Is there really any benefit to taking anti-depressants?

MORE Britons than ever are taking anti-depressant drugs – prescriptions for the most common type, known as SSRIs (serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors), rose by 165% between 1998 and 2012.

But a controversial new book, The Sedated Society, edited by James Davies, claims these drugs, said to correct a chemical imbalance in the brain, are the wrong thing to give to emotionally vulnerable people – adults or children. In an excoriating assessment of the drug industry and psychiatry, experts claim the evidence for anti-depressants is flawed and say the drugs have never been shown to correct a chemical imbalance. Yet millions are being prescribed drugs that are potentially extremely harmful. “The drugs have failed to deliver what patients want, which is for the treatment to work for specific mental or emotional problems. “So, there is no justification for widespread, life-long use,” says Professor Peter Gøtzsche, a highly regarded expert who specialises in clinical research, design and analysis at the University of Copenhagen.

“People are kept on these drugs for years. Clinicians claim this is to prevent a relapse, but the side-effects of stopping can be so severe it is preferable to stay on them.”

But this is not the only concern raised by the new book.

According to the 10 expert authors, drugs such as SSRIs and the heavyweight tranquillisers known as anti-psychotics, not only are no better than a placebo for most people, but some raise the risk of suicide in children and adults.

They also lower libido and could cause a deeply unpleasant muscular condition called tardive dyskinesia.

“The disease model has been a disaster,” says Gøtzsche.

“I have never seen any convincing evidence showing a psychiatric disease is causing brain damage, but have seen plenty that medication causes brain damage.”

Another reason to be suspicious of the theory is the extraordinary lengths the drug companies were prepared to go to get favourable results, such as hiding unfavourable ones or fudging the statistics, as Gøtzsche sets out in the new book.

A basic principle of randomised controlled trials (RCT) – the gold standard for testing any new drug – is that no one involved, doctor or patient, knows which group of patients is getting the drug and which the placebo.

But within two weeks of the main trial for Prozac starting, researchers for the manufacturer had ignored this principle and switched patients between groups, which improved results.

Even worse, to reduce the risk that Prozac raised the risk of suicide (a side-effect that had emerged in earlier trials), 25% of the patients getting Prozac were given a tranquilliser – though this information didn’t emerge at the time.

So what should be done to ensure that children and adults seeking help for depression get it in a safe and effective way?

Peter Kinderman, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Liverpool, another of the book’s authors, believes that the solution is to return to an approach that treats people’s emotional needs directly, rather than with drugs on the basis of an unproven theory about brain chemistry.

“Mental health should no longer be controlled by psychiatrists,” says Professor Kinderman, who is president of the British Psychological Society.

“They are the profession that prescribes drugs for mental disorders, and improvements would come from cutting back prescribing to almost zero.” – Daily Mail