Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.


Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Please indicate which comment is of concern and why. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.

Report comment to moderator

MandatoryRequired fields.


Why antidepressants are still the best treatment for depression


Thanks Denise, and I know what you're trying to get at. However, having been on a NICE GDG and read many of the other related ones just because NICE says something it doesn't mean it is correct or even backed with any data e.g. the Bipolar guidelines decided that lithium only needs to be monitored every 6 months. Even the full-length version gave absolutely NO justification or reason for this whatsoever (other than informally that it never gets done properly so why bother) despite there being evidence that even a single toxic/high level can damage the kidneys and that can be detected for months afterwards. So monitoring every 6 months (whichg practically means every 9 months) gives a full 6 extra months at a potentially toxic lithium level and damaged kidneys. Then lithium gets the blame! References 16 and 17 used response to fearful facial expressions to detect a change in depressive thinking so it is not disingenuous to say that antidepressants start working after 4 hours as it wasn't neurotransmitter changes that were being measured but the changes in negative thinking. The point I was trying to make throughout Denise and Andrew was that it's the EVIDENCE that is the problem, and this may have got lost in the editing. There should be equivalent standards for studies, not one strict set of rules for one and much softer rules for another. And because people like NICE consider the evidence equally robust other people will take that at face value.

Posted date

11 AUG 2016

Posted time



Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.