-Most common SEs: nausea (29.7%), sedation (18.8%)
-No serious adverse events
2/ One key mechanism may be 5-HT3 antagonism
We know ondansetron, a selective 5-HT3 antagonist, has shown benefits in OCD.
Vortioxetine also has 5HT3 antagonism, and it’s possible the clinical effects in this study emerged at higher doses, which is also where the response was most evident.
*nausea as a side effect has been postulated to be due to Vortioxetine being a partial 5HT3 agonist rather than antagonist.
3/ Clinical insights -
👉lower doses (5–10 mg) can help mild/moderate presentations of depression ( with ACE dysfunction)
👉For melancholic mod-severe higher doses 15-20 mg are often needed
👉Also trialled in Long COVID.
And here is something really interesting 👉 “Vortioxetine, exhibits anticancer abilities and can traverse the blood-brain barrier... vortioxetine inhibits the PI3K-Akt signaling pathway, which is known to play a critical role in promoting the progression of GBM. Furthermore, vortioxetine induces cytoprotective autophagy,
🧵When Patients Feel Harmed by Treatment - Is There More to the Story? 🚨 1/21
This will get backlash.
It’s not about denying harm.
It’s about understanding how harm is experienced, amplified, encoded, and communicated and
how that understanding can help people move forward in a world that’s flawed and uncertain.
1/21👇
1/You’ve heard stories like:
“I was harmed by antidepressants.”
“These medications ruined my life.”
“I’m a shell of who I used to be.”
These experiences are real and often tragic.
But to truly understand them, we need to look beyond pharmacology - into personality, pain, and developmental templates.
2/Are patients harmed by medications?
Yes.
Medical harm is real.
Mistakes happen.
But this post is about something deeper when psychiatric meds, often SSRIs or antipsychotics, become the SOLE explanation for every difficulty in a person’s life, with mismatched or oversimplified causal links. ( the key word being sole)
🧵 Humans are BAD at Probabilistic thinking - Risk Analysis of SSRIs in Pregnancy 🚨1/12
The recent FDA panel on SSRIs highlighted that clinicians often struggle with probabilistic thinking.
For most of human history, binary thinking kept us alive: safe or dangerous?
But in today’s world, risk isn’t black or white -it’s probabilistic.
When we talk about SSRIs in pregnancy, we must move beyond “all good” or “all bad” and start thinking in numbers, not instincts.
And that’s a clinical issue : because when we can’t think in risks and trade-offs, patients suffer.
Let me explain. 👇
Image from (Labelling people as ‘High Risk’: A tyranny of eminence?, Järvinen)
1/ Charlie Munger said it rather crudely 👇
“If you don’t get this elementary, but mildly unnatural, mathematics of elementary probability into your repertoire, then you go through a long life like a onelegged man in an asskicking contest."
HG Wells predicted that in modern society, statistical thinking would become as necessary as reading and writing.
But the FDA panel discussion showed us we’re not quite there.
2/ So lets start with with a basic question:
👉 What is the baseline risk of major congenital malformations ?
The answer: about 3%. ( you'll see range of 2-4% in literature)
That means 30 out of every 1,000 pregnancies, REGARDLESS of medication, will result in a baby with a major congenital malformation.