The Mind-Body Connection: Depression and Its Effects On Physical Health

I will return to the theme of happiness in a few more days, but today we will continue with our series about depression, based on Peter Cramer’s book Against Depression, which I heartily recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about depression.

Depression is not just a psychological disease. It impacts the whole body, and especially impacts the cardiovascular system. Depression is one of the strongest predictors of cardiac disease. Even minor depression increase the risk of cardiac disease by 50 percent. Major depression increases risk by 3 to 4 times. For those with pre-existing coronary artery disease, risk is increased 5 times!

You might be thinking that this is no surprise. Perhaps depressed people smoke more, exercise less, eat more bacon, etc. What is surprising is that the numbers in the preceding paragraph are after adjusting for lifestyle and behavior! The raw numbers are even higher!

Why is this? What is the mechanism by which depression reeks havoc with the cardiovascular system?

There are several possible mechanisms. One is through the impact on blood clotting.

Blood clotting is controlled by cells in the blood called platelets. The stickier the platelets are, the more likely you are to develop blood clots, which can lead to stroke or heart attack. Depressed patients have stickier platelets.

Another mechanism is stress. Depressed patients are under constant physiological stress, with excess stress chemicals circulating in their blood. This may raise blood pressure and cause other changes that affect the cardiovascular system.

So what happens if you treat depression? Does this reduce risk of cardiovascular disease?

Studies of antidepressants given after heart attack show a 30 to 40 percent reduction in subsequent heart attacks and deaths.

Antidepressants improve the outcomes after stroke as well. When stroke patients were given either antidepressants or placebo, 66 percent of the antidepressant group survived 2 years, but only 35 percent of placebo group.

Other physical triggers like treatment with interferon for hepatic C and melanoma can also cause depression. In fact, 50 percent of patients who receive interferon will get seriously depressed. Depression in these cases is serious because it can cause the person to stop taking a potentially life-saving treatment.

Antidepressants help even in these cases of drug induced depression. One study found that treatment with Paxil, an antidepressant, reduced depression from 45 percent to 11 percent.

What are the implications of these finding?

  1. All patients who have had a heart attack or a stroke should probably take an antidepressant.
  2. All patients taking long-term interferon treatment should begin taking an antidepressant several weeks before starting the interferon.
  3. Probably most seriously ill cancer patients should take an antidepressant as well.
  4. Counseling that focuses on evaluating and treating depression should be part of any seriously ill medical patient’s treatment regimen.

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

All Rights Reserved


Your Junk is My Treasure! The Psychology of Compulsive Hoarding


Today I am going to write about a very different type of psychological problem, called compulsive hoarding. The Boston Globe had a very interesting article about hoarding. Researchers Gail Steketee and Randy Carlson have a new book, called “Buried in Treasures,” which documents their new approach to treating this disorder.

First of all, what is compulsive hoarding? It’s when you can’t get rid of anything, and can’t put in order what you have, so much so that you end up having difficulties using the spaces you live or work in.

Are you a hoarder? Of course not! But Steketee and her colleagues developed a simple photo test for hoarding . Take a look at these photos, and pick out the one that looks the most like your bedroom. If it is number 4 or higher, then you probably have a problem with hoarding. (Hoarders, it turns out, are very accurate at identifying the level of chaos in their spaces.)

Your official Lounge Wizard, Dr. Psychology took the test, and scored a 2 or 3, which puts him in the normal range, but right on the borderline of hoarding. So this article is close to his heart.

What causes hoarding? It’s not what most non-hoarders think; laziness, messiness, or even depression. Although many hoarders have some elements of depression or anxiety, the core of hoarding is that they have strong attachments to things. They are sentimental about possessions, and often have very intense feelings about them. They tend to be creative, and can think of many uses for objects.

Most hoarders function fairly well outside their homes. They have jobs, friends, and active involvements. Where hoarding seems to impact them is in romantic relationships. The hoarders I know tend to not have long term romantic relationships, which isn’t surprising, as girlfriends and boyfriends tend to want to come over to your house, and for a hoarder than is a painful experience. “Why do you have all of this stuff? Why don’t you get rid of all this junk? I can’t believe you live this way!” are all typical comments they may hear. Needless to say, there are no more invitations after that. Steketee finds that at least 50% of hoarders are single.

So is there any hope for hoarding? One thing that doesn’t seem to work very well is traditional medicines for depression like antidepressants. Although these medicines work well for regular obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) they don’t appear to do much for hoarding. Traditional psychotherapy doesn’t work either.

Steketee and colleagues have developed a very nice cognitive behavioral model for treating hoarding. They find that hoarders have similar cognitive models. For instance, hoarders have four common fears: 1) missing important information or opportunities, 2) forgetting something important, 3) experiencing loss, and 4) being wasteful. They tend to focus on lost opportunity, so getting rid of a newspaper entails a possibility of losing some opportunity that was in the newspaper. In general, all of their possessions get elevated in value.

Another common issue is needing to keep things in sight. This is tied into the need to not forget anything. “Out of sight, out of mind,” is the hoarder’s mantra. This causes the visual chaos that creates many of the problems of hoarding, since if one just had many possessions, but they were well organized and stored, hoarding would not be a big problem.

So it is not surprising that Steketee’s treatment plan focuses on helping hoarders learn to organize their space, rather than focusing on getting rid of stuff. This is more palatable goal for most hoarders, who know that their space is poorly organized.

The treatment also focuses on helping hoarders overcome the need to acquire things. The rules for acquisition are: 1) immediate need for the object (this week), 2) time enough to acquire and use the object, 3) money to buy it, and 4) an appropriate space for the object. This nips the problem in the bud.

The treatment works, but it’s not a miracle. According to Steketee, it’s not unusual for someone to move from 7 to 3 on a 9 point scale where 1 is neat and organized, and 9 is total mess. But relapse is always a danger, as there is something very compelling about hoarding.

So what is the core of hoarding? Even Steketee and her colleagues are a little baffled about this. As a borderline hoarder who closest friends include some hoarders, I can give some intriguing answers.

Hoarding is about possibility. The thought “I could use this item someday,” is central to the decision to hold onto something. For instance, I have a box of scrap pieces of wood and plastic, which I keep because I might have a use someday. Every once in a while, I use a piece from my scrap box. And that reinforces keeping it.

Or papers. I used to clip articles from papers, thinking I would write about the topic someday. I had many files of articles on travel, psychology, and technology. The technology innovation that has changed that is computers, and more specifically, the email program Gmail. Instead of printing out articles, now I email them to myself. Since Gmail can hold thousands of articles, and with a simple search I can find any of them, I’ve tossed out my article files.

One of the beauties of computers is that even massive hoarding of articles or writing takes very little space on a hard drive. I can hold every email I’ve ever written in my life on a single USB memory stick. So if you are a hoarder of articles, or papers, consider buying a scanner, and using computer technology to hoard more effectively.

Another aspect of hoarding is sentiment. I hate throwing out something that reminds me of a good time in my life, or almost anything that has significant meaning. So I’d never throw away a photograph or a letter from someone I care about. I will throw out cards, though, unless they have a significant written message inside.

And some of hoarding is simply about difficulty in making decisions. For instance, I have too many books. But it is hard to figure out which books to toss. Some rules are easy. A bad paperback novel is easy to toss. But a good novel is tougher; maybe I will want to reread it sometime.

And reference books are still arder. Will I need the information in this book sometime? I try to ask myself realistically if the info is something I’ll need in the foreseeable future, and especially if the information is still even relevant. Thus old computer books are easy to toss, since in the computer world things date quickly.

One trick I’ve used successfully in de-hoarding is to remind myself that one of the advantages of getting rid of things is that you can get new things! For instance, if you go through one’s clothes closet and toss all the clothing that doesn’t fit and doesn’t look good, then you get to buy some cool new threads! The same is true with books. The key is to replace less than you toss.

Conquering hoarding is about psychological growth. Central to the process of growth is letting go of the old in order to make room for the new. New things, new people, and new experiences. Another aspect of de-hoarding is traveling through life less encumbered. That gives you more flexibility to move, and change. The irony of hoarding is that the biggest hoarders I know love to travel. And when they travel, they leave almost all of their stuff behind. And they are perfectly happy living out of a suitcase or backpack, and don’t miss their stuff at all.

Maybe this is really a metaphor for our psychological baggage. Travel light, and leave the junk behind. Throw out old stuff, and organize what you keep. Let go of things, and make room for new things.

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Forbes Magazine Endorses Cognitive Behavioral Therapy! In a Faceoff between Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Antidepressant drugs, Therapy Wins!


As regular readers know, your editor is a big fan of a type of psychotherapy called Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Cognitive therapy is a modern non-drug therapy that teaches clients new ways of thinking and feeling. The basic concept is that it is our distorted thinking that creates psychological problems of anxiety, depression, panic, etc. The cognitive therapist combines teaching cognitive skills with behavioral techniques that allow the client to overcome their difficulties.

And much to his surprise, this week Forbes Magazine put CBT on their cover! The Forbes article about Cognitive Behavioral Therapy was very positive. They summarize 30 years of research, including studies that show that CBT works well for insomnia, hypochondria, anxiety, depression, bulimia, obsessive compulsive disorder, preventing suicide, and even matches surgery for low back pain. Here is a video demonstration of exposure treatment for an elevator phobia.

They also compare the effectiveness of CBT to antidepressant medication. Although both work, in the long run CBT is more cost effective, and leads to less relapse. In one study comparing Paxil to CBT, only 31% of the CBT group relapsed within one year of completing treatment, compared to 76% of the Paxil group! This is a very big difference. The skills that clients learn seem to have a lasting impact on preventing future depressions.

Even in terms of cost, CBT beats antidepressant medications, at least with the assumptions the Forbes editors made. After three months of treatment, they estimate the costs of cognitive therapy at $1200 and the costs of medication treatment with Effexor at $502, which includes one psychiatrist visit at $200, and $302 in drug costs. At one year, they estimate the costs of cognitive therapy at $2000, and drug treatment at $2009, which includes $800 for four psychiatrist visits at $200 each, and $1209 for the Effexor.

As much as I like the comparison, it is based on faulty assumptions. First of all, it’s not clear how many sessions of cognitive therapy they are estimating. The $2000 would pay for 20 sessions at $100, but only 13 at $150. It’s probably optimistic to believe that a good outcome would come out of only 13 sessions. And because the primary group of professionals who perform cognitive therapy are psychologists, who typically charge more than masters level therapists, $100 is probably too low.

So let’s fix the numbers. Let’s assume 25 sessions of cognitive therapy, at $150 per session, which comes out to $3750. That’s probably a fairer assumption.

Now let’s look at the other assumptions. Effexor is an expensive, non-generic anti-depressant, which costs $100 a month, or even more. But the generic version of Prozac, called fluoxetine, can cost as little as $10 a month. And four psychiatrist visits in a year is also too optimistic. In my experience, patients need every two week visits initially to get the medication adjusted, and after 6 or 8 weeks, can graduate to once a month, and after another 3 visits, can be seen every three months. Also, psychiatrists typically charge at least $300 for the initial evaluation, and less than $200 for the follow-up visits which tend to be shorter visits.

So by these assumptions, the psychiatrist visits would cost $1380 at least. This brings the total cost of one year of treatment with Effexor to $2589. Of course, if fluoxetine was substituted then the total costs would only come to $1500!

So drug treatment costs less than cognitive therapy, right? It either costs a lot less ($1500 compared to $3750) or somewhat less ($2589 compared to $3750).

But there is still a glitch in the assumptions. We are only looking at the first year costs. Remember the statistics mentioned above, that up to 76% of patients who stop taking antidepressants relapse back into depression. Those are pretty bad odds. If a patient stayed on Effexor for 5 more years, their total cost of treatment would skyrocket to $6756, assuming psychiatrist visits 4 times a year. Compared to this cognitive therapy looks good!

There is another, unmentioned advantage to cognitive therapy, which is incredibly important, and which too often is left out of this debate. Here’s the dirty little secret the drug companies don’t want you to know—most antidepressants ruin your sex life! With really just a few exceptions (Wellbutrin, and Emsam) almost all of the major antidepressants make it much harder to have an orgasm for both men and women, and for men may make it difficult or impossible to get or maintain an erection. Antidepressants should really be called anti-sex drugs! (Caveat: not everyone will have the sexual side effects, but most will.) Here is a good article about the sexual side effects of antidepressants.

And this leaves out all of the other side effects of antidepressants. Here’s a link to common side effects of antidepressant medication Dry mouth, dry eyes, blurred vision, nausea, insomnia, headaches, the list goes on and on. How do you place a value on the costs of side effects?

Cognitive therapy obviously has no sexual side effects, or any other side effects. So for this reason, and for the advantage in preventing relapse, I believe cognitive therapy should be the first choice therapy for those patients suffering depression, providing they can afford therapy or have good insurance coverage for therapy. If not, then having your regular doctor prescribe and monitor a generic antidepressant such as fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft), or bupropion (Wellbutrin) is the best option, with the downside being that you will most likely need to take the medications long-term to avoid relapse, and that you will most likely have physical side effects. Thus it may be worth taking a loan from your credit card in the form of a cash advance, or simply using a credit card to pay for cognitive therapy. After all, that’s how most people pay for their next car, or flat screen television set.

So here’s the executive summary. Cognitive therapy works for a large variety of common psychological problems, and even a few physical problems. Although initially it costs a little more, the effects are longer lasting than medication treatment. And in the long run, it can end up saving money. Best of all, other than working a little bit on therapy homework, there are no side effects of therapy! Conclusion: If you are depressed, anxious, having insomnia, obsessive compulsive disorder, hypochondriasis, phobias, or relationship problems, your first move should be to find a psychologist who specializes in cognitive therapy. Borrow the money if you don’t have it, or put it onto your credit card, but don’t miss out on this effective treatment out of some false sense of economizing.

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Let’s Not Kill Any More Rebecca Riley’s! Debate Over the Use of Psychiatric Drugs for Young Children

 

The New York Times reported that Rebecca Riley, a four year old girl from near Boston, was found dead on the morning of December 13, a victim of an apparent overdose of the psychiatric drugs Seroquel, an antipsychotic drug; Depakote, a powerful anti-seizure medicine used for mood control, and Clonidine, a blood pressure drug often prescribed to calm children. Rebecca had been diagnosed at having bipolar disorder at the age of two! So some overzealous psychiatrist had diagnosed her as been manic depressive at age 2.

Now this is pretty crazy. A child at two is a work in progress, and if is virtually impossible to diagnose anything at that age. The only exceptions are the developmental disorders, such as autism. Probably Rebecca was a difficult child, prone to moodiness and maybe even tantrums. So her parents, with a willing psychiatrist, gave her mind-numbing drugs to calm her, rather than learning better parenting skills. From the article: “A relative of her mother, Carolyn Riley, 32, told the police that Rebecca seemed “sleepy and drugged” most days, according to the charging documents. One preschool teacher said that at about 2 p.m. every day the girl came to life, “as if the medication Rebecca was on was wearing off,” according to the documents.”

This is more than sad, it is pitiful. How many other, nondrug interventions were tried before using medication? Was there parenting training? Was there a home visit, to see how Rebecca and her parents were interacting? The article does not say, but I’m guessing that none of these things were done. There’s an old saying, “Give a young boy a hammer, and everything becomes a nail.” In much the same way, bringing a child to a psychiatrist means that they are likely to get drugs. That’s why the first stop for children, especially young children, should be to a child psychologist, a psychologist who specializes in treating children and their families.

It should also be noted that most psychiatric medications are not and have never been approved for use in young children. There are no studies of using these drugs on toddlers. Although it might be occasionally reasonable to use drugs meant for adults on older teenagers, who are at least biologically similar to adults, it is irresponsible at best to use these drugs with young children.

The problem is that giving kids drugs is too easy. From the New York Times article, “Paraphrasing H. L. Mencken, Dr. Carlson added, ‘Every serious problem has an easy solution that is usually wrong.’” Behavioral problems in children can be very serious, and the behavioral interventions take time and commitment. Learning good parenting techniques, such as the proper use of time-outs and other interventions, takes dedication and a competent psychologist’s help.

As with adults, medications should always be reserved for after all other interventions have failed. And with children, only medications that have been tested on children, and used for years should be tried. If psychiatrists want to prescribe these medications for children, let them first run the research trials required by the FDA to test safety and effectiveness. Let’s not kill anymore Rebecca Riley’s!

PermaLink to article

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Mild Depression, A Mild Problem?

 

More from Peter Cramer’s book Against Depression, which I heartily recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about depression.

We talked about the full blown diagnosis of depression. For a diagnosis of major depression you need 5 or more symptoms for at least 2 weeks. What if a patient has only 2 or 3 symptoms for 2 weeks? Is that a problem?

First of all these mild depressions can be the precursor or follow-up to major depression. So they are important for that reason.

But even if there is no major depression, mild depression looks like major depression. Mild depression runs in families where major depression is prevalent. Low level depression causes disability, absenteeism, more medical visits.

Another type of mild depression is dysthymia. Dysthymia means being sad at least 50% of the time, for 2 years or more. And dysthymia is not the same as unhappiness. Dysthymics suffer the same relentless internal stress, the hopelessness, sadness, and low self-esteem of the depressed. The fact that they may function well, or eat and sleep well, is of small comfort to them.

The problem with dysthymia and mild depression is that medications may be less effective with these conditions, and some types of psychotherapy, more effective. Although no one exactly knows, the general consensus is that dysthymia is less responsive to antidepressants than is major depression. But it may be more responsive to cognitive behavioral therapy.

In summary, even mild depression has serious impacts on people. Mild depression can be effectively treated with cognitive behavioral therapy, and responds well to it.


Copyright 2006 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions