Search

Abstract: Background: It is widely believed that in randomized controlled trials of antidepressants the difference between drug and placebo response rates is rather small (around 20%), leading to a common perception that antidepressants have limited efficacy. Aim: The aim of the present paper was to present an alternative calculation and interpretation of antidepressant–placebo difference in the treatment response to antidepressant in drug trials which may shed a new light on the efficacy of antidepressants. Issues: We have previously highlighted several controversial points concerning the calculation of antidepressant and placebo response rates in randomised controlled trials, which may influence views concerning the efficacy of drugs, and demonstrated several factors which may lead to overestimation of the placebo effect and underestimation of antidepressant efficacy. The traditional interpretation of antidepressant–placebo difference in randomized controlled trials on major depression has been also challenged previously from at least five points of view but all leading to a conclusion that currently prevailing opinions concerning relative placebo and antidepressant response rates overestimate placebo response, and thereby underestimate efficacy of antidepressant drugs. In our present paper we propose another method for calculating placebo and antidepressant response rates which may shed new light on an overlooked aspect of the efficacy of these drugs. Conclusions: We contend that opinions on the effectiveness of antidepressants should be reconsidered, and comparisons with placebo should be more carefully applied. Interpretation of the placebo response is of crucial importance for establishing the efficacy of antidepressive medications, and psychiatry should not become the hostage of placebo. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Research in the area of herbal psychopharmacology has increased markedly over the past decades. To date however, a comprehensive review of herbal antidepressant, anxiolytic and hypnotic psychopharmacology and applications in depression, anxiety and insomnia has been absent. A search of MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted (up to February 21st 2011) on commonly used psychotropic herbal medicines. A review of the literature was conducted to ascertain mechanisms of action of these botanicals, in addition to a systematic review of controlled clinical trials for treatment of mood, anxiety and sleep disorders, which are common comorbid psychiatric disorders. Specific emphasis was given to emerging phytomedicines. Analysis of evidence levels was conducted, as were effect sizes (Cohen''s d) where data were available. Results provided evidence of a range of neurochemical, endocrinological, and epigenetic effects for 21 individual phytomedicines, which are detailed in this paper. Sixty six controlled studies were located involving eleven phytomedicines. Several of these provide a high level of evidence, such as Hypericum perforatum for major depression, and Piper methysticum for anxiety disorders. Several human clinical trials provide preliminary positive evidence of antidepressant effects (Echium amoenum, Crocus sativus, and Rhodiola rosea) and anxiolytic activity (Matricaria recutita, Ginkgo biloba, Passiflora incanata, E. amoenum, and Scutellaria lateriflora). Caution should however be taken when interpreting the results as many studies have not been replicated. Several herbal medicines with in vitro and in vivo evidence are currently unexplored in human studies, and along with use of emerging genetic technologies “herbomics”, are areas of potential future research. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]