←back to thread

206 points pseudolus | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
1. Forgeties79 ◴[] No.46000510[source]
This reads to me like over-prescription rather than lack of efficacy but I’m also not a doctor and won’t presume my kneejerk reaction is accurate.

We saw a similar whiplash with Ritalin after over-prescribing in the 90’s/2000’s. ADHD medication absolutely works, but for a lot of people it didn’t for this reason.

replies(2): >>46000729 #>>46008875 #
2. hirvi74 ◴[] No.46000729[source]
Even for people with legit ADHD, like myself, medication isn't always a home run. I think something like 10%-20% of people do not respond well to any medications. I personally am only a 'partial responder' in that I only really get an improvement in focus/concentration -- not really anything else. But hell, that is still better than life without medication.
replies(1): >>46003982 #
3. Forgeties79 ◴[] No.46003982[source]
Definitely didn’t mean to imply it’s a home run. I’m just saying it clearly and legitimately helps a ton of people.

My point is if you include more and more people who don’t need it because of over-prescription it’s going to appear as lower overall efficacy while still helping a lot of people in the pool.

Making up numbers: If only 20 out of 100 people actually have ADHD then out the gate you’ve ruled out helping 80% of the people. So if 15 of the remaining 20 see improvement in their daily lives that means 75% suddenly looks like 15%.

Diagnosing and treatment is never that clean, there will always be some people who don’t necessarily need a certain medication yet get it prescribed (or don’t when they need it! Especially women with ADHD) because doctors are fallible like anybody else, systemic issues, etc. But with a commonly prescribed medication like Adderall the problem is definitely more pronounced.

Anyway I’m curious enough to look more closely at the study, this is a very interesting topic. If Xanax is really not helping people that’s pretty serious.

4. jdietrich ◴[] No.46008875[source]
Effect size is strongly affected by severity - people who aren't very ill just don't have as much to gain compared to people who are gravely ill. Widening diagnostic criteria and more liberal prescribing will inevitably lead to a reduction in the observed effect size.

Antidepressants were bona-fide miracle drugs when we first started using them on desperately ill inpatients who experienced every moment as exquisite torture. We saw the most miserable lives completely transformed in a matter of weeks. They have become merely "sorta-kinda useful sometimes" now that we're mainly prescribing them to broadly functional people who are feeling a bit sub-par.

SSRIs are a pretty poor fit for the latter cohort, because SSRIs cause significant emotional blunting in the majority of patients, to the extent that some people hypothesise that emotional blunting is the fundamental beneficial effect. Feeling quite numb is an incredible improvement if you are constantly unbearably miserable. If you have a more normal range of emotional experience than relentless misery, it is likely a sideways move at best; if your core complaint is that you feel numb and apathetic, they're probably actively harmful.

SSRIs are very widely used because of their extraordinary safety, but they're often thoughtlessly prescribed by overworked primary care doctors. There are a wide range of antidepressants (and drugs that have antidepressant effects despite not being marketed as such) that are likely a better option for a large proportion of patients.