Antipsychotics have increased suicide by 20 times.

An analysis published in the current issue of the British J of Psychiatry (BJP) of the suicide rate among schizophrenia patients treated at the same hospital in North Wales (UK) before psychotropic drugs and patients treated (in and out of hospital) with neuroleptics and /or atypical antipsychotics, found a 20-fold increase in the suicide rate since use of psychotropic drugs.


The lead author is Dr. David Healy, an internationally recognized authority both as a psychopharmacologist and a historian documenting the profession’s mood swings that have largely determined the course of clinical practice in psychiatry.

The historical review, "Lifetime Suicide Rates in Treated Schizophrenia: 1875-1924 and 1994-1998 Cohorts Compared," is the largest study ever to address suicide in schizophrenia patients. The following findings are reported:
In 1875-1924, the suicide rate in treated patients with schizophrenia in an asylum in North Wales, was 20/100,000 hospital years--less than 0.5% lifetime rate. The suicide rate for all psychoses during those years was 16/100,000 hospital years.

But among the 1994-1998 patient group, the rate of suicide was135/100,000 patient years—a 4% lifetime rate. This 4% risk estimate represents "a 20-fold increase in suicide rates for patients with schizophrenia in the modern period."

In an invited accompanying commentary, Dr. Trevor Turner, Consultant Psychiatrist and Clinical Director, Department of Psychiatry, of a university hospital in London, writes: “If their figures are carefully boiled down, they show that in the course of 5 years the historical cohort had 1 suicide in 594 individuals, whereas the present-day cohort had 7 suicides in 133 individuals.” Thus, patients treated with the latest antipsychotic drugs had a 20-fold increased risk of suicide compared to those treated without drugs in Victorian times.

These startling findings are certain to stir much controversy because they challenge a key mental health treatment goal—suicide prevention—which is also offered as the prime justification for mental screening in U.S. schools. These findings also challenge the widely cited 10% lifetime risk of suicide among schizophrenia patients.

Dr. Healy and colleagues analyzed schizophrenia patients’ records--which for the historic patient cohort are much more detailed with mandatory assessment of patients for suicidality. The authors note, "The records from the North West Wales service offer an opportunity to shed some light on comparative rates of suicide and suicide attempts in schizophrenia, from the pre and post-community care eras as the population of North West Wales has remained essentially unchanged in numbers and ethnic mix for 120 years. Thus in 1891 the population was 232,109, with 116,924 people between 15 and 55, while in 1996 it was 240,683 people with 119,323 in the 15-55 age band).”

Dr. Turner notes in his commentary, “most suicides today are not known to mental health services.” If so, then the findings may significantly understate the contemporary suicide incidence rate.

At the very least, Dr. Healy and colleagues’ historical findings raise serious questions about current practices—and the possibility that the drugs upon which psychiatry relies on so heavily may be doing harm. Indeed, recent suicide case reports to the British Medicines Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA)—which are said to represent 1 in 100 adverse events—seem to confirm that antipsychotics as well as antidepressants are implicated in the greatest number of suicides and suicide attempts in the UK. See, MHRA statistics posted on the AHRP website at: http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/90/28/

Prescribers of antipsychotic drugs must weigh the total risk profile of these drugs: they cannot afford to disregard the possibility of a 20-fold increased suicide risk, as well as the proven severe adverse effects of these drugs—some of which are disclosed in black box warnings in these drugs’ labels.

The findings may also be read as lending support to the findings of prize winning author of Mad in America, Robert Whitaker. Whitaker analyzed US government disability data, discovering that the outcome for schizophrenia patients in the US has worsened since the psychotropic drug paradigm was adopted. Every year, the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI and SSI) increases with 150,000 new mentally disabled persons.

See: Anatomy of an Epidemic: Psychiatric Drugs and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America, published in Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 7, Number I , Spring 2005. http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/08/29a.php and http://psychrights.org/Articles/EHPPPsy ... c(Whitaker).pdf

In light of the disturbing possibility that the drugs are doing serious, irreparable harm: increasing suicides, heart attacks, diabetes and much more, how can we let stand state statutes that allow mental health professionals to force antipsychotic drugs on patients? How can Dr. Fuller Torrey reconcile his endorsement (indeed, promotion) of state mandated, forced treatment with drugs shown to put patients at increased risk of death?

As the unfiltered evidence of harm is brought to light, prescription guidelines, such as the Texas medication algorithm (TMAP) that mandate the use of harm producing antipsychotics, should be discarded. The drugs recommended in the TMAP guidelines are undermining the life safety of patients.

Dr. Healy, it should be remembered, had delivered the most potent challenge to his peers in the psychiatric establishment and to drug regulators (FDA, MHRA)—when he confronted them with evidence from unpublished industry produced controlled, clinical trial data, showing that SSRIs increased the risk of suicide in children and adolescents. Thus, he overturned more than a decade of widely made, unsubstantiated claims about the safety of antidepressants of the SSRI class.

Although the data in this review are not from controlled clinical trials, the finding of a 20-fold increase in suicide and suicidal acts compared to the rate prior to the introduction of psychotropic drugs need to be validated or refuted. Until then, a reassessment of the current paradigm in the treatment of schizophrenia is essential inasmuch as there are indicators suggesting that psychotropic drugs may be increasing the risk of suicide rather than reducing the risk.

See full text of BJP article at: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/188/3/223

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/88/28/

How about for those who are trying to withdraw from antipsychotics but cannot ? Are they high in the suicide category?

What about the years between 1924 and 1994?

I think it is a little naive to assume that is down entirely to pshychotropic drugs - in 1993/4 the 'asylum' in North Wales closed, and local units were opened to replace it. Patients were moved back into the community where there was then a failure to follow up and support them.

I do know a fair bit about this - I live in North Wales, my mother was one of those locked up in the asylum mentioned, and I was a patient at the time the old wards were closed and the new units opened. I have, over the last ten years or so, witnessed the critisism and backlash reported in the local press about the suicide rate and the contributory factors (not least the fact that the old asylum was well out of the way of anywhere, while the new unit is a short distance from a bridge traditionally favoured by suicides).

Don't get me wrong - I'm not in favour of hospitalisation in any form particularly - but the last ten years where the suicide rate is so high has seen a huge number of very vulnerable people turfed out into a community that offers little support. That has just as much, if not more, bearing on this statistic, than any medication used.

This is Isme btw - it won't let me log in!

I believe the majority of those who was diagnosed with schizophrenia and commited suicide are the ones that think they cannot recover. It was the psychiatrists fault for giving a serious diagnose to them without telling them, they could recover, most of the time symptom-free. Medications just add to their problems.

In part, yes. But the Victorians did much more than just 'not medicate' - they also strapped people to their beds nd tied them up in straight jackets, and anyone showing sz symptoms was there for life; not just weeks. It could be argued that simply restraining these people kept the suicide rate low - they didn't physically get the opportunity to kill themselves.

The whole premise is flawed, sorry. This is about much more than just trying to blame drugs for a rise in suicides. The whole situation needs addressing - in particular what support exists (or not) in the community. People left hospital and dropped from sight. Once they become isolated suicide becomes a higher risk.

Look at the studies in India - a huge part of recovery there is down to family and friends and the community as a whole providing care and support.

Yes, reduce medication - but make damn sure the support networks are in place for people in the community.

The North Wales case is a specific situation; it's a very rural area, highly reliant on agriculture and tourism. People are generally isolated, often their mental health team workers don't even speak their language. North Wales has the highest Welsh-speaking poulation in the country, and is also one of the poorer areas.

All this has a bearing on these results. By saying it doesn't, or that it's not a casue, you are condemning people to poor recovery rates and high suicide rates yet again.

I know. I bloody live here.

Isme.

the only times i ever tried to commit suicide was whilst on antipsychotics. in one 18 month period 14 of my friends that were in the same hospital committed suicide whilst on antipsychotics.

the majority of my friends that committed suicide were under forced treatment orders; they were being forcefully drugged with antipsychotics (just like myself) at the time of their suicides.

akathisia is a well-documented side effect of antipsychotics and a major cause of suicide.

psychiatry has nothing to do with medical science; it is ideology, a social control experiment that has gone on for too long.

all treatment methods of psychiatry should be condemned from strapping people to beds, putting them in straight jackets or drugging them with toxic chemicals, psychosurgery, ect etc.

psychiatrists once claimed homosexuality was a mental disease with a medical cause. the gay rights movement saw homosexuality removed from the dsm and homosexuality became a normal part of culture. the same thing needs to happen with all of the sham diseases (that have no known cause) psychiatry has invented.

psychiatry has been very successful in deceiving the masses that any type of behavior that does not fit into what they consider normal is a disease. they have done this to a point where anyone labeled with a diagnosis is rejected by society. psychiatry dictates what is acceptable behavior and what is not. to have to live in a culture where you are rejected because of the sham label psychiatrists have applied to you makes it extremely difficult to exists (another cause of suicide).

psychiatric quackery is increasing the suicide rate, not reducing it.

this last hundred years of psychiatry is a very dark period for humanity indeed.

Anonymous wrote:The whole premise is flawed, sorry. This is about much more than just trying to blame drugs for a rise in suicides.

Isme.

FYI

Akathisia (or "acathisia") is an often extremely unpleasant subjective sensation of "inner" restlessness that manifests itself with an inability to sit still or remain motionless, hence the origin of its name: Greek a (without) + kithesia (to sit).

Akathisia may range in intensity from a mild sense of disquiet or anxiety (which may be easily overlooked) to a total inability to sit still with overwhelming anxiety and severe dysphoria (manifesting as an almost undescribable sense of terror and doom). In the most severe cases, dysphoria can be so severe that the patient is literally compelled to take action, leading, possibly, to suicide attempts. It is not unknown to have patients literally run out of a hospital or emergency room.

Akathisia is often misdiagnosed and can lead the patient to commit suicide in or outside the hospital.

The presence and severity of akathisia can be measured using the Barnes Akathisia Scale.

It is a common side effect of certain drugs, notably:

* typical or atypical antipsychotics (also called major tranquilizers), such as haloperidol (Haldol®) and droperidol, olanzapine (Zyprexa®);
* SSRIs, such as paroxetine (Paxil®);
* tricyclic antidepressants, certain antihistamines, such as promethazine and diphenhydramine (Benadryl®);
* and certain anti-emetic drugs, particularly the dopamine blockers (e.g. metoclopramide (Reglan®) and prochlorperazine (Compazine®)).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akathisia

Isme,

you obviously have not experieced akathisia as in your other posts you are new to antipsychotics. you don't know what it feels like. when suffering akathisia the only thing you can think of is ending it anyway you can.

if you happen to be near a person suffering akathisia, expect the high possibilty of violence.

Yeh, and my mother only ever tried to kill herself when not on any treatment. I can give you at list of at least a dozen others who also tried suicide when not on treatment.

I'm not saying that the use of medication *doesn't* increase the risk of suicide.

I am saying there is much more to it than *just* medication.

Even the study itself states;

"Although the data in this review are not from controlled clinical trials, the finding of a 20-fold increase in suicide and suicidal acts compared to the rate prior to the introduction of psychotropic drugs need to be validated or refuted. Until then, a reassessment of the current paradigm in the treatment of schizophrenia is essential inasmuch as there are indicators suggesting that psychotropic drugs may be increasing the risk of suicide rather than reducing the risk. "

In other words, the study shows the use of these drugs *may* be increasing the risk of suicide.

The fact is, there are a number of factors at work here - not least the rural aspect and poor level of support for many members of the communities in North Wales.

This really is crap. You have an opportunity to examine exactly how the Indian model (remember them? They recover much better than we do because they have support and understanding in their community and family?) compares to the UK model and you ignore it to bleat on and on about how awful drugs are.

Yes I'm lucky that I don't have a life-long history of anti-psychotics so the long-term side-effects don't bother me. I hope I never find out about them. But I'm not entirely sure what bearing that has on this at all? Nowhere does it state that akathisia is a likely cause of this increase in rates.

Either look at the whole situation, or don't bother. North Wales is suffering; not least from a complete lack of understanding of its culture and needs. To gloss over the very real problems facing those with problems here by blindly repeating 'it's the drugs' is just doing the same thing again. I'm really disappointed. Even the study is inaccurate; it states the ethnic mix has remained unchanged. How wrong can you be? North Wales is a Welsh speaking culture, which in recent times (over the last forty or so years especially) has seen a massive influx of non-Welsh speaking people, and a huge rise in the number of second homes bought. Half my village is now made up of holiday homes belonging to non local people. Twenty years ago, less than 10% of the homes here were holiday or second homes.

The study is flawed. If you think it shows what you want it to show, great. But it doesn't. It just shows how blinded you can be by what you want to see.

your ranting on like this issue is only local to north wales, it effects the whole world! a lab rat study is a lab rat study anywhere in the world. the same goes for studies using sz's. no where do these studies state they are applicable to the local north wales community alone.

david healy's evidence that ssri's increase the risk of suicide was instrumental in warning labels being placed on antidepressant packets (and not just packets in north wales). and didn't the industry try to destroy him professionally for it.

http://pharmapolitics.com/pressconf.html

http://www.caut.ca/en/bulletin/issues/2 ... /healy.asp

if have read the article and i know what it contains. i am also aware of recovery rates in poorer countries.

for many people medication has caused them to suicide, i've seen this and experienced it.

it is just as flawed to claim antipsychotics have any efficacy in the treatment of sz. what a fraud. the cause of sz has yet to be identified, yet quacks are prescribing toxic medication, (without knowing what they are doing) making billions of dollars and they are killing patients.

toxic medication is the current treatment paradigm, not supportive communities. to get to the point of where supportive communities are the new paradigm the psychopharmacology industry's strangle hold on human behavior has to be bought down first.

you can call it a flawed study until your blue in the face, it's your opinion and that's all it is. dr healy is a highly respected expert in this feild and i am pleased his research on antipsychotics causing suicide is being debated. if things follow the path of his warnings that ssri's cause suicide, then hopefully warning labels will be on antipsychotic packets within a few years. these warning labels will help educate the public that antipsychotics are very dangerous and alternative treatment methods like supportive communities will be supported by the masses.

first things first!

"as there are indicators suggesting that psychotropic drugs may be increasing the risk of suicide rather than reducing the risk. "

Indicators suggesting... may be....

Not - "this is what is happening". The report asks for more study to be done to validate these suggestions. In other words, there is nothing concrete here. The study itself states that.

Hell, I'm not suggesting there's anything positive about these meds at all - what I am saying (although you lot seem determined to ignore it) is that there is far more to an increased suicide rate between those two given dates than just medication.

And ffs you say this doesn't just pertain to North Wales - how on earth can you say that when it states in the study

"The records from the North West Wales service offer an opportunity to shed some light on comparative rates of suicide and suicide attempts in schizophrenia, from the pre and post-community care eras as the population of North West Wales has remained essentially unchanged in numbers and ethnic mix for 120 years. Thus in 1891 the population was 232,109, with 116,924 people between 15 and 55, while in 1996 it was 240,683 people with 119,323 in the 15-55 age band).”

That in iteslf is flawed. As I have already explained, while numbers may not have changed, the ethnic mix most certainly has. Perhaps you like to class the ethnic mix as 'British' in which case little change has taken place, but that is not the case here. North West Wales is Welsh, in both spoken language and culture; the change in that culture has been marked over the last century, as English people move in.

North Wales has vastly different needs care-wise than mor eurban areas.

You really don't need to be a sociologist to see that.

This is absolutely pointless. You bleat on about Dr so-and-so being highly respected (so are the pro-med docs, is that a good argument for following their philosophy? I think not) and that's enough for you. Maybe for you - not for the rest of us.

I'm also pleased the issue has been raised, and I really hope it means further study does come about. But to claim on teh basis of thsi one study that these drugs caused teh suicide rate to climb is not helping the people who are actually caught up in the lack of provision of care here.

*That* is what bugs me most. You're all ranting on about 'it's teh drugs, it's the drugs' - maybe in part. But not entirely. And what happens? Exactly what's happening here... you get so obsessed with blaming the drugs that nothing else changes, and people still don't get the support and information they need here (or anywhere else you care to include).

If you want a world where meds are not the first line of defence, you first need to put a support system in place so that people *can* get better without them. And this... this is just not doing it.