I'm not entirely sure if this is the right board to ask, but here's my quick question.
I'm writing a character who's suffering from depression, PTSD, insomnia, and anxiety. What kind of medications would normally be prescribed?
Well the VA spent $700 million prescribing anti-psychotics for PTSD over 10 years and concluded they don't work.
fucking lol, anti-depressants are no more effective than placebos for the vast majority of patients. See Irving Kirsch.
benzodiazepines are tried and true but habit forming
ambien and lunesta work, but are not magic bullets w/o side effect
r9k a shit
post rare elliots
OP here, I didn't actually post that, believe it or not.
That's one hell of a coincidence.
Thanks for some real answers. Am I right in assuming a Pharma-happy psychiatrist would be alright with throwing antidepressants at a patient (along with the other listed drugs) even if it really is just for placebo effects?
No I posted it obviously, I even used your fucking pic. (as you can't add 1 and 1 together, I somewhat doubt your intellect now)
There are threads about people on depressants and people seeing psychiatrists on /r9k/, I thought you'd get some input. I still think you'll do.
I was right btw., in that thread there is more content than here.
Just bump it in time
>benzodiazepines are tried and true but habit forming
They're not a magic bullet by any means. They regulate GABAA which is one of the main inhibitory receptors in the brain, but that's only one receptor group. You can still experience significant amounts of anxiety, and even panic, while under the influence of benzodiazepines.
Different prescriptions are administered until a patient responds satisfactorily to that which has been administered.
Assuming, therefore, that your character has found something that they respond to, it will be anything within the pharmaceutical catalogue that inhibits the reuptake of seratonin. Citalopram (Cipramil), dapoxetine (Priligy), escitalopram (Cipralex), fluoxetine (Prozac or Oxactin), fluvoxamine (Faverin), paroxetine (Seroxat), sertraline (Lustral) would be examples of appropriate medications.
>Different prescriptions are administered until a patient responds satisfactorily to that which has been administered.
So modern psychiatry really is the pharmacological equivalent of flinging shit at a wall until something sticks? If they all inhibit the reuptake of serotonin, what's the point? Do SSRIs really differ all that much in terms of their mechanisms of action?
With regards to things that don't have proven cures, of course. The treatment of cancer is guess work. We cut out what we can see and hope it works. The treatment of depression is guesswork. We create compounds and see if a problem diminishes. If it does, well and good. If not, we try again.
If flinging shit at a wall sufficiently transaltes to financing an industry worth hundreds of billions then sure.
> If they all inhibit the reuptake of serotonin, what's the point
In medicine there are phenomena categorised as "side effects". Believe it or not, humans are actually different from each other, and people react differently to the same compounds. One person may projectile vomit from involuntary muscle spasms while another suffers from no side effects whatsoever. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) come about because human cells, the human biome and all the interactions between are extremely sensitive to... anything and everything. As to the question "do SSRIs really differ all that much", you wouldn't be asking the question if they didn't.
>We create compounds and see if a problem diminishes.
Yes, but most scientists don't simply run the gamut and hope that something works. What I'm asking is - in what way do SSRIs differ in terms of their pharmacology? Other than side effects, why might a psychiatrist choose one SSRI over another? Or is it really a matter of simply starting from the top of the list and working your way down?
>If flinging shit at a wall sufficiently transaltes to financing an industry worth hundreds of billions then sure.
Plenty of industries have been built on products that exhibit only minimal effectiveness. I wouldn't look to industry success to judge whether or not a product is scientifically sound, particularly if it's an industry where many are desperate and their are no viable competitors as of yet.
Why is it that the last useful anxiolytic was discovered in the eighties? Aren't we due some advancement in that area?