UCLA

Randomized controlled trials' ability to produce evidence useful for people to decide whether to take, continue taking, or stop taking psychotropic drugs has been intensely critiqued, along with the trials' commercial, ideological, and regulatory contexts. This article applies the critique to the topic of withdrawal effects confounding the outcomes of relapse-prevention trials where prescribed psychotropic drugs are discontinued. Until recently, the complexity and reach of withdrawal and post-withdrawal effects were neglected by mainstream psychiatry, but not by lay users of prescribed psychotropics. This article discusses withdrawal effects as part of the pharmacology of psychotropic drugs but shaped by psychosocial factors, and possibly shaping the presentation of psychological distress generally. It outlines biases and misconceptions in assumptions, design, and reporting of general efficacy trials and findings from a recent review of 80 discontinuation trials. In theory, relapse-prevention trials are tautological and exaggerate efficacy. In publications, they pay little attention to the central feature of their design, favor abrupt or rapid discontinuations, do not attend to environmental factors, and provide insufficient data to allow re-analyses. Thus, relapse-prevention RCTs likely confound the detection of their main outcome of interest: "relapse." Using slower tapers, active placebo controls, and specific covariates in analyses would reduce the risk of withdrawal confounding, and better reporting would reduce the opaqueness of trials. The crisis in psychopharmacology is fueled partly by the disconnect between claims of therapeutic efficacy from so-called best-evidence methods despite unchanging population-level indicators of psychiatric sickness. Only by "stacking the deck" against trial sponsors' hoped-for outcomes can psychopharmacology trials regain scientific credibility.