Effectiveness of antidepressants: an evidence myth constructed from a thousand randomized trials?

Antidepressants, in particular newer agents, are among the most widely prescribed medications worldwide with annual sales of billions of dollars. The introduction of these agents in the market has passed through seemingly strict regulatory control. Over a thousand randomized trials have been conducted with antidepressants. Statistically significant benefits have been repeatedly demonstrated and the medical literature is flooded with several hundreds of "positive" trials (both pre-approval and post-approval). However, two recent meta-analyses question this picture. The first meta-analysis used data that were submitted to FDA for the approval of 12 antidepressant drugs. While only half of these trials had formally significant effectiveness, published reports almost ubiquitously claimed significant results. "Negative" trials were either left unpublished or were distorted to present "positive" results. The average benefit of these drugs based on the FDA data was of small magnitude, while the published literature suggested larger benefits. A second meta-analysis using also FDA-submitted data examined the relationship between treatment effect and baseline severity of depression. Drug-placebo differences increased with increasing baseline severity and the difference became large enough to be clinically important only in the very small minority of patient populations with severe major depression. In severe major depression, antidepressants did not become more effective, simply placebo lost effectiveness. These data suggest that antidepressants may be less effective than their wide marketing suggests. Short-term benefits are small and long-term balance of benefits and harms is understudied. I discuss how the use of many small randomized trials with clinically non-relevant outcomes, improper interpretation of statistical significance, manipulated study design, biased selection of study populations, short follow-up, and selective and distorted reporting of results has built and nourished a seemingly evidence-based myth on antidepressant effectiveness and how higher evidence standards, with very large long-term trials and careful prospective meta-analyses of individual-level data may reach closer to the truth and clinically useful evidence.     

The 9th annual INDUS-EM 2013 Emergency Medicine Summit, “Principles,Practices, and Patients,” a level one international meeting,Kerala University of Health Sciences and Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute,Thrissur, Kerala,India, October 23–27, 2013

INDUS-EM is India’s only level one conference imparting and exchanging quality knowledge in acute care. Specifically, in general and specialized emergency care and training in trauma, burns, cardiac, stroke, environmental and disaster medicine. It provides a series of exchanges regarding academic development and implementation of training tools related to developing future academic faculty and residents in Emergency Medicine in India. The INDUS-EM leadership and board of directors invited scholars from multiple institutions to participate in this advanced educational symposium that was held in Thrissur, Kerala in October 2013.     

Computerized interpretation of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: a pilot study

Programs for the computer analysis and interpretation of neuropsychological test data have been developed in recent years. In this paper, a new computer program, with initial validation data, is presented. Diagnostic hit rate for brain damage was 80% (52 of 65). For the extent of brain damage the hit rate was 60% (12 of 20). When laterality was considered, the hit rate was 71% (10 of 14). These results are comparable with computer programs for data from the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychology Test Battery.     

The Hispanic Americans Baseline Alcohol Survey (HABLAS): Acculturation, Birthplace and Alcohol-Related Social Problems Across Hispanic National Groups

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between acculturation, birthplace, and alcohol-related social problems across Hispanic national groups. METHOD: 5,224 Hispanic adults (18+ years) were interviewed using a multistage cluster sample design in Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Houston, and Los Angeles. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis shows no association between acculturation and problems among men or women. Birthplace is a risk factor for social problems among both genders. Among men, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and South/Central Americans are more likely to report social problems than Cuban Americans. Other risk factors for men are unemployment, a higher volume of drinking, and a higher frequency of binge drinking. Among women, Mexican American origin and binge drinking are also risk factors for reporting problems. CONCLUSIONS: U.S.-born Hispanics may experience stress and other detrimental effects to health because of their minority status, which may increase the likelihood of more drinking and the development of alcohol-related problems.