Article critiques, Journal clubs

The wonders of Lexapro!

Overview (part 1 in a series)


cropped-screen-shot-2018-09-22-at-12-00-29-am1.pngPanacea was a goddess known for having a cure-all, which is why her name now means “a solution to every problem.” This series comprises a critique of an RCT, recently published in JAMA, in which the authors concluded that the treatment was something of a panacea.


Lexapro the panacea

You might not have noticed, what with the mid-term election campaigning and the brouhaha about the great South American refugee invasion, but last year in mid-summer the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published findings from a “randomized clinical trial” of escitalopram versus placebo in patients with depression and “acute coronary syndromes” (ACS).1 The trial authors concluded that short-term treatment of depression (up to 24 weeks) resulted in a pronounced long-term benefit (up to 10 years) for what they called the “MACE” outcome: basically, a composite of death, heart attacks, and something called “percutaneous coronary intervention” (PCI). (In case you’re wondering, PCI is a little like getting your coronary arteries polished pipe-cleaner style.)

If you’ve ever heard of escitalopram, you might call it “Lexapro,” and you probably know that it’s an antidepressant. If so, then you might also be wondering why these researchers conducted a study that looked at differences in heart disease outcomes for an antidepressant, and you wouldn’t be alone. I was too. My first thought was that maybe this was a “safety” type of clinical trial, in which the researchers looked at potential adverse effects of the drugs — but I was wrong. Instead, the researchers were making the case that the benefits of briefly treating mild depression (for less than 6 months) could result in a 31% lower risk for major cardiovascular problems over the next decade.

While it’s plausible to believe that treating depression is good for overall health, the short-term nature of the treatment combined with the long-term persistence of highly pronounced benefits makes this finding highly suspicious, and suggests a thorough examination is warranted. After discussing the article in my Journal Club class (co-taught with a colleague to 3rd-year PharmD students), the take-home message is that this study offers little-to-no evidence to support their conclusions. That’s because investigators either deliberately or carelessly misrepresented and misinterpreted their results.

If you’d like to know more about how to interpret a poorly-done study, I’m going to share follow-up posts that explain several aspects. The topics are listed below. Each will become a link as soon as each post is available.


Supporting details


Reference list

  1. Kim J-M, Steward R, Lee Y-S, et al. Effect of escitalopram vs placebo treatment for depression on long-term cardiac outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;230(4):350-7.

2 thoughts on “The wonders of Lexapro!”

  1. Joanne- I LOVE this. So glad you are writing this blog. Nothing makes my eyes roll faster than someone touting “proof” of a thing based on “studies” they haven’t verified or questioned or even read. And it amazes me how widespread some erroneous conclusions become, even among doctors. Not to say I always know the difference. I am looking forward to reading more from you, and hopefully developing some critical thinking skills (for lack of a better phrase.) yay! Keep it going!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for reading my blog, Melissa. In general, I think that science is our best tool for discovering “truth,” despite its flaws — a viewpoint that I articulated here: https://the-synthesis.blog/2019/03/11/is-science-real/.

      But you’re right that interpreting science requires critical thinking skills that can be mastered by any smart and willing individual. Fortunately, the biases in science are well-catalogued and well-understood by experts. It’s my goal to communicate them to interested lay readers. (Hopefully it won’t be too boring for people.)

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s