Abstract:Background: Results of relapse prevention randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which discontinue psychotropic drug treatment from some participants may be confounded by drug withdrawal symptoms. We test for the confound by calculating whether ≥50% of the difference in relapse risk between drug-discontinued and drug-maintained groups is present at discontinuation time points (DCTs) with “short” and “long” assumptions regarding onset and duration of withdrawal symptoms. Methods: In eligible RCTs of antidepressant… Show more
“…[74][75][76] Evaluating the conflicting evidence for antidepressants' longterm effectiveness, Hengartner concluded that "there is substantial withdrawal confounding in journals.sagepub.com/home/tpp discontinuation trials, which renders their findings uninterpretable" (p. 1). 69 In previous work systematically reviewing 80 discontinuation RCTs published since 2000, 20 70% with industry funding or participation, we found that, in most RCTs, most of the difference in relapse rates between drug-continued and drugdiscontinued groups occurred soon after discontinuation, 77 when withdrawal symptoms are most likely to occur. We identified several flaws in these trials.…”
Section: The Relapse-prevention Rct: Origins Uses and Biasesmentioning
Randomized controlled trials’ ability to produce evidence useful for people to decide whether to take, continue taking, or stop taking psychotropic drugs has been intensely critiqued, along with the trials’ commercial, ideological, and regulatory contexts. This article applies the critique to the topic of withdrawal effects confounding the outcomes of relapse-prevention trials where prescribed psychotropic drugs are discontinued. Until recently, the complexity and reach of withdrawal and post-withdrawal effects were neglected by mainstream psychiatry, but not by lay users of prescribed psychotropics. This article discusses withdrawal effects as part of the pharmacology of psychotropic drugs but shaped by psychosocial factors, and possibly shaping the presentation of psychological distress generally. It outlines biases and misconceptions in assumptions, design, and reporting of general efficacy trials and findings from a recent review of 80 discontinuation trials. In theory, relapse-prevention trials are tautological and exaggerate efficacy. In publications, they pay little attention to the central feature of their design, favor abrupt or rapid discontinuations, do not attend to environmental factors, and provide insufficient data to allow re-analyses. Thus, relapse-prevention RCTs likely confound the detection of their main outcome of interest: “relapse.” Using slower tapers, active placebo controls, and specific covariates in analyses would reduce the risk of withdrawal confounding, and better reporting would reduce the opaqueness of trials. The crisis in psychopharmacology is fueled partly by the disconnect between claims of therapeutic efficacy from so-called best-evidence methods despite unchanging population-level indicators of psychiatric sickness. Only by “stacking the deck” against trial sponsors’ hoped-for outcomes can psychopharmacology trials regain scientific credibility.
“…[74][75][76] Evaluating the conflicting evidence for antidepressants' longterm effectiveness, Hengartner concluded that "there is substantial withdrawal confounding in journals.sagepub.com/home/tpp discontinuation trials, which renders their findings uninterpretable" (p. 1). 69 In previous work systematically reviewing 80 discontinuation RCTs published since 2000, 20 70% with industry funding or participation, we found that, in most RCTs, most of the difference in relapse rates between drug-continued and drugdiscontinued groups occurred soon after discontinuation, 77 when withdrawal symptoms are most likely to occur. We identified several flaws in these trials.…”
Section: The Relapse-prevention Rct: Origins Uses and Biasesmentioning
Randomized controlled trials’ ability to produce evidence useful for people to decide whether to take, continue taking, or stop taking psychotropic drugs has been intensely critiqued, along with the trials’ commercial, ideological, and regulatory contexts. This article applies the critique to the topic of withdrawal effects confounding the outcomes of relapse-prevention trials where prescribed psychotropic drugs are discontinued. Until recently, the complexity and reach of withdrawal and post-withdrawal effects were neglected by mainstream psychiatry, but not by lay users of prescribed psychotropics. This article discusses withdrawal effects as part of the pharmacology of psychotropic drugs but shaped by psychosocial factors, and possibly shaping the presentation of psychological distress generally. It outlines biases and misconceptions in assumptions, design, and reporting of general efficacy trials and findings from a recent review of 80 discontinuation trials. In theory, relapse-prevention trials are tautological and exaggerate efficacy. In publications, they pay little attention to the central feature of their design, favor abrupt or rapid discontinuations, do not attend to environmental factors, and provide insufficient data to allow re-analyses. Thus, relapse-prevention RCTs likely confound the detection of their main outcome of interest: “relapse.” Using slower tapers, active placebo controls, and specific covariates in analyses would reduce the risk of withdrawal confounding, and better reporting would reduce the opaqueness of trials. The crisis in psychopharmacology is fueled partly by the disconnect between claims of therapeutic efficacy from so-called best-evidence methods despite unchanging population-level indicators of psychiatric sickness. Only by “stacking the deck” against trial sponsors’ hoped-for outcomes can psychopharmacology trials regain scientific credibility.
“…It is difficult to quantify the extent to which events recorded as depression relapse in maintenance studies are related to withdrawal reactions, but different estimations suggest that it is presumably the majority. 46,69,70 These findings indicate that there is substantial withdrawal confounding in relapse prevention (discontinuation) trials and that the internal validity of these studies is compromised. It follows that the results of these trials are uninterpretable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here, I will focus on one particular issue, that is, withdrawal confounding. 46 Various authors have stressed that prolonged antidepressant use can cause neurochemical adaptations (physical dependence) and corresponding withdrawal reactions upon dose reduction or discontinuation comparable with other central nervous system (CNS) drugs like benzodiazepines, stimulants or opioides. 18,22,47,48 There is now compelling evidence from clinical trials, observational studies and user surveys that stopping antidepressants can cause severe and persistent withdrawal reactions in a substantial portion of users.…”
Section: Withdrawal Confounding In Relapse Prevention Trialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10,[70][71][72] The findings detailed above hence indeed question the validity of relapse prevention (discontinuation) trials, of which the vast majority, noteworthy, does not attempt to differentiate relapse from withdrawal. 46,69 Of course genuine depression relapses also occur in the discontinuation (placebo) arm, but this is not the point. The fundamental issue is that events recorded as relapses could very well be, and in many cases certainly are, the result of withdrawal reactions.…”
Section: Withdrawal Confounding In Relapse Prevention Trialsmentioning
The aim of this article is to discuss the validity of relapse prevention trials and the issue of withdrawal confounding in these trials. Recommendations for long-term antidepressant treatment are based almost exclusively on discontinuation trials. In these relapse prevention trials, participants with remitted depression are randomised either to have the antidepressant abruptly discontinued and replaced by inert placebo or to continue active treatment. The drug–placebo difference in relapse rates at the end of the maintenance phase is then interpreted as a prophylactic drug effect. These trials consistently produce remarkable benefits for maintenance treatment. However, the internal validity of this trial protocol is compromised, as research has shown that abruptly stopping antidepressants can cause severe withdrawal reactions that lead to (or manifest as) depression relapses. That is, there is substantial withdrawal confounding in discontinuation trials, which renders their findings uninterpretable. It is not clear to what degree the drug–placebo separation in relapse prevention (discontinuation) trials is due to withdrawal reactions, but various estimations suggest that it is presumably the majority. A review of findings based on other methodologies, including real-world long-term effectiveness trials like STAR*D and various naturalistic cohort studies, do not indicate that antidepressants have considerable prophylactic effects. As absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence, no definitive conclusions can be drawn from the literature. To enable a thorough risk–benefit evaluation, real-world effectiveness trials should not only focus on relapse prevention, but also assess antidepressants’ long-term effects on social functioning and quality of life. Thus far, reliable long-term data on these outcome domains are lacking.
“…4,5 Adverse clinical effects of discontinuing psychotropic drugs also can arise in changing from active drug to placebo in clinical trials. 6,7 Pharmacodynamic mechanisms underlying discontinuation syndromes…”
Summary
Interruption of ongoing treatment with benzodiazepines, antidepressants, antipsychotics and mood stabilisers including lithium can be followed by clinically significant withdrawal reactions within hours or days, as well as later increases in relapses or recurrences of the illness being treated. Such observations support the view that stopping treatment is not equivalent to being untreated. With lithium, antipsychotics and antidepressants, there is consistent evidence that abrupt or rapid discontinuation is followed by earlier clinical worsening than with more gradual removal of treatment. Moreover, treatment discontinuation can complicate interpretation of responses to changes in treatment, including in clinical practice and in experimental treatment trials. Notably, terminating preceding treatments can lead to both discontinuation and carry-over effects that can have an impact on the interpretation of observed outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.