|
|
Post by Paul Mtonga (MS3) on Oct 14, 2016 2:55:11 GMT -4
I believe that further studies are needed to determine whether the interaction between early life stress and amygdala reactivity is a differential predictor of antidepressant outcomes. Besides the sample size being relatively small, this study was limited to antidepressants in common use, it would be similarly important to verify the predictive role of early life stress and amygdala reactivity with additional antidepressants that have distinct mechanisms of action, as well as psychotherapy. This study is without a doubt, a step in the right direction towards advancing our understanding of how early life stress and amygdala engagement function synergistically to predict antidepressant outcomes at the level of the individual person.
PM (MS3)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerome Brathwaite on Oct 14, 2016 8:23:20 GMT -4
I am in favor of most types of research. Especially when it is for conditions with a high prevalence, such as depression. For this reason, I can understand why Professor Williams would proceed in trying this novel method of evaluating treatment methods. However, while I subscribe to the "out of the box thinking," I cannot yet agree with her claim that scans can predict which people will respond to antidepressants. The validity of her study is called into question for a number of reasons. Firstly, 80 participants is not a significant number to draw a conclusion about such a prevalent disease. Secondly, who is to say the difference in scans is not being produced by the most effective drug used or a positive or negative life change in the participant. Lastly, what about a control group, to compare the other groups to.
|
|
Justin Brathwaite MS3
Guest
|
Post by Justin Brathwaite MS3 on Oct 14, 2016 18:18:14 GMT -4
I thought this article had tremendous potential and I must compliment William and colleagues on exploring such a novel way to address a problem that affects so many individuals.
However, they are a number of issues about the study reported on in this article that leads me less inclined to draw the same conclusions as Williams.
Issue 1: A trial size of only 80 patients cannot accurately act as a representation of the 10% of the American population who have been diagnosed with depression.
Issue 2: The class/subtype of the antidepressant used where not identified in the study, and thus we are unaware their efficacies.
Issue 3: We are unsure if these antidepressants or other classes of antidepressants would have cause an increase in amygdala activity if given for a longer time period.
I do believe that this research can provide a greater insight into the treatment of depression but I think it has a way to go first.
|
|
|
|
Post by evangelinej on Oct 20, 2016 16:05:26 GMT -4
While a brain scan would be very helpful in assessing a patient’s mental status and their response to antidepressants, there’s not a very high chance that insurances will pay for it to occur, leaving the patient to pay for it out of pocket. There are many insurance companies (and Medicare) that only pay for the bare minimum in psychiatric drugs (such as SSRIs, SNRIs, and Antipsychotics), which don’t account for the patients who are unable to be treated with these drugs. If insurance companies can’t simply pay for medicine, then they definitely won’t allow for full brain scans before antidepressant administration, especially if the doctors can just use a “mix-and-match” approach until they find the correct one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Williams Azubike on Oct 26, 2016 13:15:26 GMT -4
It is a great idea to try and figure out methods that could be used to aid prescribed medications for mental health. More ideas like the one presented in the article need to be worked on to make medications more effective.
Though a great idea, it still needs fine tuning and here are the reasons why:
1. MRI costs so much therefore, price will be a strong deterrent. For this to work, there will have to be some form of subsidy.
2. Bias can be introduced easily. Patients are being asked to give retrospective information about whether or not they experienced childhood trauma. The problem with this is that people are different and so is
the scale of what can be considered as trauma.
|
|
|
|
Post by reshikamendis on Oct 27, 2016 4:58:28 GMT -4
In my opinion if this study was done on an increased patient base with longer term proved results this could actually be a step forward in psychiatric medicine. Patients do go through a series of medications until the correct one is found and at times some may become tolerant to the medication while on other no matter what is tried it just wont work. It could be beneficial for primary healthcare providers to know if treatment can include therapy or in worst cases, dtms ahead of time reducing overall costs on the patient.
|
|
