Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:869 (11 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7419.869-a
EDITORShorter and Tyrer's conclusion that failure to advance (drug) treatment of anxiety and depression is related to wrong (disease) classification seems to be based on several false premises.1
|
Firstly, precise diagnosis is possible in mental disorders.
Secondly, drug licensing authorities require disease indications in standard (coded) diagnostic terms.
Thirdly, drugs are used only to treat disease (cause) not symptoms (effect).
Fourthly, drugs are the principal treatment agent in anxiety and depression.
Diagnosis in patients, particularly in mental illness, is simply a shortcut categorisation prompting further elucidation. Full appraisal of patients in the context of their environment, beliefs, and many other factors is a more appropriate guide to therapeutic choices, of which drug treatment is only one option.
The specification of product characteristics for the benzodiazepine librium lists among its licensed indications symptomatic treatment of anxiety, anxiety with other conditions (many diseases listed here), muscle spasm, symptomatic relief of acute alcohol withdrawal.2 Clearly not the language of disease classification, this example refutes the second premise above.
Most clinicians know that anxiety and depression are symptoms (alone or together) found in situations (not necessarily disease) and conditions including schizophrenia, mood disorders, and phobic disorders. Calling symptoms disease is like telling a patient with headache that they have "cephalgia."
I am amazed that, to pursue its otherwise excellent scrutiny of the pharmaceutical industry's influence on medical practice, the BMJ has suspended its normal rules of critical evaluation to publish this paper, which sees conspiracy where clearly none exists.
Roger L Weeks, general practitioner
2 Deanhill Road, London SW14 7DF roger{at}safescript.org
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+