How effective are antidepressants for depression over the long term? A critical review of relapse prevention trials and the issue of withdrawal confounding

Abstract

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.

Keywords

antidepressant discontinuation long-term prevention relapse withdrawal

Introduction

Treatment guidelines like those published by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) or the American Psychiatric Association (APA) strongly recommend long-term maintenance treatment in people with (or at risk of) recurrent depression to prevent relapses.^1,2 In accordance with these recommendations, the rate and duration of antidepressant use is steadily increasing in the general population,^3–6 but this trend has stirred considerable controversy.^7,8 It has been suggested that long-term antidepressant treatment should be revisited,^9–11 and research indicates that many patients in receipt of long-term antidepressant medication do not necessarily require maintenance treatment.^12–14 Some authors cautioned that long-term antidepressant use may be largely ineffective, or even harmful.^10,11,15,16 One possible driver of unnecessary long-term prescriptions could be the propensity of antidepressants to cause dependence and withdrawal reactions.^17–22 This notion is often met with disbelief, and sometimes it is fiercely dismissed by leading academics as it stands in sharp contrast to the consistently positive findings from dozens of relapse prevention trials.^23–27 In this article, I will ponder these seemingly contradictory findings and critically discuss major issues that may resolve the conflicting literature on the benefits of long-term antidepressant treatment. To that end, I will focus mostly on antidepressants’ prophylactic effects, as relapse prevention is the main indication for long-term antidepressant use in people with (recurrent) depressive disorders. A critical discussion of potential adverse effects of long-term use is important to consider but beyond the scope of the present article. For tolerability and safety issues, interested readers are referred to the pertinent literature.^28–30

Relapse prevention trials: too good to be true?

The scientific evidence in support of long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment is based almost exclusively on relapse prevention trials.^1,2,31 These long-term studies are basically discontinuation trials, where antidepressant users in (stable) remission are randomised to either have the antidepressant abruptly stopped and replaced by inert placebo or to continue active treatment. The difference in relapse rates between the antidepressant and the placebo arm at the end of the maintenance phase is then assumed to reflect a prophylactic drug effect. As stated above, the results of these trials are unequivocally positive and consistently show that, after about 12 months, the relapse rate is roughly 40% for those participants who were abruptly switched to placebo and 20% for those maintained on active treatment, which results in a relative risk of 2 and a number needed to treat (NNT) of 5.^25–27

This, in short, is the scientific evidence on which treatment guidelines largely base their recommendation for long-term antidepressant treatment.^1,2,31 At first glance, this evidence base indeed appears impressive, and, without a critical look at the methodology of these trials, which number in dozens, one is understandably tempted to conclude that antidepressants have ‘remarkable’ long-term efficacy.³² Based on evidence from relapse prevention (discontinuation) trials, it was even claimed that antidepressants are ‘one of the most effective of all drugs’.²³ However, as I already pointed out in previous articles,^10,33 the validity of these trials, and hence the interpretation of their findings, cannot be accepted at face value. As researchers, we should not be seduced into believing that a drug is highly effective simply because a specific trial protocol has consistently produced impressive treatment effects, as these effects could be the result of a flawed trial protocol.³⁴ Such systematic bias in clinical trials is also referred to as ‘hard-wired bias’.³⁵

The persistent superiority of antidepressants over placebo in relapse prevention (discontinuation) trials is a peculiar finding, given that only about 50% of acute treatment trials are positive,^36,37 which results in a disappointingly small average treatment effect,^38,39 and a NNT of about 9.^40,41 This recently led researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Center to state that ‘Taken together, the evidence does not support definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of antidepressants for depression in adults, including whether they are more efficacious than placebo for depression’ (p. 8).³⁹ Moreover, it is important to note that trial protocols other than discontinuation trials failed to find reliable evidence of remarkable long-term benefits.^42–44 This prompted SN Ghaemi, a leading psychiatric researcher from Tufts Medical Center in Boston, MA, to conclude that ‘(Antidepressants’) long-term prophylactic effectiveness in recurrent unipolar major depression remains uncertain’ (p. 957).¹⁶ In this respect, the evidence from relapse prevention (discontinuation) trials indeed appears too good to be true.³⁴ How could a drug that has very limited efficacy in the acute and long-term treatment of depression symptoms possibly have such impressive prophylactic effects? We therefore need to consider that the strong and consistent effects produced in relapse prevention (discontinuation) trials are possibly a methodological artefact. I will now explain how this impressive drug-placebo separation could come about.

Withdrawal confounding in relapse prevention trials

Relapse prevention (discontinuation) trials are very popular in psychiatry but have a bad reputation among critics. According to various authors, their validity is poor and findings hence difficult to interpret.^34,42,45,46 Issues discussed in the literature include, among others, poor representativity and generalisability of results (findings apply only to a subset of users who responded particularly well to the drugs), inflated effect size estimates (treatment responders are assessed for treatment response, which is tautological) and unblinding effects (participants who have their active treatment abruptly discontinued may notice it). 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.^49,50 Withdrawal symptoms include, among others, anxiety, panic, irritability, aggression, lethargy, flu-like symptoms, electric-shock sensations (brain zaps), fatigue, dizziness, tremor, dysphoria, bouts of crying, suicidality, insomnia, anorexia and nausea. Many of these symptoms are, therefore, easily misdiagnosed as a depression relapse when relapses are assessed via symptom rating scales such as the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale that cannot differentiate withdrawal from relapse.^51,52

Withdrawal reactions can be so severe that they classify as a depression relapse in up to 27% of users within 5–8 days of double-blind placebo-controlled treatment interruption.⁵³ That is, abrupt discontinuation of antidepressants relates to significantly higher rate of new depression episodes.^53,54 This increased risk is not necessarily due to misclassification of acute withdrawal symptoms, yet is likely caused by withdrawal reactions, for example, neurochemical adaptations suddenly unopposed.^55,56 These types of withdrawal reactions are commonly defined as rebound disorders (rapid return of original symptoms at greater intensity) and persistent (protracted) post-acute withdrawal disorders (return of persistent original symptoms at greater intensity and/or symptoms related to new emerging disorders).⁵⁰ While rebound disorders usually occur within a few days after drug discontinuation, and resolve spontaneously within up to 6 weeks, persistent post-acute withdrawal disorders may also have a delayed onset and last for several months or, occasionally, even years.^47,57,58 Rebound disorders and persistent post-acute withdrawal disorders have also been described with various other CNS drugs, including opioids, benzodiazepines, stimulants, antipsychotics and lithium.^48,59

According to two placebo-controlled trials, abrupt discontinuation of antidepressants can lead to a significant decline in social functioning within a few days, with further progression of impairments very likely.^60,61 These functional impairments that come along with withdrawal symptoms may cause stress that can trigger or precipitate a depression relapse.^62,63 The link between withdrawal-related functional impairments and depression relapse has never been examined directly,^60,61 but is indirectly supported by robust epidemiological findings that social functioning deficits, for example, due to job strain,^64,65 relate prospectively to increased risk of depression.⁶⁶ Finally, there is evidence that the more users had previously been exposed to and the longer they had been on antidepressants, the higher the risk of severe withdrawal reactions.^17,50,67,68 Thus, as cumulative exposure to antidepressants appears to influence the incidence and severity of withdrawal reactions,^50,67 discontinuation trials with a longer pre-randomization (stabilization) phase may thus have more confounded results. Moreover, it is important to note that a majority of participants who enter a relapse prevention (discontinuation) trial had already been on antidepressants and other psychotropic drugs for a long time. In the lead-in (washout) phase, these participants may thus already undergo withdrawal, and then again in the space of a few weeks if randomised to the discontinuation (placebo) arm. For someone who has been on prescribed psychotropics for years, this may cause no small degree of disturbance both psychologically and physiologically.^45,62

In sum, abruptly stopping antidepressants can cause various types of withdrawal reactions that meet diagnostic criteria of a new depression episode, including rebound disorders and persistent post-acute withdrawal disorders.^47,48,50 Moreover, acute withdrawal symptoms can be misdiagnosed as depression relapse or may trigger a relapse due to withdrawal-related functional impairments.^51,52,62 It follows that a significant portion (possibly even a majority) of events recorded as depression relapses in the discontinuation arm of maintenance studies are in fact due to withdrawal reactions.^69,70 When we examine the survival curves in relapse prevention (discontinuation) trials, we easily see that the drug–placebo separation occurs almost completely within the first 12 weeks (see for instance the graphs presented in the FDA review²⁵). That is, antidepressants appear to exert a ‘prophylactic’ effect for the first 12 weeks only; thereafter, the drugs do not protect any better against relapse than a placebo pill. This has been noted by various authors and is empirically well established. ^10,70–72 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. Therefore, the internal validity of relapse prevention (discontinuation) trials is compromised.^34,46,73 Given that the outcome in these maintenance studies is confounded, we must acknowledge that they are uninterpretable and cannot serve as a valid evidence base for long-term maintenance treatment. The next question hence is whether there is evidence of prophylactic effects from studies with other methodologies that would support long-term antidepressant treatment.

Extension trials and longitudinal observational studies: do they concur with relapse prevention trials?

Extension trials start as double-blind acute phase trials with a placebo and antidepressant arm. After the acute treatment phase, treatment responders continue on the same treatment they were initially randomised to. The advantage of extension trials over discontinuation trials is thus that they avoid withdrawal confounding, as acute treatment responders continue with the same treatment they were already on (i.e. the placebo arm is not a discontinuation arm). Unfortunately, there are only very few placebo-controlled extension trials. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Zimmerman et al. found only five small trials of 6–12 months duration.⁷⁴ They report an average relapse rate of 8% for active treatment and 25% for placebo. However, there are flaws in this meta-analysis. For instance, in one trial the reported relapse rate for placebo was not from the extension arm (that is, from participants who were treated with placebo during the acute phase), but from participants re-randomised from antidepressant to placebo (hence a typical discontinuation arm affected by withdrawal confounding).⁷⁵ In another trial,⁷⁶ the rates reported by Zimmerman et al. were actually not for relapses (new depression episodes; not reported in the target article), but for loss of response (<30% symptom reduction from baseline),⁷⁴ which is a different outcome. Due to these flaws, the results reported by Zimmerman et al. must be interpreted with caution.⁷⁴

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-sponsored real-world effectiveness trial STAR*D also included a 12-month extension phase for treatment responders, but unfortunately it was not placebo-controlled.⁷⁷ Nevertheless, the results show that, when prophylactic effects are assessed via long-term follow up of continuously treated acute-phase responders (rather than via abrupt treatment discontinuation after the acute phase), then sustained remission with antidepressants is a rare event.^16,43 According to the intent-to-treat re-analysis by Pigott et al.,⁴³ the rate of sustained remission for participants who entered the extension phase in remission was only 6% at the final 12-month assessment. A similarly very low rate of sustained remission (only 11% over 12 months of treatment) was also reported in another NIMH-sponsored real-world effectiveness trial.⁴⁴ These publicly funded real-world trials based on representative outpatient samples indicate that the long-term benefits of antidepressants appear disappointingly poor once their prophylactic effects are assessed with protocols other than discontinuation trials. These findings are largely confirmed by the meta-analysis of classic long-term trials conducted by Deshauer et al.,⁴² according to which there is no significant drug–placebo difference in remission rates after 6–8 months of treatment (drug: 45%, placebo: 38%).

I will now turn to a brief discussion of observational studies on relapse prevention. Eli Lilly, manufacturer of fluoxetine, published evidence from observational studies suggesting that short-term antidepressant use, relative to continued use, relates to higher relapse rates.^78,79 This was seen as a confirmation that long-term treatment is often necessary and beneficial. However, it was later demonstrated that these studies sponsored by Eli Lilly applied a flawed statistical method that systematically biases the results against short-term use.⁸⁰ In fact, when the observational data are analysed with an unbiased statistical method, then short-term antidepressant use is associated with lower relapse rates than continued use.^80–82 Systematic reviews of longitudinal cohort studies likewise do not indicate that antidepressant treatment prevents relapses, chronicity or clinical progression of depression.^83–85 Noteworthy, in the most recent review of primary care and community studies, the authors stated that antidepressant use typically relates to similar or even worse outcomes than non-use.⁸⁶ Indeed, many observational studies point to the possibility that (long-term) antidepressant use may increase the risk of recurrent or persistent depression.^87–89 These findings are also supported by research on the pharmacodynamic mechanisms of tolerance and tachyphylaxis, which suggests that the more and the longer a person has been treated with antidepressants, the larger the risk of non-response, relapse and chronicity;^77,90,91 for a comprehensive review, see Fava and Offidani.⁵⁶

Finally, the average rate of sustained recovery in patients with mood disorders was higher in the pre-treatment era (that is, before the widespread use of antidepressants) than in psychiatry’s modern drug-centred treatment era, despite today’s patients diagnosed with mood disorders being, on average, less severely ill.^92,93 Although the aim of this article is not to provide a comprehensive review of observational studies, it can be concluded from previous systematic reviews that antidepressant use does not, on average, relate to less relapses or sustained recovery in people with depression.^83,85 If anything, observational studies hint at increased risk of relapses and chronicity with long-term antidepressant use.^10,83,86,93 It must be borne in mind that the validity of observational studies is limited due to confounding by indication, so these studies cannot prove that long-term use is ineffective or harmful. However, taken together the findings from observational studies certainly do not indicate that long-term antidepressant use has remarkable benefits.

Summary and conclusion

Relapse prevention (discontinuation) trials have produced strong and consistent evidence of drug–placebo separation during the first 12 weeks of treatment; thereafter, treatment effects remain constant for at least 12 months.^26,27,72 The common interpretation of these findings is that antidepressants have strong prophylactic effects, and that they effectively prevent depression relapses.^1,2,23,31 This interpretation is challenged by research on antidepressant withdrawal reactions, which also emerge within days or a few weeks after treatment discontinuation (or dose reduction), and which can be severe and persistent.^21,50,94 Clinical trials and observational studies have shown that when antidepressants are abruptly (or rapidly) stopped, patients are at increased risk of relapse.^53,54 Severe withdrawal symptoms and related functional impairments may develop within a few days in patients who were in stable remission,^53,61 but late onset and slow but persistent progression of symptoms is also possible.^47,48,51 Withdrawal reactions comprise not only acute withdrawal symptoms, but also rebound disorders and persistent post-acute withdrawal disorders.^47,48,50 This makes the differentiation between withdrawal and relapse even more challenging for an assessor in a clinical trial. For the vivid personal account of a psychiatrist with lived experience, see Stockmann.⁹⁵ Hundreds of individual case reports are posted on SurvivingAntidepressants.org.

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. Publicly funded real-world long-term effectiveness trials like STAR*D showed that the benefits of continued antidepressant use are disappointingly poor.^16,43,77 The results of longitudinal observational studies likewise do not indicate that (long-term) antidepressant use prevents relapses or chronicity.^83–85 If anything, it appears that long-term antidepressant treatment, compared with short-term use or non-use, relates to worse outcomes.^10,15,81 More research is urgently needed to explain how such findings come about, but the pharmacodynamic mechanisms of tolerance and tachyphylaxis are probably a good starting point.^56,96

This article concurs with a growing number of physicians and researchers who caution against indiscriminate long-term antidepressant treatment.^8–11,55 Currently, there is no reliable evidence that long-term antidepressant treatment is beneficial and there are legitimate concerns that it may be largely ineffective or even harmful in a substantial portion of users.^{10,11,16,55,96} It is particularly problematic that we have almost no data on antidepressants’ long-term effects on objective measures of social functioning (e.g. employment and disability rates) and patient-oriented outcomes such as quality of life. A critical reappraisal of current treatment guidelines along these lines is required. However, in keeping with the logical principle of ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ we must remain mindful that long-term antidepressant use may be useful to some patients.⁹⁷ It is therefore important to conduct large real-world effectiveness trials that can adequately evaluate antidepressants’ long-term effects on depression symptoms, social functioning and quality of life. Classic long-term parallel-arm placebo-controlled trials are the preferred methodology. Discontinuation trials should be avoided unless they apply very slow and individually tailored tapers and carefully discriminate withdrawal reactions from genuine depression relapses. Finally, it would also be worthwhile to focus more generally on influences of industry-sponsorship and authors’ conflicts of interest,^10,98 as these may systematically bias the literature on the risks and benefits of antidepressants.^36,99–102

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethics statement

No approval was required for this work

ORCID iD

Michael P. Hengartner

References

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Depression in adults: recognition and management. London: NICE, nice.org.uk/guidance/cg90 (2009, accessed 17 November 2017).

American Psychiatric Association. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2010.

Vilhelmsson

. Depression and antidepressants: a nordic perspective. Front Public Health 2013; 1: 30.

Marsden

White

Annand

, et al. Medicines associated with dependence or withdrawal: a mixed-methods public health review and national database study in England. Lancet Psychiat 2019; 6: 935–950.

Huijbregts

Hoogendoorn

Slottje

, et al. Long-term and short-term antidepressant use in general practice: data from a large cohort in The Netherlands. Psychother Psychosom 2017; 86: 362–369.

Mars

Heron

Kessler

, et al. Influences on antidepressant prescribing trends in the UK: 1995–2011. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2017; 52: 193–200.

Reid

. Are antidepressants overprescribed? No. BMJ 2013; 346: f190.

Spence

. Are antidepressants overprescribed? Yes. BMJ 2013; 346: f191.

Kendrick

. Long-term antidepressant treatment: time for a review? Prescriber 2015; 26: 7–10.

10.

Hengartner

. Methodological flaws, conflicts of interest, and scientific fallacies: implications for the evaluation of antidepressants’ efficacy and harm. Front Psychiatry 2017; 8: 275.

11.

Fava

. Rational use of antidepressant drugs. Psychother Psychosom 2014; 83: 197–204.

12.

Johnson

Macdonald

Atkinson

, et al. Reviewing long-term antidepressants can reduce drug burden: a prospective observational cohort study. Br J Gen Pract 2012; 62: e773–e779.

13.

Mojtabai

Olfson

. National trends in long-term use of antidepressant medications: results from the U.S. national health and nutrition examination survey. J Clin Psychiatry 2014; 75: 169–177.

14.

Verhaak

PFM

de Beurs

Spreeuwenberg

. What proportion of initially prescribed antidepressants is still being prescribed chronically after 5 years in general practice? A longitudinal cohort analysis. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e024051.

15.

El-Mallakh

Gao

Jeannie Roberts

. Tardive dysphoria: the role of long term antidepressant use in-inducing chronic depression. Med Hypotheses 2011; 76: 769–773.

16.

Ghaemi

. Why antidepressants are not antidepressants: STEP-BD, STAR*D, and the return of neurotic depression. Bipolar Disord 2008; 10: 957–968.

17.

Read

Cartwright

Gibson

. How many of 1829 antidepressant users report withdrawal effects or addiction? Int J Ment Health Nurs 2018; 27: 1805–1815.

18.

Nielsen

Hansen

Gotzsche

. What is the difference between dependence and withdrawal reactions? A comparison of benzodiazepines and selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors. Addiction 2012; 107: 900–908.

19.

Kessing

Hansen

Demyttenaere

, et al. Depressive and bipolar disorders: patients’ attitudes and beliefs towards depression and antidepressants. Psychol Med 2005; 35: 1205–1213.

20.

Horowitz

Taylor

. Tapering of SSRI treatment to mitigate withdrawal symptoms. Lancet Psychiat 2019; 6: 538–546.

21.

Hengartner

Davies

Read

. Antidepressant withdrawal - the tide is finally turning. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 2019; 29: e52.

22.

Massabki

Abi-Jaoude

. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor ‘discontinuation syndrome’ or withdrawal. Br J Psychiatry 2020: 1–4.

23.

Nutt

Goodwin

Bhugra

, et al. Attacks on antidepressants: signs of deep-seated stigma? Lancet Psychiat 2014; 1: 102–104.

24.

Perlis

. Anxiety about antidepressants. Am J Psychiatry 2018; 175: 500–501.

25.

Borges

Chen

Laughren

, et al. Review of maintenance trials for major depressive disorder: a 25-year perspective from the US food and drug administration. J Clin Psychiatry 2014; 75: 205–214.

26.

Geddes

Carney

Davies

, et al. Relapse prevention with antidepressant drug treatment in depressive disorders: a systematic review. Lancet 2003; 361: 653–661.

27.

Hansen

Gaynes

Thieda

, et al. Meta-analysis of major depressive disorder relapse and recurrence with second-generation antidepressants. Psychiat Serv 2008; 59: 1121–1130.

28.

Carvalho

Sharma

Brunoni

, et al. The safety, tolerability and risks associated with the use of newer generation antidepressant drugs: a critical review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom 2016; 85: 270–288.

29.

Moret

Isaac

Briley

. Problems associated with long-term treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. J Psychopharmacol 2009; 23: 967–974.

30.

Papakostas

. Limitations of contemporary antidepressants: tolerability. J Clin Psychiatry 2007; 68: 11–17.

31.

Bauer

Severus

Kohler

, et al. World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders. Part 2: maintenance treatment of major depressive disorder-update 2015. World J Biol Psychiatry 2015; 16: 76–95.

32.

Goodwin

Nutt

. Antidepressants; what’s the beef? Acta Neuropsychiatr 2019; 31: 59–60.

33.

Hengartner

. Scientific debate instead of beef; challenging misleading arguments about the efficacy of antidepressants. Acta Neuropsychiatr 2019; 31: 235–236.

34.

Ghaemi

Selker

. Maintenance efficacy designs in psychiatry: randomized discontinuation trials - enriched but not better. J Clin Transl Sci 2017; 1: 198–204.

35.

Prasad

Berger

. Hard-wired bias: how even double-blind, randomized controlled trials can be skewed from the start. Mayo Clin Proc 2015; 90: 1171–1175.

36.

Turner

Matthews

Linardatos

, et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 252–260.

37.

de Vries

Roest

de Jonge

, et al. The cumulative effect of reporting and citation biases on the apparent efficacy of treatments: the case of depression. Psychol Med 2018; 48: 2453–2455.

38.

Hengartner

Jakobsen

Sorensen

, et al. Efficacy of new-generation antidepressants assessed with the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale, the gold standard clinician rating scale: a meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0229381.

39.

Munkholm

Paludan-Muller

Boesen

. Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e024886.

40.

Hengartner

Ploderl

. Statistically significant antidepressant-placebo differences on subjective symptom-rating scales do not prove that the drugs work: effect size and method bias matter! Front Psychiatry 2018; 9: 517.

41.

McCormack

Korownyk

. Effectiveness of antidepressants. BMJ 2018; 360: k1073.

42.

Deshauer

Moher

Fergusson

, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for unipolar depression: a systematic review of classic long-term randomized controlled trials. CMAJ 2008; 178: 1293–1301.

43.

Pigott

Leventhal

Alter

, et al. Efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants: current status of research. Psychother Psychosom 2010; 79: 267–279.

44.

Rush

Trivedi

Carmody

, et al. One-year clinical outcomes of depressed public sector outpatients: a benchmark for subsequent studies. Biol Psychiatry 2004; 56: 46–53.

45.

Moncrieff

. Why is it so difficult to stop psychiatric drug treatment? It may be nothing to do with the original problem. Med Hypotheses 2006; 67: 517–523.

46.

Recalt

Cohen

. Withdrawal confounding in randomized controlled trials of antipsychotic, antidepressant, and stimulant drugs, 2000-2017. Psychother Psychosom 2019; 88: 105–113.

47.

Chouinard

. New classification of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor withdrawal. Psychother Psychosom 2015; 84: 63–71.

48.

Lerner

Klein

. Dependence, withdrawal and rebound of CNS drugs: an update and regulatory considerations for new drugs development. Brain Comm 2019; 1: fcz025.

49.

Davies

Read

. A systematic review into the incidence, severity and duration of antidepressant withdrawal effects: are guidelines evidence-based? Addict Behav 2019; 97: 111–121.

50.

Fava

Cosci

. Understanding and managing withdrawal syndromes after discontinuation of antidepressant drugs. J Clin Psychiatry 2019; 80: 19com12794.

51.

Fava

Gatti

Belaise

, et al. Withdrawal symptoms after selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor discontinuation: a systematic review. Psychother Psychosom 2015; 84: 72–81.

52.

Haddad

Anderson

. Recognising and managing antidepressant discontinuation symptoms. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2007; 13: 447–457.

53.

Rosenbaum

Fava

Hoog

, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor discontinuation syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. Biol Psychiatry 1998; 44: 77–87.

54.

Baldessarini

Tondo

Ghiani

, et al. Illness risk following rapid versus gradual discontinuation of antidepressants. Am J Psychiatry 2010; 167: 934–941.

55.

Andrews

Kornstein

Halberstadt

, et al. Blue again: perturbational effects of antidepressants suggest monoaminergic homeostasis in major depression. Front Psychol 2011; 2: 159.

56.

Fava

Offidani

. The mechanisms of tolerance in antidepressant action. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2011; 35: 1593–1602.

57.

Belaise

Gatti

Chouinard

, et al. Patient online report of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-induced persistent postwithdrawal anxiety and mood disorders. Psychother Psychosom 2012; 81: 386–388.

58.

Stockmann

Odegbaro

Timimi

, et al. SSRI and SNRI withdrawal symptoms reported on an internet forum. Int J Risk Saf Med 2018; 29: 175–180.

59.

Franks

Macritchie

Mahmood

, et al. Bouncing back: is the bipolar rebound phenomenon peculiar to lithium? A retrospective naturalistic study. J Psychopharmacol 2008; 22: 452–456.

60.

Judge

Parry

Quail

, et al. Discontinuation symptoms: comparison of brief interruption in fluoxetine and paroxetine treatment. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2002; 17: 217–225.

61.

Michelson

Fava

Amsterdam

, et al. Interruption of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 176: 363–368.

62.

Healy

. Treatment-induced stress syndromes. Med Hypotheses 2010; 74: 764–768.

63.

Whitfield

. Psychiatric drugs as agents of trauma. Int J Risk Saf Med 2010; 22: 195–207.

64.

Harvey

Sellahewa

Wang

, et al. The role of job strain in understanding midlife common mental disorder: a national birth cohort study. Lancet Psychiat 2018; 5: 498–506.

65.

Stansfeld

Shipley

Head

, et al. Repeated job strain and the risk of depression: longitudinal analyses from the Whitehall II study. Am J Public Health 2012; 102: 2360–2366.

66.

Lund

Brooke-Sumner

Baingana

, et al. Social determinants of mental disorders and the sustainable development goals: a systematic review of reviews. Lancet Psychiat 2018; 5: 357–369.

67.

Read

. How common and severe are six withdrawal effects from, and addiction to, antidepressants? The experiences of a large international sample of patients. Addict Behav 2020; 102: 1–8.

68.

Viguera

Baldessarini

Friedberg

. Discontinuing antidepressant treatment in major depression. Harv Rev Psychiatry 1998; 5: 293–306.

69.

El-Mallakh

Briscoe

. Studies of long-term use of antidepressants: how should the data from them be interpreted? CNS Drugs 2012; 26: 97–109.

70.

Greenhouse

Stangl

Kupfer

, et al. Methodologic issues in maintenance therapy clinical trials. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991; 48: 313–318.

71.

Baldessarini

. Risks in discontinuation trials with antidepressants. J Clin Psychiatry 2014; 75: e1443.

72.

Kaymaz

van Os

Loonen

, et al. Evidence that patients with single versus recurrent depressive episodes are differentially sensitive to treatment discontinuation: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials. J Clin Psychiatry 2008; 69: 1423–1436.

73.

Tondo

Baldessarini

. Discontinuing psychotropic drug treatment. BJPsych Open 2020; 6: e24.

74.

Zimmerman

Posternak

Ruggero

. Impact of study design on the results of continuation studies of antidepressants. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2007; 27: 177–181.

75.

Montgomery

Rasmussen

Tanghoj

. A 24-week study of 20 mg citalopram, 40 mg citalopram, and placebo in the prevention of relapse of major depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1993; 8: 181–188.

76.

Detke

Wiltse

Mallinckrodt

, et al. Duloxetine in the acute and long-term treatment of major depressive disorder: a placebo- and paroxetine-controlled trial. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2004; 14: 457–470.

77.

Rush

Trivedi

Wisniewski

, et al. Acute and longer-term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one or several treatment steps: a STAR*D report. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 1905–1917.

78.

Claxton

McKendrick

. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment in the UK: risk of relapse or recurrence of depression. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 177: 163–168.

79.

Melfi

Chawla

Croghan

, et al. The effects of adherence to antidepressant treatment guidelines on relapse and recurrence of depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998; 55: 1128–1132.

80.

Gardarsdottir

Egberts

Stolker

, et al. Duration of antidepressant drug treatment and its influence on risk of relapse/recurrence: immortal and neglected time bias. Am J Epidemiol 2009; 170: 280–285.

81.

Gardarsdottir

van Geffen

Stolker

, et al. Does the length of the first antidepressant treatment episode influence risk and time to a second episode? J Clin Psychopharmacol 2009; 29: 69–72.

82.

Verdoux

Cougnard

Thiebaut

, et al. Impact of duration of antidepressant treatment on the risk of occurrence of a new sequence of antidepressant treatment. Pharmacopsychiatry 2011; 44: 96–101.

83.

Hughes

Cohen

. A systematic review of long-term studies of drug treated and non-drug treated depression. J Affect Disord 2009; 118: 9–18.

84.

Kessing

Andersen

. Evidence for clinical progression of unipolar and bipolar disorders. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2017; 135: 51–64.

85.

Steinert

Hofmann

Kruse

, et al. The prospective long-term course of adult depression in general practice and the community. A systematic literature review. J Affect Disord 2014: 65–75.

86.

Ormel

Spinhoven

de Vries

, et al. The antidepressant standoff: why it continues and how to resolve it. Psychol Med 2020; 50: 177–186.

87.

Bockting

CLH

ten Doesschate

Spijker

, et al. Continuation and maintenance use of antidepressants in recurrent depression. Psychother Psychosom 2008; 77: 17–26.

88.

Hengartner

Angst

Rossler

. Antidepressant use prospectively relates to a poorer long-term outcome of depression: results from a prospective community cohort study over 30 years. Psychother Psychosom 2018; 87: 181–183.

89.

Ten Have

Penninx

Tuithof

, et al. Duration of major and minor depressive episodes and associated risk indicators in a psychiatric epidemiological cohort study of the general population. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2017; 136: 300–312.

90.

Amsterdam

Williams

Michelson

, et al. Tachyphylaxis after repeated antidepressant drug exposure in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder. Neuropsychobiology 2009; 59: 227–233.

91.

Leykin

Amsterdam

DeRubeis

, et al. Progressive resistance to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor but not to cognitive therapy in the treatment of major depression. J Consult Clin Psychol 2007; 75: 267–276.

92.

Mulder

Frampton

. Outcome of mood disorders before psychopharmacology: a systematic review. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2014; 48: 224–236.

93.

Whitaker

. Anatomy of an epidemic. New York, NY: Crown Publishers, 2010.

94.

Davies

Read

Hengartner

, et al. Clinical guidelines on antidepressant withdrawal urgently need updating. BMJ 2019; 365: l2238.

95.

Stockmann

. What it was like to stop an antidepressant. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol 2019; 9: 2045125319884834.

96.

Fornaro

Anastasia

Novello

, et al. The emergence of loss of efficacy during antidepressant drug treatment for major depressive disorder: an integrative review of evidence, mechanisms, and clinical implications. Pharmacol Res 2019; 139: 494–502.

97.

Altman

Bland

. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 1995; 311: 485.

98.

Fava

. Financial conflicts of interest in psychiatry. World Psychiatry 2007; 6: 19–24.

99.

Amsterdam

McHenry

. The paroxetine 352 bipolar study revisited: deconstruction of corporate and academic misconduct. J Sci Pract Integr 2019; 1: 1–12.

100.

Ebrahim

Bance

Athale

, et al. Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 70: 155–163.

101.

Healy

Cattell

. Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. Br J Psychiatry 2003; 183: 22–27.

102.

Jureidini

McHenry

Mansfield

. Clinical trials and drug promotion: selective reporting of study 329. Int J Risk Saf Med 2008; 20: 73–81.