chops_a_must
Printing My Own Money
- Joined
- 1 November 2006
- Posts
- 4,636
- Reactions
- 3
Chops, Prozac is included in the 'ineffective' group.
I think the main problem with the tricyclics was their side effects (anticholinergic effects such as dry mouth, reduced perspiration, urinary retention, constipation, sedation), and that was largely why when the SSRI's became available many people changed.
There was also the class of anti depressants called monoamine oxidase inhibitors which were pretty much a last resort because of potential toxic interactions with other drugs and foods such as cheese.
It's a very interesting report and calls into question just how much the effectiveness of these antidepressants can in fact be attributed to the belief by patients that this drug is going to improve the way they feel.
That is the tricyclic's main drawback, the side-effects.
The interesting thing is that the study only appears to be based on results of moderately depressed patients.
The researchers said that the drug was more effective than a placebo in severely depressed patients but that this was because of a decreased placebo effect.
That seems like a bizarre statement to me. How do you know that the placebo level in 'normal' or less depressed people isn't elevated? What basis are they measuring things on if not against a placebo, if they disregard that? It's basically just reinforced my own position, that some, but very few medications work for people with real, problematic depression. (BTW, a lot of studies have shown majorly depressed people actually generally give a more accurate reading for placebos than normal people...)
I don't think any medication will work for people with mild depression. They are more likely to make you feel worse - hence my opinion of the discrepency in the stats. Those people would be far better off just excercising like has been talked about here.