Irving Kirsch

Aims: Venlafaxine is used to treat depression worldwide. Previous reviews have demonstrated that venlafaxine lowers scores on depression rating scales, producing statistically significant results but the relevance to patients remains uncertain. Knowledge of the incidence of the adverse effects associated with venlafaxine has previously been based on the results of non-randomised studies. Our primary objective was to assess the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine in the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder in randomised trials. Methods: We searched relevant databases and other sources from inception to 7 March 2024 for randomised clinical trials comparing venlafaxine versus placebo or no intervention in adults with major depressive disorder. Data were synthesised using meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The primary outcomes were suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events and non-serious adverse events. Results: We included 28 trials randomising 6,253 participants to venlafaxine versus placebo. All results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. All trials assessed outcomes at a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed insufficient information to assess the effects of venlafaxine on the risks of suicides or suicide attempts. Meta-analysis showed evidence of harm of venlafaxine versus placebo on serious adverse events (risk ratio: 2.66; 95% confidence interval: 1.67–4.25; p < 0.01; 22 trials), mainly due to a higher risk of sexual dysfunction and anorexia. Meta-analysis showed that venlafaxine also increased the risk of several non-serious adverse events: nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, sweating, somnolence, constipation, nervousness, insomnia, asthenia, tremor and decreased appetite. Conclusions: Short-term results show that venlafaxine has uncertain effects on the risks of suicides but increases the risks of serious adverse events (especially sexual dysfunction and anorexia) and many non-serious adverse events. The long-term effects of venlafaxine for major depressive disorder are unknown. It is a particular cause for concern that there are no data on the long-term adverse effects of venlafaxine given that so many people use these drugs for several years.

Background: Major depressive disorder is a common psychiatric disorder causing great burden on patients and societies. Tricyclic antidepressants are frequently used worldwide to treat patients with major depressive disorder. It has repeatedly been shown that tricyclic antidepressants reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the effect is small and of questionable clinical importance. Moreover, the beneficial and harmful effects of all types of tricyclic antidepressants have not previously been systematically assessed. Therefore, we aim to investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants versus ‘active placebo’, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods: This is a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis that will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool—version 2, our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control random errors and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers, such as CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 12 May 2021. Clinical study reports will be applied for from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing tricyclic antidepressants with ‘active placebo’, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following interventions will be assessed: amineptine, amitriptyline, amoxapine, butriptyline, cianopramine, clomipramine, desipramine, demexiptiline, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, imipramine, iprindole, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, protriptyline, tianeptine, trimipramine and quinupramine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide-attempts and non-serious adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. Discussion: Tricyclic antidepressants are recommended by clinical guidelines and frequently used worldwide in the treatment of major depressive disorder. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021226161.

Background and aim: Despite recent publications, practitioners remain unfamiliar with the current terminology related to the placebo and nocebo phenomena observed in clinical trials and practice, nor with the factors that modulate them. To cover the gap, the European Headache Federation appointed a panel of experts to clarify the terms associated with the use of placebo in clinical trials. Methods: The working group identified relevant questions and agreed upon recommendations. Because no data were required to answer the questions, the GRADE approach was not applicable, and thus only expert opinion was provided according to an amended Delphi method. The initial 12 topics for discussion were revised in the opinion of the majority of the panelists, and after a total of 6 rounds of negotiations, the final agreement is presented. Results/recommendations: Two primary and mechanism-based recommendations are provided for the results of clinical trials: [1] to distinguish the placebo or nocebo response from the placebo or nocebo effect; and [2] for any favorable outcome observed after placebo administration, the term “placebo response” should be used, and for any unfavorable outcome recorded after placebo administration, the term “nocebo response” should be used (12 out of 17 panelists agreed, 70.6% agreement). The placebo or nocebo responses are attributed to a set of factors including those that are related to the medical condition (e.g. natural history, random comorbidities, etc.), along with idiosyncratic ones, in which the placebo or nocebo effects are attributed to idiosyncratic, or nonspecific mechanisms, exclusively (e.g. expectation, conditioning, observational learning etc.). To help investigators and practitioners, the panel summarized a list of environmental factors and idiosyncratic dynamics modulating placebo and nocebo effects. Some of them are modifiable, and investigators or physicians need to know about them in order to modify these factors appropriately to improve treatment. One secondary recommendation addresses the use of the terms “placebo” and “nocebo” (“placebos” and “nocebos” in plural), which refer to the triggers of the placebo/nocebo effects or responses, respectively, and which are inert agents or interventions that should not be confused with the placebo/nocebo responses or effects themselves (all panelists agreed, 100% agreement). Conclusion: The working group recommends distinguishing the term response from effect to describe health changes from before to after placebo application and to distinguish the terms placebo(s) or nocebo(s) from the health consequences that they cause (placebo/nocebo responses or effects).

The patient-clinician interaction can powerfully shape treatment outcomes such as pain, but is often considered an intangible “art-of-medicine”, and has largely eluded scientific inquiry. Although brain correlates of social processes such as empathy and theory-of-mind have been studied using single-subject designs, the specific behavioral and neural mechanisms underpinning the patient-clinician interaction are unknown. Using a two-person interactive design, we simultaneously recorded functional MRI (i.e. hyperscanning) in patient-clinician dyads, who interacted via live video while clinicians treated evoked pain in chronic pain patients. Our results show that patient analgesia is mediated by patient-clinician nonverbal behavioral mirroring and brain-to-brain concordance in circuitry implicated in theory-of-mind and social mirroring. Dyad-based analyses showed extensive dynamic coupling of these brain nodes with the partners’ brain activity, yet only in dyads where clinical rapport had been established prior to the interaction. These findings point to a putatively key brain-behavioral mechanism for therapeutic alliance and psychosocial analgesia.

Background: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is still being administered to approximately a million people annually. There have been no ECT versus simulated ECT (SECT) studies since 1985. The five meta-analyses of ECT versus SECT studies all claim that ECT is more effective than SECT for its primary target, severe depression. This review assesses the quality of those meta-analyses and of the 11 studies on which they are based.Methods: The meta-analyses were evaluated primarily in terms of whether they considered the quality of the studies they included, but also in terms of whether they addressed efficacy beyond end of treatment. The methodological rigor of the 11 studies included by one or more of the meta-analyses was assessed using a 24-point Quality scale developed for this review.Results: The five meta-analyses include between 1 and 7 of the 11 studies. The meta-analyses pay little or no attention to the multiple limitations of the studies they include. The 11 studies have a mean Quality score of 12.3 out of 24. Eight scored 13 or less. Only four studies describe their processes of randomization and testing the blinding. None convincingly demonstrate that they are double-blind. Five selectively report their findings. Only four report any ratings by patients. None assess Quality of Life. The studies are small, involving an average of 37 people. Four of the 11 found ECT significantly superior to SECT at the end of treatment, five found no significant difference and two found mixed results (including one where the psychiatrists reported a difference but patients did not). Only two higher Quality studies report follow-up data, one produced a near-zero effect size (.065) in the direction of ECT, and the other a small effect size (.299) in favor of SECT.Conclusions: The quality of most SECT–ECT studies is so poor that the meta-analyses were wrong to conclude anything about efficacy, either during or beyond the treatment period. There is no evidence that ECT is effective for its target demographic—older women, or its target diagnostic group—severely depressed people, or for suicidal people, people who have unsuccessfully tried other treatments first, involuntary patients, or children and adolescents. Given the high risk of permanent memory loss and the small mortality risk, this longstanding failure to determine whether or not ECT works means that its use should be immediately suspended until a series of well designed, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have investigated whether there really are any significant benefits against which the proven significant risks can be weighed.