Impact of U.S. antidepressant warnings still felt

[Old Coot]

Source: Reuters

CHICAGO, June 1 (Reuters) - Strong warnings by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about suicide risks linked to antidepressant use in children and young adults have had a "spillover effect" on depression care in older adults, researchers said on Monday.

They said the warnings resulted in a lasting decline in depression diagnosis and treatment, even for older adults, and urged the FDA to revise its policy.

"Policy actions are required to counter the unintended consequences of reduced depression treatment," Anne Libby of the University of Colorado and her colleagues wrote in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

<snip>

In February 2005, the FDA added its strongest warning, a so-called black box, on the use of all antidepressants in children and teens to draw attention to the possible risks of these medications. In May 2007, it extended the warnings to young adults aged 18 to 24.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN01471958

---

[Xipe Totec]

1. Let's not jump to conclusions here

We don't know the reason why there was a decline in depression diagnosis and treatment.

Maybe is was being over diagnosed and over prescribed to begin with, in which case the decline is a good thing.

By what basis, other than loss of profit, do we conclude that a reduction in depression diagnosis is a bad thing?

[bananas]

2. Bad science.

In February 2005, the FDA added its strongest warning, a so-called black box, on the use of all antidepressants in children and teens to draw attention to the possible risks of these medications. In May 2007, it extended the warnings to young adults aged 18 to 24.

While they saw steady increases in the rate of depression diagnoses in each group between 1999 through 2004, the rate of diagnoses in children and teens fell sharply starting in 2004.

Because the team looked at health insurance claims data, they could not address why doctors diagnosed fewer cases of depression. "We don't know why. What we can say is that the warnings definitely changed behavior," Libby said in a telephone interview.

So the warning labels in 2005 caused fewer diagnoses in 2004?
Yeah right.

Correlation does not imply causation.
It's more likely that the warning labels and decreased diagnoses were both independently caused by a third factor.
It may have been new scientific studies which resulted in both.
Maybe it was a change in insurance company policies.
edit to add: Maybe it had something to do with political events which started in 2004 and culminated in election 2008 which gave people hope and reduced the amount of depression.

[CLANG]

4. You're on to something

"Maybe it had something to do with political events which started in 2004 and culminated in election 2008 which gave people hope and reduced the amount of depression."

I've been feeling much less depressed since chimp 'n cheney flew the coop.

[peace13]

3. Lack of insurance equals fewer people being diagnosed.

No money for drugs or doctors.