Depression is NOT caused by low serotonin levels and most drugs used to treat it are based on a myth, psychiatrist claims
- David Healy is head of psychiatry at the Hergest psychiatry unit in Bangor
- Claims the idea low levels of serotonin causes depression is a fallacy
- Marketing of SSRI drugs like Prozac has been 'based on a myth', he claims
- Experts refute his claims saying 'SSRIs work in the real world of the clinic'
Published:
11:00 GMT, 22 April 2015
|
Updated:
00:03 GMT, 23 April 2015
The
belief that the most popular antidepressant drugs raise serotonin levels
in the brain is nothing more than a myth, a leading professor of
psychiatry has claimed.
David
Healy, head of psychiatry at the Hergest psychiatric unit in Bangor,
North Wales, said the misconception that low levels of serotonin were
responsible for depression had become established fact.
He
suggested that the success of so-called SSRI drugs – which include
Prozac and Seroxat – was based on the ‘marketing of a myth’.
Scroll down for video
+2
The idea that the most popular
antidepressant drugs raise serotonin levels in the brain is nothing more
than a myth, psychiatrist Professor David Healy argues. Pictured is
Prozac, one commonly prescribed SSRI
The
emergence of these serotonin reuptake inhibiting (SSRI) drugs in the
late 1980s came after concerns about tranquilliser use to treat
depression.
Even
though they were weaker than old-style tricyclic antidepressants, they
took off because of the idea that SSRIs restored serotonin levels to
normal, ‘a notion that later transmuted into the idea that they remedied
a chemical imbalance’.
In
an editorial in the BMJ, Professor Healy said that in the 1990s, no one
knew if SSRIs raised or lowered serotonin levels but there was no
evidence that treatment corrected anything.
He said: ‘For doctors it provided an easy short hand for communication with patients.
‘For
patients, the idea of correcting an abnormality has a moral force that
can be expected to overcome the scruples some might have had about
taking a tranquilliser, especially when packaged in the appealing form
that distress is not a weakness.’
However,
other psychiatrists have refuted the professor’s claims, saying the
profession has moved on from a simplistic description of the pills
correcting a chemical imbalance.
They
warned the controversy might harm depressed patients if they were
deterred from taking the drugs, which had been proved to work in trials
and the ‘real world’.
COULD DEPRESSION BE AN INFECTIOUS DISEASE?
Depression should be re-defined as an infectious disease rather than an emotional disorder, argues one scientist.
The
condition could result from a parasitic, bacterial or viral infection
and future research into the condition should search for these
micro-organisms, argues Dr. Turhan Canli, of Stony Brook University,
U.S.
If his theory is true, he hopes a vaccination to protect against depression could be developed in future.
Writing in the journal Biology of Mood and Anxiety Disorders, Dr Canli said: 'It is time for an entirely different approach.
'Instead
of conceptualising major depression as an emotional disorder, I suggest
to re-conceptualise it as some form of an infectious disease.
'I
propose that future research should conduct a concerted search for
parasites, bacteria, or viruses that may play a causal role in the
etiology of major depression.'
Professor
Sir Simon Wessely, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists,
said: ‘That antidepressants are helpful in depression, together with
psychological treatments, is established. How they do this is not.
‘Most researchers have long since moved on from the old serotonin model.
‘Most important of all, SSRIs are safer if taken in overdose than the older tricyclics.
‘People should not change their current medication on the basis of this editorial alone.’
NHS
Choices, the website which advises patients, says: ‘It would be too
simplistic to say that depression and related mental health conditions
are caused by low serotonin levels, but a rise in serotonin levels can
improve symptoms.’
Professor Healy’s editorial says it is important to raise questions about the drugs.
He
said: ‘In other areas of life the products we use, from computers to
microwaves, improve year on year, but this is not the case for
medicines, where this year’s treatments may achieve blockbuster sales
despite being less effective and less safe than yesterday’s models.
‘The emerging sciences of the brain offer enormous scope to deploy any amount of neurobabble.
'We need to understand the language we use. Until then, so long, and thanks for all the serotonin’, he concludes.
Professor
David Taylor, Director of Pharmacy and Pathology and Head of
Pharmaceutical Sciences Clinical Academic Group, King’s Health Partners,
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, said: ‘Professor Healy
makes a forceful but poorly supported argument against something which
doesn’t and has never really existed: the idea that SSRIs ‘correct’ an
‘imbalance’ of serotonin in the brain.
‘Researchers
and psychiatrists alike know that SSRIs are effective in a number of
disorders but no one is sure exactly how they work. Their readily
demonstrable effect is on serotonin but they have many indirect
secondary effects in the brain.
+2
Other psychiatrists warned the
controversy might harm depressed patients if they were deterred from
taking the drugs, which had been proved to work in trials and the ‘real
world’
‘Prof
Healy fails to mention that SSRIs supplanted earlier tricyclics largely
because of their relative safety in overdose, not because of any
conspiracy concerning a theory of serotonin’s involvement in
depression.’
Dr
Paul Keedwell, Consultant Psychiatrist and Specialist in Mood
Disorders, said: ‘In the real world of the clinic, SSRIs are undeniably
effective in treating individuals with major depression.
'They
have become the first line treatment of choice because they have fewer
troublesome side-effects than their predecessors, and are safer in
overdose.
‘David Healy has previously claimed that SSRIs cause dependence or provoke suicide.
‘In
so doing he has risked deterring individuals with severe depression
from getting the help they need and this latest article just adds to
this problem.
‘The
risk of suicide from untreated depression is much greater than the risk
of treating it with antidepressants, and yes, this includes SSRIs.’
Depression is NOT caused by low serotonin levels and most drugs used to treat it are based on a myth, psychiatrist claims
- David Healy is head of psychiatry at the Hergest psychiatry unit in Bangor
- Claims the idea low levels of serotonin causes depression is a fallacy
- Marketing of SSRI drugs like Prozac has been 'based on a myth', he claims
- Experts refute his claims saying 'SSRIs work in the real world of the clinic'
Published:
11:00 GMT, 22 April 2015
|
Updated:
00:03 GMT, 23 April 2015
The
belief that the most popular antidepressant drugs raise serotonin levels
in the brain is nothing more than a myth, a leading professor of
psychiatry has claimed.
David
Healy, head of psychiatry at the Hergest psychiatric unit in Bangor,
North Wales, said the misconception that low levels of serotonin were
responsible for depression had become established fact.
He
suggested that the success of so-called SSRI drugs – which include
Prozac and Seroxat – was based on the ‘marketing of a myth’.
Scroll down for video
+2
The idea that the most popular
antidepressant drugs raise serotonin levels in the brain is nothing more
than a myth, psychiatrist Professor David Healy argues. Pictured is
Prozac, one commonly prescribed SSRI
The
emergence of these serotonin reuptake inhibiting (SSRI) drugs in the
late 1980s came after concerns about tranquilliser use to treat
depression.
Even
though they were weaker than old-style tricyclic antidepressants, they
took off because of the idea that SSRIs restored serotonin levels to
normal, ‘a notion that later transmuted into the idea that they remedied
a chemical imbalance’.
In
an editorial in the BMJ, Professor Healy said that in the 1990s, no one
knew if SSRIs raised or lowered serotonin levels but there was no
evidence that treatment corrected anything.
He said: ‘For doctors it provided an easy short hand for communication with patients.
‘For
patients, the idea of correcting an abnormality has a moral force that
can be expected to overcome the scruples some might have had about
taking a tranquilliser, especially when packaged in the appealing form
that distress is not a weakness.’
However,
other psychiatrists have refuted the professor’s claims, saying the
profession has moved on from a simplistic description of the pills
correcting a chemical imbalance.
They
warned the controversy might harm depressed patients if they were
deterred from taking the drugs, which had been proved to work in trials
and the ‘real world’.
COULD DEPRESSION BE AN INFECTIOUS DISEASE?
Depression should be re-defined as an infectious disease rather than an emotional disorder, argues one scientist.
The
condition could result from a parasitic, bacterial or viral infection
and future research into the condition should search for these
micro-organisms, argues Dr. Turhan Canli, of Stony Brook University,
U.S.
If his theory is true, he hopes a vaccination to protect against depression could be developed in future.
Writing in the journal Biology of Mood and Anxiety Disorders, Dr Canli said: 'It is time for an entirely different approach.
'Instead
of conceptualising major depression as an emotional disorder, I suggest
to re-conceptualise it as some form of an infectious disease.
'I
propose that future research should conduct a concerted search for
parasites, bacteria, or viruses that may play a causal role in the
etiology of major depression.'
Professor
Sir Simon Wessely, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists,
said: ‘That antidepressants are helpful in depression, together with
psychological treatments, is established. How they do this is not.
‘Most researchers have long since moved on from the old serotonin model.
‘Most important of all, SSRIs are safer if taken in overdose than the older tricyclics.
‘People should not change their current medication on the basis of this editorial alone.’
NHS
Choices, the website which advises patients, says: ‘It would be too
simplistic to say that depression and related mental health conditions
are caused by low serotonin levels, but a rise in serotonin levels can
improve symptoms.’
Professor Healy’s editorial says it is important to raise questions about the drugs.
He
said: ‘In other areas of life the products we use, from computers to
microwaves, improve year on year, but this is not the case for
medicines, where this year’s treatments may achieve blockbuster sales
despite being less effective and less safe than yesterday’s models.
‘The emerging sciences of the brain offer enormous scope to deploy any amount of neurobabble.
'We need to understand the language we use. Until then, so long, and thanks for all the serotonin’, he concludes.
Professor
David Taylor, Director of Pharmacy and Pathology and Head of
Pharmaceutical Sciences Clinical Academic Group, King’s Health Partners,
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, said: ‘Professor Healy
makes a forceful but poorly supported argument against something which
doesn’t and has never really existed: the idea that SSRIs ‘correct’ an
‘imbalance’ of serotonin in the brain.
‘Researchers
and psychiatrists alike know that SSRIs are effective in a number of
disorders but no one is sure exactly how they work. Their readily
demonstrable effect is on serotonin but they have many indirect
secondary effects in the brain.
+2
Other psychiatrists warned the
controversy might harm depressed patients if they were deterred from
taking the drugs, which had been proved to work in trials and the ‘real
world’
‘Prof
Healy fails to mention that SSRIs supplanted earlier tricyclics largely
because of their relative safety in overdose, not because of any
conspiracy concerning a theory of serotonin’s involvement in
depression.’
Dr
Paul Keedwell, Consultant Psychiatrist and Specialist in Mood
Disorders, said: ‘In the real world of the clinic, SSRIs are undeniably
effective in treating individuals with major depression.
'They
have become the first line treatment of choice because they have fewer
troublesome side-effects than their predecessors, and are safer in
overdose.
‘David Healy has previously claimed that SSRIs cause dependence or provoke suicide.
‘In
so doing he has risked deterring individuals with severe depression
from getting the help they need and this latest article just adds to
this problem.
‘The
risk of suicide from untreated depression is much greater than the risk
of treating it with antidepressants, and yes, this includes SSRIs.’
No comments:
Post a Comment