Hobart talk, Oct 24th 2023. RANZPsych.
MAOIs: indications, usage, and interactions
The talk itself concentrates general aspects and principles. Details are here in key references for those who wish to understand more about the substantive evidence and to study in greater depth.
Supplementary information & resources
References, numbers as in PPT slides from the talk
- Ioannidis, J.P., Why most published research findings are false. Public Library of Science: Medicine, 2005. 2(8): p. e124.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
- Ioannidis, J., Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science. Atlantic, 2010. November 17th.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/
- Ioannidis, J.P., The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q, 2016. 94(3): p. 485-514.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27620683
- Ioannidis, J.P.A., Cochrane crisis: Secrecy, intolerance and evidence-based values. Eur J Clin Invest, 2019. 49“(3): p. e13058.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30520025
- Gillman, P.K., Update on recent serotonin toxicity publications including comment on, ‘Conundrums in neurology: Diagnosing serotonin syndrome – a meta-analysis of cases’. PsychoTropical Commentaries, 2018. 18(8): p. 1-12.
- Gillman, P.K., A reassesment of the safety profile of monoamine oxidase inhibitors: elucidating tired old tyramine myths. J Neural Transm (Vienna), 2018. 125(11): p. 1707-1717.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30255284
- Gillman, P.K., CNS toxicity involving methylene blue: the exemplar for understanding and predicting drug interactions that precipitate serotonin toxicity. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 2011. 25(3): p. 429-3.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20142303/
- Gillman, P.K., A review of serotonin toxicity data: implications for the mechanisms of antidepressant drug action. Biological Psychiatry, 2006. 59(11): p. 1046-51.
- Gillman, P.K., V. Van den Eynde, L. Godet, C. Redhead, A. Horwitz, and B. Barnett, Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors and Clinically Relevant Drug Interactions: A Guide for Preventing Serotonin Toxicity and Hypertensive Reactions. Psychiatric Annals, 2023. 53(8): p. 353-358.
https://journals.healio.com/doi/abs/10.3928/00485713-20230713-02
- Heijnen, W.T., J. De Fruyt, A.I. Wierdsma, P. Sienaert, and T.K. Birkenhager, Efficacy of Tranylcypromine in Bipolar Depression: A Systematic Review. J Clin Psychopharmacol, 2015. 35(6): p. 700-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26479223
- Bellos, A., Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods for Optimal Treatment Selection in Network Meta-Analysis.Medical Decision Making, 2023. 43(1): p. 78–90.
- Bahji, A., D. Ermacora, C. Stephenson, E.R. Hawken, and G. Vazquez, Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatments for the treatment of acute bipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2020. 269: p. 154-184.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032720302160
- Ricken, R., S. Ulrich, P. Schlattmann, and M. Adli, Tranylcypromine in mind (Part II): Review of clinical pharmacology and meta-analysis of controlled studies in depression. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol, 2017. (8):Epub 2017 Jun 1.: p. 714-731.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28579071
- Suchting, R., V. Tirumalajaru, R. Gareeb, T. Bockmann, C. de Dios, J. Aickareth, O. Pinjari, J.C. Soares, P.J. Cowen, and S. Selvaraj, Revisiting monoamine oxidase inhibitors for the treatment of depressive disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Affect Disord, 2021. 282: p. 1153-1160.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33601690
Comments and further information
The important purpose of starting my talk by noting the flaws and difficulties with RCT research is to get things in proportion and to emphasise that clinical experience is epistemologically just as valid as supposedly ‘evidence based medicine’ and RCTs — that is an important message. Do not allow yourself to be bullied into following the guidelines. It is not possible to make optimal decisions about the individual treatment of patients if one set of evidence (RCTs) is overvalued relative to many other types of evidence, especially when it is falsely perceived as a ‘gold standard’.
Note that the opinions and sources I discuss and cite are from eminent mainstream academics, not Mavericks and eccentrics. John Ioannidis is an exemplar.
John Ioannidis Dsc is a colossus, he is Professor, of Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health, Biomedical Data Science, and Statistics, at the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford. He has written many articles pointing out the faults in research and methodology in medicine which are essential reading. I mentioned especially, ‘Why most published research findings are false’ [1], ‘Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science’ [2], ‘The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses’ [3], Cochrane crisis: Secrecy, intolerance and evidence-based values [4] — but I could have given many other similar examples of his work.
Usage and history: I encourage especially younger practitioners to familiarise themselves with the history of how these drugs have been used. This has been written about extensively especially the eminent professor of the history of psychiatry in Toronto, Edward Shorter. Vincent & I published a paper with him covering some of this and giving references [5], and there are several commentaries on my website that are relevant.
It is especially important to understand that ~90% of RCTs are industry funded and they form the basis of ‘EBM’ and guidelines. There is a strong argument that this distorts the whole process of clinical decision-making for individual patients since RCTs and guidelines do not tell us about individuals. We have written a specific paper relevant to that [6].
Causality. I draw particular attention to the number of eminent people in recent decades who have made powerful statements about the limitations of scientific methodologies relating to RCT studies — as Pearl said [7], ‘Science is nothing without causality’ and RCTs contribute nothing to understanding causality [or mechanisms].
Ashcroft [8], of RCTs, ‘autonomous of the basic sciences…blind to mechanisms of explanation and causation’
Solomon [9],, ‘Emphasis on EBM has eclipsed other necessary research methods in medicine’
Berwick [10], ‘we have overshot the mark with EBM’;
Sir Michael Rawlins said, in his Harveian Oration [11], ‘the notion that evidence can be reliably placed in hierarchies [as all guidelines do] is illusory … Yet the technique has important limitations of which four are particularly troublesome: the null hypothesis, probability (P-values), generalisability, and resource implications.’
- The famous, but disordered and unpleasant, statistician Fisher was responsible for P-values. Understanding how flawed that idea is, and how vehemently he was against Bayesian ideas, leads to a deeper understanding of statistics; Baye’s theorem remained in the shadows because it had played a essential role in cracking the Enigma code (Allan Turing) and information about it was restricted under the secrets acts, both in North America and the UK. That impeded the adoption of Baye’s theorem in science, which, long ago, would have gone at least part-way to overcoming the problems caused by P values — I’ve written a separate commentary about this on the website — that details the widespread opinion, among statisticians, that P-values were the worst thing ever to happen to medical science. The fact that they are still so dominant is the greatest condemnation of the poor quality and inappropriateness of most scientific methodology. As the renowned Oxford statistician Altman states [12] ‘abuse of statistical tests… have been decried for decades, yet remain rampant’.
An illustration of this ignorance of methodology, statistics, and P-values is given by Charles Beasley, a ‘bigcheese’ at Eli Lilly, and the architect of the multi-billion dollar success of fluoxetine and derivatives; almost every paper he has ever published has been about that drug: he admitted in court that he knew little about statistics — he failed to respond to a public criticism I made of his views here. In checking the link I was reminded of the witty tag I gave to this comment, ‘P-hunting: The illogical in pursuit of the indefensible’ (cf.Oscar Wilde)
… then there is the RCT death-blow of Simpson’s paradox which invalidates most RCT trials [13-17], about which one should be informed. See Fenton [13] for a quick primer: he demonstrates simply and clearly how Simpson’s paradox has serious implications that invalidate almost all RCTs that demonstrate small differences — that is all the trials relating to antidepressants. Note that almost all RCTs are conducted with complete disregard to the existence of, and difficulties caused by, this paradox — this is because most of those involved in designing these trials have insufficient knowledge of scientific logic, methodology, and statistics.
The Helsinki declaration states that, de facto, badly conducted research cannot be ethical!
PTR group papers
The full list of papers that my group has published about MAOIs (about 20) is available here and there are a number of commentaries on my website in this section, some of which have been the basis of subsequently published peer-reviewed papers.
Pharmacologic properties: keys refs [18-20].
Interactions: a good overview paper is our recent CME orientated one in Psych Annals [21], because it explains why interactions are much easier to understand than most sources would have you believe — that references many of the key papers I have written.
They have been over 100 reviews of ST since the turn of the millennium: the vast majority of them have contained substantial amounts of misinformation and exhibited serious misconceptions about ST: this critique [22] that we published only a month or two ago, of a recent ST review paper, is a useful exercise in understanding how such reviews are misconceived, see also here.
Papers supporting MAOI superior efficacy. Lastly, since so many of you will encounter colleagues who decry the evidence for the effectiveness of MAOIs in biological depression, it is helpful to be aware of a number of recent key papers summarising the evidence for their superior effectiveness [20, 23-29]. Over the decades of my professional life the opinion of experienced psychopharmacologist about drugs has consistently proved to be more helpful than the results of RCTs. Therefore I recommend you consider joining my International MAO Expert Group where you will have access to the opinions of many internationally eminent psychopharmacologists; a quick look at the link to the group will help you appreciate how many eminent persons are involved.
It is important to understand that RCTs are not the ‘gold standard’, that various other types of experimentation and evidence are just as epistemologically valid, and that the erosion of confidence in clinical judgement and clinical experimentation has severely dented the confidence of clinicians in their own opinions, such that large sections of the profession now eschew treatments that are not “in the guidelines”.
BP guide to MAOI titration
Using postural BP drop to guide MAOI titration, Gillman, Ken. ‘MAOIs – Blood Pressure’. PsychoTropical Research, 13 Nov. 2002. Direct URL: https://www.psychotropical.com/wp-content/uploads/9.1-MAOI_BP-Instructions.pdf
MAOIs in Bipolar depression (versus reuptake inhibiting Ads)
Many experienced clinicians consider TCP to be the drug of preference for depression in those who are bipolar. Key refs: [23, 30-33]
A suggested treatment pathway to consider
References
1. Ioannidis, J.P., Why most published research findings are false. Public Library of Science: Medicine, 2005. 2(8): p. e124.
2. Ioannidis, J., Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science. Atlantic, 2010. November 17th.
3. Ioannidis, J.P., The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q, 2016. 94(3): p. 485-514.
4. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Cochrane crisis: Secrecy, intolerance and evidence-based values. Eur J Clin Invest, 2019. 49“(3): p. e13058.
5. Van den Eynde, V., G. Parker, H.G. Ruhe, T. Birkenhäger, L. Godet, E. Shorter, and P.K. Gillman, On the Origins of MAOI Misconceptions: Reaffirming their Role in Melancholic Depression.Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 2023. 53(3): p. 35-54.
6. Van den Eynde, V. and P.K. Gillman, MAOI or ECT? Patient Preference and Joint Decision-Making in Treatment-Resistant Depression. Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry, 2022. 9: p. 419-422.
7. Pearl, J., Interpretation and identification of causal mediation. Psychol Methods, 2014. 19(4): p. 459-81.
8. Ashcroft, R.E., Current epistemological problems in evidence based medicine. J Med Ethics, 2004. 30(2): p. 131-5.
9. Solomon, M., Just a paradigm: evidence-based medicine in epistemological context. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2011. 1(3): p. 451.
10. Berwick, D.M., Broadening the view of evidence-based medicine. Qual Saf Health Care, 2005. 14(5): p. 315-6.
11. Rawlins, M., De testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions.Lancet, 2008. 372(9656): p. 2152-61.
12. Greenland, S., S.J. Senn, K.J. Rothman, J.B. Carlin, C. Poole, S.N. Goodman, and D.G. Altman, Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol, 2016. 31(4): p. 337-50.
13. Fenton, N., M. Neil, and A. Constantinou, Simpson’s Paradox and the implications for medical trials.arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01422, 2019.
14. Hernan, M.A., D. Clayton, and N. Keiding, The Simpson’s paradox unraveled. International Journal of Epidemiology, 2011. 40(3): p. 780-785.
15. Rojanaworarit, C., Misleading Epidemiological and Statistical Evidence in the Presence of Simpson’s Paradox: An Illustrative Study Using Simulated Scenarios of Observational Study Designs. Journal of Medicine and Life, 2020. 13(1): p. 37-44.
16. Suh, G.-H., The use of atypical antipsychotics in dementia: rethinking Simpson’s paradox.International Psychogeriatrics, 2009. 21(4): p. 616-621.
17. von Kugelgen, J., L. Gresele, and B. Scholkopf, Simpson’s Paradox in COVID-19 Case Fatality Rates: A Mediation Analysis of Age-Related Causal Effects. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2021. 2(1): p. 18-27.
18. Gillman, P.K., Advances pertaining to the pharmacology and interactions of irreversible nonselective monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 2011. 31(1): p. 66-74.
19. Ulrich, S., R. Ricken, and M. Adli, Tranylcypromine in mind (Part I): Review of pharmacology. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol, 2017. 8: p. 697-713.
20. Ricken, R., S. Ulrich, P. Schlattmann, and M. Adli, Tranylcypromine in mind (Part II): Review of clinical pharmacology and meta-analysis of controlled studies in depression. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol, 2017. (8):Epub 2017 Jun 1.: p. 714-731.
21. Gillman, P.K., V. Van den Eynde, L. Godet, C. Redhead, A. Horwitz, and B. Barnett, Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors and Clinically Relevant Drug Interactions: A Guide for Preventing Serotonin Toxicity and Hypertensive Reactions. Psychiatric Annals, 2023. 53(8): p. 353-358.
22. Gillman, P.K. and V. Van den Eynde, A five-pronged critique of “Serotonin syndome—A focused review”. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 2023.
23. Heijnen, W.T., J. De Fruyt, A.I. Wierdsma, P. Sienaert, and T.K. Birkenhager, Efficacy of Tranylcypromine in Bipolar Depression: A Systematic Review. J Clin Psychopharmacol, 2015. 35(6): p. 700-5.
24. Bellos, A., Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods for Optimal Treatment Selection in Network Meta-Analysis. Medical Decision Making, 2023. 43(1): p. 78–90.
25. Bahji, A., D. Ermacora, C. Stephenson, E.R. Hawken, and G. Vazquez, Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatments for the treatment of acute bipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2020. 269: p. 154-184.
26. Suchting, R., V. Tirumalajaru, R. Gareeb, T. Bockmann, C. de Dios, J. Aickareth, O. Pinjari, J.C. Soares, P.J. Cowen, and S. Selvaraj, Revisiting monoamine oxidase inhibitors for the treatment of depressive disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Affect Disord, 2021. 282: p. 1153-1160.
27. Ulrich, S., R. Ricken, P. Buspavanich, P. Schlattmann, and M. Adli, Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Tranylcypromine and Tricyclic Antidepressants in the Treatment of Depression: A Systematic Review and Comprehensive Meta-analysis. J Clin Psychopharmacol, 2020. 40(1): p. 63-74.
28. Gillman, P.K., “Much ado about nothing”: monoamine oxidase inhibitors, drug interactions, and dietary tyramine. CNS Spectr, 2017: p. 1-3.
29. Van den Eynde, V., W.R. Abdelmoemin, M.M. Abraham, J.D. Amsterdam, I.M. Anderson, C. Andrade, G.B. Baker, A.T.F. Beekman, M. Berk, T.K. Birkenhäger, B.B. Blackwell, P. Blier, M.B.J. Blom, A.J. Bodkin, C.I. Cattaneo, B. Dantz, J. Davidson, B.W. Dunlop, R.F. Estévez, S.S. Feinberg, J.P.M. Finberg, L.J. Fochtmann, D. Gotlib, A. Holt, T.R. Insel, J.K. Larsen, R. Mago, D.B. Menkes, J.M. Meyer, D.J. Nutt, G. Parker, M.D. Rego, E. Richelson, H.G. Ruhé, J. Sáiz-Ruiz, S.M. Stahl, T. Steele, M.E. Thase, S. Ulrich, A.J.L.M. van Balkom, E. Vieta, I. Whyte, A.H. Young, and P.K. Gillman, The prescriber’s guide to classic MAO inhibitors (phenelzine, tranylcypromine, isocarboxazid) for treatment-resistant depression. CNS Spectrums, 2022: p. 1-14.
30. Amsterdam, J.D. and T.T. Kim, Relative Effectiveness of Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitor and Tricyclic Antidepressant Combination Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol, 2019. 39(6): p. 649-652.
31. Kim, T., C. Xu, and J.D. Amsterdam, Relative effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressant versus monoamine oxidase inhibitor monotherapy for treatment-resistant depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2019: p. https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0165032718328076?token=881C83BEA702EFF447A184F65D6620268AB0EA277EAFA83F62D4C08B9D8FE4AA8B65D3D36D327C8F9E744F7610FB448E.
32. Himmelhoch, J.M., C.Z. Fuchs, and B.J. Symons, A double-blind study of tranylcypromine treatment of major anergic depression. J Nerv Ment Dis, 1982. 170(10): p. 628-34.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=7050302
33. Himmelhoch, J.M., M.E. Thase, A.G. Mallinger, and P. Houck, Tranylcypromine versus imipramine in anergic bipolar depression. Am J Psychiatry, 1991. 148(7): p. 910-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=2053632
Menu
1. Beware of what you Read
2. Hobart Talk and Supplementary Information
3. Suggested Treatment Pathway to Consider
Consider Donating to PsychoTropical
PsychoTropical is funded solely through generous donations, which has enabled extensive development and improvement of all associated activities. Many people who follow the advice on the website will save enormously on doctors, treatment costs, hospitalization, etc. which in some cases will amount to many thousands of dollars, even tens of thousands — never mind all the reduction in suffering and the resultant destruction of family, work, social, and leisure capability. A donation of $100, or $500, is little compared to those savings. Some less-advantaged people feel that the little they can give is so small it won’t make a difference – but five dollars monthly helps: so, do not think that a little donation is not useful.
– Dr Ken Gillman