Pfluft Profile picture
Jul 10 12 tweets 2 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
1/ Escitalopram now approved for generalized anxiety disorders for children & adolescents. FDA considers it as safe and effective for this new indication, based on a recent RCT. Let's have a look at this trial ->
2/ In the RCT, Strawn et al. (2023) concluded that “Escitalopram reduced anxiety symptoms and was well tolerated”. But this conclusion is not supported by the data presented.
liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.10…
3/ Efficacy, according to the primary outcome, is small, with a standardized mean difference of 0.27 (not reported in paper).
4/ None of the 6 secondary outcomes is statistically significant and the drug-placebo differences are small and even close to zero for the three measures for remission. This raises doubt about clinical significance of the therapeutic effects.
5/ A major concern is suicide risk. In the acute treatment phase, 13 of 136 in the escitalopram arm reported suicidal ideation, compared with 2 of 137 in the placebo arm.
6/ The authors provided no statistical test but the odds-ratio (OR) is statistically significant, OR = 6.67, 95%-CI 1.77 – 47.20, p < 0.01. Strikingly, the findings for suicidal ideation were not discussed at all.
7/ There were also more adverse events other than suicidal ideation with escitalopram than with placebo (55.5% vs 37.5%), which is a statistically significant (OR = 2.07, 1.28 – 3.37, p < 0.01, not reported in the paper).
8/ Furthermore, sexual dysfunctions were not systematically assessed but it is known that these are rarely spontaneously reported and occur at much higher rates with antidepressant than with placebo (Serretti and Chiesa, 2009).
9/ Finally, it is well known that adverse events are underreported in clinical trials and methodological biases may lead to an overestimation of efficacy in antidepressant trials, for example due to unblinding.
10/ Consequently, in this trial, the efficacy of escitalopram is likely not clinically meaningful and the increase of suicidal ideation and other adverse effects suggest that the drug conveys significant harms.
11/ Relative to treatment with placebo, 8% more patients treated with escitalopram developed suicidal ideation (1.5% placebo vs. 9.5% escitalopram) but only 6.2% more patients achieved clinical response (33.3% vs. 39.5%) and 1.5% fewer achieved remission (17.7% vs. 18.8%).
12/ Thus, relative to placebo, children and adolescents exposed to escitalopram were more likely to become suicidal than to experience an improvement in anxiety. These results are concerning and the conclusions in the article can be considered as a classical spin.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Pfluft

Pfluft Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PloederlM

Apr 26
1/ The "15% additional responders with antidepressants compared to placebo" message, based on the very good patient-level meta-analysis from 2022 deserves clarification.
bmj.com/content/378/bm…
2/ In the analysis of >70,000 patients, the average drug-placebo difference was only 1.75 points on the Hamilton scale. Definitely not clinically significant. However, there is a deviation from the normal distribution, thus the average drug-placebo difference may be misleading
3/ Stone et al. provide analyses that may account for this problem by applying finite mixture modelling, where the non-normal distribution is deconstructed into a mix of separate distributions. Image
Read 15 tweets
Feb 19
1/ This is one of the most depressing article I've encountered for a long time. I knew that publication practices in medicine are problematic, but I didn't know *how* bad it is. Perhaps more in a thread later.
Thanks @Liikennepsykol1 for the paper.
@Liikennepsykol1 2/ Part of the game is the Journal impact factor. Not news. But I did not know that all this part of the game is to produce convenient research, meaning that papers should be citable - quality is secondary
3/ The calculation of the JIF is a commercial secret!
Read 8 tweets
Feb 10
1. There seem to be several issues with this new paper about lithium in tap water and suicide. Thanks for sending me a pdf >
2. Suicide rates were standardized. Austria had the lowest rate (0.8 / 100.000). This doesn't fit w other data. Austria is known to have > 10/100000 suicides.
Same discrepancy for Hungary. Study says England has ca 100/100000, but this can't be true, see data from WHO
3. Perhaps the suicide rates from the studies in the review ARE valid but differ grossly from WHO data bc of different time frames in studies? (usually suicide rates are per 100000 in a year).
If this is so, however, the scatterplot and regression line is totally misleading.
Read 14 tweets
Oct 20, 2022
1/ Our new paper about moon and suicide is out
nature.com/articles/s4138…
2/ Background: 2020, researchers reported an elevation of suicides in the area of Oulu, Finland. But only among younger women in winter. Surprisingly, it was not discussed that this might have been a false positive, given the wealth of data showing an overall null-finding.
3/ Therefore, we commented on this finding, including a replication with a much larger sample from Austria. The review process was quite tough (4 reviewers for a comment!). See here
Read 11 tweets
Aug 29, 2022
1/ Today I lost my temper when discussing w someone believing that all measures to control the pandemic, including vaccination was BS. I asked if she also mistrusts any advice from docs in general. She told me she uses homeopathy instead of visiting a GP. Thats when I exploded.
2/ Yes, there are problems and biases with evidence based medicine (EBM) and also in mainstream media. But there IS self-correction here. IMO, our public media learned a lot from "fake news" and is more sensible to communicate uncertainties.
3/ Similar to EBM. It IS possible to publish critical stuff, often hard, but possible if arguments are solid and the tone is not all to polemic.
Read 6 tweets
Aug 19, 2022
1/ The serotonin-depression umbrella review by @joannamoncrieff @markhoro @HengartnerMP and others was (of course) criticized by KOLs in the science medie centre and by others, for example, because one recent review was not included. I took a closer look at this "missing" review
2/ As explained by the Moncrieff et al., not including this review was for a reason: "A review of tryptophan levels was not missed by our review which specified inclusion criteria of studies which measured serotonin or its metabolites....
bmj.com/content/378/bm…
3/ "...We do not know how precursors like tryptophan relate to serotonin levels and they are influenced by diet."
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(