Hengartner Michael P
Department of Applied Psychology, Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), Zurich, Switzerland.
Front Psychiatry. 2017 Dec 7;8:275. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00275. eCollection 2017.
In current psychiatric practice, antidepressants are widely and with ever-increasing frequency prescribed to patients. However, several scientific biases obfuscate estimates of antidepressants' efficacy and harm, and these are barely recognized in treatment guidelines. The aim of this mini-review is to critically evaluate the efficacy and harm of antidepressants for acute and maintenance treatment with respect to systematic biases related to industry funding and trial methodology.
Narrative review based on a comprehensive search of the literature.
It is shown that the pooled efficacy of antidepressants is weak and below the threshold of a minimally clinically important change once publication and reporting biases are considered. Moreover, the small mean difference in symptom reductions relative to placebo is possibly attributable to observer effects in unblinded assessors and patient expectancies. With respect to trial dropout rates, a hard outcome not subjected to observer bias, no difference was observed between antidepressants and placebo. The discontinuation trials on the efficacy of antidepressants in maintenance therapy are systematically flawed, because in these studies, spontaneous remitters are excluded, whereas half of all patients who remitted on antidepressants are abruptly switched to placebo. This can cause a severe withdrawal syndrome that is easily misdiagnosed as a relapse when assessed on subjective symptom rating scales. In accordance, the findings of naturalistic long-term studies suggest that maintenance therapy has no clear benefit, and non-drug users do not show increased recurrence rates. Moreover, a growing body of evidence from hundreds of randomized controlled trials suggests that antidepressants cause suicidality, but this risk is underestimated because data from industry-funded trials are systematically flawed. Unselected, population-wide observational studies indicate that depressive patients who use antidepressants are at an increased risk of suicide and that they have a higher rate of all-cause mortality than matched controls.
The strong reliance on industry-funded research results in an uncritical approval of antidepressants. Due to several flaws such as publication and reporting bias, unblinding of outcome assessors, concealment and recoding of serious adverse events, the efficacy of antidepressants is systematically overestimated, and harm is systematically underestimated. Therefore, I conclude that antidepressants are largely ineffective and potentially harmful.
在当前的精神科临床实践中,抗抑郁药被广泛且越来越频繁地开给患者。然而,一些科学偏见模糊了对抗抑郁药疗效和危害的评估,而这些在治疗指南中几乎未被认识到。本综述的目的是根据与行业资助和试验方法相关的系统偏见,批判性地评估抗抑郁药在急性和维持治疗中的疗效和危害。
基于对文献的全面检索进行叙述性综述。
研究表明,一旦考虑发表和报告偏倚,抗抑郁药的综合疗效较弱,低于最小临床重要变化的阈值。此外,相对于安慰剂,症状减轻的平均差异较小,这可能归因于未设盲评估者的观察效应和患者的期望。关于试验脱落率这一不受观察偏倚影响的硬性结果,抗抑郁药与安慰剂之间未观察到差异。抗抑郁药维持治疗疗效的停药试验存在系统性缺陷,因为在这些研究中,自发缓解者被排除在外,而所有接受抗抑郁药治疗缓解的患者中有一半突然被换用安慰剂。这可能导致严重的戒断综合征,在使用主观症状评定量表评估时很容易被误诊为复发。相应地,自然主义长期研究的结果表明维持治疗没有明显益处,未使用药物者也未显示复发率增加。此外,来自数百项随机对照试验的越来越多的证据表明抗抑郁药会导致自杀行为,但这种风险被低估了,因为行业资助试验的数据存在系统性缺陷。未经选择的全人群观察性研究表明,使用抗抑郁药的抑郁症患者自杀风险增加,且全因死亡率高于匹配的对照组。
对行业资助研究结果的强烈依赖导致对抗抑郁药的盲目认可。由于发表和报告偏倚、结果评估者未设盲、严重不良事件的隐瞒和重新编码等诸多缺陷,抗抑郁药的疗效被系统性高估,危害被系统性低估。因此,我的结论是抗抑郁药在很大程度上无效且可能有害。