 2004/5 Prescription Cost Analysis, we find that antidepressant prescriptions were 28.9 million. So they rose 17% in the 3 years before 2007/8, long before the recession was on the horizon.

The recent 28% rise, in other words, is unlikely to be related to the recession, at least not entirely.

We also know(1,2) that the number of antidepressant prescriptions per person has been rising over the past several years in the UK. So the increase in prescriptions might not even mean more antidepressant users - it might just mean that the same number of users are using more each. (And that could mean anything, including that bureaucracies are saving money by prescribing for shorter periods).

One study found that there was no increase in the number of people taking antidepressants for depression from 1993 to 2005, with all of the rise in prescriptions over that period being a product of more prescriptions per person.

Another study did find a true rise in users from 1995 to 2007, albeit lower than the raw figures would suggest, but those figures were limited to a particular part of Scotland and it wasn't just about depression - it included all other uses of these drugs as well.

Overall, it's just impossible to know, from these data, whether there's been a true increase in antidepressant use for depression in recent years. The most we can say is that there might have been one, and if so it might have something to do with the economy.

Young, Canadian and on Antipsychotics

Antipsychotic use in Canadian children and teens is rising dramatically - prescriptions more than doubled in just 4 years, from 2005 to 2009.

That's according to a paper just out from Pringsheim et al. It's been known for a while that broadly the same is true of the USA. The data reveal that the Canadian border is no barrier to the spread of antipsychotics.

What's surprising is that while in the USA, some of these drugs are officially licensed for use in certain children and adolescent psychiatric disorders, in Canada all such use is off-label. That didn't stop there being nearly 700,000 youth prescriptions for an antipsychotic in 2009, in a country with a total population of 35 million - although bear in mind that this includes multiple prescriptions for the same person.

The growth in antipsychotics is accounted for by the second-generation "atypical" antipsychotics. Risperidone (Risperdal) was the biggest success story accounting for well over half of the total.


What's disturbing about this, as I've said before, is not so much the fact that these drugs are being used but the speed of the growth. It represents a fundamental shift in the way children and adolescent mental health problems are treated, one which has happened so fast that it's hard to believe that there was time to properly think through the consequences...

Use of SSRI antidepressants and psychostimulants (mainly ADHD drug methylphenidate, Ritalin) also rose between 05 and 09, but only by about 40%. That means that there were more antipsychotic than SSRI prescriptions in children and teens by 09, which is pretty remarkable.

Only 13% of the youth antipsychotic recommendations were actually for psychosis, the original indication of the drugs. The leading diagnosis was ADHD, which is odd, because the main drugs for ADHD, such as Ritalin, boost dopamine release, while antipsychotics block dopamine's effects via D2 receptors.


Other popular indications were mood disorders and conduct disorders. Overall, the fact that the vast majority of the antipsychotic prescriptions were not for psychosis confirms the view that the term "antipsychotic" for these drugs is misleading.

Pringsheim T, Lam D, and Patten SB (2011). The Pharmacoepidemiology of Antipsychotic Medications for Canadian Children and Adolescents: 2005-2009. Journal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology PMID: 22136092

"Mad Honey" Sex Is A Bad Idea

A cautionary tale from Turkey - do not eat poison honey to try to spice up your sex life.

"Mad honey" is honey made by bees from the nectar of toxic Rhododendron flowers. In places where wild Rhododendrons grow, including Turkey, it's a health hazard. The dangers of mad honey were known to the ancient Greeks and Romans, and it's reported that leaving tainted honeycombs in the path of invading armies was a popular military tactic.

2000 years later, some people still haven't quite got the message. According to a case report from cardiologists Yarlioglues et al, a married couple deliberately ate some mad honey "for reasons of sexual performance".

After eating one teaspoon per day for a week, they decided to crank it up a notch and ate a full tablespoon of the stuff. But their attempt to heighten their Turkish delight quickly turned sour, as they both suffered symptoms of confusion, chest pain, low blood pressure and slowed heartbeat. After presenting themselves to hospital, doctors discovered that they had both suffered an acute inferior myocardial infarction - a mild heart attack.

It's not clear whether the sex was a contributing factor.

The randy Rhododendron fans were lucky - following treatment, they both recovered. In fact, the authors say "To our knowledge, no fatal cases of mad-honey poisoning have been reported since ancient Roman times." However, it seems that some people are still willing to try their luck.

The toxin in mad honey is gryanotoxin. It acts by potentiating the opening of sodium channels, which are found both in the heart and the brain. This may be why it produces a combination of cardiovascular and psychoactive effects.

Mikail Yarlioglues et al (2011). Mad-Honey Sexual Activity and Acute Inferior Myocardial Infarctions in a Married Couple Texas Heart Institute Journal

A Psychedelic Tale of Two Neurotransmitters

An unexpected interaction between neurotransmitter systems may explain psychosis and hallucinations, according to a fascinating new paper.

Serotonin (5HT) and glutamate are two neurotransmitters. Up until now, it was thought that they acted independently. A given neuron might have receptors for both serotonin and glutamate, but they didn't interact: serotonin would never affect the glutamate receptors, and vice versa.

The new research overturns that view. Authors Miguel Fribourg and colleagues of Mount Sinai School of Medicine show, in a series of elegant experiments in mice, that different receptors can cluster together, forming a complex. The two receptors, serotonin's 5HT2A and glutamate's mGluR2, can talk to each other.

However, this doesn't seem to happen under normal conditions. Serotonin and glutamate don't seem to trigger the receptor interaction, or at least not very much. Only certain drugs can do it. And this is where it gets really interesting.

Psychedelic drugs, like LSD, have long been thought of as 5HT2A agonists, binding to the receptor and activating it. It turns out that this was only half right. They also inhibit mGluR2 transmission via the receptor complex. Serotonin itself is a 5HT2A agonist, but it doesn't do that. So psychedelics seem to be a kind of (for want of a better word) "superagonist".

It also works in reverse. The antipsychotic drugs clozapine and risperidone are known as 5HT2A antagonists. But Fribourg et al show that they also activate the mGluR2 receptor.

And the cross-talk can go in the other direction. Certain molecules that act on mGluR2 can either inhibit or promote 5HT2A. Unlike psychedelics and antipsychotics, these mGluR2 drugs have not been tested in humans yet. But these data predict that they will have psychedelic-like or antipsychotic-like effects, depending which way they work.

The interaction turns out to be all about G proteins, which are part of the chain of transmitter substances that convey signals within the cell, in response to neurotransmitters outside it. Here's a chart showing the effects of various drugs on the balance between different G proteins: the LSD-like psychedelic DOI has the opposite effect from the antipsychotics clozapine and risperidone.

This paper builds on a previous one from the same team showing that psychedelic 5HT2A "agonists" (like LSD and DOI) have different effects on G proteins from other, non-psychedelic agonists. That was interesting in itself but by adding glutamate to the picture, this new paper is really ground-breaking.

This goes a long way to explaining one of the mysteries of serotonin which is this:  if 5HT2A agonists like LSD are psychedelic, why aren't antidepressants the same? Almost all antidepressants work by increasing extracellular 5HT levels. That ought to mean that they activate 5HT2A receptors (indirectly). This explains why not - 5HT alone doesn't promote the crucial 5HT2A-mGluR2 interaction.

Taken together, these interesting results show clearly that 5HT2A and mGluR2 are hooking up and doing something exciting. Certainly in terms of how hallucinogens work.

I'm less convinced that this can directly explain antipsychotic effects though. The problem is that while newer "atypical" antipsychotics act on 5HT2A, the older antipsychotics don't, and atypicals are at best only slightly more effective on average.

What we don't yet know is whether this kind of complex receptor interactions can happen with other receptors. I'd have thought it unlikely that these two receptors were the only ones that could ever do it. The synapse looks like it's more complex than we could have imagined.

Fribourg M, et al. (2011). Decoding the Signaling of a GPCR Heteromeric Complex Reveals a Unifying Mechanism of Action of Antipsychotic Drugs. Cell, 147 (5), 1011-23 PMID: 22118459

A Dangerous Truth about Antidepressants

An opinion piece by veteran psychiatrist and antidepressant drug researcher Sheldon Preskorn contains a remarkable historical note -

“A dangerous idea!” That was the response after a presentation I gave to a small group of academic leaders with an interest in psychopharmacology [over 15 years ago].

What evoked such a response? The acknowledgment that most currently available antidepressants specifically treat only one out of four patients with major depression based on the bulk of clinical trials data.

There was no argument about the accuracy of this statement, but...some claim it is “dangerous” to admit that the specific response rate to most antidepressants is 20%–30% because such an acknowledgment might undermine the value of antidepressant treatment.

By the "specific" response rate Preskorn means the number of depressed people who'll get better on antidepressants and who wouldn't have done so well on placebo. This rate is fairly low because, while most people get better on antidepressants, most of those improve on placebo as well.

Preskorn rejects the view that it's dangerous to acknowledge this:

...there are several problems with this reaction. First, it is hard to deny reality. The “placebo” response rate in antidepressant trials is arguably the most reproducible finding in psychiatry. Moreover, if available antidepressants were magic bullets, then polypharmacy would not be so common. Second, this reaction ignores the fact that antidepressants are tremendously valuable to the patients who specifically benefit from them...

Every treatment in every area of medicine has limitations. Acknowledging that fact should galvanize us to action. Denial on the other hand perpetuates the status quo.

Unfortunately, we're not told who these academic leaders were. I wonder if they included amongst their ranks some of the "key opinion leaders" in the field whose leadership proved rather less than ideal. The column is actually adapted from a 1996 article by Preskorn.

Preskorn is right, of course, that denying the fact that antidepressants are only substantially better than placebo in a fraction of people who get diagnosed with "depression" is wrong, and also misses the point: because hundreds of millions of Americans have diagnosable depression (due to the loose definition of "depression"), even if they only helped 1% of them, they'd still help over a million people.

But he doesn't mention that this approach was ultimately self-defeating. As a result of the failure to acknowledge that antidepressants are only helpful in some cases of depression (namely "severe" depression), these drugs became very widely used and - oh dear - people started saying that the drugs are being overused, and don't work in most people who take them.

Whoever could have seen that coming.

This has "devalued" antidepressants - and psychiatry itself - more than anything else has.

Preskorn SH (2011). What Do the Terms "Drug-Specific Response/Remission Rate" and "Placebo" Really Mean? Journal of psychiatric practice, 17 (6), 420-424 PMID: 22108399

Another Antidepressant Bites The Dust

Yet another up-and-coming antidepressant has flopped.

A paper just out reveals that the snappily-named GSK372475 doesn't work and has lots of side effects. It's a report of two clinicals trials in which Glaxo's contender was pitched against placebo and against older antidepressants in the treatment of depression.

GSK372475 failed to improve depression any better than placebo, even though the trials were large (393 and 504 patients respectively) and twice as long as most antidepressant trials (10 weeks whereas 4 or 6 is more usual)which ought to have given it plenty of room to shine.

The comparison drugs, the widely used venlafaxine and paroxetine, did work. A bit.

One of the trials even used the Bech "Melancholia Subscale" as an outcome measure, which Neuroskeptic readers may remember as I've praised it before. Venlafaxine worked on that, GSK's new pill didn't. If anything, the new drug was worse than placebo, in that patients improved slower.

In terms of side effects it caused dry mouth, insomnia, and nausea serious enough to make many people quit the study early. But even worse, it raised heart rate by almost 10 beats per minute on average, which is really never a good sign.

So, overall, it was an utter flop. In one sense this is not surprising. New "antidepressants" that don't work in trials have been all too common recently. Just last week we learned about the failure of "Serdaxin" in a Phase II trial. Actually Serdaxin isn't a new drug but an old antibiotic called clavulanic acid that a company was trying to rebrand as a mood lifter.

However the failure of GSK372475 is a bit of a mystery. The drug is a potent triple reuptake inhibitor (TRI) which acts on the neurotransmitters serotonin, noradrenaline and dopamine. By contrast, venlafaxine is a double reuptake inhibitor which doesn't hit dopamine, and paroxetine only targets serotonin. I've written about other TRIs before.

Now it seems surprising that venlafaxine worked, but a TRI didn't, in the same trial. That would imply that blocking the reuptake of dopamine makes you more depressed, enough to cancel out the other actions which are shared with venlafaxine. Which is not what I'd have predicted.

There are other differences between the drugs though. Venlafaxine has a very short half-life - it's broken down in the body in a matter of hours. But GSK372475 has a halflife of 8-10 days. Could this be the problem?

Learned S, Graff O, Roychowdhury S, Moate R, Krishnan KR, Archer G, Modell JG, Alexander R, Zamuner S, Evoniuk G, & Ratti E (2011). Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a triple reuptake inhibitor GSK372475 in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder: two randomized, placebo- and active-controlled clinical trials. Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) PMID: 22048884

Susan Greenfield's Dopamine Disaster

It's Susan Greenfield again.

Continuing her campaign warning of the dangers of modern technology in terms of their effects on the vulnerable brains of the young, the British neuroscientist and Baroness has written another article. This is the latest of many. None of them have been in peer reviewed academic journals.

This one's behind the Great Times Paywall so I can't link to it, but it's called Are video games taking away our identities?

The first part of the article is hard to argue against. Either you'll agree with it or you won't. Personally, videogames as Greenfield describes them bear little resemblance to any games that I've played recently. Similarly for her account of the Internet. But maybe this rings true for some:

Screen images do not depend for their impact on seeing one thing in terms of anything else. Their premium lies invariably in their raw sensory content... we are perhaps heading towards a much weaker sense of identity by engaging in a world where we are the passive recipient of senses and where there is no fixed narrative of past and future but an atomised thrill of the moment. One could even suggest that the constant self-centred readout on Twitter belies a more childlike insecurity, an existential crisis.

Greenfield then moves into discussing the brain, and this is where the science comes in. This is her "home turf" - she's Professor of physiology at Oxford. Yet it's a shambles.

There is one alarm bell ringing, which suggests that increasing 2D screen existence may be having undesirable effects: it is the threefold increase over the past decade in prescriptions for drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

While this could be due to changes in doctors’ prescribing procedures, or indeed to a greater recognition and medicalisation of attentional problems, a third possibility could indeed be that if the young brain is exposed from the outset to a world of fast action-reaction, of instant new screen images flashing up with each press of a key, then such rapid interchange might lead to a shorter attention span.

The human condition can be basically divided into two alternating modes, first described by Euripedes... the rational “bread force”, characterised by a strong cognitive take on the world — a personalised past, present and future, in turn related to an active prefrontal cortex and lower levels of the brain chemical dopamine; and the “wine force”, more the state of young children or those adults indulging in “letting themselves go”, in situations perhaps involving wine, women and song, where a strong sensory environment demands less reflection, more passive reaction.

...An increase in physiological arousal can be linked to excessive release of dopamine. Could the screen experience be tilting this ancient balance in favour of the more infantile, senses-driven brain state?

Greenfield says that high dopamine and low prefrontal cortex activity is associated with irrationality and a deficit in attention. Video games are causing a flood of dopamine and causing ADHD. That would make sense, if ADHD was caused by too much dopamine, and if drugs for ADHD reduced dopamine release.

The problem is that it's the exact opposite. Drugs for ADHD increase dopamine release and ADHD is widely believed (although it's controversial) to be caused by a dopamine deficit.

Greenfield then says "We know too that dopamine suppresses the activity of neurons in the prefrontal cortex", but this is a serious oversimplification. Dopamine has complex effects on target neurons. It can inhibit firing, but it can also excite it. It all depends on the conditions. Here's what the authors of an influential scientific review said in 2004: "It is agreed by most researchers is that dopamine is a neuromodulator and is clearly not an excitatory or inhibitory neurotransmitter"

Some say that dopamine helps to "tune" the prefrontal by increasing the signal to noise ratio - more signal, less noise. Here's one of the most cited papers about dopamine and the PFC: Cognitive deficit caused by regional depletion of dopamine in prefrontal cortex of rhesus monkey.

Remember that drugs for ADHD like Ritalin, which are sometimes used illicitly by students without that disorder to help them focus and concentrate, cause dopamine release. If Greenfield were right, it would be the exact opposite.

...[other] people characterised by an underactive prefrontal cortex are those with schizophrenia, this time not due to physical damage but rather a chemical imbalance, in particular an excessive amount of the transmitter dopamine. In schizophrenia, like children, the patient is easily distracted, cannot interpret proverbs, is not strong on metaphor but takes the world literally; it is a vibrant world that can implode on, and overwhelm, the fragile firewall of the schizophrenic mindset.

This again is a serious simplification. Actually, you don't need to be a neuroscientist to work that out. Just recall the earlier bit: Greenfield has said that ADHD is caused by too much dopamine leading to an underactive prefrontal cortex. Now she says that schizophrenia is the same. So why are the symptoms of ADHD completely different from schizophrenia?

Why is it, in fact, that Ritalin and similar dopamine releasing drugs help with ADHD, but can make schizophrenia worse?

As a neuroscientist, I can tell you that we don't really know what's going on with dopamine in ADHD or schizophrenia. There's decent evidence that dopamine is involved in schizophrenia, but not in any straightforward sense. Schizophrenia is now believed to be linked to reduced dopamine in the prefrontal cortex, and too much in other areas.

As for ADHD, remember: the leading theory is that it's about too little dopamine. Not too much.

The only disease that we know certainly is associated with too little dopamine is Parkinson's. Contrary to Greenfield's theory, people with Parkinson's often have cognitive and mood problems as well as the better known difficulties with movements. They're not super intelligent, prefrontal-cortex-wielding geniuses.

I appreciate that an opinion piece in the Times is never going to be a rigorously argued scientific paper, but the fact that Greenfield's article contains several claims which are the exact opposite of the truth (or at least of current scientific thinking) calls her credibility into serious question.