Astral Codex Ten Podcast feed 2024年07月17日
SSRIs: An Update
index_new5.html
../../../zaker_core/zaker_tpl_static/wap/tpl_guoji1.html

 

本文探讨了抗抑郁药物的有效性问题, 作者认为, 抗抑郁药物的有效性可能比预期要低, 并指出这一趋势可能反映了所有精神类药物的普遍现象, 而不是抗抑郁药物特有的问题. 作者通过比较不同药物的有效性, 例如褪黑素、苯二氮卓类药物和吗啡, 指出即使是最有效的药物, 其效果也可能低于人们的预期.

🤔 **抗抑郁药物的有效性可能比预期要低**: 作者回顾了之前的研究结果, 发现抗抑郁药物的有效性可能比预期要低, 并且这一结论与其他研究结果一致. 作者指出, 这一结论需要谨慎对待, 因为抗抑郁药物仍然可以对部分患者产生积极的效果.

🤯 **普遍的低效趋势**: 作者认为, 抗抑郁药物的低效性可能反映了所有精神类药物的普遍趋势, 而不是抗抑郁药物特有的问题. 作者举了褪黑素、苯二氮卓类药物和吗啡等药物的例子, 这些药物的效果也低于预期. 作者认为, 这一趋势可能反映了我们对药物有效性的认知存在偏差, 或者药物本身的局限性.

🧐 **重新思考有效性的定义**: 作者提出, 我们可能需要重新思考药物有效性的定义. 传统的药物有效性评估标准可能过于狭隘, 无法完全反映药物的实际效果. 作者认为, 需要考虑药物对患者生活质量、心理状态等方面的综合影响, 而不是仅仅关注症状改善程度.

🤔 **药物有效性的局限性**: 作者认为, 即使是最有效的药物, 其效果也可能低于人们的预期. 这可能与药物本身的机制、个体差异、环境因素等多种因素有关. 作者强调, 我们需要对药物的有效性保持理性认识, 并积极探索新的治疗方法.

Four years ago I examined the claim that SSRIs are little better than placebo. Since then, some of my thinking on this question has changed.

First, we got Cipriani et al’s meta-analysis of anti-depressants. It avoids some of the pitfalls of Kirsch and comes to about the same conclusion. This knocks down a few of the lines of argument in my part 4 about how the effect size might look more like 0.5 than 0.3. The effect size is probably about 0.3.

Second, I’ve seen enough to realize that the anomalously low effect size of SSRIs in studies should be viewed not as an SSRI-specific phenomenon, but as part of a general trend towards much lower-than-expected effect sizes for every psychiatric medication (every medication full stop?). I wrote about this in my post on melatonin:

The consensus stresses that melatonin is a very weak hypnotic. The Buscemi meta-analysis cites this as their reason for declaring negative results despite a statistically significant effect – the supplement only made people get to sleep about ten minutes faster. “Ten minutes” sounds pretty pathetic, but we need to think of this in context. Even the strongest sleep medications, like Ambien, only show up in studies as getting you to sleep ten or twenty minutes faster; this NYT article says that “viewed as a group, [newer sleeping pills like Ambien, Lunesta, and Sonata] reduced the average time to go to sleep 12.8 minutes compared with fake pills, and increased total sleep time 11.4 minutes.” I don’t know of any statistically-principled comparison between melatonin and Ambien, but the difference is hardly (pun not intended) day and night. Rather than say “melatonin is crap”, I would argue that all sleeping pills have measurable effects that vastly underperform their subjective effects.

Or take benzodiazepines, a class of anxiety drugs including things like Xanax, Ativan, and Klonopin. Everyone knows these are effective (at least at first, before patients develop tolerance or become addicted). The studies find them to have about equal efficacy as SSRIs. You could almost convince me that SSRIs don’t have a detectable effect in the real world; you will never convince me that benzos don’t. Even morphine for pain gets an effect size of 0.4, little better than SSRI’s 0.3 and not enough to meet anyone’s criteria for “clinically significant”. Leucht 2012provides similarly grim statistics for everything else.

I don’t know whether this means that we should conclude “nothing works” or “we need to reconsider how we think about effect sizes”.

Fish AI Reader

Fish AI Reader

AI辅助创作,多种专业模板,深度分析,高质量内容生成。从观点提取到深度思考,FishAI为您提供全方位的创作支持。新版本引入自定义参数,让您的创作更加个性化和精准。

FishAI

FishAI

鱼阅,AI 时代的下一个智能信息助手,助你摆脱信息焦虑

联系邮箱 441953276@qq.com

相关标签

抗抑郁药物 有效性 精神类药物 褪黑素 苯二氮卓类药物 吗啡
相关文章