No, you're not wrong to be bothered. I am bothered by the numbers of kids who use the antidepressants as ways to get high.

I love what you're doing here. I'm so glad I found your blog.

I'm on Abilify. Why anyone would want to snort this stuff is beyond me. Maybe they like feeling tired and foggy all day. That's the effect is has on me,even on 1/2 dose every other night.

Seroquel is sedating, so can see that as beneficial for anxiety but not for depression?????
thank you for having this wonderful blog phillip, you're the best!
bizi

Web MD was a great concept that got ruined by advertiser article shaping and "popular culture medical opinion" replacing science. Wikipedia goes to the other end of the pole. I guess we all have this fantasy utophian website of real, easily understandable information that presents both sides fairly and with supporting documents for your own research. Was there ever a period when "peer reviewed" meant fact verified and presented properly, not this is the cool/majority people's time dated opinion.

Sedating can be beneficial for depression. Depressed people often have insomnia making matters worse. Out of desperation people may try seroquel since its what the doc suggests, but keep in mind that heroin was also suggested for such things by the "educated minds" of the time. We don't want to give you a simple sleep aid since they might be abused, so its a drug that DEA hasn't fear mongered "addiction" yet. They never can admit they are wrong. The question may be, will we look back with it as the best drug we could have at the time due to technology or were the doctor reckless/idiots? I worry its the later

Just to make life and the referral searches interesting, I'll start running searches like "snorting Phil D" to get the link instead of using the rss on LJ to get here. We can only pray for it to make the news as the new "drug abuse" much like the beloved "jenkem" People can snort pixie stix for a rush, doesn't mean its an intelligent thing to do. The amount of ways a person will try to get high off of anything is only limited by the actual existence and physical restraints of the item.

Maybe the solution might be to fight for Seroquel to be an over the counter like clartin. Making it less popular with doctors and insurance coverage. Crazy? Yes but crazy enough it might work

Finally!

"Real" Mark is here! :)
Hi "real" Mark!

:)

"It rings up about $4 billion a year in sales and AZ is determined to wring every nickel possible out of this molecule, especially since it's not a particularly good performer in treating schizophrenia as the 2005 CATIE study showed."

THIS is why people need to understand these are antipsychotics created for Schizophrenia that do not work for Schizophrenia (as far as efficacy goes, it's a crapshoot, SZ still have positive and negative symptoms on ANY antipsychotic)so why the hell would they possibly work for depression or anxiety? Using Seroquel for public speaking would render one so brain-fogged they wouldn't be ABLE to speak or never remember what they said. I agree, Toastmasters vs. antipsychotics! and guess what? anxiety is NORMAL. So is depression. Honest to God, there are the extreme cases and even those people cannot claim meds got them back 100%. Let me tell you how many people I am seeing on a daily basis with SZ and how many of them still have symptoms on meds. Good luck to Americans when they are given Seroquel or Abilify by a PCP, and then think they can go off of it without withdrawals. I think this is abuse from an industry at the expense of public health safety and I want to know who watches our backs? The FDA? yeah right. Even worse is how children are being given these meds.

AFAIK over here in the UK the main use of Seroquel is to treat mania, mixed states and/or psychosis in bipolar disorder or depression with psychosis. It's considered less "hard core" an anti-psychotic than Zyprexa (and it won't turn you into a sphere quite so quickly).

But for depression, without psychotic features? huh? Sounds fishy to me. I mean, why take something that is a dopamine antagonist when you want to BOOST production of norepinephrine, which is synthesised by the brain from dopamine?

I couldn't agree more. As a clinical research professional with more than 35 years of experience and a patient being successfully treated for depression with medical and psychiatric therapy, I can tell you that WebMD is the worst. They have an obligation to report significant side effects as they appear on labeling as well as serious current concerns in recent published articles, not to mention any adverse reactions reported to the FDA (this information is available to the public through FOI). Copying text from a press release is not reporting and unfortunately it is the same serious problem that some so called journalists suffer from as well.

On the other hand, however, treating any psychiatric patient pharmaceutically is a tricky proposition. Clinical studies designed for ultimate FDA approval are based on the "best" hypothesis made after many laboratory and animal studies done at great expense. And after approval for a specific use, it is customary for physicians to make empiric decisions on how to treat their patient populations based on their individual experience. Therefore, uses for other conditions appear, some of which never get fully tested so that they are FDA approved. What may work on one bipolar or depressed patient may turn out to be toxic to another... so this is the great paradox in medical therapy. If only mental illness were as easy to treat as infections.

One day, it will be possible to test for pharmaceutical sensitivity in advance of treatment so as to choose drugs more selectively. But until that time, one hopes you as a patient are under the care of an experienced conservative psychiatrist and as an educatied person, disclose early to your medical professional when things just don't feel right after starting a new medication.

As for the FDA, since they are the body I have to work with regularly (and as an adversary at times), I want to point out that they tend to do the best they an with what little they have. As a government agency, they are very poorly funded. Employees are overworked and underpaid with a constant backlog of submissions. There are many talented scientists who start their careers with this agency and make major contributions to help get good products to market as quickly as possible. But no group is perfect, especially poorly funded government agencies. However, there is oversight and they do closely monitor adverse reactions to products. Its the pharma industry that doesn't always do a good job in cleaning up its act in a timely fashion. But sometimes, even when companies try to control the use of drugs for selective purposes, docs still keep handing them out for whatever they like.

The reality of this whole process is a nightmare. Unless we turn into a police state (and I hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime), YOU are responsible for the quality of the healthcare you receive. No matter how many checks and balances are built into any system, there will be failures. The internet will supply poor information so patients will be poorly educated, doctors will use drugs for purposes they shouldn't, pharmaceutical firms will poorly monitor their physician customers, and the FDA will manage to squeeze an incredible workload out with a minimum budget, occasionally approving products which later on down the road don't perform so well. Should we test all products for 20 years for millions and millions of dollars and keep them off the market or should be use our best guess of how long to test something and try to get it market so it can benefit the largest population of patients? I don't know if there is a right or wrong answer to this. Perhaps I've been studying experimental products too long.

Just don't listen to WebMD...whole segments of the site should be closed down. Any medical center site is better.

There are many efficacious drugs on the market, but for each of us, there are only a few that will work well and finding them will be hit and miss.

In the April 2008 issue of the Harvard Health Letter, researchers explained how in many cases, the non-pharmacological approach can accomplish as much, or more, than pills.

In more recent years, a growing body of studies are showing that simple lifestyle changes such as diet and exercise are effective remedies for many ills.

These seven common conditions can be managed without medication:

Arthritis

Cholesterol

Cognitive decline

Depression

Diabetes

High blood pressure

Osteoporosis

Sources:
Live Science March 25, 2008

I want to bring up the issue of efficacy; drugs that go through the studies and are FDA approved only have to show that they perform better than a placebo. In other words, there is no data comparing if a new drug with studies being financed by a pharmaceutical company works better than another drug made by another pharmaceutical company. Those companies are in a fight to make the most money possible so they will not go and do what's best for the public, like stop bombarding us with drugs claiming to be new and improved, when there is no info out there of the kind. It matters a great deal if pharmaceutical companies fund research projects when it comes to showing the drugs effectivity; they want money, our money. What does it matter if they are truthfully being helpful? Why do drug companies run studies that expand their clientelle? Money. Nothing to do with whether the drug is really helpful to those other groups. The only thing that would matter is making sure it won't kill anyone. I really like he book "The Truth About The Drug Companies: How They Decieve Us And What To Do About It" by Marcia Angell. It talks about all this stuff and people really need to be aware of where the drugs they are buying and that are being recommended to them come from.

There are studies that take drugs against each other for efficacy, for example my daughter was offered a study trialing 3 antipsychotics and a placebo. Talk about russian roulette! no thanks!
But there are for example risperdal vs. seroquel recently released study. In the case of antipsychotics it is just insanity that they are pushing those for depression and anxiety, the general public does not know these are antipsychotics. It's like when the docs rx trazodone for sleep; not many patients know that's an SSRI.

PeeTee, people with mental illness labels already do live in a police state. For instance, even though I was not accused of committing any crime, or even bothering anyone, the cops came to my house in the middle of the night, fully prepared to break down the door and tazer me. I was tied up, locked up, and threatened with physical assault including court-ordered ECT if I didn't submit to 'medication.' Please explain how I am responsible for the quality of the 'healthcare' I receive.

Also, exactly who's best guess is it that powerful psychotropic drugs intended to be taken every day for decades only need to be clinically tested for 4 to 8 weeks?

Please understand, I do agree entirely that Web MD's article was irresponsible and should offer at least some information on commonly reported problems experienced while on the drug.

On the other hand, I am frustrated with the American tendency to attack every drug as if those of us who are ill are somehow bad little children for needing them. If we only exercised more/ate differently/hopped up and down on one foot we wouldn't need those eeeeeevil drugs. Nevermind that withholding necessary treatment is torturing the sick. Those with even the most medically verifiable chronic illnesses often suffer for years before they receive reasonable drug treatment because of the suspicion that everyone who needs medication stronger than an asprin is "drug seeking". Nevermind the lack of any sort of drug seeking history. Nevermind that your life has come to a halt because your insides are crumbling.

The point is, while being skeptical of drug companies' claims, please don't yank the meds out of the hands of people who need them because someone uses them illegally as a street drug. Refusing helpful treatment can cause unimaginable suffering, but doctors often seem more concerned about being tagged as too free with the meds than about being cruel to a patient in unbearable pain.

While large doses of SSRI's helped a small amount for my severe Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, a very small dose of Seroquel almost immediately helped me find breaks in the constant, crushing fear I felt every moment, 24/7. Perhaps I'm an oddity, or just very lucky, but I have not blown up like a balloon, and I get regular blood tests to keep tabs on my pancreas to keep diabetes from creeping up on me. I have experienced the daytime sonomulence, but compared to what I was living with before, it's a cake walk. And what's more, I am not a clueless patient who will take any drug without question. I read (I'm here, aren't I?), and I take into consideration the problems with a medication along with the benefits. European countries trust their citizens with their own health choices to a much wider extent. Why do we feel the need to protect patients from themselves to such a paranoid extent?

I know at least one person who commented above has refered to anxiety as "normal" or something one should be able to cure without medication, so I think a clarification needs to be made. Yes, being a bit nervous from time to time is normal, and perhaps pent-up energy may be the cause of jumpiness. But when you're digging bloody holes in your arms at 4 a.m. because you're afraid your dog will die because you didn't wear the right socks yesterday, or you lose 5 hours each day because it takes 45 minutes to get in and out of the bathroom each time you go because you can't leave until you've scrubbed each fingernail just right but the air conditioner clicks on every time you almost finish and you have to start all over again because it has to all be completed before the running cycle ends to count, please, don't call Toastmasters for help.

Toastmasters teaches tips/tools/practicing public speaking, though a lifetime of learning to cope with crippling anxiety I can only base my experience on my own, and with that said due to taking Seroquel for several months and having extreme inability to think while on it, gives me my own personal reason why I know I couldn't speak in public on that stuff. Everyone is different, responds to meds differently, and even at different doses. It took a lot of hard work to conquer my anxiety and it's not always gone, and what is normal about it, is my referencing how most people have anxiety when speaking in public/performing, taking an exam, going to work, lots of things. Meds don't and have never helped me more than other tools/skills I've learned in my 40+ years. Not to minimalize other's severe symptoms, just talking about my own.