Sleep -- The Real Antidepressant

Your sink has backed up three times in as many weeks.  This time the plunger won't work, and it's beginning to stink.

The hardware salesman says you need a new garbage disposal -- $169.00.

Your plumber takes the pipes apart and clears the plug.  Depending on the plumber, she might show you how to do it yourself next time.  (My plumber is a woman.) -- $60.00 in my neighborhood.

Your brother says, stop putting banana peels in the garbage disposal.  (My brother owns rental property, and tells me what the plumbers almost always find in the plug.) -- $0.00.

The hardware salesman says a better garbage disposal could handle banana peels, and whatever else might also be causing that plug -- $249.00.

All of them are trying to help.  Each of them is working with the tools at his/her disposal.

Okay, now let's look at your depression.

Remember last week's list?

DSM On Depression -- The Chinese Menu

Why Antidepressants Don't Work

Diagnosing Depression

You go to the doctor complaining that you don't feel like yourself.  You aren't having fun, you are tired, you don't sleep well, you have no appetite and feel pretty worthless about your inability to exercise control over anything in your life.  Sometimes you feel like just ending it all.

Your doc asks whether you have a plan (sometimes you think about how you might do it), if anyone in your family has bipolar (not that you know of) and checks your thyroid and glucose levels.

DSM On Depression -- The Chinese Menu

But before the blood tests come back, your doc has already checked the magic list from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:

Column A:

1. Depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective report (e.g., feels sad or empty) or observation made by others (e.g., appears tearful).

2. Markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day (as indicated by either subjective account or observation made by others)

Column B:

3. Significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain (e.g., a change of more than 5% of body weight in a month), or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day.

4. Insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day

5. Psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day (observable by others, not merely subjective feelings of restlessness or being slowed down)

6. Fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day

7. Feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt (which may be delusional) nearly every day (not merely self-reproach or guilt about being sick)

8. Diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others)

9. Recurrent thoughts of death (not just fear of dying), recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or a specific plan for committing suicide

Ding, ding, ding.  One from Column A, four from Column B. (Your weight loss has been too gradual to count.)  That is all the doc needs to write out a prescription for an antidepressant.  Zoloft is the latest favorite, being the newest.  But if your drug coverage is lousy, you get fluoxetine -- Prozac in its non-generic incarnation.

Depression As A Chemical Imbalance?

You are not sure you want to take an antidepressant.  But your well-educated neighbor assures you that there is no shame in it.  It's not your fault.  Depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain, and antidepressants fix the imbalance.
 

I call this the chemical stew theory.  Your brain is too bland.  Add some salt and you will be good to go.

What a great marketing technique.  It's simple.  It's morally neutral.  It's even kinda manly, if that's an issue for you -- chemistry, you know.  And your next door neighbor, whose education comes from TV ads, is part of a sales force which has been so effective that one out of every ten people in the United States of America is taking an antidepressant right now.

Too bad it hasn't worked out.

No -- Antidepressants Do Not Fix A Chemical Imbalance

There are a couple reasons (at least) why adding a chemical to the stew does not solve the chemical imbalance.

The first reason is that your brain is not a stew.  If you like the food metaphors (and as you can see, I like the food photos), adding a chemical to your brain is more like adding it to a souffle.  The chemical balance in your brain is finely tuned to a variety of interacting factors.  Changing one of the factors has multiple effects, not all of them intended, and not all of them so good for you.

For example, a souffle has fat in it.  Maybe the problem with your souffle is not enough fat.  But when you mix fat into the egg whites, the whole thing falls flat.

The second reason antidepressants fail to do their intended job is that they do not address the problem at the right location. The theory suggests you can fix the imbalance by increasing the serotonin in your synapses.  But scientists have figured out the problem occurs farther upstream.

Or at least that is what the scientists say who fund their labs with money from the pharmaceutical companies who still want to add a chemical to your brain, just maybe a different chemical than the ones whose patent protections have expired.

The Brain As Machine

The new meds are not going to work either, because they are working with, not a food, but a mechanical metaphor.  So second millennium!

Like this:



If only they can find the right place to change the course of the inevitable falling blade?  I don't think so.  Your brain is not a machine.

The Brain As A Living System

Here we go:

Your brain is a whole world.  Those who would tinker with it need to understand its ecology.

Put the internal combustion machine onto this planet, and the whole rest of it experiences the consequences.

Block serotonin from reentering your neurons, and your tear ducts and intestines dry up.  And your sex life.  Put enough of us on antidepressants and we could become an endangered species.

So if you want to do something about depression, if you have it or love anybody who has it, then you have to pay attention to the ecology.  Your interventions will have complex consequences.

And -- this would be a third reason and most intractable reason why antidepressants don't work -- the planet/body/brain/ecosystem is always working to restore balance to the system.  Up the serotonin in your synapses and eventually another part of the brain adjusts to overcome your interference.  In ecology this phenomenon is called homeostasis.  Psychiatry calls it Prozac Poop-out.

I kept complaining about insomnia, one of my Chinese menu choices that did not go away.  A psychiatrist told me my symptoms were caused by my depression.  Address the underlying depression and eventually the symptoms would be relieved.  Never mind about the symptoms that replace them.  Those symptoms are not on the depression menu, and have nothing to do with the psychiatrist.

A Twenty-First Century Approach To Depression?

But systems theorists tell us that any intervention will move the whole rest of the system.  This works in the environment, the economy, the workplace, the family dinner table.  And in the brain.

So what if we go back to that menu and devise some interventions that are not the equivalent of a chemical sledge hammer?

That brings me back round to last week's post about insomnia, when I promised that the next installment of my sleep series would be:

The Good News About Sleep Deprivation and Suicidality 

The good new is coming next -- implications for treatment of mood disorders and other causes of suicidal thoughts and behavior.

It just took me an extra week to get there.  So what else is new.  It's a Prozac Monologues series.

photo "Loneliness" by  Graur Razvan Ionut, from FreeDigitalPhotos.net 
photo of Chinese menu by Hoicelatina, permission to copy under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License 
photo of bell by Salvatore Vuono from FreeDigitalPhotos.net 
representation of serotonin in public domain 
 photo of pote asturiano by jlastras and used under the Creative CommonsAttribution 2.0 Generic license 
photo of chocolate souffle by Akovacs.hu at the wikipedia project, who has released it to the public domain
representation of lactic acid in public domain
NASA photo of the Earth in public domain
photo of Anthia goldfish in public domain

Mood Disorders -- Tolerable, Bad and Downright Ugly, Part I

A friend recently asked me for a short description of the difference between Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar II. I didn't keep it short.  This will not surprise my regular readers, and warn my newer ones.

But here is the short answer.  Normal mood cycles within a normal range, sad/okay/glad.  Major depression has bigger distances, between normal and really sad.  Bipolar has the biggest distances.  Bipolar I ranges from really sad to really really up, with more time spend down than up.  Bipolar II moves the base line down from bipolar I.  It goes up, though not so far, and way, way down, lower than the others.

There are other aspects to mood disorders, affecting thought, desire, motivation, energy, sleep, digestion, appetite and even physical pain.  But this astonishingly short answer says way more than your common perception that depression means you are sad; bipolar means you are crazy.

Since I regularly write about these and the other mood disorders in Prozac Monologues, it may be helpful to give the longer answer here.  So today begins another three-part series.  I do seem to like these three-part series.  Things stretch out when I want to make Prozac Monologues both clear and entertaining -- though I suspect that it's mostly people with diagnoses who get the entertaining part.

Language in the Clinician's Office

This week I return to my favorite theme -- the power of language.  Those of us who have a mental illness deal with the power of language every day.  Notice I didn't call us the mentally ill.  Language forms who we are in this world.  It underpins the terms of our treatment.  It structures how we pay for our treatment.  Diagnosis is where language meets money.  And money is power, power over our lives.

Reframing is a process of becoming conscious of the power of language.  This is a standard tool in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.  The term is used in a variant of CBT called Neuro-Linguistic Reprogramming (NLP).

PTSD: The State of Treatment

This is the second part of a series on Post Traumatic Brain Syndrome.  Let me recap last week and expand on what we know about the neurobiological mechanisms (how the brain works) of PTSD, and then discuss treatment strategies.

When something stressful happens, the brain prepares the body for action.  The hypothalamus, pituitary gland, amygdala, locus ceruleus and opioid system all release hormones to speed up respiration, raise blood pressure, reduce sensitivity to pain, all useful conditions for the proverbial fight or flight.

Under normal stressors, as soon as these hormones are released, feedback systems go into operation.  The hypothalamus tells everybody else that their job is done and they can back off.

These hormones, especially cortisol, damage brain structures, notably the hippocampus, whose job is to regulate emotion and to perform the "that was then, this is now" function.  I named it that, and am very proud of it.  My own brain has almost no "that was then, this is now" function.  Pretty much zip.

PTSD and the DSM: Science and Politics -- Again

Several weeks of what I call "swiss cheese brain" interrupted my series on PTSD.  Now with a couple posts in reserve and a two week cushion, I am trying again.  To get us back on the same page, here is a (tweaked) reprint of March 28, a history of the issue in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual and current context, to be followed by PTSD: The State of Treatment, and then PTSD: Hope for Prevention.

With the ongoing war in Iraq, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -- PTSD is much in the news nowadays.  We can expect that to continue.

Nancy Andreasen, author of The Broken Brain, traces the social history of this mental illness in a 2004 American Journal of Psychiatry article.  The features of what we call PTSD have long been noted in the annuls of warfare.  More recently, in World War I it was called shell shock, and those who had it were shot for cowardice in the face of the enemy.  In World War II it was recognized as a mental illness and called battle fatigue.  Afflicted soldiers were removed from the front and given counseling designed to return them to battle within the week -- though there is one infamous story about General Troglodyte Patton who, while touring a hospital, cursed and slapped one such soldier for his "cowardice."

The DSM I, from the post-WWII era, recognized battle fatigue as Gross Stress Disorder.  It was removed from the DSM II in the early 1960s , when U.S. society was not regularly confronted with this cost of war.

The Mood Chart Video

I call this video Mood Chart for UltraRapid, Ultradian Cycling Bipolar, with a Touch of PTSD.

To the Therapy Theme Song.

Much more fun than some old DSM code, doncha think?

A family member said, "If you can relate to that song and video, now I know your mind works on a completely different level."  To which I responded, "Then we are making progress."

Yes, this is the inside of my head today.  Someday when it's not, I'll write about mood charts.  Very useful things, mood charts.  A basic tool for recovery.  My favorite is here, also listed among the Resources on Mental Illness over there on the left.

But that's all for this week.  See ya.

PTSD and DSM: Science and Politics -- Again

With the ongoing war in Iraq, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -- PTSD is much in the news nowadays.  We can expect that to continue.

Nancy Andreasen, author of The Broken Brain, traces the social history of this mental illness in a 2004 American Journal of Psychiatry article.  The features of what we call PTSD have long been noted in the annuls of warfare.  More recently, in World War I it was called shell shock, and those who had it were shot for cowardice in the face of the enemy.  In World War II it was recognized as a mental illness and called battle fatigue.  Afflicted soldiers were removed from the front and given counseling designed to return them to battle within the week -- though there is one infamous story about General Troglodyte Patton who, while touring a hospital, cursed and slapped one such soldier for his "cowardice."

The DSM I, from the post-WWII era, recognized battle fatigue as Gross Stress Disorder.  It was removed from the DSM II in the early 1960s , when U.S. society was not regularly confronted with this cost of war.

OMGThat'sWhatTheySaid! -- They

"We are more alike than we are different."  That was the first thing they wrote on the whiteboard at my Peer to Peer class.  And that was the first thing I wrote in my new notebook.  I had a sense that a revolution was coming.  But I didn't know yet what it was.

The next week we introduced ourselves by how we are different, our differential diagnoses.  We were Mary Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Frank Bipolar, Sarah Borderline Personality Disorder, Peter Bipolar Antisocial Schizoaffective Disorder ("But I'm not so sure the schizoaffective part is right"), James Schizophrenia, Anna Major Depressive Disorder, Henry Bipolar Alcoholic, Willa Major Depressive Disorder ("But I wonder about Bipolar II").  Of course, I have changed the names.

The power of naming -- the third week we sorted out our seating arrangements.  That wasn't part of the class.  It just happened, when we entered the room and chose our seats.  The OCDs sat with the OCDs.  The Mood Disorders sat with the Mood Disorders. Interestingly enough, those with Schizophrenia did not sit together.  They dispersed themselves among us Mood Disorders.

DSM 5 and Mood Disorders, Part III -- The Way Forward

 

Lost Creek Wilderness 

I have been writing about the newly released draft of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual -- DSM V for the last few weeks.  Let's recap:

The DSM V -- What's at Stake: The pharmaceutical and health insurance industries have a huge financial stake in who gets diagnosed with what in the mood disorder section of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.  This stake has skewed the new draft version of the DSM to support the status quo/current market conditions.

The DSM V made almost no changes in the Mood Disorders section.  (Well, a few, not so minor for children and the bereaved.)  This despite the evidence that the current criteria for bipolar II exclude people who are instead diagnosed with recurrent unipolar depression, but who get much worse when treated as though they had recurrent unipolar depression, and who eventually are diagnosed with bipolar II anyway, if they are still alive.  Women spend eleven years on average before being diagnosed correctly.  That's eleven years of a lot of suffering on a lot of antidepressants.  One helpful modification in the bipolar II area will become important below.

The Draft DSM V -- How Did We Get Here?: Advances in the treatment of  depression have come about by serendipitous discoveries, followed by pharaceutical companies' desires to improve their own market share.  These have been genuine advances.  However, their manipulation of research to support their products is a national disgrace.  The AMA is finally embarrassed by it.

That is where last week's post left us, at Mile Marker #3 in "Up a Creek Wilderness" -- the sorry state of research on this map that is owned by the pharmaceutical companies.

So now we have arrived at:

Goose Creek Trailhead

Mile Marker #4 -- Their goose is cooked.  They have run out of product.  There are lots of ideas out there besides the tired old "chemical imbalance/neurotransmitter" fixation on one aspect of depression.  And research is being done on other neurological mechanisms of depression.  But Big Pharma got lazy and has been slow to develop these ideas into useful medications.

Patents have expired on almost all the antidepressants on the market today.  The sleight of hand trick is to repackage the same medication by altering its formulation a little bit (Celexa/Lexapro, Effexor/Pristiq) or by doing a time-release version to add a few years to the patent (Paxil CR, Wellbutrin XL).  But that strategy has a time limit, and lack of development has caught up with these companies.

I think Eli Lilly's new product Symbyax is the ultimate in failed strategies, combining the patent-expired Prozac/fluoxetine (originally used for major depression) with the newer and controversial Zyprexa (originally used for psychosis and lately the subject of successful lawsuits).  If it really were a good idea, you could get the same results with two prescriptions, the antidepressant that worked best and an antipsychotic less dangerous than Zyprexa, instead of the two products owned by Eli Lilly.  With the combination package, you get the side effects of both: sexual dysfunction, agitation, akathisia, insomnia, etc. for Prozac and ballooning weight gain, high blood sugar, risk of diabetes, high cholesterol, tardive dyskinesia, etc. for Zyprexa.

Nevertheless Symbyox will make Eli Lilly a bit of money for a while, because it has widened the market for Zyprexa.  They need another market since that successful lawsuit reduced its use among older people with psychosis (who experience a rather nasty side effect of death from Zyprexa's off-label use for dementia.)  Symbyax now is also indicated for people with treatment-resistant depression, whose doctors need to keep coming up with something new to give them. God forbid they should reexamine the diagnosis, or that the DSM V should encourage them to do so.  People with treatment-resistant depression account for half of the depression market, the half that stays on the market, because they "keep trying," like everybody tells them they should.  So good luck, Lilly.  I hope you are in court again soon.

That's Mile Marker #4.  And it makes me as depressed as Mile Marker #3 makes me mad.

Mile Marker #5 -- It turns out that we have been traveling in a circle, and now looped back to the beginning.  This is where I find the good news.

We have another serendipitous discovery!  Lamictal was first used as an anti-convulsant.  Following the pattern of other advances in the treatment of depression, Lamictal's mood-related effects first became apparent in people with epilepsy.  Happy seizures. -- Though unlike previous medications, Lamictal works just fine for its original purpose, as well.

Lamictal (generic name lamotrigine) is now approved for use in managing seizures and bipolar I.  Its off-label uses include bipolar II and treatment-resistant unipolar depression.  (When a doctor prescribes a medication for something that it hasn't been approved for, that's called "off-label" use.)

This "off-label" use issue is critical here to advance the treatment of depression, especially for those who are misdiagnosed (using DSM V guidelines) with unipolar depression.

The rules regarding marketing of off-label use are in flux.  Currently, sales representatives may not recommend their products for off-label use, but they may direct doctors to research about such use. They may not, however, pay doctors to tell other doctors about their experiences with off-label use, at continuing education conferences and the like.  That's what got Pfizer busted, for their marketing of Geodon, another anti-psychotic like Zyprexa, while searching for their market share of dementia and depression.  The money in these cases generally goes to Medicaid and Medicare, who paid for the prescriptions.

See, there's a swamp out there between Mile Marker #5, the next serendipitous discovery and:

Mile Marker #6: Ca-ching! Ca-ching! -- that huge new money-making machine.

Doctors prescribe medications for off-label use all the time.  Drugs that have been tested and approved only for adults are tried on children.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything they could give to kids, because who wants to risk clinical trials on kids?  Drugs approved for one type of cancer are tried for another, because who wants to say "no" to somebody whose cancer has metastasized?

Off-label use gets turned into approved use if it works out in new clinical trials.  If it doesn't work out, it goes away.  That's the way it's supposed to work.  But if the trials don't work out, and the drug companies fudge the data and market the medication anyway, then they get sued.

My doctor told me that Lamictal is the "go-to drug" for bipolar II, evidently very common off-label use.  I don't know how she knows, whether she read the research, whether the medical journals have been flooded with articles commissioned (or maybe not) by GlaxoSmithKline, whether she heard about it from other doctors who are on (or maybe not on) GlaxcoSmithKline's payroll, or whatever.  It is also on the top of her list for treatment-resistant unipolar depression.  I am not expressing doubt about Lamictal's effectiveness.  I am simply explaining how off-label use works in clinical practice.

So we are currently at Mile Marker #5.  Now we start climbing that hill to #6.  Just like they did with tricyclics and SSRIs, everybody is asking, "How does Lamictal work?"  They think it has something to do with calcium, but I won't go into that here.

The answer to the "how" question is particularly important to the other pharmaceutical companies, because they will use the answer for a grab at their market share, by trying to improve on the side effect profile.

Lamictal's side effect profile isn't so bad, as far as mood stabilizers go.  It is light years better than Lithium, which is beyond nasty, but desperate people take it, because it has been their only relief.  Lamictal also is not so bad compared to antidepressants.  It causes fatigue, headaches, muscle pain, but not in as many people.  Its big drawback is this pesky rare (but potentially fatal) skin rash.

Potentially fatal.  Wow.  Now, one in 500 people get this rash, and all you have to do to get rid of it is stop taking the drug.  I am not sure why this rash is the major concern about the medication.  Except there is no denying the cause.  Antidepressants cause suicidal ideation and behavior at a much higher rate than Lamictal causes rash.  But try to prove it in your case.  You already have a disease that carries a risk of suicide.  And even on the antidepressant in question, it might be that your disease is simply progressing.  You are as likely to get your dose increased as discontinued.  And you will not get your day in court.  Lamictal causes some kind of rash in 1 of 10.  But even if your rash is caused by the new soap you are using, looks nothing like the bad rash, and even if you are free from suicidal thoughts for the first time in a decade, you get yanked off Lamictal.

So here is an excellent opening for other companies, to come up with something with no rash, or even a rash that only one in 1000 get.  We can expect other mood-stabilizers to reach clinical trial stage in the near future.  Ca-ching!  Ca-ching!

Mile Marker #7:  At that point, interests will align, of the pharmaceutical companies and those who have been misdiagnosed because of the not-yet-published but already dated DSM V.  The pharmaceutical companies are looking for Ca-Ching! Ca-Ching.  And depressed people are looking for better medications.  We finally reach the operation of the free market system.  This is the United States of America.  Fortunately for depressed people, there are enough of us to make it profitable to treat us.

The fly in the ointment is the DSM V.  It does loosen restrictions on the diagnosis of bipolar II a bit.  The DSM IV said that a hypomanic episode brought on by antidepressant use does not count as a real hypomanic episode, and the person has unipolar depression -- suggesting to more conservative doctors that they keep looking for a better antidepressant.  The DSM V says that an episode brought on by antidepressant use is a real hypomanic episode, with a diagnosis of bipolar II -- pointing doctors toward mood-stabilizers.

So the task of the drug reps will be to direct doctors to the research demonstrating:

• more than half of those with severe depression eventually are diagnosed on the bipolar spectrum;
• incredible harm is done to these patients when given antidepressants;
• therefore these depressed patients might benefit from receiving a mood-stabilizer from the very beginning of treatment, particularly the mood-stabilizer of which the drug rep happens to have samples.  

The true conservative treatment course might be to treat all depressive people with mood stabilizers, unless the doctor has time to sort between those with genuine unipolar depression (presenting their first episode and no history of anything that looks even slightly like hypomania) and those who have recurrent depression (or "cycling" depression), especially when Lamictal and future mood-stabilizers have better side effect profiles.  First do no harm.

Never mind what the DSM V says.

If the meds work, if they increase their makers' market share, then the pharmaceutical companies will continue to find ways to do their own education of doctors, including education in how out of touch the DSM V is with clinical practice.  These same market forces will make irrelevant the DSM's refusal to define a diagnosis for pediatric bipolar.  If the meds work, children may receive a nonsensical diagnosis, but they will also receive the appropriate medication.

Mile Marker #8:  Now all hell breaks loose with health insurance and HMOs.  They depend on the DSM for billing.  But the gap between the DSM and clinical practice in mood disorders will be so wide that case reviews and billing procedures will fall apart.  Doctors will either code according to the DSM and treat according to reality, or code according to reality and ignore DSM criteria.

But our health care delivery system is already broken, and will collapse anyway, long before we reach Mile Marker #8.

 

sign at Goose Creek Trailhead photographed by Steven Bernard

in public domain

photo of Lamictal by Parhamr and in the public domain

money bag from Microsoft clipart

"Book Burning" is licensed under the  Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

DSM 5 and Mood Disorders, Part II -- How Did We Get Here?

 

Lost Creek Wilderness

Starting point -- Okay, the only way we get anywhere is if we understand very clearly who owns this map.  The pharmaceutical companies do.  It's their map.  Get over it.  This knowledge will help us steer a course, or maybe give them a nudge, or at least anticipate where they are taking us.

For the longest time, depression got no respect.  When they started using medication for schizophrenia, depression was still lost in the la-la-land of Freud's neurosis.  You could either talk it out over years on the couch, or you could snap out of it.   Medical advances in the treatment of depression came about by accident.

So back in the 1950's, Smith Kline and French (today GlaxoSmithKline) were making a killing on thorazine, the first med to treat schizophrenia.  It worked, but thorazine has so many side effects they list them alphabetically.  Other drug companies wanted a piece of the action.  Seeking to improve the side effect profile, they came up with the first tricyclics.  Tricyclics (Elavil, et al.) were a bust, as far as psychosis goes.  But they had an interesting new side effect -- mania.  Happy psychotics.  

Same time frame, different illness, MAOIs were developed to treat tuberculosis.  Again, not so effective against tuberculosis.  But suddenly sullen patients were skipping down the hallways and creating "discipline problems." Happy coughers.

Mile Marker #1 -- We have a whole new market for psychotropic medications -- depression.

These accidental discoveries drove research into the neurological mechanisms of depression, posing not the question, "What causes depression," but rather, "How come antidepressants work?"  Well, one of the consequences of taking these medications is an increase in the presence of neurotransmitters, serotonin et. al.

Mile marker #2 -- We have a simple, catchy sales pitch.  Depression isn't a rich lady's neurosis, after all.  It's a "chemical imbalance in the brain" -- just as diabetes is an imbalance of insulin.  Well, that's not an issue of character, as depression was thought to be.  (And still is, you will find out if you don't get better.)  It can happen to anybody.  And it can be fixed, too.  Take a pill, just as diabetics take insulin, and you fix the imbalance.

At this point, the neurotransmitter hypothesis takes us deep into our map.  Prozac and other SSRIs (Celexa, Zoloft...) were developed by tinkering with the basic concept behind tricyclics, again as attempts to improve market share by improving the side effect profile.  But SSRIs didn't really work as well as the sales pitch did.  The market share threatened to drop as "treatment refractory" patients ran out of new meds to try.  Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies were running out of patent protections.  Along came SNRIs (Cymbalta, Effexor...), more tinkering.

By now marketing drove/drives the research.  The pharmaceutical companies were not interested in figuring out what is happening inside the depressed brain -- they thought they already knew.  Instead, they funded research into a jillion examinations of the same "chemical imbalance" and what their own medications do for it.

Mile Marker #3 -- The pharmaceutical companies, with their already developed products to market, take over research departments of universities and medical schools.  Research departments fund their way having their top scientists sign on to reports that they have not written.  A scientist will sign more reports than he or she has time to read, much less write.  The practice is called "guest authorship."  (In other academic departments, this is called "plagarism.")  Often the pharmaceutical companies contract out the writing or do it themselves, called "ghost authorship."  They write slightly altered reports of the same clinical studies, and flood the medical journals, who publish the seemingly different reports, neglecting their own publishing standards that call for disclosure of these practices and conflicts of interest.  

No, really. The ethics of medical journal publishing has become so problematic that the AMA (American Medical Association) convened a special forum five months ago to examine the issue.  The results of study after study on various practices in authorship and publishing demonstrate that this problem has not improved since it was raised in the mid-1990's and standards were developed.

What are the prospects for improvement in publishing?  I find particularly amusing/astounding/discouraging the report on Background, Training, and Familiarity With Ethical Standards of Editors of Major Medical Journals. "Although 86% of respondents were “confident” or “very confident” in their knowledge of scientific publication ethics when they began the survey, this number dropped to 71% by the end."  Indeed.  Because: "Performance on the editorial scenarios was poor; correct answers were given by 18% to the question on plagiarism, 30% to authorship, 15% to conflicts of interest, and 16% to peer review."

These are failing grades received by the editors of medical journals.  These are the people who decide which studies get published, what information is available to my doctor and yours.  Why does this matter?  Because reading journals is how my doctor and yours keep up to date, their continuing education after medical school.

So the science has gotten pretty bad.

And in the field of mental health, the pharmaceutical companies own it.  There is one sales representative for every five doctors.  This is the United States of America.

(You get better science, and different results, if you read the journals from Europe.)

Okay, getting us into this map has made for a long enough blog post.  Next week -- Mile Marker #4, and onward.

map of Lost Creek Wilderness made by David Benbennick

in public domain

DSM 5 and Mood Disorders, Part I -- What's at Stake

Earlier this month, the American Psychiatric Association released the long awaited proposed revision of their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).  It is available now for public comment, with an anticipated publication date for the final version in May 2013.  To call this the Bible of Mental Illness is to overestimate the significance of the Bible.


The DSM was first written to give clinicians and researchers a common vocabulary and a common understanding of the various diagnoses of mental illness.  John McManamy has related this history on his blog Knowledge is Necessity.  I refer you to his thorough account, found in the links at the bottom of his post. -- [Hey, John -- I recognized your image for "Few Surprises."  It was one that I considered for this post!]

The way the DSM works always reminds me of a Chinese menu.  For example, if you have one symptom from Column A and at least five from columns A and B, for over two weeks, you have Major Depressive Disorder.  You can upgrade your core diagnosis with specials offered alongside the basic menu.  These lists of symptoms provide a common vocabulary and simplify diagnosis, so that family practitioners commonly diagnose depression and prescribe antidepressants, without referral to psychiatrists.  This practice provides a boon to the pharmaceutical industry, which markets heavily to family practitioners.  If patients had to see a psychiatrist to get a prescription, fewer people would take antidepressants, since there is greater stigma attached to treatment by a psychiatrist, psychiatrists are in short supply in many parts of the country anyway, and health insurance plans provide inadequate coverage for psychiatric care. So family practitioners prescribing for depression sells more antidepressants.  Big Pharma wants to keep the DSM simple.

Over time, even as therapists have become more eclectic in their therapies, the sequence of DSMs has more narrowly defined the illnesses which therapists treat, adding more specificity.  The DSM gives a numerical identifier for each diagnosis, along with decimal points after the numbers to indicate variations and severity.  Health insurance companies rely on the DSM to determine coverage.  If you don't have a number, you don't get reimbursed.  But they have become concerned about the multiplication of diagnoses, raising the number of claims.  Health insurance companies want to limit the number of diagnoses and limit the number of people diagnosed.