27 mai 2015 ~ 0 Commentaire

Are We Using the Best Meds for Anxiety Disorders

A new study raises serious questions about the increasingly widespread usage of secondgeneration antidepressant drugs to treat anxiety disorders.

Scientists worry that the benefit of the medications for anxiety was overestimated consequently of publication bias, although the practice is becoming increasingly frequent.

Publication bias occurs when only studies that exhibit beneficial effects of the treatment are published.

As reported in JAMA Psychiatry, the brand new evaluation indicates that reports supporting the worth of second-generation antidepressant medications for your treatment of anxiety have already been altered by outcome reporting bias, publication bias and “spin.”


Even though they could still play with a role in managing these problems, the potency of the medications has been overestimated, say the researchers.

In some cases the drugs, which are being among the most widely prescribed drugs on earth, are not much more useful than a placebo.

The results were created by experts from Oregon Health, Oregon State University & Science University, and the University of Groningen Within The Netherlands. a grant from the Dutch Brain Foundation supported the task.

Publication bias was among the most serious issues, the experts concluded, since it related to double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies that had been reviewed from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

If the FDA established the study was positive, it had been five times more likely than if it was not decided to become positive, to be published.

Bias in “outcome reporting” was also discovered, where the positive benefits from drug use were stressed over those found to be bad.

And simple spin was noted. In this instance, some investigators figured treatments were valuable, when their particular printed results for primary outcomes were really simple.

“These findings mirror what we observed previously using the same medications when used to take care of major depression, and with antipsychotics,” said Erick Turner, M.D., associate professor of Science University School of Medicine and psychiatry within the Oregon Health, along with the study’s senior author.

“When their studies don’t prove nicely, you usually won’t understand it from your peer reviewed literature.”

This points to your flaw in the manner physicians find out about the drugs-they recommend, the researchers said.

“The peer review process of book permits, maybe even encourages, this kind of matter to take place,” Turner said. “And this isn’t limited to psychiatry — reporting error has been identified through the entire scientific and medical literature.”

Doctor. Craig Williams, a teacher in the Oregon State University/Oregon Health & Science University College of Pharmacy, and co author of the research, said that “most of these medicines are reasonably safe and well-accepted, but if a medication is less efficient than assumed, this still raises serious inquiries about its use.

“The level of bias we found didn’t change the truth that some antidepressants might have value in treating anxiety disorders,” Williams said.

“However, there is less research for price of these medicines than published studies could have you imagine. When such medicines are often given by general practitioners with less trained in psychiatry.” and these problems are improved

In this study, the researchers analyzed a broad body of the data and medical research that were presented for the Food and Drug Administration, including studies that were done but weren’t printed in open scientific literature.

They found that negative data was de-emphasized, or on drug efficacy tended not to anxiety disorder medication get published when it was published.

Results may have been controlled or exaggerated very good results receive more medical consideration, are posted sooner, because, and cause higher revenue of the medication, said Annelieke Roest, Ph.D., the lead author medication of the publication in the University of Groningen.

the citizen funds fundamentally “Lots of research, and that’s reason enough to mention that all their effects should be published by experts,” Roest said.

The study reiterated the need, as well as this point to more regularly publish nonsignificant results.

“There is strong evidence that important results from randomized controlled trials are far more probably be published than nonsignificant results,” the scientists wrote in their research. “As a result, the published literature. . . May overestimate PTSD Relationship Book the advantages of therapy while underestimating their harms, hence misinforming clinicians, policymakers, and patients.”

Antidepressants are now commonly prescribed for problems aside from depression, the study noted. They are getting used for stress disorder, generalized anxiety, social anxiety, post -traumatic stress disorder, and other uses.

Previously two decades, utilization of antidepressant drugs has dramatically improved in both Europe and the U.S., the analysts said, with a lot of that use motivated by non-professionals in primary care settings.


The level of reporting error in the medical literature, the scientists wrote, “likely effects clinicians’ ideas of the efficacy of the medications, which may be likely to affect prescription behavior.”

Laisser un commentaire

Vous devez être Identifiez-vous poster un commentaire.

Consofrance |
Marocsblog |
Vivi67150 |
Unblog.fr | Créer un blog | Annuaire | Signaler un abus | Abstractedmisha9
| Warlikeobjectio0
| Paige6webb4