Query: weight gain

Relevant passages:
Flaxseed supplementation improved insulin resistance in obese glucose intolerant people: a randomized crossover design <=SEP=> Background Obesity leads to an increase in inflammation and insulin resistance. This study determined antioxidant activity of flaxseed and its role in inflammation and insulin resistance in obese glucose intolerant people. Methods Using a randomized crossover design, nine obese glucose intolerant people consumed 40 g ground flaxseed or 40 g wheat bran daily for 12 weeks with a 4-week washout period. Plasma inflammation biomarkers (CRP, TNF-α, and IL-6), glucose, insulin, and thiobaribituric acid reactive substance (TBARS) were measured before and after of each supplementation. Results Flaxseed supplementation decreased TBARS (p = 0.0215) and HOMA-IR (p = 0.0382). Flaxseed or wheat bran supplementation did not change plasma inflammatory biomarkers. A positive relationship was found between TBARS and HOMA-IR (r = 0.62, p = 0.0003). Conclusions The results of the study weakly support that decreased insulin resistance might have been secondary to antioxidant activity of flaxseed. However, the mechanism(s) of decreased insulin resistance by flaxseed should be further determined using flaxseed lignan.

An open-label study on the effect of flax seed powder (Linum usitatissimum) supplementation in the management of diabetes mellitus. <=SEP=> Diabetes mellitus is characterized by hyperglycemia and associated with aberrations in the metabolism of carbohydrate, protein, and lipid that result in development of secondary complications. Extensive studies have indicated that nutritional therapy plays a pivotal role in the controlling or postponing of development of these secondary complications. Several functional foods have been shown to possess hypoglycemic and hypolipidemic properties. Flax seed (FS) is a functional food that is rich in omega 3 fatty acids and antioxidants and is low in carbohydrates. In exploratory studies, FS was incorporated in recipes, which resulted in a reduction in the glycemic index of the food items. These observations prompted us to investigate the efficacy of FS supplementation in type 2 diabetics (n = 29). Subjects were assigned to the experimental (n = 18) or the control group (n = 11) on the basis of their desire to participate in the study. The experimental group's diet was supplemented daily with 10 g of FS powder for a period of 1 month. The control group received no supplementation or placebo. During the study, diet and drug intake of the subjects remained unaltered. The efficacy of supplementation with FS was evaluated through a battery of clinico-biochemical parameters. Supplementation with FS reduced fasting blood glucose by 19.7% and glycated hemoglobin by 15.6%. A favorable reduction in total cholesterol (14.3%), triglycerides (17.5%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (21.8%), and apolipoprotein B and an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (11.9%) were also noticed. These observations suggest the therapeutic potential of FS in the management of diabetes mellitus.

The Efficacy of Paroxetine and Placebo in Treating Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Change on the Hamilton Rating Scales <=SEP=> Background Previous meta-analyses of published and unpublished trials indicate that antidepressants provide modest benefits compared to placebo in the treatment of depression; some have argued that these benefits are not clinically significant. However, these meta-analyses were based only on trials submitted for the initial FDA approval of the medication and were limited to those aimed at treating depression. Here, for the first time, we assess the efficacy of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) in the treatment of both anxiety and depression, using a complete data set of all published and unpublished trials sponsored by the manufacturer. Methods and Findings GlaxoSmithKline has been required to post the results for all sponsored clinical trials online, providing an opportunity to assess the efficacy of an SSRI (paroxetine) with a complete data set of all trials conducted. We examined the data from all placebo-controlled, double-blind trials of paroxetine that included change scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HRSA) and/or the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). For the treatment of anxiety (k = 12), the efficacy difference between paroxetine and placebo was modest (d = 0.27), and independent of baseline severity of anxiety. Overall change in placebo-treated individuals replicated 79% of the magnitude of paroxetine response. Efficacy was superior for the treatment of panic disorder (d = 0.36) than for generalized anxiety disorder (d = 0.20). Published trials showed significantly larger drug-placebo differences than unpublished trials (d’s = 0.32 and 0.17, respectively). In depression trials (k = 27), the benefit of paroxetine over placebo was consistent with previous meta-analyses of antidepressant efficacy (d = 0.32). Conclusions The available empirical evidence indicates that paroxetine provides only a modest advantage over placebo in treatment of anxiety and depression. Treatment implications are discussed.

Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. <=SEP=> BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine is valuable to the extent that the evidence base is complete and unbiased. Selective publication of clinical trials--and the outcomes within those trials--can lead to unrealistic estimates of drug effectiveness and alter the apparent risk-benefit ratio. METHODS: We obtained reviews from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for studies of 12 antidepressant agents involving 12,564 patients. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify matching publications. For trials that were reported in the literature, we compared the published outcomes with the FDA outcomes. We also compared the effect size derived from the published reports with the effect size derived from the entire FDA data set. RESULTS: Among 74 FDA-registered studies, 31%, accounting for 3449 study participants, were not published. Whether and how the studies were published were associated with the study outcome. A total of 37 studies viewed by the FDA as having positive results were published; 1 study viewed as positive was not published. Studies viewed by the FDA as having negative or questionable results were, with 3 exceptions, either not published (22 studies) or published in a way that, in our opinion, conveyed a positive outcome (11 studies). According to the published literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA analysis showed that 51% were positive. Separate meta-analyses of the FDA and journal data sets showed that the increase in effect size ranged from 11 to 69% for individual drugs and was 32% overall. CONCLUSIONS: We cannot determine whether the bias observed resulted from a failure to submit manuscripts on the part of authors and sponsors, from decisions by journal editors and reviewers not to publish, or both. Selective reporting of clinical trial results may have adverse consequences for researchers, study participants, health care professionals, and patients. Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Deception as treatment: the case of depression. <=SEP=> Is it ever right to prescribe placebos to patients in clinical practice? The General Medical Council is ambivalent about the issue; the American Medical Association asserts that placebos can be administered only if the patient is (somehow) 'informed'. The potential problem with placebos is that they may involve deception: indeed, if this is the case, an ethical tension arises over the patient's autonomy and the physician's requirement to be open and honest, and the notion that medical care should be the primary concern. This paper examines the case of depression as an entry point for understanding the complexities of the prescription of placebos. Recent important meta-analyses of antidepressants claim that they are not significantly more effective in a clinical setting than placebos. Given that antidepressants have numerous adverse side effects and are hugely expensive, this provocative research has serious potential ethical and practical implications for patients and medical providers. Should placebos be prescribed in place of antidepressants? The case of depression highlights another important issue which medical ethical codes have hitherto overlooked: well-being is not synonymous with being realistic about oneself, one's circumstances and the future. While severely depressed individuals are unduly pessimistic about themselves and the world around them, treatment of depressed individuals can be deemed successful when patients have successfully attained those positive illusions that are indicative of psychological health. This is exactly what successful psychological treatments of depression seem to achieve. It is therefore possible that there may be a limited unavoidable role for deception in medicine.

Challenging Received Wisdom: Antidepressants and the Placebo Effect <=SEP=> This article explores the reaction when an article challenging received wisdom is published and covered extensively by the media (1). The article in question was a meta-analysis of antidepressant clinical trials indicating that for most patients, difference between drug and placebo was not clinically significant. Reactions ranged from denial that the effects of antidepressants are so small to criticisms of the clinical trials that were analyzed. Each of these reactions is explored and countered.

Exercise for the treatment of depression and anxiety. <=SEP=> Depression and anxiety are the most common psychiatric conditions seen in the general medical setting, affecting millions of individuals in the United States. The treatments for depression and anxiety are multiple and have varying degrees of effectiveness. Physical activity has been shown to be associated with decreased symptoms of depression and anxiety. Physical activity has been consistently shown to be associated with improved physical health, life satisfaction, cognitive functioning, and psychological well-being. Conversely, physical inactivity appears to be associated with the development of psychological disorders. Specific studies support the use of exercise as a treatment for depression. Exercise compares favorably to antidepressant medications as a first-line treatment for mild to moderate depression and has also been shown to improve depressive symptoms when used as an adjunct to medications. While not as extensively studied, exercise has been shown to be an effective and cost-efficient treatment alternative for a variety of anxiety disorders. While effective, exercise has not been shown to reduce anxiety to the level achieved by psychopharmaceuticals.

Antidepressants and the placebo response. <=SEP=> AIMS: To evaluate new generation antidepressants in relation to the placebo response. METHODS: I review meta-analyses in which response to antidepressant medication and response to placebo were calculated. RESULTS: All but one of these meta-analyses included unpublished as well as published trials. Most trials failed to show a significant advantage of SSRIs over inert placebo, and the differences between drug and placebo are not clinically significant for most depressed patients. Documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed an explicit decision to keep this information from the public and from prescribing physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Because they do not incur drug risks, exercise and psychotherapy, which show at benefits at least equal to those of antidepressants, may be a better treatment choice for depressed individuals.

Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration <=SEP=> Background Meta-analyses of antidepressant medications have reported only modest benefits over placebo treatment, and when unpublished trial data are included, the benefit falls below accepted criteria for clinical significance. Yet, the efficacy of the antidepressants may also depend on the severity of initial depression scores. The purpose of this analysis is to establish the relation of baseline severity and antidepressant efficacy using a relevant dataset of published and unpublished clinical trials. Methods and Findings We obtained data on all clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the licensing of the four new-generation antidepressants for which full datasets were available. We then used meta-analytic techniques to assess linear and quadratic effects of initial severity on improvement scores for drug and placebo groups and on drug–placebo difference scores. Drug–placebo differences increased as a function of initial severity, rising from virtually no difference at moderate levels of initial depression to a relatively small difference for patients with very severe depression, reaching conventional criteria for clinical significance only for patients at the upper end of the very severely depressed category. Meta-regression analyses indicated that the relation of baseline severity and improvement was curvilinear in drug groups and showed a strong, negative linear component in placebo groups. Conclusions Drug–placebo differences in antidepressant efficacy increase as a function of baseline severity, but are relatively small even for severely depressed patients. The relationship between initial severity and antidepressant efficacy is attributable to decreased responsiveness to placebo among very severely depressed patients, rather than to increased responsiveness to medication. Editors' Summary Background. Everyone feels miserable occasionally. But for some people—those with depression—these sad feelings last for months or years and interfere with daily life. Depression is a serious medical illness caused by imbalances in the brain chemicals that regulate mood. It affects one in six people at some time during their life, making them feel hopeless, worthless, unmotivated, even suicidal. Doctors measure the severity of depression using the “Hamilton Rating Scale of Depression” (HRSD), a 17–21 item questionnaire. The answers to each question are given a score and a total score for the questionnaire of more than 18 indicates severe depression. Mild depression is often treated with psychotherapy or talk therapy (for example, cognitive–behavioral therapy helps people to change negative ways of thinking and behaving). For more severe depression, current treatment is usually a combination of psychotherapy and an antidepressant drug, which is hypothesized to normalize the brain chemicals that affect mood. Antidepressants include “tricyclics,” “monoamine oxidases,” and “selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors” (SSRIs). SSRIs are the newest antidepressants and include fluoxetine, venlafaxine, nefazodone, and paroxetine. Why Was This Study Done? Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), and other licensing authorities have approved SSRIs for the treatment of depression, some doubts remain about their clinical efficacy. Before an antidepressant is approved for use in patients, it must undergo clinical trials that compare its ability to improve the HRSD scores of patients with that of a placebo, a dummy tablet that contains no drug. Each individual trial provides some information about the new drug's effectiveness but additional information can be gained by combining the results of all the trials in a “meta-analysis,” a statistical method for combining the results of many studies. A previously published meta-analysis of the published and unpublished trials on SSRIs submitted to the FDA during licensing has indicated that these drugs have only a marginal clinical benefit. On average, the SSRIs improved the HRSD score of patients by 1.8 points more than the placebo, whereas NICE has defined a significant clinical benefit for antidepressants as a drug–placebo difference in the improvement of the HRSD score of 3 points. However, average improvement scores may obscure beneficial effects between different groups of patient, so in the meta-analysis in this paper, the researchers investigated whether the baseline severity of depression affects antidepressant efficacy. What Did the Researchers Do and Find? The researchers obtained data on all the clinical trials submitted to the FDA for the licensing of fluoxetine, venlafaxine, nefazodone, and paroxetine. They then used meta-analytic techniques to investigate whether the initial severity of depression affected the HRSD improvement scores for the drug and placebo groups in these trials. They confirmed first that the overall effect of these new generation of antidepressants was below the recommended criteria for clinical significance. Then they showed that there was virtually no difference in the improvement scores for drug and placebo in patients with moderate depression and only a small and clinically insignificant difference among patients with very severe depression. The difference in improvement between the antidepressant and placebo reached clinical significance, however, in patients with initial HRSD scores of more than 28—that is, in the most severely depressed patients. Additional analyses indicated that the apparent clinical effectiveness of the antidepressants among these most severely depressed patients reflected a decreased responsiveness to placebo rather than an increased responsiveness to antidepressants. What Do These Findings Mean? These findings suggest that, compared with placebo, the new-generation antidepressants do not produce clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially have moderate or even very severe depression, but show significant effects only in the most severely depressed patients. The findings also show that the effect for these patients seems to be due to decreased responsiveness to placebo, rather than increased responsiveness to medication. Given these results, the researchers conclude that there is little reason to prescribe new-generation antidepressant medications to any but the most severely depressed patients unless alternative treatments have been ineffective. In addition, the finding that extremely depressed patients are less responsive to placebo than less severely depressed patients but have similar responses to antidepressants is a potentially important insight into how patients with depression respond to antidepressants and placebos that should be investigated further. Additional Information. Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045.

Antidepressants and the Placebo Effect <=SEP=> Antidepressants are supposed to work by fixing a chemical imbalance, specifically, a lack of serotonin in the brain. Indeed, their supposed effectiveness is the primary evidence for the chemical imbalance theory. But analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect. Some antidepressants increase serotonin levels, some decrease it, and some have no effect at all on serotonin. Nevertheless, they all show the same therapeutic benefit. Even the small statistical difference between antidepressants and placebos may be an enhanced placebo effect, due to the fact that most patients and doctors in clinical trials successfully break blind. The serotonin theory is as close as any theory in the history of science to having been proved wrong. Instead of curing depression, popular antidepressants may induce a biological vulnerability making people more likely to become depressed in the future.

A Pill for the Ill? Patients’ Reports of Their Experience of the Medical Encounter in the Treatment of Depression <=SEP=> Background Starting in the 1960s, a broad-based patients’ rights movement began to question doctors’ paternalism and to demand disclosure of medical information, informed consent, and active participation by the individual in personal health care. According to scholars, these changes contributed to downplay the biomedical approach in favor of a more patient-oriented perspective. The Swedish non-profit organization Consumer Association for Medicines and Health (KILEN) has offered the possibility for consumers to report their perceptions and experiences from their use of medicines in order to strengthen consumer rights within the health care sector. Methodology In this paper, qualitative content analysis was used to analyze 181 KILEN consumer reports of adverse events from antidepressant medications in order to explore patients’ views of mental ill health symptoms and the doctor-patient interaction. Principal Findings Overall, the KILEN stories contained negative experiences of the patients’ medical encounters. Some reports indicated intense emotional outrage and strong feelings of abuse by the health care system. Many reports suggested that doctors and patients had very different accounts of the nature of the problems for which the patient was seeking help. Although patients sought help for problems like tiredness and sleeplessness (often with a personal crisis of some sort as a described cause), the treating doctor in most cases was exceptionally quick in both diagnosing depression and prescribing antidepressant treatment. When patients felt they were not being listened to, trust in the doctor was compromised. This was evident in the cases when the doctor tried to convince them to take part in medical treatment, sometimes by threatening to withdraw their sick-listing. Conclusions Overall, this study suggests that the dynamics happening in the medical encounter may still be highly affected by a medical dominance, instead of a patient-oriented perspective. This may contribute to a questionable medicalization and/or pharmaceuticalization of depression.

Conflicts of interest in psychiatry: strategies to cultivate literacy in daily practice. <=SEP=> The relationship between psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies has come under scrutiny during the past decade. Concerns are growing that financial ties of psychiatrists to the pharmaceutical industry may unduly influence professional judgments involving the primary interests of patients. Such conflicts of interest threaten the public trust in psychiatry. The goal of conflict of interest policies is to protect the integrity of professional judgment and to preserve public trust. The disclosure of individual and institutional financial relationships is a critical but limited first step in the process of identifying and responding to conflicts of interest. Conflict of interest policies and procedures can be strengthened by engaged psychiatrists, researchers, institutions, and professional associations in developing policies and consensus standards. Research on conflicts of interest can provide a stronger evidence base for policy design and implementation. Society has traditionally granted the medical profession considerable autonomy and may be willing to continue do so in the case of conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, concern is growing that stronger measures are needed. To avoid undue regulatory burdens, psychiatrists can play a vital role in designing responsible and reasonable conflict of interest policies that reduce the risks of bias and the loss of trust. Psychiatrists and the institutions that carry out research, education, clinical care, and practice guideline development must recognize public concerns about conflicts of interest and take effective measures soon to maintain public trust with a cultural change in the practice of psychiatry, from reactive treatment-seeking for mental illness to proactive advocacy for patients. © 2014 The Authors. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences © 2014 Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology.

Primum Non Nocere: An Evolutionary Analysis of Whether Antidepressants Do More Harm than Good <=SEP=> Antidepressant medications are the first-line treatment for people meeting current diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. Most antidepressants are designed to perturb the mechanisms that regulate the neurotransmitter serotonin – an evolutionarily ancient biochemical found in plants, animals, and fungi. Many adaptive processes evolved to be regulated by serotonin, including emotion, development, neuronal growth and death, platelet activation and the clotting process, attention, electrolyte balance, and reproduction. It is a principle of evolutionary medicine that the disruption of evolved adaptations will degrade biological functioning. Because serotonin regulates many adaptive processes, antidepressants could have many adverse health effects. For instance, while antidepressants are modestly effective in reducing depressive symptoms, they increase the brain’s susceptibility to future episodes after they have been discontinued. Contrary to a widely held belief in psychiatry, studies that purport to show that antidepressants promote neurogenesis are flawed because they all use a method that cannot, by itself, distinguish between neurogenesis and neuronal death. In fact, antidepressants cause neuronal damage and mature neurons to revert to an immature state, both of which may explain why antidepressants also cause neurons to undergo apoptosis (programmed death). Antidepressants can also cause developmental problems, they have adverse effects on sexual and romantic life, and they increase the risk of hyponatremia (low sodium in the blood plasma), bleeding, stroke, and death in the elderly. Our review supports the conclusion that antidepressants generally do more harm than good by disrupting a number of adaptive processes regulated by serotonin. However, there may be specific conditions for which their use is warranted (e.g., cancer, recovery from stroke). We conclude that altered informed consent practices and greater caution in the prescription of antidepressants are warranted.

The drugs don’t work? antidepressants and the current and future pharmacological management of depression <=SEP=> Depression is a potentially life-threatening disorder affecting millions of people across the globe. It is a huge burden to both the individual and society, costing over £9 billion in 2000 alone: the World Health Organisation (WHO) cited it as the third leading cause of global disability in 2004 (first in the developed world), and project it will be the leading cause by 2030. The serendipitous discovery of antidepressants has revolutionized both our understanding and management of depression: however, their efficacy in the treatment of depression has long been debated and recently been brought very much into the public limelight by a controversial publication by Kirsch, in which the role of placebo response in antidepressant efficacy trials is highlighted. Whilst antidepressants offer benefits in both the short and long term, important problems persist such as intolerability, delayed therapeutic onset, limited efficacy in milder depression and the existence of treatment-resistant depression.

Antidepressant Drug effects and Depression Severity: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis <=SEP=> Context Antidepressant medications represent the best established treatment for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), but there is little evidence that they have a specific pharmacological effect relative to pill-placebo for patients with less severe depression. Objective To estimate the relative benefit of medication vs placebo across a wide range of initial symptom severity in patients diagnosed with depression. Data Sources Pubmed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 1980 through March 2009, along with references from meta-analyses and reviews. Study Selection Randomized placebo-controlled trials of FDA approved antidepressants in the treatment of Major or Minor Depressive Disorder were selected. Studies were included if their authors provided the requisite original data, they comprised adult outpatients, included a medication vs placebo comparison for at least 6 weeks, did not exclude patients on the basis of a placebo washout period, and utilized the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Data from six studies (718 patients) were included. Data Extraction Individual patient-level data were obtained from study authors. Results Medication vs placebo differences varied substantially as a function of baseline severity. Among patients with Hamilton scores below 23, Cohen’s d-type effect sizes for the difference between medication and placebo were estimated to be < .20 (a standard definition of a small effect). Estimates of the magnitude of the superiority of medication over placebo increased with increases in baseline Hamilton severity and crossed the NICE threshold for a clinically significant difference at a baseline score of 25. Conclusions The magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medication compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms, and may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms. For patients with very severe depression, the benefit of medications over placebo is substantial.