Once again it's that red flag of an 8 week response that people have got to watch out for; and it's really unbelievable they keep trialing these meds for use in kids. Age 12? No way they can say what happens to that child's brain on this stuff. Isn't this the drug that is Celexa's twin? similar? I was offered Lexapro instead of a Lamictal increase for depression and I declined and yet was given Lamictal samples in a Lexapro gift bag dropped off by drug reps. It's just a sick industry going for sales vs. safety of children and adults with regard to SSRIs and others.

A 2.3 point difference on the CDRS is nothing to get excited about. I'd have to see the study in full to run the numbers, but it's pretty clear just from the press release that we're talking a small benefit over placebo. Just another page from the same, tired, script.

Also, no mention of side effects, including jitters and weight gain. As we all know, jitters may lead some to decide the kids actually have bipolar, and weight gain - particularly in adolescents - can lead to diabetes.

Emergence of Electric Shock-like Sensations on Escitalopram Discontinuation (brain zaps coming off/withdrawals/tapering of Lexapro).

Is acknowledged in a Journal article from June, where (Dr.) Dawdy's letter was answered by Dr. Thase.

I think it's time brain zaps got the attention they deserve, because removing these drugs can be a living nightmare people need to know about before beginning them, especially teens!

I just got done looking over the May 28 JAMA article (Robinson et al) on escitalopram (AKA Lexapro), versus problem-solving therapy (and placebo) for preventing depression post-stroke.
[Dep is fairly common in the couple yrs post-stroke and post-MI.]
PST did OK, Lexapro did better, and both did better than placebo. Good. But digging into the artlce yileds an interesting finding. The article itself is long on details of what PST is and how 'supervised,' but skimpy on the actual execution of the therapy. A note following the article gives thanks to two people for providing PST therapy. One has bachelor's degree, and one has master's degree. I did a little web search: the master's level person comes up as a reserch assistant who has worked in this psychiatry resaerch group, including co-author on several med studies. However, a quick search did not yiled evidence of licensure in mental health counselign in the home state (Iowa) of the study and this master's level provider of PST.

Thus, possibly, the way that the study design was able to show Lexapro as superior to therapy was by having the therapists be people who were not actually counselors or therapists (take your preference of terminology). I am sure they are fine people. But does it make sense to compare meds to therapy in a head-to-head trial, and use people who are not licensed therapists? In a psychiatry department?

Curious. So, I looked up the study in CRISP (a federally operated data base of federally funded research; easy to use). The study (R01 MH65134) proposal abstract notes that the study will compare escitalopram, nortryptyline, and PST. And placebo. Well, what happened to the nortryptyline AKA Pamelor (no longer under patent)? Did it come out the best of all?

Row1: very interesting information in your comment, thanks.