Hengartner and Plöderl respond to Hayes et al’s commentary on their article on suicide risk with antidepressants

In our recent study published in the journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, we showed that adults who start antidepressants for depression are 2.5 times more likely to attempt suicide when compared to those starting placebo. This equates to 1 in every 200 people attempting suicide as a direct effect of taking the antidepressant. This number is significant given that around 7.4 million people were prescribed antidepressants in England alone last year, and given international estimates that suggest around 1 in 20 suicide attempts will end in death. We further showed that the suicide rate is about 3 times higher with antidepressants, but due to the very low incidence rate, we acknowledged that the evidence was weak.

In a response to our paper, Hayes et al. have today issued a critique. Far from undermining our findings, their critique provides us with a unique opportunity to address important issues that were not covered in our original paper, due to space limitations and firm opposition from one reviewer. Their critique also provides us with an opportunity to reassert, on even firmer ground, that our original findings were indeed correct.

So where do Hayes et al find fault with our paper? Their main point, which is fair, is that we should have used a meta-analytic method. However, as we explain in our response, not using such a method was our deliberate choice, given previous analyses of the FDA database did not use such methods either. These papers are highly cited and very influential, so we considered it important to apply a similar statistical model.

Hayes et al then proceed to present the findings of several meta-analytic methods they applied, only to conclude that there is no evidence that antidepressants increase the suicide risk. This conclusion, as we explain in our response, is an artefact of the models they chose to use – models that turn out to be grossly inadequate for these particular suicide data (very low event rates and many trials with zero events in both antidepressant and placebo groups).

Hayes et al were also unaware (or else, preferred to ignore) that several suicides were misreported in this database, despite this being very clear in the scientific literature. We wanted to address this serious issue in the original paper, but one reviewer firmly objected. In our response to Hayes et al we make up for this omission, by showing that in the paroxetine approval program two placebo-suicides were misreported, as these occurred during the lead-in phase (i.e. before the trial began), so they must be removed. There are other misrepresentations, which we detail in our response.

With the two placebo-suicides from the paroxetine program removed, most meta-analytic methods (we used only methods that are deemed appropriate for these particular data), we found clear evidence that the suicide rate is higher in antidepressant arms relative to placebo. Moreover, when the data from both the fluoxetine and the bupropion programs were included, the effect was even more pronounced, with odds ratios ranging from 2.5 to 6.3, depending on the meta-analytic model used. The various meta-analytic findings and the statistical code are available freely online via https://osf.io/qzjva.

Finally, and most crucially, Hayes et al did not present meta-analytic results for suicide attempts, as if suicide attempts did not contribute to the suicide risk. We should not have to point out to Hayes et al that suicide attempts are the single most important determinant of suicide. The more people attempt suicide, the higher the suicide risk. Even when based on the uncorrected data, our analyses reveal a significantly increased risk of suicide attempts (both fatal and non-fatal attempts combined) in antidepressant arms relative to placebo that was largely consistent across meta-analytic methods (see results here: https://osf.io/qzjva).

In sum, these meta-analytic findings are consistent with the findings from our original paper, helping to further indicate that there is an increased suicide risk with antidepressants in clinical trials submitted to the FDA. The next step would be to examine, whether this increased risk replicates in representative real-world patients treated in routine care settings.

Dr Michael P. Hengartner, School of Applied Psychology, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland

Dr Martin Plöderl, Department of Clinical Psychology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzberg, Austria

7 Responses to Hengartner and Plöderl respond to Hayes et al’s commentary on their article on suicide risk with antidepressants

  1. topher 06/09/2019 at 10:08 am #

    I was prescribed an ‘ssri’ and within about ten days I went from being sad to completely numbed out of my emotional self to hopeless to suicidal – the same thing happened to me mother – and i’ve seen this countless times from from the people I see in an NHS mental (ill) health service known as IAPT perhaps better understood as the Integrating Austerity with Psychological Therapy service. These drugs are handed out so easily it is out of control.

  2. Thomas Steven Roth, MBA, MD 06/09/2019 at 11:33 am #

    This excellent research reporting an iatrogenic antidepressant increased risk of suicide and suicide attempts seems very conservative and actually reports rates lower than I would expect from my over twenty years of experience as a pastoral counselor (using my past experience as a psychiatrist who often prescribed antidepressants consistent with the psychiatric standards of care to help research these matters in a pastoral care setting). Note, I still have not received an answer from Dr. Joseph Hayes and Dr. Sameer Jauhar from my Question 2 to them in response to the Mental Elf critique available at the following URL address:


    Question 2: Have you applied the same degree of critical scrutiny and rigor (as you have to the above article) on the research used to justify the current UK and USA antidepressant-use standards of care (including any differences between UK and USA standards) including the research used to justify and validate the nosology used in such standards of care-justifying research, and if you have indeed done this, where are the results of such a “NO BIAS, NO MISINFORMATION, NO SPIN” critique?

    For if the research used to justify antidepressant-use standards of care were properly critiqued and controlled for even just the research design and analysis problems exposed in the best-in-class expert witness references in my in my 5/2/18 letter to the editor of the British Medical Journal and my 8/16/18 Medicaid.gov public comment (links below), then there would be no scientifically justified use of antidepressants:



    Sincerely and In Biblical Love for All Patients and Physicians and Medical Researchers Everywhere,

    Thomas Steven Roth, MBA, MD
    Christian Minister for Biblical Medical Ethics,
    and therefore,
    Religious and Scientific Refugee from the Clinical Practice of Psychiatric Standards of Care
    P.O. Box 24211
    Louisville, KY 40224
    September 6, 2019

  3. kiwi 08/09/2019 at 9:12 am #

    “The next step would be to examine, whether this increased risk replicates in representative real-world patients treated in routine care settings.”

    Of course it does!!
    This is like saying I think jumping out of a plane without a parachute presents a high risk of death. The next step would be to test this in a real world settings.
    Here’s my suggestion give 40mg of an ssri of your choice to Wendy Burn and after two months cold turkey her. Then sit back and observe her sudden onset of suicidal mental illness. Don’t worry about not giving her a taper schedule as one doctor said to me “not being given a taper schedule is a minor issue”.

    What about all those people like myself who in withdrawal were flooded with suicidal ideations and spent many many months fighting it, not submitting to the overwhelming push in this distructive direction. And have managed to make it to the otherside after many years of recovering. People like myself who have kept this private for fear of being labeled or worse. What about all of us, individuals who you will never know about. One has to be very strong to survive ssri withdrawal. I am not alone.

    • Shadow 16/09/2019 at 5:29 pm #

      Like you I live in the shadows Kiwi. Managed to taper off with only online support.

      My body is really damaged after 22 years on a “cocktail.”

      Living in a new community with my retired parents who admit the drugs did not help me. Still too sick to work. Even from home.

      I tell neighbors I have autoimmune disease to explain lack of employment. This is true. I now have inflammatory bowel disease and a rare eye disorder. I blame both on long term SSRI use.

      • Don Ross 10/11/2019 at 6:41 pm #

        Have you considered hypnosis? It really has helped me recover from the damage done from 10 years on antidepressants followed by ill informed too rapid withdrawal which has taken me years to recover from. Using hypnosis, EFT and participation in 12 Step groups has helped me through. There is a Depressed Anonymous program with literature and meetings on line. It really helps to know we’re not alone.

    • Maimed78 05/11/2019 at 8:39 pm #

      Can relate with everything you wrote kiwi did you recover ? im 8 years med free and still suffering slight improvement winter I find hard would say I’m 20 % recovered think it’s permanent seroxat destroyed me

  4. Don Ross 11/09/2019 at 3:12 am #

    Great article, this information is desperately needed. One in eight american adults are taking these medications. To speak out about it publicly invariably results in angry responses about chemical imbalances that never was supported. People hang onto it like flat earth believers. Or Climate change deniers. I am a survivor of ten years use followed by ill informed too rapid withdrawal which has taken me years to recover from.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes