Econstudentlog

Depression (II)

I have added some more quotes from the last half of the book as well as some more links to relevant topics below.

“The early drugs used in psychiatry were sedatives, as calming a patient was probably the only treatment that was feasible and available. Also, it made it easier to manage large numbers of individuals with small numbers of staff at the asylum. Morphine, hyoscine, chloral, and later bromide were all used in this way. […] Insulin coma therapy came into vogue in the 1930s following the work of Manfred Sakel […] Sakel initially proposed this treatment as a cure for schizophrenia, but its use gradually spread to mood disorders to the extent that asylums in Britain opened so-called insulin units. […] Recovery from the coma required administration of glucose, but complications were common and death rates ranged from 1–10 per cent. Insulin coma therapy was initially viewed as having tremendous benefits, but later re-examinations have highlighted that the results could also be explained by a placebo effect associated with the dramatic nature of the process or, tragically, because deprivation of glucose supplies to the brain may have reduced the person’s reactivity because it had induced permanent damage.”

“[S]ome respected scientists and many scientific journals remain ambivalent about the empirical evidence for the benefits of psychological therapies. Part of the reticence appears to result from the lack of very large-scale clinical trials of therapies (compared to international, multi-centre studies of medication). However, a problem for therapy research is that there is no large-scale funding from big business for therapy trials […] It is hard to implement optimum levels of quality control in research studies of therapies. A tablet can have the same ingredients and be prescribed in almost exactly the same way in different treatment centres and different countries. If a patient does not respond to this treatment, the first thing we can do is check if they receive the right medication in the correct dose for a sufficient period of time. This is much more difficult to achieve with psychotherapy and fuels concerns about how therapy is delivered and potential biases related to researcher allegiance (i.e. clinical centres that invent a therapy show better outcomes than those that did not) and generalizability (our ability to replicate the therapy model exactly in a different place with different therapists). […] Overall, the ease of prescribing a tablet, the more traditional evidence-base for the benefits of medication, and the lack of availability of trained therapists in some regions means that therapy still plays second fiddle to medications in the majority of treatment guidelines for depression. […] The mainstay of treatments offered to individuals with depression has changed little in the last thirty to forty years. Antidepressants are the first-line intervention recommended in most clinical guidelines”.

“[W]hilst some cases of mild–moderate depression can benefit from antidepressants (e.g. chronic mild depression of several years’ duration can often respond to medication), it is repeatedly shown that the only group who consistently benefit from antidepressants are those with severe depression. The problem is that in the real world, most antidepressants are actually prescribed for less severe cases, that is, the group least likely to benefit; which is part of the reason why the argument about whether antidepressants work is not going to go away any time soon.”

“The economic argument for therapy can only be sustained if it is shown that the long-term outcome of depression (fewer relapses and better quality of life) is improved by receiving therapy instead of medication or by receiving both therapy and medication. Despite claims about how therapies such as CBT, behavioural activation, IPT, or family therapy may work, the reality is that many of the elements included in these therapies are the same as elements described in all the other effective therapies (sometimes referred to as empirically supported therapies). The shared elements include forming a positive working alliance with the depressed person, sharing the model and the plan for therapy with the patient from day one, and helping the patient engage in active problem-solving, etc. Given the degree of overlap, it is hard to make a real case for using one empirically supported therapy instead of another. Also, there are few predictors (besides symptom severity and personal preference) that consistently show who will respond to one of these therapies rather than to medication. […] One of the reasons for some scepticism about the value of therapies for treating depression is that it has proved difficult to demonstrate exactly what mediates the benefits of these interventions. […] despite the enthusiasm for mindfulness, there were fewer than twenty high-quality research trials on its use in adults with depression by the end of 2015 and most of these studies had fewer than 100 participants. […] exercise improves the symptoms of depression compared to no treatment at all, but the currently available studies on this topic are less than ideal (with many problems in the design of the study or sample of participants included in the clinical trial). […] Exercise is likely to be a better option for those individuals whose mood improves from participating in the experience, rather than someone who is so depressed that they feel further undermined by the process or feel guilty about ‘not trying hard enough’ when they attend the programme.”

“Research […] indicates that treatment is important and a study from the USA in 2005 showed that those who took the prescribed antidepressant medications had a 20 per cent lower rate of absenteeism than those who did not receive treatment for their depression. Absence from work is only one half of the depression–employment equation. In recent times, a new concept ‘presenteeism’ has been introduced to try to describe the problem of individuals who are attending their place of work but have reduced efficiency (usually because their functioning is impaired by illness). As might be imagined, presenteeism is a common issue in depression and a study in the USA in 2007 estimated that a depressed person will lose 5–8 hours of productive work every week because the symptoms they experience directly or indirectly impair their ability to complete work-related tasks. For example, depression was associated with reduced productivity (due to lack of concentration, slowed physical and mental functioning, loss of confidence), and impaired social functioning”.

“Health economists do not usually restrict their estimates of the cost of a disorder simply to the funds needed for treatment (i.e. the direct health and social care costs). A comprehensive economic assessment also takes into account the indirect costs. In depression these will include costs associated with employment issues (e.g. absenteeism and presenteeism; sickness benefits), costs incurred by the patient’s family or significant others (e.g. associated with time away from work to care for someone), and costs arising from premature death such as depression-related suicides (so-called mortality costs). […] Studies from around the world consistently demonstrate that the direct health care costs of depression are dwarfed by the indirect costs. […] Interestingly, absenteeism is usually estimated to be about one-quarter of the costs of presenteeism.”

Jakob Klaesi. António Egas Moniz. Walter Jackson Freeman II.
Electroconvulsive therapy.
Psychosurgery.
Vagal nerve stimulation.
Chlorpromazine. Imipramine. Tricyclic antidepressant. MAOIs. SSRIs. John CadeMogens Schou. Lithium carbonate.
Psychoanalysis. CBT.
Thomas Szasz.
Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (Kirsch et al.).
Chronobiology. Chronobiotics. Melatonin.
Eric Kandel. BDNF.
The global burden of disease (Murray & Lopez) (the author discusses some of the data included in that publication).

January 8, 2018 - Posted by | Books, Health Economics, Medicine, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: