How Frequent Are Sexual Side Effects?
Kas Thomas is a longtime cognitive dissident and menace to sacred-cow-kind. A graduate of the University of California at Irvine and Davis (with degrees in biology and microbiology) and a former University of California Regents' Fellow, He has been a Technology Evangelist for Adobe Systems and currently operates Author-Zone.com, a resource site for indie authors.
Follow @kasthomas on Twitter.
If you read popular articles about antidepressants, it's easy to get the impression that drugs like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Cymbalta, Luvox, etc. are primarily psychoactive drugs that specifically alter brain chemistry. Indeed, this is what the drug companies want you to think. Depressed? Take this pill: it's designed to work on your brain. Will it cause side effects? Maybe, but they're just side effects.
This is a mistaken view of pharmacology. Drugs don't produce side effects. They just produce effects. Also, serotonin is not a brain chemical. It's a total body chemical. Over 90% of the serotonin in your body is in your intestines and sex organs. Only 5% occurs in the brain. When you take an SSRI, the drug circulates through your whole body. It doesn't just head for the brain and then, incidentally and occasionally, produce "side effects."
People who take antidepressants of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class quickly experience the fact that SSRIs are whole-body drugs, because the first effects most people notice (and complain about in clinical trials) are digestive and sexual-dysfunction effects. In clinical testing, SSRIs seldom fail to separate from placebo on those. If you're lucky enough to be one of the 50% or so of patients who see beneficial psychological effects, that's great, but in the meantime, the physiological effects (which can range from mild nausea to drowsiness to erectile dysfunction, or if you're really unlucky, diabetes or gastrointestinal bleeding) will be every bit as real as any effects on your brain.
How common are "sexual side effects" from SSRIs? If you read the package inserts for the drugs, they all downplay sexual side effects. They rarely tell of more than 10% of patients complaining of ED, reduced libido, or difficulty reaching orgasm. The real world tells a far different story. In one of the largest prospective studies of its kind, the Spanish Working Group for the Study of Psychotropic-Related Sexual Dysfunction found:
The incidence of sexual dysfunction with SSRIs and venlaxafine [Effexor] is high, ranging from 58% to 73%.
The patients in question were taking Prozac (279 patients), Zoloft (159), Luvox (77), Paxil (208), Effexor (55), or Celexa (66).
In the Spanish study, Paxil was associated with "significantly higher rates of erectile dysfunction/decreased vaginal lubrication" compared to other antidepressants. Meanwhile, "males had a higher rate of dysfunction than females (62.4% vs. 56.9%), but females experienced more severe decreases in libido, delayed orgasm, and anorgasmia."
Some studies of sexual side effects have shown a dose-response relationship. What's interesting about this is that most SSRIs have a flat dose-response curve for psychological effects. Thus, the physiological (sexual) effects are dose-dependent, but the effects on mood generally are not.
The takeaway? If you're on an SSRI and you don't like the sexual side effects, ask your doctor to reduce your dosage to the minimum effective therapeutic dose (because taking more than that generally does no good anyway). If your doctor keeps upping your dose, it means he or she hasn't read the literature. The literature says that beyond a certain dose, more doesn't do anything.
The ability to speak clearly, succinctly, and powerfully is easier than you think
The ability to communicate effectively can make or break a person's assessment of your intelligence, competence, and authenticity.
Antimicrobial resistance is growing worldwide, rendering many "work horse" medicines ineffective. Without intervention, drug-resistant pathogens could lead to millions of deaths by 2050. Thankfully, companies like Pfizer are taking action.
- Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens are one of the largest threats to global health today.
- As we get older, our immune systems age, increasing our risk of life threatening infections. Without reliable antibiotics, life expectancy could decline for the first time in modern history.
- If antibiotics become ineffective, common infections could result in hospitalization or even death. Life-saving interventions like cancer treatments and organ transplantation would become more difficult, more often resulting in death. Routine procedures would become hard to perform.
- Without intervention, resistant pathogens could result in 10 million annual deaths by 2050.
- By taking a multi-faceted approach—inclusive of adherence to good stewardship, surveillance and responsible manufacturing practices, as well as an emphasis on prevention and treatment—companies like Pfizer are fighting to help curb the spread.
Journalism got a big wake up call in 2016. Can we be optimistic about the future of media?
- "[T]o have a democracy that thrives and actually that manages to stay alive at all, you need regular citizens being able to get good, solid information," says Craig Newmark.
- The only constructive way to deal with fake news? Support trustworthy media. In 2018, Newmark was announced as a major donor of two new media organizations, The City, which will report on New York City-area stories which may have otherwise gone unreported, and The Markup, which will report on technology.
- Greater transparency of fact-checking within media organizations could help confront and correct fake news. Organizations already exist to make media more trustworthy — are we using them? There's The Trust Project, International Fact-Checkers Network, and Tech & Check.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.