Posted by Squiggles on May 9, 2006, at 14:52:44
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs » Squiggles, posted by Larry Hoover on May 9, 2006, at 13:56:01
In Sweden, that is correct. And who knows
what variables change from large population
studies to small controlled groups;However, I have found some counterexamples,
looking at PubMed articles:---------
Antidepressant drug use in Italy since the introduction of SSRIs: national trends, regional differences and impact on suicide rates.Barbui C, Campomori A, D'Avanzo B, Negri E, Garattini S.
Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milano, Italy. barbui@irfmn.mnegri.it
Little is known about the use of antidepressant drugs in Italy since the introduction of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). To fill this gap, we examined antidepressant drug sales data from 1988 to 1996 for the whole country, and for the years 1995 and 1996 on the regional level. National suicide trends from 1988 to 1994 were also examined to assess whether the increasing use of SSRI antidepressants was associated with changes in suicide rates. From 1988 to 1996 an increase of antidepressant sales of 53% was recorded. This increase reflected increasing use of SSRIs, which in 1996 accounted for more than 30% of total antidepressants sold. The analysis of regional differences demonstrated heterogeneity between north, center, and south. In the south prescriptions of antidepressants and use of SSRIs were lower than in the rest of the country. In the 7-year period over which SSRI use increased, male suicide rates increased from 9.8 to 10.2 per 100,000 inhabitants, and female suicide rates declined from 3.9 to 3.2 per 100,000. These data suggest that SSRIs gave a new impetus to antidepressant sales. However, possible public health benefits related to the shift from old to new antidepressants have yet to be demonstrated.
A large-population study where 50% of
takers reported suicidal thoughts or
inclinations:Top-selling drug linked to increased suicide risk - Britain ... [New Window]
ONE of Britain’s most widely prescribed antidepressants has been linked to a seven-fold increase in suicide attempts. An analysis of trials for Seroxat ...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1741916,
00.html------
But as you have probably studied, there are
countless other articles with studies supporting
no increase in suicidality over years in SSRI
sales, and infact many which point to a *decrease*.But I think that Healy's point is that comparing
SSRI-takers who commit suicide to those taking other anti-depressants, does not imply that SSRIs
*do not* cause suicides. A comparative study
is something that *I* consider meaningful, not
a court of law. As far as Healy's case is concerned, that SSRIs cause suicide in a significant enough number of the population is enough to regulate the drug. If Reboxetine, for example, or another class of ADs cause a greater number of suicides than Prozac, then there is no
medically sound reason to sell SSRIs competitively to them. Healy is not trying to propose what is the best drug in this light. And so there is no good reason NOT to sell SSRIs, nor does he propose that.I am asking for a comparison because I am
suggesting that in comparing drugs that have
dangerous side effects, the one with the greatest
safety margine (according to the most comprehensive studies), should take precedence
over the inferior ones. Furthermore, the ones
that do cause harm, should be not only restricted
but taken off the market - heck we sure have
enough of them to make that ecomomically feasible.As for the half-life of a drug goes, I guess what
you are saying is that the pharmacology of it
is that any drug will have an immediate effect
regarless of its half-life?Squiggles
poster:Squiggles
thread:640557
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060504/msgs/641818.html