A study published in JAMA this week drew markedly different news coverage. The LA Times headline read: “Study finds medication of little help to patients with mild, moderate depression.”
But the HealthDay wire service, whose story appeared on the websites of BusinessWeek, MSN, Yahoo News, and ABCNews.com among others, had a glaringly different headline and framing perspective that read: “Severely depressed gain most from antidepressants.”
The HealthDay story went on to state:
But the findings are not actually that surprising, said one expert, and don’t necessarily mean that people with mild-to-moderate depression should not try antidepressants.
“I’m not sure this is a finding that’s counter to giving medication to people with mild-to-moderate depression,” said Dr. Gregory Asnis, director of the anxiety and depression program at Montefiore Medical Center in New York City.
Why they conducted this interview but didn’t quote any of the study authors is odd.
Hundreds of studies have attested to the benefits of antidepressants over placebos, (senior author Robert J. DeRubeis) said. But many studies involve only participants with severe depression. Confusion arises, he said, “because there is a tendency to generalize the findings to mean that all depressed people benefit from medications.”
That seems to be an important point.
Meantime, USA Today reported other important perspectives from the author and from another source:
“The health establishment needs to take stock and ask about costs and benefits” of antidepressants, DeRubeis says. Meanwhile, he says, his study “should give one pause” about prescribing antidepressants to mildly, moderately or even severely depressed patients. Instead, he says, doctors might want to consider non-drug options, such as exercise or psychotherapy.
Such findings “demonstrate a failure in the system: These drugs were not thoroughly tested in mild to moderate depression prior to their approval,” says Thomas Moore, a senior scientist at the Institute for Safe Medication Practices in Horsham, Pa., and co-author of the 2008 paper. “Any new antidepressants should be.”
So which is it?
The study should give pause about prescribing antidepressants? or
This is no reason to avoid meds?
Looks like it depends on which story you read.
(Addendum: Just moments after I posted this, I saw that MedPageToday.com posted its story on this study. It offers a very reasonable and wide-ranging look at the study, the questions it raises, and the possible limitations of the research.)
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Paul Scott
January 6, 2010 at 3:41 pmDeacon and Kirsch reported this same finding two years ago in PLoS, but received little attn. They found that efficacy above that of placebo, which was considerable, was not so great even for severe patients. Perhaps our society is more receptive to this news now that other drugs (atypicals) are increasingly being added to the SSRI scrip. But I am struck by the lengths to which health reporters often go to demonstrate their deference to a popular drug in the face of a critical study, when they really only need to report the study, as you say.
Paul Scott
January 6, 2010 at 5:17 pmA correction to my last post. Deacon and Kirsch found the drugs did in fact provide a clinically meaningful benefit, but only after a patient reached a score of 28 on the HAM-D, which is, I believe, your basic laying in bed and crying all day level of depression. For everyone less depressed than that the drugs did not provide any meaningful improvement above that considerable benefit provided by placebo. FYI, I wrote about all of this in 2008 in Men’s Health, in an article entitled, “Was the Prozac Revolution All in Our Heads?” Never rated by HNR, unfortunately!
Paul Scott
January 6, 2010 at 6:03 pmOne more story on the study, this one on NPR. But at the end, an NIMH doc says “he thinks” some people are helped by the drugs who have mild depression. We can believe that apparently, devoid of evidence, because “he thinks” that:
“Dr.Philip Wang, deputy director of the National Institute of Mental Health, agrees. Even consumers with mild symptoms shouldn’t necessarily be scared off of drugs, he says.
‘They don’t not work for everyone, and they don’t work for everyone,’Wang says. ‘I think buried within the group are people who do respond if they have mild or moderate depression.'”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122287985
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like