You bring up a good point to review the credibility gathered for psychiatric medication. The document ...
... states that citalopram (Celexa) and escitalopram (Lexapro) are not associated with cardiac arrhythmia which isn't accurate. A couple of years ago the maximum recommended dose for citalopram was reduced from 60mg to 40mg, and for escitalopram from 30mg to 20mg because it was found they could be cardio toxic at high doses. Sudden cardiac death associated with antidepressants is a rare occurrence and mostly is only one of several concomitant factors such as existing heart disease or the concurrent use of other cardio active meds, supplements, or drugs.
The source of this material is the American Pharmaceutical Association: Drug Information Handbook.
The American Pharmaceutical Association (APhA)
* focuses on pharmaceutical medication. Although psychiatric drugs are not their speciality, the APha does list potential benefits in that table, such as columns on antidepressant names, prices, dose levels, half-lives and other antidepressant side-effects (but these side effects can be debated, based on the sample used for the study).
However the chart is the from the 2004 edition, and the book has been updated to a 2013 version, but the table does not reflect the book's most recent updates.http://www.amazon.com/Information-Handbook-Lexicomps-Reference-Handbooks/dp/1591953197/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Since 2003, changes have been made in the mainstream use of antidepressant medication, such as the lower dosage level adjustments for Celexa/Lexapro, as well as the chart's mention of Serzone. That antidepressant was pulled off the shelf for many countries in 2003, due to reports of Serzone's links with liver failure and potential links to a small number of user deaths. So the chart does need some updating.
So to the OP, your mileage may vary on that chart, but it's still a helpful reference.
Ian, about your comments, if you don't mind me asking you a few questions.
>>> Even more suspect is the claim that for SSRIs there is "no need to titrate as in the tricyclics."
That tricyclic statement in that chart came after the paraphrase, "lower dosages are most appropriate for depressed symptoms." Could the two have been purposefully linked (depression and lack of titration on antidepressants)?
For example, do depressed people get more anxious on antidepressants, if they just begin on a low, starting dose, or are they also required to taper up to a starting dose? For people with anxiety disorders, I know the titration period is essential, since anxiety sufferers often are in the higher ranges of antidepressant intake.
You also wrote:And how does mirtazapine (Remeron) get a lower rating for weight gain than a couple of the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) when it has quite a reputation for turning those on it into carbohydrate junkies?
I googled Remeron, and from what I gathered, Remeron was approved for FDA use in 2001. Would weight gain be a factor in not having a antidepressant approved by the FDA? Did the FDA studies on Remeron pass on weight gain, since the medication worked on mental health instead, and weight gain was not a factor in their study?
BTW, it's been a challenge for me to find a good pdf file or webpage off the internet, based on a table of antidepressant comparisons. There was one good chart provided by some website called scribe(?), however I'm required to pay them a registration fee, which I don't want to provide my credit card information for, so I ignored the option to download a copy.Can anyone provide an attachment or a good link for a table of antidepressant comparisons?
If the table has half-life and dosage comparisons that would be very grand. Thanks.