How do antidepressants work Neil R. Jeyasingam

In the 1950s,
the discovery of two new drugs

sparked what would become a multibillion
dollar market for antidepressants.

Neither drug was intended
to treat depression at all—

in fact, at the time, many doctors
and scientists believed psychotherapy

was the only approach
to treating depression.

The decades-long journey of discovery
that followed

revolutionized our understanding
of depression—

and raised questions
we hadn’t considered before.

One of those first two antidepressant
drugs was ipronaizid,

which was intended to treat tuberculosis.

In a 1952 trial,
it not only treated tuberculosis,

it also improved the moods of patients

who had previously been diagnosed
with depression.

In 1956, a Swiss clinician observed
a similar effect when running a trial

for imipramine,
a drug for allergic reactions.

Both drugs affected a class
of neurotransmitters called monoamines.

The discovery of these
antidepressant drugs

gave rise
to the chemical imbalance theory,

the idea that depression is caused
by having insufficient monoamines

in the brain’s synapses.

Ipronaizid, imipramine,
and other drugs like them

were thought to restore that balance

by increasing the availability
of monoamines in the brain.

These drugs targeted several
different monoamines,

each of which acted on a wide range
of receptors in the brain.

This often meant a lot of side effects,

including headaches, grogginess,
and cognitive impairments

including difficulty with memory,
thinking, and judgment.

Hoping to make the drugs more targeted
and reduce side effects,

scientists began studying existing
antidepressants

to figure out which specific monoamines
were most associated

with improvements in depression.

In the 1970s, several different
researchers converged on an answer:

the most effective antidepressants
all seemed to act on one monoamine

called serotonin.

This discovery led to the production
of fluoxetine, or Prozac, in 1988.

It was the first of a new class of drugs

called Selective Serotonin
Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRI’s,

which block the reabsorption of serotonin,
leaving more available in the brain.

Prozac worked well
and had fewer side effects

than older, less targeted antidepressants.

The makers of Prozac also worked
to market the drug

by raising awareness
of the dangers of depression

to both the public
and the medical community.

More people came to see depression
as a disease

caused by mechanisms beyond
an individual’s control,

which reduced the culture of blame
and stigmatization surrounding depression,

and more people sought help.

In the 1990s, the number of people being
treated for depression skyrocketed.

Psychotherapy and other treatments
fell by the wayside,

and most people were treated
solely with antidepressant drugs.

Since then, we’ve developed a more nuanced
view of how to treat depression—

and of what causes it.

Not everyone with depression responds
to SSRIs like Prozac—

some respond better to drugs
that act on other neurotransmitters,

or don’t respond to medication at all.

For many, a combination
of psychotherapy and antidepressant drugs

is more effective than either alone.

We’re also not sure why antidepressants
work the way they do:

they change monoamine levels within
a few hours of taking the medication,

but patients usually don’t feel
the benefit until weeks later.

And after they stop
taking antidepressants,

some patients never experience
depression again, while others relapse.

We now recognize that we don’t
know what causes depression,

or why anti-depressants work.

The chemical imbalance theory
is at best an incomplete explanation.

It can’t be a coincidence that almost all
the antidepressants

happen to act on serotonin,

but that doesn’t mean serotonin deficiency
is the cause of depression.

If that sounds odd,
consider a more straightforward example:

steroid creams can treat rashes
caused by poison ivy—

the fact that they work doesn’t mean
steroid deficiency

was the cause of the rash.

We still have a ways to go in terms
of understanding this disease.

Fortunately, in the meantime,
we have effective tools to treat it.

在 1950 年代,
两种新药的发现

引发了后来成为数十亿
美元的抗抑郁药市场。

这两种药物根本就不是
用来治疗抑郁症的——

事实上,当时许多医生
和科学家认为心理治疗


治疗抑郁症的唯一方法。

随后长达数十年的探索之旅

彻底改变了我们
对抑郁症的理解,

并提出了
我们以前从未考虑过的问题。

前两种抗抑郁
药中的一种是异丙萘啶

,用于治疗肺结核。

在 1952 年的一项试验中,
它不仅可以治疗肺结核,

还可以改善

以前被诊断
患有抑郁症的患者的情绪。

1956 年,一位瑞士临床医生

对丙咪嗪(
一种治疗过敏反应的药物)进行试验时观察到了类似的效果。

这两种药物都会影响一类
称为单胺的神经递质。

这些抗抑郁药物的发现

引发了化学失衡

理论,即抑郁症是由

大脑突触中的单胺不足引起的。

异丙萘嗪、丙咪嗪
和其他类似药物

被认为可以

通过增加
大脑中单胺的可用性来恢复这种平衡。

这些药物针对几种
不同的单胺,

每一种
都作用于大脑中的多种受体。

这通常意味着很多副作用,

包括头痛、头晕
和认知障碍,

包括记忆、
思考和判断困难。

为了使药物更有针对性
并减少副作用,

科学家们开始研究现有的
抗抑郁药,

以确定哪些特定的单胺

与抑郁症的改善最相关。

在 1970 年代,几位不同的
研究人员得出了一个答案

:最有效的抗抑郁药
似乎都作用于一种

叫做 5-羟色胺的单胺。

这一发现导致
了 1988 年氟西汀或百忧解的生产。

它是一种

称为选择性血清素
再摄取抑制剂或 SSRI 的新型药物,

它可以阻止血清素的再吸收,
从而在大脑中留下更多可用的药物。

较老的、靶向性较低的抗抑郁药相比,百忧解效果很好,副作用更少。

百忧解的制造商还

通过提高公众和医学界
对抑郁症危害的认识来推广这种药物

越来越多的人开始将抑郁症
视为一种

由个人无法控制的机制引起的疾病

这减少了
围绕抑郁症的责备和污名化文化,

越来越多的人寻求帮助。

在 1990 年代,
接受抑郁症治疗的人数猛增。

心理治疗和其他治疗
方法被搁置了

,大多数人
只接受抗抑郁药物治疗。

从那时起,我们
对如何治疗抑郁症

以及导致抑郁症的原因有了更细致的认识。

并非每个患有抑郁症的人都对
百忧解这样的 SSRI

有反应——有些人对
作用于其他神经递质的药物反应更好,

或者对药物根本没有反应。

对于许多人来说,
心理治疗和抗抑郁药物

的组合比单独使用更有效。

我们也不确定为什么抗抑郁药会以
这种方式发挥作用:它们会

在服药后的几个小时内改变单胺水平,

但患者通常要
到几周后才会感受到益处。

在他们停止
服用抗抑郁药后,

一些患者再也没有经历过
抑郁症,而另一些则复发。

我们现在认识到,我们不
知道是什么导致了抑郁,

也不知道抗抑郁药为什么起作用。

化学不平衡
理论充其量只是一个不完整的解释。

几乎所有
的抗抑郁药

都对血清素起作用,这不是巧合,

但这并不意味着血清素缺乏
是抑郁症的原因。

如果这听起来很奇怪,请
考虑一个更直接的例子:

类固醇乳膏可以治疗
由毒藤引起的皮疹——

它们起作用的事实并不意味着
类固醇缺乏

是皮疹的原因。

在了解这种疾病方面,我们还有很长的路要走

幸运的是,与此同时,
我们有有效的工具来治疗它。