Search This Blog

Sunday, July 9, 2023

Antidepressant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Antidepressant
Drug class
Venlafaxine structure.svg
The skeletal structure of the SNRI venlafaxine, a typical example of an antidepressant.

Antidepressants are a class of medications used to treat major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, chronic pain, and addiction.

Common side effects of antidepressants include dry mouth, weight gain, dizziness, headaches, sexual dysfunction, and emotional blunting. There is an increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior when taken by children, adolescents, and young adults. Discontinuation syndrome, which resembles recurrent depression along with post-SSRI sexual dysfunction (PSSD) in the case of the SSRI class, may occur after stopping the intake of any antidepressant, the effects of which may be permanent and irreversible.

Research regarding the effectiveness of antidepressants for depression in adults is controversial and has found both benefits and drawbacks. Meanwhile, evidence of benefit in children and adolescents is attested and inconclusive, even though antidepressant use has considerably increased in children and adolescents since the 2000s due to increased prescriptions by psychiatrists. While a 2018 study found that the 21 most commonly prescribed antidepressant medications were slightly more effective than placebos for the short-term (acute) treatments of adults with major depressive disorder, other research has found that the placebo effect may account for most or all of the drugs' observed efficacy.

In addition, other researchers also conclude that anti-depressants ultimately do more harm than good, indicating that they cause permanent neuronal damage, apoptosis and disrupt numerous adaptive processes regulated by serotonin. Research on the effectiveness of antidepressants is generally done on people who have severe symptoms, a population that exhibits much weaker placebo responses, meaning that the results may not be extrapolated to the general population that has not (or has not yet) been diagnosed with anxiety or depression.

Medical uses

Antidepressants are prescribed to treat major depressive disorder (MDD), anxiety disorders, chronic pain, and some addictions. Antidepressants are often used in combination with one another.

Despite its longstanding prominence in pharmaceutical advertising, the myth that low serotonin levels cause depression is not supported by scientific evidence. Proponents of the monoamine hypothesis of depression recommend choosing an antidepressant which impacts the most prominent symptoms. Under this practice, for example, a person with MDD who is also anxious or irritable would be treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, while a person suffering from loss of energy and enjoyment of life would take a norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitor.

Major depressive disorder

The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)'s 2022 guidelines indicate that antidepressants should not be routinely used for the initial treatment of mild depression, "unless that is the person's preference". The guidelines recommended that antidepressant treatment be considered:

  • For people with a history of moderate or severe depression.
  • For people with mild depression that has been present for an extended period.
  • As a first-line treatment for moderate to severe depression.
  • As a second-line treatment for mild depression that persists after other interventions.

The guidelines further note that in most cases, antidepressants should be used in combination with psychosocial interventions and should be continued for at least six months to reduce the risk of relapse and that SSRIs are typically better tolerated than other antidepressants.

American Psychiatric Association (APA) treatment guidelines recommend that initial treatment be individually tailored based on factors including the severity of symptoms, co-existing disorders, prior treatment experience, and the person's preference. Options may include antidepressants, psychotherapy, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), or light therapy. The APA recommends antidepressant medication as an initial treatment choice in people with mild, moderate, or severe major depression, and that should be given to all people with severe depression unless ECT is planned.

Reviews of antidepressants generally find that they benefit adults with depression. On the other hand, some contend that most studies on antidepressant medication are confounded by several biases: the lack of an active placebo, which means that many people in the placebo arm of a double-blind study may deduce that they are not getting any true treatment, thus destroying double-blindness; a short follow up after termination of treatment; non-systematic recording of adverse effects; very strict exclusion criteria in samples of patients; studies being paid for by the industry; selective publication of results. This means that the small beneficial effects that are found may not be statistically significant.

Among the 21 most commonly prescribed antidepressants, the most effective and well-tolerated are escitalopram, paroxetine, sertraline, agomelatine, and mirtazapine. For children and adolescents with moderate to severe depressive disorder, some evidence suggests fluoxetine (either with or without cognitive behavioral therapy) is the best treatment, but more research is needed to be certain. Sertraline, escitalopram, and duloxetine may also help reduce symptoms.

A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of antidepressants for major depressive disorder found that the medications provided only small to doubtful benefits in terms of quality of life. Likewise, a 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents found small though statistically significant improvements in quality of life.

Anxiety disorders

For children and adolescents, fluvoxamine is effective in treating a range of anxiety disorders. Fluoxetine, sertraline, and paroxetine can also help with managing various forms of anxiety in children and adolescents.

Generalized anxiety disorder

Antidepressants are recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) that has failed to respond to conservative measures such as education and self-help activities. GAD is a common disorder in which the central feature is excessively worrying about numerous events. Key symptoms include excessive anxiety about events and issues going on around them and difficulty controlling worrisome thoughts that persists for at least 6 months.

Antidepressants provide a modest to moderate reduction in anxiety in GAD. The efficacy of different antidepressants is similar.

Social anxiety disorder

Some antidepressants are used as a treatment for social anxiety disorder, but their efficacy is not entirely convincing, as only a small proportion of antidepressants showed some effectiveness for this condition. Paroxetine was the first drug to be FDA-approved for this disorder. Its efficacy is considered beneficial, although not everyone responds favorably to the drug. Sertraline and fluvoxamine extended-release were later approved for it as well, while escitalopram is used off-label with acceptable efficiency. However, there is not enough evidence to support Citalopram for treating social anxiety disorder, and fluoxetine was no better than a placebo in clinical trials. SSRIs are used as a first-line treatment for social anxiety, but they do not work for everyone. One alternative would be venlafaxine, an SNRI, which has shown benefits for social phobia in five clinical trials against a placebo, while the other SNRIs are not considered particularly useful for this disorder as many of them did not undergo testing for it. As of 2008, it is unclear if duloxetine and desvenlafaxine can provide benefits for people with social anxiety. However, another class of antidepressants called MAOIs are considered effective for social anxiety, but they come with many unwanted side effects and are rarely used. Phenelzine was shown to be a good treatment option, but its use is limited by dietary restrictions. Moclobemide is a RIMA and showed mixed results, but still received approval in some European countries for social anxiety disorder. TCA antidepressants, such as clomipramine and imipramine, are not considered effective for this anxiety disorder in particular. This leaves out SSRIs such as paroxetine, sertraline, and fluvoxamine CR as acceptable and tolerated treatment options for this disorder.

Obsessive–compulsive disorder

SSRIs are a second-line treatment for adult obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) with mild functional impairment, and a first-line treatment for those with moderate or severe impairment.

In children, SSRIs are considered as a second-line therapy in those with moderate-to-severe impairment, with close monitoring for psychiatric adverse effects. Sertraline and fluoxetine are effective in treating OCD for children and adolescents.

Clomipramine, a TCA drug, is considered effective and useful for OCD. However, it is used as a second-line treatment because it is less well-tolerated than SSRIs. Despite this, it has not shown superiority to fluvoxamine in trials. All SSRIs can be used effectively for OCD. SNRI use may also be attempted, though no SNRIs have been approved for the treatment of OCD. Despite these treatment options, many patients remain symptomatic after initiating the medication, and less than half achieve remission.

Post–traumatic stress disorder

Antidepressants are one of the treatment options for PTSD. However, their efficacy is not well established. Paroxetine and sertraline have been FDA approved for the treatment of PTSD. Paroxetine has slightly higher response and remission rates than sertraline for this condition. However, neither drug is considered very helpful for a broad patient demographic. Fluoxetine and venlafaxine are used off-label. Fluoxetine has produced unsatisfactory mixed results. Venlafaxine showed response rates of 78%, which is significantly higher than what paroxetine and sertraline achieved. However, it did not address as many symptoms of PTSD as paroxetine and sertraline, in part due to the fact that venlafaxine is an SNRI. This class of drugs inhibits the reuptake of norepinephrine, which may cause anxiety in some patients. Fluvoxamine, escitalopram, and citalopram were not well-tested for this disorder. MAOIs, while some of them may be helpful, are not used much because of their unwanted side effects. This leaves paroxetine and sertraline as acceptable treatment options for some people, although more effective antidepressants are needed.

Panic disorder

Panic disorder is treated relatively well with medications compared to other disorders. Several classes of antidepressants have shown efficacy for this disorder, with SSRIs and SNRIs used first-line. Paroxetine, sertraline, and fluoxetine are FDA-approved for panic disorder, while fluvoxamine, escitalopram, and citalopram are also considered effective for them. SNRI venlafaxine is also approved for this condition. Unlike social anxiety and PTSD, some TCAs antidepressants, like clomipramine and imipramine, have shown efficacy for panic disorder. Moreover, the MAOI phenelzine is also considered useful. Panic disorder has many drugs for its treatment. However, the starting dose must be lower than the one used for major depressive disorder because people have reported an increase in anxiety as a result of starting the medication. In conclusion, while panic disorder's treatment options seem acceptable and useful for this condition, many people are still symptomatic after treatment with residual symptoms.

Eating disorders

Antidepressants are recommended as an alternative or additional first step to self-help programs in the treatment of bulimia nervosa. SSRIs (fluoxetine in particular) are preferred over other antidepressants due to their acceptability, tolerability, and superior reduction of symptoms in short-term trials. Long-term efficacy remains poorly characterized. Bupropion is not recommended for the treatment of eating disorders, due to an increased risk of seizure.

Similar recommendations apply to binge eating disorder. SSRIs provide short-term reductions in binge eating behavior, but have not been associated with significant weight loss.

Clinical trials have generated mostly negative results for the use of SSRIs in the treatment of anorexia nervosa. Treatment guidelines from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend against the use of SSRIs in this disorder. Those from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) note that SSRIs confer no advantage regarding weight gain, but may be used for the treatment of co-existing depressive, anxiety, or obsessive–compulsive disorders.

Pain

Fibromyalgia

A 2012 meta-analysis concluded that antidepressant treatment favorably affects pain, health-related quality of life, depression, and sleep in fibromyalgia syndrome. Tricyclics appear to be the most effective class, with moderate effects on pain and sleep, and small effects on fatigue and health-related quality of life. The fraction of people experiencing a 30% pain reduction on tricyclics was 48%, versus 28% on placebo. For SSRIs and SNRIs, the fractions of people experiencing a 30% pain reduction were 36% (20% in the placebo comparator arms) and 42% (32% in the corresponding placebo comparator arms) respectively. Discontinuation of treatment due to side effects was common. Antidepressants including amitriptyline, fluoxetine, duloxetine, milnacipran, moclobemide, and pirlindole are recommended by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) for the treatment of fibromyalgia based on "limited evidence".

Neuropathic pain

A 2014 meta-analysis from the Cochrane Collaboration found the antidepressant duloxetine to be effective for the treatment of pain resulting from diabetic neuropathy. The same group reviewed data for amitriptyline in the treatment of neuropathic pain and found limited useful randomized clinical trial data. They concluded that the long history of successful use in the community for the treatment of fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain justified its continued use. The group was concerned about the potential overestimation of the amount of pain relief provided by amitriptyline, and highlighted that only a small number of people will experience significant pain relief by taking this medication.

Other uses

Antidepressants may be modestly helpful for treating people who have both depression and alcohol dependence, however, the evidence supporting this association is of low quality. Bupropion is used to help people stop smoking. Antidepressants are also used to control some symptoms of narcolepsy. Antidepressants may be used to relieve pain in people with active rheumatoid arthritis. However, further research is required. Antidepressants have been shown to be superior to placebo in treating depression in individuals with physical illness, although reporting bias may have exaggerated this finding.

Limitations and strategies

Among individuals treated with a given antidepressant, between 30% and 50% do not show a response. Approximately one-third of people achieve a full remission, one-third experience a response, and one-third are non-responders. Partial remission is characterized by the presence of poorly defined residual symptoms. These symptoms typically include depressed mood, anxiety, sleep disturbance, fatigue, and diminished interest or pleasure. It is currently unclear which factors predict partial remission. However, it is clear that residual symptoms are powerful predictors of relapse, with relapse rates three to six times higher in people with residual symptoms than in those, who experience full remission. In addition, antidepressant drugs tend to lose efficacy throughout long-term maintenance therapy. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, less than one-third of Americans taking one antidepressant medication have seen a mental health professional in the previous year. Several strategies are used in clinical practice to try to overcome these limits and variations. They include switching medication, augmentation, and combination.

There is controversy amongst researchers regarding the efficacy and risk-benefit ratio of antidepressants. Although antidepressants consistently out-perform a placebo in meta-analyses, the difference is modest and it is not clear that their statistical superiority results in clinical efficacy. The aggregate effect of antidepressants typically results in changes below the threshold of clinical significance on depression rating scales. Proponents of antidepressants counter that the most common scale, the HDRS, is not suitable for assessing drug action, that the threshold for clinical significance is arbitrary, and that antidepressants consistently result in significantly raised scores on the mood item of the scale. Assessments of antidepressants using alternative, more sensitive scales, such as the MADRS, do not result in marked difference from the HDRS and likewise only find a marginal clinical benefit. Another hypothesis proposed to explain the poor performance of antidepressants in clinical trials is a high treatment response heterogeneity. Some patients, that differ strongly in their response to antidepressants, could influence the average response, while the heterogeneity could itself be obscured by the averaging. Studies have not supported this hypothesis, but it is very difficult to measure treatment effect heterogeneity. Poor and complex clinical trial design might also account for the small effects seen for antidepressants. The randomized controlled trials used to approve drugs are short, and may not capture the full effect of antidepressants. Additionally, the placebo effect might be inflated in these trials by frequent clinical consultation, lowering the comparative performance of antidepressants. Critics agree that current clinical trials are poorly-designed, which limits the knowledge on antidepressant. More naturalistic studies, such as STAR*D, have produced results, which suggest that antidepressants may be less effective in clinical practice than in randomized controlled trials.

Critics of antidepressants maintain that the superiority of antidepressants over placebo is the result of systemic flaws in clinical trials and the research literature. Trials conducted with industry involvement tend to produce more favorable results, and accordingly many of the trials included in meta-analyses are at high risk of bias. Additionally, meta-analyses co-authored by industry employees find more favorable results for antidepressants. The results of antidepressant trials are significantly more likely to be published if they are favorable, and unfavorable results are very often left unpublished or misreported, a phenomenon called publication bias or selective publication. Although this issue has diminished with time, it remains an obstacle to accurately assessing the efficacy of antidepressants. Misreporting of clinical trial outcomes and of serious adverse events, such as suicide, is common. Ghostwriting of antidepressant trials is widespread, a practice in which prominent researchers, or so-called key opinion leaders, attach their names to studies actually written by pharmaceutical company employees or consultants. A particular concern is that the psychoactive effects of antidepressants may lead to the unblinding of participants or researchers, enhancing the placebo effect and biasing results. Some have therefore maintained that antidepressants may only be active placebos. When these and other flaws in the research literature are not taken into account, meta-analyses may find inflated results on the basis of poor evidence.

Critics contend that antidepressants have not been proven sufficiently effective by RCTs or in clinical practice and that the widespread use of antidepressants is not evidence-based. They also note that adverse effects, including withdrawal difficulties, are likely underreported, skewing clinicians' ability to make risk-benefit judgements. Accordingly, they believe antidepressants are overused, particularly for non-severe depression and conditions in which they are not indicated. Critics charge that the widespread use and public acceptance of antidepressants is the result of pharmaceutical advertising, research manipulation, and misinformation.

Current mainstream psychiatric opinion recognizes the limitations of antidepressants but recommends their use in adults with more severe depression as a first-line treatment.

Switching antidepressants

The American Psychiatric Association 2000 Practice Guideline advises that where no response is achieved within the following six to eight weeks of treatment with an antidepressant, switch to an antidepressant in the same class, and then to a different class. A 2006 meta-analysis review found wide variation in the findings of prior studies: for people who had failed to respond to an SSRI antidepressant, between 12% and 86% showed a response to a new drug. However, the more antidepressants an individual had previously tried, the less likely they were to benefit from a new antidepressant trial. However, a later meta-analysis found no difference between switching to a new drug and staying on the old medication: although 34% of treatment-resistant people responded when switched to the new drug, 40% responded without being switched.

Augmentation and combination

For a partial response, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) guidelines suggest augmentation or adding a drug from a different class. These include lithium and thyroid augmentation, dopamine agonists, sex steroids, NRIs, glucocorticoid-specific agents, or the newer anticonvulsants.

A combination strategy involves adding another antidepressant, usually from a different class to affect other mechanisms. Although this may be used in clinical practice, there is little evidence for the relative efficacy or adverse effects of this strategy. Other tests conducted include the use of psychostimulants as an augmentation therapy. Several studies have shown the efficacy of combining modafinil for treatment-resistant people. It has been used to help combat SSRI-associated fatigue.

Long-term use and stopping

The effects of antidepressants typically do not continue once the course of medication ends. This results in a high rate of relapse. In 2003, a meta-analysis found that 18% of people who had responded to an antidepressant relapsed while still taking it, compared to 41% whose antidepressant was switched for a placebo.

A gradual loss of therapeutic benefit occurs in a minority of people during the course of treatment. A strategy involving the use of pharmacotherapy in the treatment of the acute episode, followed by psychotherapy in its residual phase, has been suggested by some studies. For patients who wish to stop their antidepressants, engaging in brief psychological interventions such as Preventive Cognitive Therapy or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy while tapering down has been found to diminish the risk for relapse.

Adverse effects

Antidepressants can cause various adverse effects, depending on the individual and the drug in question.

Almost any medication involved with serotonin regulation has the potential to cause serotonin toxicity (also known as serotonin syndrome) — an excess of serotonin that can induce mania, restlessness, agitation, emotional lability, insomnia, and confusion as its primary symptoms. Although the condition is serious, it is not particularly common, generally only appearing at high doses or while on other medications. Assuming proper medical intervention has been taken (within about 24 hours) it is rarely fatal. Antidepressants appear to increase the risk of diabetes by about 1.3-fold.

MAOIs tend to have pronounced (sometimes fatal) interactions with a wide variety of medications and over-the-counter drugs. If taken with foods that contain very high levels of tyramine (e.g., mature cheese, cured meats, or yeast extracts), they may cause a potentially lethal hypertensive crisis. At lower doses, the person may only experience a headache due to an increase in blood pressure.

In response to these adverse effects, a different type of MAOI, the class of reversible inhibitor of monoamine oxidase A (RIMA), has been developed. The primary advantage of RIMAs is that they do not require the person to follow a special diet while being purportedly effective as SSRIs and tricyclics in treating depressive disorders.

Tricyclics and SSRI can cause the so-called drug-induced QT prolongation, especially in older adults; this condition can degenerate into a specific type of abnormal heart rhythm called Torsades de points, which can potentially lead to sudden cardiac arrest.

Some antidepressants are also believed to increase thoughts of suicidal ideation.

Pregnancy

SSRI use in pregnancy has been associated with a variety of risks with varying degrees of proof of causation. As depression is independently associated with negative pregnancy outcomes, determining the extent to which observed associations between antidepressant use and specific adverse outcomes reflect a causative relationship has been difficult in some cases. In other cases, the attribution of adverse outcomes to antidepressant exposure seems fairly clear.

SSRI use in pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion of about 1.7-fold, and is associated with preterm birth and low birth weight.

A systematic review of the risk of major birth defects in antidepressant-exposed pregnancies found a small increase (3% to 24%) in the risk of major malformations and a risk of cardiovascular birth defects that did not differ from non-exposed pregnancies. A study of fluoxetine-exposed pregnancies found a 12% increase in the risk of major malformations that did not reach statistical significance. Other studies have found an increased risk of cardiovascular birth defects among depressed mothers not undergoing SSRI treatment, suggesting the possibility of ascertainment bias, e.g. that worried mothers may pursue more aggressive testing of their infants. Another study found no increase in cardiovascular birth defects and a 27% increased risk of major malformations in SSRI exposed pregnancies. The FDA advises for the risk of birth defects with the use of paroxetine and the MAOI should be avoided.

A 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis found that antidepressant use during pregnancy was statistically significantly associated with some pregnancy outcomes, such as gestational age and preterm birth, but not with other outcomes. The same review cautioned that because differences between the exposed and unexposed groups were small, it was doubtful whether they were clinically significant.

A neonate (infant less than 28 days old) may experience a withdrawal syndrome from abrupt discontinuation of the antidepressant at birth. Antidepressants can be present in varying amounts in breast milk, but their effects on infants are currently unknown.

Moreover, SSRIs inhibit nitric oxide synthesis, which plays an important role in setting the vascular tone. Several studies have pointed to an increased risk of prematurity associated with SSRI use, and this association may be due to an increased risk of pre-eclampsia during pregnancy.

Antidepressant-induced mania

Another possible problem with antidepressants is the chance of antidepressant-induced mania or hypomania in people with or without a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Many cases of bipolar depression are very similar to those of unipolar depression. Therefore, the person can be misdiagnosed with unipolar depression and be given antidepressants. Studies have shown that antidepressant-induced mania can occur in 20–40% of people with bipolar disorder. For bipolar depression, antidepressants (most frequently SSRIs) can exacerbate or trigger symptoms of hypomania and mania.

Suicide

Studies have shown that the use of antidepressants is correlated with an increased risk of suicidal behavior and thinking (suicidality) in those aged under 25 years old. This problem has been serious enough to warrant government intervention by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to warn of the increased risk of suicidality during antidepressant treatment. According to the FDA, the heightened risk of suicidality occurs within the first one to two months of treatment. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) places the excess risk in the "early stages of treatment". A meta-analysis suggests that the relationship between antidepressant use and suicidal behavior or thoughts is age-dependent. Compared with placebo, the use of antidepressants is associated with an increase in suicidal behavior or thoughts among those 25 years old or younger (OR=1.62). A review of RCTs and epidemiological studies by Healy and Whitaker found an increase in suicidal acts by a factor of 2.4. There is no effect or possibly a mild protective effect among those aged 25 to 64 (OR=0.79). Antidepressant treatment has a protective effect against suicidality among those aged 65 and over (OR=0.37).

Sexual dysfunction

Sexual side effects are also common with SSRIs, such as loss of sexual drive, failure to reach orgasm, and erectile dysfunction. Although usually reversible, these sexual side-effects can, in rare cases, continue after the drug has been completely withdrawn.

In a study of 1,022 outpatients, overall sexual dysfunction with all antidepressants averaged 59.1% with SSRI values between 57% and 73%, mirtazapine 24%, nefazodone 8%, amineptine 7%, and moclobemide 4%. Moclobemide, a selective reversible MAO-A inhibitor, does not cause sexual dysfunction and can lead to an improvement in all aspects of sexual function.

Biochemical mechanisms suggested as causative include increased serotonin, particularly affecting 5-HT2 and 5-HT3 receptors; decreased dopamine; decreased norepinephrine; blockade of cholinergic and α1adrenergic receptors; inhibition of nitric oxide synthetase; and elevation of prolactin levels. Mirtazapine is reported to have fewer sexual side effects, most likely because it antagonizes 5-HT2 and 5-HT3 receptors and may, in some cases, reverse sexual dysfunction induced by SSRIs by the same mechanism.

Bupropion, a weak NDRI and nicotinic antagonist, may be useful in treating reduced libido as a result of SSRI treatment.

Emotional blunting

Certain antidepressants may cause emotional blunting, characterized by a reduced intensity of both positive and negative emotions as well as symptoms of apathy, indifference, and amotivation. It may be experienced as either beneficial or detrimental depending on the situation. This side effect has been particularly associated with serotonergic antidepressants like SSRIs and SNRIs but may be less with atypical antidepressants like bupropion, agomelatine, and vortioxetine. Higher doses of antidepressants seem to be more likely to produce emotional blunting than lower doses. Emotional blunting can be decreased by reducing dosage, discontinuing the medication, or switching to a different antidepressant that may have less propensity for causing this side effect.

Changes in weight

Changes in appetite or weight are common among antidepressants but are largely drug-dependent and related to which neurotransmitters they affect. Mirtazapine and paroxetine, for example, may be associated with weight gain and/or increased appetite, while others (such as bupropion and venlafaxine) achieve the opposite effect.

The antihistaminic properties of certain TCA- and TeCA-class antidepressants have been shown to contribute to the common side effects of increased appetite and weight gain associated with these classes of medication.

Bone loss

A 2021 nationwide cohort study in South Korea observed a link between SSRI use and bone loss, particularly in recent users. The study also stressed the need of further research to better understand these effects. A 2012 review found that SSRIs along with tricyclic antidepressants were associated with a significant increase in the risk of osteoporotic fractures, peaking in the months after initiation, and moving back towards baseline during the year after treatment was stopped. These effects exhibited a dose–response relationship within SSRIs which varied between different drugs of that class. A 2018 meta-analysis of 11 small studies found a reduction in bone density of the lumbar spine in SSRI users which affected older people the most.

Risk of death

A 2017 meta-analysis found that antidepressants were associated with a significantly increased risk of death (+33%) and new cardiovascular complications (+14%) in the general population. Conversely, risks were not greater in people with existing cardiovascular disease.

Discontinuation syndrome

Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome, also called antidepressant withdrawal syndrome, is a condition that can occur following the interruption, reduction, or discontinuation of antidepressant medication. The symptoms may include flu-like symptoms, trouble sleeping, nausea, poor balance, sensory changes, and anxiety. The problem usually begins within three days and may last for several months. Rarely psychosis may occur.

A discontinuation syndrome can occur after stopping any antidepressant including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). The risk is greater among those who have taken the medication for longer and when the medication in question has a short half-life. The underlying reason for its occurrence is unclear. The diagnosis is based on the symptoms.

Methods of prevention include gradually decreasing the dose among those who wish to stop, though it is possible for symptoms to occur with tapering. Treatment may include restarting the medication and slowly decreasing the dose. People may also be switched to the long-acting antidepressant fluoxetine, which can then be gradually decreased.

Approximately 20–50% of people who suddenly stop an antidepressant develop an antidepressant discontinuation syndrome. The condition is generally not serious. Though about half of people with symptoms describe them as severe. Some restart antidepressants due to the severity of the symptoms.

Pharmacology

Antidepressants act via a large number of different mechanisms of action. This includes serotonin reuptake inhibition (SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, vilazodone, vortioxetine), norepinephrine reuptake inhibition (NRIs, SNRIs, TCAs), dopamine reuptake inhibition (bupropion, amineptine, nomifensine), direct modulation of monoamine receptors (vilazodone, vortioxetine, SARIs, agomelatine, TCAs, TeCAs, antipsychotics), monoamine oxidase inhibition (MAOIs), and NMDA receptor antagonism (ketamine, esketamine, dextromethorphan), among others (e.g., brexanolone, tianeptine). Some antidepressants also have additional actions, like sigma receptor modulation (certain SSRIs, TCAs, dextromethorphan) and antagonism of histamine H1 and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (TCAs, TeCAs).

The earliest and most widely known scientific theory of antidepressant action is the monoamine hypothesis, which can be traced back to the 1950s and 1960s. This theory states that depression is due to an imbalance, most often a deficiency, of the monoamine neurotransmitters, namely serotonin, norepinephrine, and/or dopamine. However, serotonin in particular has been implicated, as in the serotonin hypothesis of depression. The monoamine hypothesis was originally proposed based on observations that reserpine, a drug which depletes the monoamine neurotransmitters, produced depressive effects in people, and that certain hydrazine antituberculosis agents like iproniazid, which prevent the breakdown of monoamine neurotransmitters, produced apparent antidepressant effects. Most currently marketed antidepressants, which are monoaminergic in their actions, are theoretically consistent with the monoamine hypothesis. Despite the widespread nature of the monoamine hypothesis, it has a number of limitations: for one, all monoaminergic antidepressants have a delayed onset of action of at least a week; and secondly, many people with depression do not respond to monoaminergic antidepressants. A number of alternative hypotheses have been proposed, including hypotheses involving glutamate, neurogenesis, epigenetics, cortisol hypersecretion, and inflammation, among others.

In 2022, a major systematic umbrella review by Joanna Moncrieff and colleagues showed that the serotonin theory of depression was not supported by evidence from a wide variety of areas. The authors concluded that there is no association between serotonin and depression, and that there is no evidence that strongly supports the theory that depression is caused by low serotonin activity or concentrations. Other literature had described the lack of support for the theory previously. In many of the expert responses to the review, it was stated that the monoamine hypothesis had already long been abandoned by psychiatry. This is in spite of about 90% of the general public in Western countries believing the theory to be true and many in the field of psychiatry continuing to promote the theory up to recent times. In addition to this review, a 2003 literature review and a 2022 systematic review, both of reserpine and mood, found that there is no consistent evidence that reserpine produces depressive effects. Instead, the results were highly mixed, with similar proportions of studies finding that reserpine had no influence on mood, produced depressogenic effects, or had antidepressant effects. In relation to this, the general monoamine hypothesis, as opposed to just the serotonin theory of depression, is likewise not well-supported by evidence.

The serotonin and monoamine hypotheses of depression have been heavily promoted by the pharmaceutical industry (e.g., in advertisements) and by the psychiatric profession at large despite the lack of evidence in support of them. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, this can be attributed to obvious financial incentives, with the theory creating a bias against non-pharmacological treatments for depression.

An alternative theory for antidepressant action proposed by certain academics such as Irving Kirsch and Joanna Moncrieff is that they work largely or entirely via placebo mechanisms. This is supported by meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of antidepressants for depression, which consistently show that placebo groups in trials improve about 80 to 90% as much as antidepressant groups on average and that antidepressants are only marginally more effective for depression than placebos. The difference between antidepressants and placebo corresponds to an effect size (SMD) of about 0.3, which in turn equates to about a 2- to 3-point additional improvement on the 0–52-point (HRSD) and 0–60-point (MADRS) depression rating scales used in trials. Differences in effectiveness between different antidepressants are small and not clinically meaningful. The small advantage of antidepressants over placebo is often statistically significant and is the basis for their regulatory approval, but is sufficiently modest that its clinical significance is doubtful. Moreover, the small advantage of antidepressants over placebo may simply be a methodological artifact caused by unblinding due to the psychoactive effects and side effects of antidepressants, in turn resulting in enhanced placebo effects and apparent antidepressant efficacy. Placebos are not purely psychological phenomenon, but have been found to modify the activity of several brain regions and to increase levels of dopamine and endogenous opioids in the reward pathways. It has been argued by Kirsch that although antidepressants may be used efficaciously for depression as active placebos, they are limited by significant pharmacological side effects and risks, and therefore non-pharmacological therapies, such as psychotherapy and lifestyle changes, which can have similar efficacy to antidepressants but do not have their adverse effects, ought to be preferred as treatments in people with depression.

The placebo response, or the improvement in scores in the placebo group in clinical trials, is not only due to the placebo effect, but is also due to other phenomena such as spontaneous remission and regression to the mean. Depression tends to have an episodic course, with people eventually recovering even with no medical intervention, and people tend to seek treatment, as well as enroll in clinical trials, when they are feeling their worst. In meta-analyses of trials of depression therapies, Kirsch estimated based on improvement in untreated waiting-list controls that spontaneous remission and regression to the mean only account for about 25% of the improvement in depression scores with antidepressant therapy. However, another academic, Michael P. Hengartner, has argued and presented evidence that spontaneous remission and regression to the mean might actually account for most of the improvement in depression scores with antidepressants, and that the substantial placebo effect observed in clinical trials might largely be a methodological artifact. This suggests that antidepressants may be associated with much less genuine treatment benefit, whether due to the placebo effect or to the antidepressant itself, than has been traditionally assumed.

Types

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

refer to caption

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are believed to increase the extracellular level of the neurotransmitter serotonin by limiting its reabsorption into the presynaptic cell, increasing the level of serotonin in the synaptic cleft available to bind to the postsynaptic receptor. They have varying degrees of selectivity for the other monoamine transporters, with pure SSRIs having only weak affinity for the norepinephrine and dopamine transporters.

SSRIs are the most widely prescribed antidepressants in many countries. The efficacy of SSRIs in mild or moderate cases of depression has been disputed.

Serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors

chemical structure of the SNRI drug venlafaxine
The chemical structure of venlafaxine (Effexor), an SNRI

Serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are potent inhibitors of the reuptake of serotonin and norepinephrine. These neurotransmitters are known to play an important role in mood. SNRIs can be contrasted with the more widely used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which act mostly upon serotonin alone.

The human serotonin transporter (SERT) and norepinephrine transporter (NET) are membrane proteins that are responsible for the reuptake of serotonin and norepinephrine. Balanced dual inhibition of monoamine reuptake may offer advantages over other antidepressants drugs by treating a wider range of symptoms.

SNRIs are sometimes also used to treat anxiety disorders, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), chronic neuropathic pain, and fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), and for the relief of menopausal symptoms.

Serotonin modulators and stimulators

Serotonin modulator and stimulators (SMSs), sometimes referred to more simply as "serotonin modulators", are a type of drug with a multimodal action specific to the serotonin neurotransmitter system. To be precise, SMSs simultaneously modulate one or more serotonin receptors and inhibit the reuptake of serotonin. The term was coined in reference to the mechanism of action of the serotonergic antidepressant Vortioxetine, which acts as a serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI), a partial agonist of the 5-HT1A receptor, and antagonist of the 5-HT3 and 5-HT7 receptors. However, it can also technically be applied to Vilazodone, which is an antidepressant as well and acts as an SRI and 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist.

An alternative term is serotonin partial agonist/reuptake inhibitor (SPARI), which can be applied only to Vilazodone.

Serotonin antagonists and reuptake inhibitors

Serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitors (SARIs) while mainly used as antidepressants are also anxiolytics and hypnotics. They act by antagonizing serotonin receptors such as 5-HT2A and inhibiting the reuptake of serotonin, norepinephrine, and/or dopamine. Additionally, most also act as α1-adrenergic receptor antagonists. The majority of the currently marketed SARIs belong to the phenylpiperazine class of compounds. They include Trazodone and Nefazodone.

Tricyclic antidepressants

The majority of the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) act primarily as serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) by blocking the serotonin transporter (SERT) and the norepinephrine transporter (NET), respectively, which results in an elevation of the synaptic concentrations of these neurotransmitters, and therefore an enhancement of neurotransmission. Notably, with the sole exception of amineptine, the TCAs have weak affinity for the dopamine transporter (DAT), and therefore have low efficacy as dopamine reuptake inhibitors (DRIs).

Although TCAs are sometimes prescribed for depressive disorders, they have been largely replaced in clinical use in most parts of the world by newer antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (NRIs). Adverse effects have been found to be of a similar level between TCAs and SSRIs.

Tetracyclic antidepressants

Tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs) are a class of antidepressants that were first introduced in the 1970s. They are named after their chemical structure, which contains four rings of atoms, and are closely related to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), which contain three rings of atoms.

Monoamine oxidase inhibitors

Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) are chemicals that inhibit the activity of the monoamine oxidase enzyme family. They have a long history of use as medications prescribed for the treatment of depression. They are particularly effective in treating atypical depression. They are also used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease and several other disorders.

Because of potentially lethal dietary and drug interactions, MAOIs have historically been reserved as a last line of treatment, used only when other classes of antidepressant drugs (for example selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants) have failed.

MAOIs have been found to be effective in the treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia, social phobia, atypical depression or mixed anxiety and depression, bulimia, and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as borderline personality disorder. MAOIs appear to be particularly effective in the management of bipolar depression according to a retrospective-analysis. There are reports of MAOI efficacy in obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), trichotillomania, dysmorphophobia, and avoidant personality disorder, but these reports are from uncontrolled case reports.

MAOIs can also be used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease by targeting MAO-B in particular (therefore affecting dopaminergic neurons), as well as providing an alternative for migraine prophylaxis. Inhibition of both MAO-A and MAO-B is used in the treatment of clinical depression and anxiety disorders.

NMDA receptor antagonists

NMDA receptor antagonists like Ketamine and Esketamine are rapid-acting antidepressants and seem to work via blockade of the ionotropic glutamate NMDA receptor.

Others

See the list of antidepressants and management of depression for other drugs that are not specifically characterized.

Adjuncts

Adjunct medications are an umbrella category of substances that increase the potency or "enhance" antidepressants. They work by affecting variables very close to the antidepressant, sometimes affecting a completely different mechanism of action. This may be attempted when depression treatments have not been successful in the past.

Common types of adjunct medication techniques generally fall into the following categories:

  • Two or more antidepressants taken together
    • From the same class (affecting the same area of the brain, often at a much higher level)
    • From different classes (affecting multiple parts of the brain not covered simultaneously by either drug alone)
  • An antipsychotic combined with an antidepressant, particularly atypical antipsychotics such as Aripiprazole (Abilify), Quetiapine (Seroquel), Olanzapine (Zyprexa), and Risperidone (Risperdal).

It is unknown if undergoing psychological therapy at the same time as taking anti-depressants enhances the anti-depressive effect of the medication.

Less common adjuncts

Lithium has been used to augment antidepressant therapy in those who have failed to respond to antidepressants alone. Furthermore, Lithium dramatically decreases the suicide risk in recurrent depression. There is some evidence for the addition of a thyroid hormone, triiodothyronine, in patients with normal thyroid function.

Psychopharmacologists have also tried adding a stimulant, in particular, D-amphetamine. However, the use of stimulants in cases of treatment-resistant depression is relatively controversial. A review article published in 2007 found psychostimulants may be effective in treatment-resistant depression with concomitant antidepressant therapy, but a more certain conclusion could not be drawn due to substantial deficiencies in the studies available for consideration, and the somewhat contradictory nature of their results.

History

refer to caption

Before the 1950s, opioids and amphetamines were commonly used as antidepressants. Their use was later restricted due to their addictive nature and side effects. Extracts from the herb St John's wort have been used as a "nerve tonic" to alleviate depression.

St John's wort fell out of favor in most countries through the 19th and 20th centuries, except in Germany, where Hypericum extracts were eventually licensed, packaged, and prescribed. Small-scale efficacy trials were carried out in the 1970s and 1980s, and attention grew in the 1990s following a meta-analysis. It remains an over-the-counter drug (OTC) supplement in most countries. Lead contamination associated with its usage has been seen as concerning, as lead levels in women in the United States taking St. John's wort are elevated by about 20% on average. Research continues to investigate its active component hyperforin, and to further understand its mode of action.

Isoniazid, iproniazid, and imipramine

In 1951, Irving Selikoff and Edward H. Robitzek, working out of Sea View Hospital on Staten Island, began clinical trials on two new anti-tuberculosis agents developed by Hoffman-LaRoche, Isoniazid, and Iproniazid. Only patients with a poor prognosis were initially treated. Nevertheless, their condition improved dramatically. Selikoff and Robitzek noted "a subtle general stimulation ... the patients exhibited renewed vigor and indeed this occasionally served to introduce disciplinary problems." The promise of a cure for tuberculosis in the Sea View Hospital trials was excitedly discussed in the mainstream press.

In 1952, learning of the stimulating side effects of Isoniazid, the Cincinnati psychiatrist Max Lurie tried it on his patients. In the following year, he and Harry Salzer reported that Isoniazid improved depression in two-thirds of their patients, so they then coined the term antidepressant to refer to its action. A similar incident took place in Paris, where Jean Delay, head of psychiatry at Sainte-Anne Hospital, heard of this effect from his pulmonology colleagues at Cochin Hospital. In 1952 (before Lurie and Salzer), Delay, with the resident Jean-Francois Buisson, reported the positive effect of isoniazid on depressed patients. The mode of antidepressant action of isoniazid is still unclear. It is speculated that its effect is due to the inhibition of Diamine Oxidase, coupled with a weak inhibition of Monoamine Oxidase A.

Selikoff and Robitzek also experimented with another anti-tuberculosis drug, Iproniazid; it showed a greater psychostimulant effect, but more pronounced toxicity. Later, Jackson Smith, Gordon Kamman, George E. Crane, and Frank Ayd, described the psychiatric applications of Iproniazid. Ernst Zeller found Iproniazid to be a potent Monoamine oxidase inhibitor. Nevertheless, Iproniazid remained relatively obscure until Nathan S. Kline, the influential head of research at Rockland State Hospital, began to popularize it in the medical and popular press as a "psychic energizer". Roche put a significant marketing effort behind Iproniazid. Its sales grew until it was recalled in 1961, due to reports of lethal hepatotoxicity.

The antidepressant effect of a Tricyclic, a three-ringed compound, was first discovered in 1957 by Roland Kuhn in a Swiss psychiatric hospital. Antihistamine derivatives were used to treat surgical shock and later as neuroleptics. Although in 1955, Reserpine was shown to be more effective than a placebo in alleviating anxious depression, neuroleptics were being developed as sedatives and antipsychotics.

Attempting to improve the effectiveness of Chlorpromazine, Kuhn – in conjunction with the Geigy Pharmaceutical Company – discovered the compound "G 22355", later renamed Imipramine. Imipramine had a beneficial effect on patients with depression who showed mental and motor retardation. Kuhn described his new compound as a "thymoleptic" "taking hold of the emotions," in contrast with neuroleptics, "taking hold of the nerves" in 1955–56. These gradually became established, resulting in the patent and manufacture in the US in 1951 by Häfliger and SchinderA.

Antidepressants became prescription drugs in the 1950s. It was estimated that no more than fifty to one hundred individuals per million had the kind of depression that these new drugs would treat, and pharmaceutical companies were not enthusiastic about marketing for this small market. Sales through the 1960s remained poor compared to the sales of tranquilizers, which were being marketed for different uses. Imipramine remained in common use and numerous successors were introduced. The use of monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI) increased after the development and introduction of "reversible" forms affecting only the MAO-A subtype of inhibitors, making this drug safer to use.

By the 1960s, it was thought that the mode of action of Tricyclics was to inhibit norepinephrine reuptake. However, norepinephrine reuptake became associated with stimulating effects. Later Tricyclics were thought to affect serotonin as proposed in 1969 by Carlsson and Lindqvist as well as Lapin and Oxenkrug.

Second-generation antidepressants

Researchers began a process of rational drug design to isolate antihistamine-derived compounds that would selectively target these systems. The first such compound to be patented was Zimelidine in 1971, while the first released clinically was Indalpine. Fluoxetine was approved for commercial use by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1988, becoming the first blockbuster SSRI. Fluoxetine was developed at Eli Lilly and Company in the early 1970s by Bryan Molloy, Klaus Schmiegel, David T. Wong, and others. SSRIs became known as "novel antidepressants" along with other newer drugs such as SNRIs and NRIs with various selective effects.

Rapid-acting antidepressants

Esketamine (brand name Spravato), the first rapid-acting antidepressant to be approved for clinical treatment of depression, was introduced for this indication in March 2019 in the United States.

Research

A 2016 randomized controlled trial evaluated the rapid antidepressant effects of the psychedelic Ayahuasca in treatment-resistant depression with a positive outcome. In 2018, the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for psilocybin-assisted therapy for treatment-resistant depression and in 2019, the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for psilocybin therapy treating major depressive disorder.

Publication bias and aged research

A 2018 systematic review published in The Lancet comparing the efficacy of 21 different first and second generation antidepressants found that antidepressant drugs tended to perform better and cause less adverse events when they were novel or experimental treatments compared to when they were evaluated again years later. Unpublished data was also associated with smaller positive effect sizes. However, the review did not find evidence of bias associated with industry funded research.

Society and culture

Prescription trends

United Kingdom

In the UK, figures reported in 2010 indicated that the number of antidepressants prescribed by the National Health Service (NHS) almost doubled over a decade. Further analysis published in 2014 showed that number of antidepressants dispensed annually in the community went up by 25 million in the 14 years between 1998 and 2012, rising from 15 million to 40 million. Nearly 50% of this rise occurred in the four years after the 2008 banking crash, during which time the annual increase in prescriptions rose from 6.7% to 8.5%. These sources also suggest that aside from the recession, other factors that may influence changes in prescribing rates may include: improvements in diagnosis, a reduction of the stigma surrounding mental health, broader prescribing trends, GP characteristics, geographical location, and housing status. Another factor that may contribute to increasing consumption of antidepressants is the fact that these medications now are used for other conditions including social anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Between 2005 and 2017, the number of adolescents (12 to 17 years) in England who were prescribed antidepressants has doubled. On the other hand, antidepressant prescriptions for children aged 5–11 in England decreased between 1999 and 2017. From April 2015, prescriptions increased for both age groups (for people aged 0 to 17) and peaked during the first COVID lockdown in March 2020.

According to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, antidepressants for children and adolescents with depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) should be prescribed together with therapy and after being assessed by a child and adolescent psychiatrist. However, between 2006 and 2017, only 1 in 4 of 12–17 year-olds who were prescribed an SSRI by their GP had seen a specialist psychiatrist and 1 in 6 has seen a pediatrician. Half of these prescriptions were for depression and 16% for anxiety, the latter not being licensed for treatment with antidepressants. Among the suggested possible reasons why GPs are not following the guidelines are the difficulties of accessing talking therapies, long waiting lists, and the urgency of treatment. According to some researchers, strict adherence to treatment guidelines would limit access to effective medication for young people with mental health problems.

United States

In the United States, antidepressants were the most commonly prescribed medication in 2013. Of the estimated 16 million "long term" (over 24 months) users, roughly 70 percent are female. As of 2017, about 16.5% of white people in the United States took antidepressants compared with 5.6% of black people in the United States.

Structural formula of the SSRI sertraline

United States: The most commonly prescribed antidepressants in the US retail market in 2010 were:

Drug name Drug class Total prescriptions
Sertraline SSRI 33,409,838
Citalopram SSRI 27,993,635
Fluoxetine SSRI 24,473,994
Escitalopram SSRI 23,000,456
Trazodone SARI 18,786,495
Venlafaxine (all formulations) SNRI 16,110,606
Bupropion (all formulations) NDRI 15,792,653
Duloxetine SNRI 14,591,949
Paroxetine SSRI 12,979,366
Amitriptyline TCA 12,611,254
Venlafaxine XR SNRI 7,603,949
Bupropion XL NDRI 7,317,814
Mirtazapine TeCA 6,308,288
Venlafaxine ER SNRI 5,526,132
Bupropion SR NDRI 4,588,996
Desvenlafaxine SNRI 3,412,354
Nortriptyline TCA 3,210,476
Bupropion ER NDRI 3,132,327
Venlafaxine SNRI 2,980,525
Bupropion NDRI 753,516

Netherlands: In the Netherlands, paroxetine is the most prescribed antidepressant, followed by amitriptyline, citalopram and venlafaxine.

Adherence

As of 2003, worldwide, 30% to 60% of people did not follow their practitioner's instructions about taking their antidepressants, and as of 2013 in the US, it appeared that around 50% of people did not take their antidepressants as directed by their practitioner.

When people fail to take their antidepressants, there is a greater risk that the drug will not help, that symptoms get worse, that they miss work or are less productive at work, and that the person may be hospitalized.

Social science perspective

Some academics have highlighted the need to examine the use of antidepressants and other medical treatments in cross-cultural terms, because various cultures prescribe and observe different manifestations, symptoms, meanings, and associations of depression and other medical conditions within their populations. These cross-cultural discrepancies, it has been argued, then have implications on the perceived efficacy and use of antidepressants and other strategies in the treatment of depression in these different cultures. In India, antidepressants are largely seen as tools to combat marginality, promising the individual the ability to reintegrate into society through their use—a view and association not observed in the West.

Environmental impacts

Because most antidepressants function by inhibiting the reuptake of neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine these drugs can interfere with natural neurotransmitter levels in other organisms impacted by indirect exposure. Antidepressants fluoxetine and sertraline have been detected in aquatic organisms residing in effluent-dominated streams. The presence of antidepressants in surface waters and aquatic organisms has caused concern because ecotoxicological effects on aquatic organisms due to fluoxetine exposure have been demonstrated.

Coral reef fish have been demonstrated to modulate aggressive behavior through serotonin. Artificially increasing serotonin levels in crustaceans can temporarily reverse social status and turn subordinates into aggressive and territorial dominant males.

Exposure to Fluoxetine has been demonstrated to increase serotonergic activity in fish, subsequently reducing aggressive behavior. Perinatal exposure to Fluoxetine at relevant environmental concentrations has been shown to lead to significant modifications of memory processing in 1-month-old cuttlefish. This impairment may disadvantage cuttlefish and decrease their survival. Somewhat less than 10% of orally administered Fluoxetine is excreted from humans unchanged or as glucuronide.

Sodomy laws in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Decriminalization of same-sex sexual intercourse in the United States
  1962
  1971
  1972
  1973
  1974
  1975
  1976
  1977
  1978
  1979
  1980
  1983
  1985
  1992
  1993
  1996
  1997
  1998
  1999
  2001
  2003
Current status of state statutes regarding sodomy and bestiality. All sodomy statues have been invalidated (ruled unconstitutional) by state courts and/or Lawrence v Texas, but 12 have not been repealed by their state legislatures.
  No statute banning sodomy
  Statute bans bestiality
  Statute bans same-sex sodomy
  Statute bans sodomy

Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were inherited from colonial laws in the 17th century. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes, in some cases even including acts between married persons.

Through the 20th century, the gradual decriminalization of American sexuality led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states. During this time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

History

Up to Lawrence v. Texas

Colin Talley argues that the sodomy statutes in colonial America in the 17th century were largely unenforced. The reason he argues is that male-male eroticism did not threaten the social structure or challenge the gendered division of labor or the patriarchal ownership of wealth. There were gay men on General Washington's staff and among the leaders of the new republic, even though in Virginia there was a maximum penalty of death for sodomy. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson tried to reduce the maximum punishment to castration. It was rejected by the Virginia legislature. Justice Anthony Kennedy authoring the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas stated that American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century and also wrote that:

Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally, whether between men and women or men and men. Moreover, early sodomy laws seem not to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. Instead, sodomy prosecutions often involved predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent: relations between men and minor girls or boys, between adults involving force, between adults implicating disparity in status, or between men and animals.

Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor. In that year, the Model Penal Code (MPC) — developed by the American Law Institute to promote uniformity among the states as they modernized their statutes — struck a compromise that removed consensual sodomy from its criminal code while making it a crime to solicit for sodomy. In 1962, Illinois adopted the recommendations of the Model Penal Code and thus became the first state to remove criminal penalties for consensual sodomy from its criminal code, almost a decade before any other state. Over the years, many of the states that did not repeal their sodomy laws had enacted legislation reducing the penalty. At the time of the Lawrence decision in 2003, the penalty for violating a sodomy law varied very widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction among those states retaining their sodomy laws. The harshest penalties were in Idaho, where a person convicted of sodomy could earn a life sentence. Michigan followed, with a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment while repeat offenders got life.

By 2002, 36 states had repealed their sodomy laws or their courts had overturned them. By the time of the 2003 Supreme Court decision, the laws in most states were no longer enforced or were enforced very selectively. The continued existence of these rarely enforced laws on the statute books, however, are often cited as justification for discrimination against gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals.

On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6–3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law, ruling that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. This decision invalidated all state sodomy laws insofar as they applied to noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilians and reversed the Court's 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld Georgia's sodomy law.

Before that 2003 ruling, 27 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 territories had repealed their sodomy laws by legislative action; 9 states had had them overturned or invalidated by state court action; 4 states still had same-sex sodomy laws; and 10 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. military had anti-sodomy laws applying to all regardless of sex or gender.

Repeal since Lawrence v. Texas

In 2005, Puerto Rico repealed its sodomy law, and in 2006, Missouri repealed its law against "homosexual conduct". In 2013, Montana removed "sexual contact or sexual intercourse between two persons of the same sex" from its definition of deviate sexual conduct, Virginia repealed its lewd and lascivious cohabitation statute, and sodomy was legalized in the US armed forces.

In 2005, basing its decision on Lawrence, the Supreme Court of Virginia in Martin v. Ziherl invalidated § 18.2-344, the Virginia statute making fornication between unmarried persons a crime.

On January 31, 2013, the Senate of Virginia passed a bill repealing § 18.2-345, the lewd and lascivious cohabitation statute enacted in 1877. On February 20, 2013, the Virginia House of Delegates passed the bill by a vote of 62 to 25 votes. On March 20, 2013, Governor Bob McDonnell signed the repeal of the lewd and lascivious cohabitation statute from the Code of Virginia.

On March 12, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struck down § 18.2-361, the crimes against nature statute. On March 26, 2013, Attorney General of Virginia Ken Cuccinelli filed a petition to have the case reheard en banc, but the Court denied the request on April 10, 2013, with none of its 15 judges supporting the request. On June 25, Cuccinelli filed a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision, which was rejected on October 7.

On February 7, 2014, the Virginia Senate voted 40-0 in favor of revising the crimes against nature statue to remove the ban on same-sex sexual relationships. On March 6, 2014, the Virginia House of Delegates voted 100-0 in favor of the bill. On April 7, the Governor submitted slightly different version of the bill. It was enacted by the Legislature on April 23, 2014. The law took effect upon passage.

Utah voted to revise its sodomy laws to include only forcible sodomy and sodomy on children rather than any sexual relations between consenting adults on February 26, 2019. Governor Gary Herbert signed the bill into law on March 26, 2019.

On May 23, 2019, the Alabama House of Representatives passed, with 101 voting yea and 3 absent, Alabama Senate Bill 320, which repeals the ban on "deviate sexual intercourse". On May 28, 2019, the Alabama State Senate passed Alabama Senate Bill 320, with 32 yea and 3 absent. The bill took effect on September 1, 2019. Alabama is the southernmost continental state to repeal their sodomy law as of 2023.

Maryland voted to repeal its sodomy law on March 18, 2020. The bill became law in May 2020 without the signature of Governor Larry Hogan. While the original text of the bill intended to repeal both the state's sodomy law and unnatural or perverted sexual practice law, amendments from the Maryland Senate urged to solely repeal the sodomy law. On March 31, 2023, the Maryland legislature voted to repeal the unnatural and perverted sexual practice law. The bill was sent to Governor Wes Moore for signature. As he did not veto the bill within 30 days of passage, Moore allowed for the bill to become law without his signature, with the repeal set to take effect on October 1, 2023.

Idaho repealed its sodomy law in March 2022. The repeal was a result of a lawsuit brought on in September 2020 by a plaintiff known as John Doe. John Doe alleged his constitutional rights were violated when he was forced to register as a sex offender upon moving to Idaho due to a conviction for "oral sex" two decades prior.

On May 17, 2023, the Minnesota legislature passed an Omnibus Judiciary and Public Safety Bill that included provisions repealing the state's sodomy, adultery, fornication, and abortion laws. On May 19, the Governor signed the bill into law. It took effect the following day.

Remaining defunct statutes since Lawrence v. Texas

Louisiana's statutes still include "unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same sex" in their definition of "crimes against nature", punishable (in theory) by a fine of up to $2,000 or a prison sentence of up to five years, with or without hard labor; however, this section was further mooted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2005 in light of the Lawrence decision.

In State v. Whiteley (2005), the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the crime against nature statute, N.C. G.S. § 14-177, is not unconstitutional on its face because it may properly be used to criminalize sexual conduct involving minors, non-consensual or coercive conduct, public conduct, and prostitution.

In April 2014, a proposed Louisiana bill sought to revise the state's crime against nature law, maintaining the existing prohibition against sodomy during the commission of rape and child sex abuse, and against sex with animals, but removing the unconstitutional prohibition against sex between consenting adults. The bill was defeated on April 15, 2014 by a vote of 66 to 27.

In March 2023, the Texas House committee on Criminal Jurisprudence unanimously passed House Bill 2055 that would repeal its “homosexual conduct” law criminalizing gay sex. The bill’s author, Rep. Venton Jones, D-Dallas, agreed to amend the bill to keep portions of current law that say “homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public” in order to get it passed out of committee. It did not receive a vote in the State House before the deadline.

As of May 2023, 12 states either have not yet formally repealed their laws against sexual activity among consenting adults or have not revised them to accurately reflect their true scope as a result of Lawrence v. Texas. Often, the sodomy law was drafted to also encompass other forms of sexual conduct such as bestiality, and no attempt has subsequently succeeded in separating them. Nine states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Three states specifically target their statutes at same-sex relations only: Kansas, Kentucky, and Texas.

Researchers have shown that sodomy law repeals led to a decline in the number of arrests for disorderly conduct, prostitution, and other sex offenses, as well as a reduction in arrests for drug and alcohol consumption, in line with the hypothesis that sodomy law repeals enhanced mental health and lessened minority stress.

Federal law

Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the District of Columbia and the U.S. Armed Forces.

District of Columbia

In 1801, the 6th United States Congress enacted the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, a law that continued all criminal laws of Maryland and Virginia, with those of Maryland applying to the portion of the District ceded from Maryland and those of Virginia applying to the portion ceded from Virginia. As a result, in the Maryland-ceded portion, sodomy was punishable with up to seven years' imprisonment for free persons and with the death penalty for enslaved persons, whereas in the Virginia-ceded portion it was punishable between one and ten years' imprisonment for free persons and with the death penalty for enslaved persons. Maryland repealed the death penalty for slaves in 1809 and modified the penalty for all persons to match Virginia's terms of imprisonment. In 1847, the Virginia-ceded portion was given back to Virginia, thus only the Maryland law had effect in the district.

In 1871, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, a law that reorganized the district government and granted it home rule. All existing laws were retained unless and until expressly altered by the new city council. Direct rule was reinstated in 1874. In Pollard v. Lyon (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a District of Columbia U.S. District Court ruling that spoken words by the defendant in the case that accused the plaintiff of fornication were not actionable for slander because fornication, although involving moral turpitude, was not an indictable offense in the District of Columbia at the time as it had not been an indictable offense in Maryland since 1785 (when a provincial law passed in 1715 that banned both fornication and adultery saw only its fornication prohibition repealed). The criminal status of sodomy became ambiguous until 1901, when Congress passed legislation recognizing common law crimes, punishable with up to five years' imprisonment and/or a fine of $1,000.

In 1935, Congress made it a crime in the district to solicit a person "for the purpose of prostitution, or any other immoral or lewd purpose". In 1948, Congress enacted the first law specific to sodomy in the district, which established a penalty of up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $1,000, regardless of sexuality. Oral sex was included in the law's application. Also included with this law was a psychopathic offender law and a law "to provide for the treatment of sexual psychopaths". The metropolitan police department eventually had several officers whose sole job was to "check on homosexuals". Multiple court cases dealt with the issue in the following years. Many of the published sodomy and solicitation cases during the 1950s and 1960s reveal clear entrapment policies by the local police, some of which were disallowed by reviewing courts. In 1972, settling the case of Schaefers et al. v. Wilson, the D.C. government announced its intention not to prosecute anyone for private, consensual adult sodomy, an action disputed by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. The action came as part of a stipulation agreement in a court challenge to the sodomy law brought by four gay men.

In 1973, Congress again granted the district home rule through the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. It provided for a new city council that could pass its own laws. However laws regarding certain topics, such as changes to the criminal code, were restricted until 1977. All laws passed by the D.C. government are subject to a mandatory 30-day "congressional review" by Congress. If they are not blocked, then they become law. In 1981, the D.C. government enacted a law that repealed the sodomy law, as well as other consensual acts, and made the sexual assault laws gender neutral. However, the Congress overturned the new law. A successful legislative repeal of the law followed in 1993. This time, Congress did not interfere. In 1995, all references to sodomy were completely removed from the criminal code, and in 2004, the D.C. government repealed an outdated law against fornication.

Military

Although the U.S. military discharged soldiers for homosexual acts throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century, U.S. military law did not expressly prohibit homosexuality or homosexual conduct until February 4, 1921.

On March 1, 1917, the Articles of War of 1916 were implemented. This included a revision of the Articles of War of 1806, the new regulations detail statutes governing U.S. military discipline and justice. Under the category Miscellaneous Crimes and Offences, Article 93 states that any person subject to military law who commits "assault with intent to commit sodomy" shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

On June 4, 1920, Congress modified Article 93 of the Articles of War of 1916. It was changed to make the act of sodomy itself a crime, separate from the offense of assault with intent to commit sodomy. It went into effect on February 4, 1921.

On May 5, 1950, the Uniform Code of Military Justice was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on May 31, 1951. Article 125 forbids sodomy among all military personnel, defining it as "any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offence."

As for the U.S. Armed Forces, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has ruled that the Lawrence v. Texas decision applies to Article 125, severely narrowing the previous ban on sodomy. In both United States v. Stirewalt and United States v. Marcum, the court ruled that the "conduct [consensual sodomy] falls within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court," but went on to say that despite the application of Lawrence to the military, Article 125 can still be upheld in cases where there are "factors unique to the military environment" that would place the conduct "outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence." Examples of such factors include rape, fraternization, public sexual behavior, or any other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline. Convictions for consensual sodomy have been overturned in military courts under Lawrence in both United States v. Meno and United States v. Bullock.

Repeal

On December 26, 2013, President Barack Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which repealed the ban on consensual sodomy found in Article 125.

Magnetar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Artist's conception of a magnetar, with magnetic field lines
 
Artist's conception of a powerful magnetar in a star cluster

A magnetar is a type of neutron star with an extremely powerful magnetic field (∼109 to 1011 T, ∼1013 to 1015 G). The magnetic-field decay powers the emission of high-energy electromagnetic radiation, particularly X-rays and gamma rays.

The existence of magnetars was proposed in 1992 by Robert Duncan and Christopher Thompson. Their proposal sought to explain the properties of transient sources of gamma rays, now known as soft gamma repeaters (SGRs). Over the following decade, the magnetar hypothesis became widely accepted, and was extended to explain anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs). As of July 2021, 24 confirmed magnetars were known.

It has been suggested that magnetars are the source of fast radio bursts (FRB), in particular as a result of findings in 2020 by scientists using the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) radio telescope.

Description

Like other neutron stars, magnetars are around 20 kilometres (12 mi) in diameter, and have a mass of about 1.4 solar masses. They are formed by the collapse of a star with a mass 10–25 times that of the Sun. The density of the interior of a magnetar is such that a tablespoon of its substance would have a mass of over 100 million tons. Magnetars are differentiated from other neutron stars by having even stronger magnetic fields, and by rotating more slowly in comparison. Most observed magnetars rotate once every two to ten seconds, whereas typical neutron stars, observed as radio pulsars, rotate one to ten times per second. A magnetar's magnetic field gives rise to very strong and characteristic bursts of X-rays and gamma rays. The active life of a magnetar is short compared to other celestial bodies. Their strong magnetic fields decay after about 10,000 years, after which activity and strong X-ray emission cease. Given the number of magnetars observable today, one estimate puts the number of inactive magnetars in the Milky Way at 30 million or more.

Starquakes triggered on the surface of the magnetar disturb the magnetic field which encompasses it, often leading to extremely powerful gamma-ray flare emissions which have been recorded on Earth in 1979, 1998 and 2004.

Neutron Star Types (24 June 2020)

Magnetic field

Magnetars are characterized by their extremely powerful magnetic fields of ∼109 to 1011 T. These magnetic fields are a hundred million times stronger than any man-made magnet, and about a trillion times more powerful than the field surrounding Earth. Earth has a geomagnetic field of 30–60 microteslas, and a neodymium-based, rare-earth magnet has a field of about 1.25 tesla, with a magnetic energy density of 4.0 × 105 J/m3. A magnetar's 1010 tesla field, by contrast, has an energy density of 4.0×1025 J/m3, with an E/c2 mass density more than 10,000 times that of lead. The magnetic field of a magnetar would be lethal even at a distance of 1,000 km due to the strong magnetic field distorting the electron clouds of the subject's constituent atoms, rendering the chemistry of known lifeforms impossible. At a distance of halfway from Earth to the moon, an average distance between the Earth and the Moon being 384,400 km (238,900 miles), a magnetar could wipe information from the magnetic stripes of all credit cards on Earth. As of 2020, they are the most powerful magnetic objects detected throughout the universe.

As described in the February 2003 Scientific American cover story, remarkable things happen within a magnetic field of magnetar strength. "X-ray photons readily split in two or merge. The vacuum itself is polarized, becoming strongly birefringent, like a calcite crystal. Atoms are deformed into long cylinders thinner than the quantum-relativistic de Broglie wavelength of an electron." In a field of about 105 teslas atomic orbitals deform into rod shapes. At 1010 teslas, a hydrogen atom becomes 200 times narrower than its normal diameter.

Origins of magnetic fields

The dominant theory of the strong fields of magnetars is that it results from a magnetohydrodynamic dynamo process in the turbulent, extremely dense conducting fluid that exists before the neutron star settles into its equilibrium configuration. These fields then persist due to persistent currents in a proton-superconductor phase of matter that exists at an intermediate depth within the neutron star (where neutrons predominate by mass). A similar magnetohydrodynamic dynamo process produces even more intense transient fields during coalescence of pairs of neutron stars. But another theory is that they simply result from the collapse of stars with unusually strong magnetic fields.

Formation

Magnetar SGR 1900+14 (center of image) showing a surrounding ring of gas 7 light-years across in infrared light, as seen by the Spitzer Space Telescope. The magnetar itself is not visible at this wavelength but has been seen in X-ray light.

In a supernova, a star collapses to a neutron star, and its magnetic field increases dramatically in strength through conservation of magnetic flux. Halving a linear dimension increases the magnetic field strength fourfold. Duncan and Thompson calculated that when the spin, temperature and magnetic field of a newly formed neutron star falls into the right ranges, a dynamo mechanism could act, converting heat and rotational energy into magnetic energy and increasing the magnetic field, normally an already enormous 108 teslas, to more than 1011 teslas (or 1015 gauss). The result is a magnetar. It is estimated that about one in ten supernova explosions results in a magnetar rather than a more standard neutron star or pulsar.

1979 discovery

On March 5, 1979, a few months after the successful dropping of satellites into the atmosphere of Venus, the two uncrewed Soviet spaceprobes, Venera 11 and 12, were hit by a blast of gamma radiation at approximately 10:51 EST. This contact raised the radiation readings on both the probes from a normal 100 counts per second to over 200,000 counts a second, in only a fraction of a millisecond.

This burst of gamma rays quickly continued to spread. Eleven seconds later, Helios 2, a NASA probe, which was in orbit around the Sun, was saturated by the blast of radiation. It soon hit Venus, and the Pioneer Venus Orbiter's detectors were overcome by the wave. Seconds later, Earth received the wave of radiation, where the powerful output of gamma rays inundated the detectors of three U.S. Department of Defense Vela satellites, the Soviet Prognoz 7 satellite, and the Einstein Observatory. Just before the wave exited the Solar System, the blast also hit the International Sun–Earth Explorer. This extremely powerful blast of gamma radiation constituted the strongest wave of extra-solar gamma rays ever detected; it was over 100 times more intense than any known previous extra-solar burst. Because gamma rays travel at the speed of light and the time of the pulse was recorded by several distant spacecraft as well as on Earth, the source of the gamma radiation could be calculated to an accuracy of about 2 arcseconds. The direction of the source corresponded with the remnants of a star that had gone supernova around 3000 BCE. It was in the Large Magellanic Cloud and the source was named SGR 0525-66; the event itself was named GRB 790305b, the first-observed SGR megaflare.

Recent discoveries

Artist's impression of a gamma-ray burst and supernova powered by a magnetar

On February 21, 2008, it was announced that NASA and researchers at McGill University had discovered a neutron star with the properties of a radio pulsar which emitted some magnetically powered bursts, like a magnetar. This suggests that magnetars are not merely a rare type of pulsar but may be a (possibly reversible) phase in the lives of some pulsars. On September 24, 2008, ESO announced what it ascertained was the first optically active magnetar-candidate yet discovered, using ESO's Very Large Telescope. The newly discovered object was designated SWIFT J195509+261406. On September 1, 2014, ESA released news of a magnetar close to supernova remnant Kesteven 79. Astronomers from Europe and China discovered this magnetar, named 3XMM J185246.6+003317, in 2013 by looking at images that had been taken in 2008 and 2009. In 2013, a magnetar PSR J1745−2900 was discovered, which orbits the black hole in the Sagittarius A* system. This object provides a valuable tool for studying the ionized interstellar medium toward the Galactic Center. In 2018, the temporary result of the merger of two neutron stars was determined to be a hypermassive magnetar, which shortly collapsed into a black hole.

In April 2020, a possible link between fast radio bursts (FRBs) and magnetars was suggested, based on observations of SGR 1935+2154, a likely magnetar located in the Milky Way galaxy.

Known magnetars

On 27 December 2004, a burst of gamma rays from SGR 1806−20 passed through the Solar System (artist's conception shown). The burst was so powerful that it had effects on Earth's atmosphere, at a range of about 50,000 light-years.

As of July 2021, 24 magnetars are known, with six more candidates awaiting confirmation. A full listing is given in the McGill SGR/AXP Online Catalog. Examples of known magnetars include:

  • SGR 0525−66, in the Large Magellanic Cloud, located about 163,000 light-years from Earth, the first found (in 1979)
  • SGR 1806−20, located 50,000 light-years from Earth on the far side of the Milky Way in the constellation of Sagittarius and the most magnetized object known.
  • SGR 1900+14, located 20,000 light-years away in the constellation Aquila. After a long period of low emissions (significant bursts only in 1979 and 1993) it became active in May–August 1998, and a burst detected on August 27, 1998, was of sufficient power to force NEAR Shoemaker to shut down to prevent damage and to saturate instruments on BeppoSAX, WIND and RXTE. On May 29, 2008, NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope discovered a ring of matter around this magnetar. It is thought that this ring formed in the 1998 burst.
  • SGR 0501+4516 was discovered on 22 August 2008.
  • 1E 1048.1−5937, located 9,000 light-years away in the constellation Carina. The original star, from which the magnetar formed, had a mass 30 to 40 times that of the Sun.
  • As of September 2008, ESO reports identification of an object which it has initially identified as a magnetar, SWIFT J195509+261406, originally identified by a gamma-ray burst (GRB 070610).
  • CXO J164710.2-455216, located in the massive galactic cluster Westerlund 1, which formed from a star with a mass in excess of 40 solar masses.
  • SWIFT J1822.3 Star-1606 discovered on 14 July 2011 by Italian and Spanish researchers of CSIC at Madrid and Catalonia. This magnetar contrary to previsions has a low external magnetic field, and it might be as young as half a million years.
  • 3XMM J185246.6+003317, discovered by international team of astronomers, looking at data from ESA's XMM-Newton X-ray telescope.
  • SGR 1935+2154, emitted a pair of luminous radio bursts on 28 April 2020. There was speculation that these may be galactic examples of fast radio bursts.
  • Swift J1818.0-1607, X-ray burst detected March 2020, is one of five known magnetars that are also radio pulsars. By its time of discovery, it may be only 240 years old.
Magnetar—SGR J1745-2900
Magnetar-SGR1745-2900-20150515.jpg
Magnetar found very close to the supermassive black hole, Sagittarius A*, at the center of the Milky Way galaxy

Bright supernovae

Unusually bright supernovae are thought to result from the death of very large stars as pair-instability supernovae (or pulsational pair-instability supernovae). However, recent research by astronomers has postulated that energy released from newly formed magnetars into the surrounding supernova remnants may be responsible for some of the brightest supernovae, such as SN 2005ap and SN 2008es.

Self-domestication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self-domestication is the process of adaptation of for example wild animals to cohabiting with humans, without direct human selective breeding of the animals. Dogs and cats have undergone this kind of self-domestication. Self-domestication also refers to the evolution of hominids, particularly humans and bonobos, toward collaborative, docile behavior. As described by British biological anthropologist Richard Wrangham, self-domestication involves being in an environment that favors reduction in aggression, including interspecific and intraspecific antagonism, for survival. The human self-domestication hypothesis argues that, like mammalian domesticates, humans have gone through a process of selection against aggression – a process that in the case of humans was self-induced, in favor of social behavior from which the group as a whole benefited, such as intelligence, soft skills, emotional intelligence and where individuals with an antisocial personality disorder would be eliminated by the group. For this to happen, sophisticated language was necessary to plot against the bully or individual with excessive aggressive behavior, so one would not be killed themselves. It is hypothesized that this is what differentiated Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis from H. sapiens: the ability of sophisticated language, allowing better social collaboration, elimination of excessive aggressive behavior in the group, leading to self-domestication and could explain why only homo sapiens survived from all the hominae. Spandrels, or evolutionary byproducts, also accompany self-domestication, including depigmentation, arrested development, and reduced sexual dimorphism.

In animals

Wild animals may self-domesticate when less aggressive behavior enhances their survival in the vicinity of human beings. This facilitates their ability to take advantage of increased food availability arising from domestic niches. Alternatively, when occurring in non-human environments, self-domestication may be favored by prosociality, as traits arising from self-domestication lead to stronger social structures. An environment that supports the survival of self-domesticated animals can lead to other apparent changes in behavior and appearance that deviate from their wild phenotypes. These traits include, but are not limited to, depigmentation, floppy ears, curly tails, smaller teeth, smaller cranial anatomy, juvenile behavior, reduced sexual dimorphism, and arrested development. Smaller skulls, increased playfulness, and reduced aggression have also been observed in self-domesticated species.

Red foxes

British cities have populations of red foxes that have established themselves in urban areas, and shows the first signs of self-domestication. Compared to their rural relatives, the urban foxes have adapted to their environment by evolving shorter jaws and smaller brains.

Cats

As grain plants and livestock became domesticated 9,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent, hunter-gatherers built urban villages. After a 100,000-year history of nomadism, these hunter-gatherers transitioned to adopting a sedentary lifestyle. Though many societies domesticated barnyard animals for food resources—an example of artificial selection—villagers had little desire or motivation to domesticate wildcats to be house pets. Instead, wildcats, such as the species Felis lybica, began exploiting new resources offered by human environments, such as a proliferation of rodents in grain stores. These cats were tolerated by people, supporting their natural evolution to deviate further from their wild counterparts. This favored the perpetuation of reduced aggressive behavior and increased “tameness,” which made the cats increasingly tolerable in human society.

Dogs

Noticing that a dog's skull looks like that of a juvenile wolf, Richard Wrangham suggested that this species could self-domesticate. While some humans may have intentionally domesticated wolves into dogs, this alternate hypothesis states that wolves effectively domesticated themselves by establishing a mutually beneficial relationship with prehistoric humans. They scavenged on the remains of the prey animals left by the prehistoric people at the human settlements or the kill sites. Those wolves that were less anxious and aggressive thrived, continued to follow the prehistoric humans, and colonized the human-dominated environments, generation after generation. Gradually, the first primitive dogs emerged from this group.

Bonobos (Pan paniscus)

The evolutionary anthropologist Brian Hare proposed that bonobos (Pan paniscus) have also undergone self-domestication. Despite their close relation to chimpanzees, bonobos exhibit significantly lower levels of aggression. Male chimpanzees use intimidating displays to compete for resources, access to mating, and dominance rank. Both female and male chimpanzees may instigate infanticide. In comparison, bonobos deliver calm displays, the most aggressive action ever being using branches merely as a prop, never to make physical contact with another bonobo. Females are organized in coalitions, minimizing if not eliminating intimidation by males for mating. Males do not form alliances with other male bonobo; instead, male-female bonobo alliances are prolific, with strong bonds between mother and sons. Intergroup tolerance is much higher in bonobos in contrast to chimpanzees. Additionally, bonobo adults are known to engage in play much more frequently than chimpanzee adults, suggesting that bonobos showcase more juvenilized behavior. The cognitive traits that have caused these phenotypic differences to arise are not fully clear; however, cognitive differences between bonobos and chimpanzees have been established in the orbitofrontal cortex, motor cortices, and hippocampus. These neural regions are associated with feeding habits, motor coordination, and emotions.

It remains a point of discussion why the mechanism of natural selection has favored self-domestication in bonobos over time. One theory suggests that self-domestication reinforces stable social structures, favoring prosocial behavior; thus, self-domestication has predominantly been motivated by changing intraspecific dynamics. Bonobo groups are more stable than chimpanzee groups, due to their decreased reliance on scramble competition. Bonobo social groups consist of a significant percentage of each local community, often 16-21% more inclusive of the total population than chimpanzee groups. Since female-female coalitions are so strong, intimidating, coercive approaches for mating and high-ranks are not as fruitful; males find greater reproductive success from kinship ties with mothers.

In addition to these behavioral observations, morphological evidence supports the hypothesis that bonobos, unlike the closely related chimpanzees, have undergone self-domestication. Bonobos, who also exhibit less aggressive demeanors, have a cranial reduction up to 20%, flattening of facial projection, and diminished sexual dimorphism. Bonobos also have smaller teeth. Their white tail-tufts and pink lips, coloration typically observed in juvenile primates, is persistent in phenotypes of adult bonobos; this depigmentation signals extended periods of juvenilized traits.

Marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus)

The neuroscientist Asif A. Ghazanfar revisited the self-domestication hypothesis in marmoset monkeys, a previously undocumented species in application to the theory. The study sought to elucidate how affiliative behavior facilitates the development of domestic phenotypes and determine the social underpinnings behind self-domestication's natural selection. So, the researchers identified both an affiliative behavior and a hallmark morphological trait indicating domestication: in marmoset monkeys, these would be vocal exchanges and a species-distinctive white facial fur patch. Their study found that, when marmoset parents provide more vocal feedback to their offspring, juvenile marmosets correspondingly undergo a larger growth of their white facial fur patch. This white facial patch lacked melanocytes, which originate from neural crest cells, suggesting that there exists a pleiotropic linkage with neural crest cells. This is a significant finding in support of the hypothesis, as neural crest cell abundance is directly related to the adrenal gland size. Lower aggression, as arises from self-domestication, also is accompanied by a smaller adrenal gland, due to a decreased urgency to mitigate stressful conditions. A smaller adrenal gland means that there will be fewer neural crest cells, and thereby melanocytes; the phenotypic result will be a reduction in pigmentation, a common byproduct of self-domestication, as is observed in the marmoset monkeys.

Ghazanfar's study with marmoset monkeys further substantiated the self-domestication hypothesis, which has also emerged in humans. He proposed that the common denominator, and thus a likely driver and selective pressure of domestication, between both marmosets and humans was cooperative breeding. In marmosets, cooperative breeding was a mating system driven by their production of dizygotic twins, whereas in humans, it may be driven due to the extensive amount of parental care that goes into an offspring's early years of development.

In humans

Hominids

Clark & Henneberg argue that during the earliest stages of human evolution a more paedomorphic skull arose through self-domestication. This assertion is based upon a comparison of the skull of Ardipithecus and chimpanzees of various ages. It was found that Ardipithecus clustered with the infant and juvenile species. The consequent lack of a pubertal growth spurt in males of the species and the consequent growth of aggressive canine armoury was taken as evidence that Ardipithecus evolved its paedomorphic skull through self domestication. As the authors state, comparing the species with bonobos:

"Of course A. ramidus differs significantly from bonobos, bonobos having retained a functional canine honing complex. However, the fact that A. ramidus shares with bonobos reduced sexual dimorphism, and a more paedomorphic form relative to chimpanzees, suggests that the developmental and social adaptations evident in bonobos may be of assistance in future reconstructions of early hominin social and sexual psychology. In fact the trend towards increased maternal care, female mate selection and self-domestication may have been stronger and more refined in A. ramidus than what we see in bonobos."

Further research has confirmed that Ardipithecus possessed paedomorphic cranial base angulation, position of the foramen magnum as well as vocal tract dimensions. This was interpreted as not only evidence of a change in social behavior but also a potentially early emergence of hominid vocal capability. If this thesis is correct then not only human social behavior but also language ability originally evolved through paedomorphic skull morphogenesis via the process of self-domestication.

The most comprehensive case for human self-domestication has been proposed for the changes that account for the much later transition from robust humans such as Neanderthals or Denisovans to anatomically modern humans. Occurring between 40,000 and 25,000 years ago, this rapid neotenization has been explained as the result of cultural selection of mating partners on the basis of variables lacking evolutionary benefits, such as perceived attractiveness, facial symmetry, youth, specific body ratios, skin tone or hair, none of which play any role in any other animal species. This unintentional auto-domestication, coinciding with the introduction of imagery of female sexuality, occurred simultaneously in four continents then occupied by hominins. It led to rapid changes typical for domestication, such as in cranial morphology, skeletal architecture, reduction in brain volume, to playful and exploratory behavior, and the establishment of thousands of deleterious conditions, syndromes, disorders and illnesses presumed absent in robust humans.

Of course, these specific views are very clearly based on multi-regionalist perspectives of human evolution which claim modern human populations evolved from relevant archaics present in each world region, as demonstrated in robust skeletal fossils. Such views are largely disproven by genetic evidence supporting the Out of Africa hypothesis with minor inter-breeding and genetic introgression. Despite this, however, human self-domestication entirely within Africa, say, during transition from earlier hominins, especially H. heidelbergensis to H. sapiens remains an open possibility. This would mean archaics in each region (e.g., neanderthals, denisovans) were largely replaced by self-domesticated H. sapiens as they spread around the globe. This possibility suggests self-domestication played a role in the success of H. sapiens, and the extinction of other lineages.

The idea of self-domestication was used by early Social Darwinism which, according to psychiatrist Martin Brüne in an article "On human self-domestication", developed from the idea that humans could "perfect" themselves biologically. The idea of self-domestication is also related to the concept of sociodicy.

Modern humans

Physical anatomy

Based on the dating of the fossil record, archaeologists have concluded that self-domestication likely occurred during the Pleistocene, over 300,000 years ago. Using the fossil record to compare Homo sapiens to pre-sapiens ancestors, archaeologists observed many of the same telling phenotypic characteristics that emerge as a consequence of self-domestication in animals. These features include diminished sexual dimorphism, smaller tooth size, reduction of the cranium, and smaller body size. H. sapiens fossils also demonstrated the flattening of brow-ridge projection and shortening of faces.


Reduced aggression Reduced cranium and skull White patches Floppy ears Flattened facial projection Small teeth Juvenility Curly Tails
Cats Y Y Y N Y
N N
Dogs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Bonobos Y Y Y N Y Y Y NA
Marmosets Y NA Y N NA NA NA NA
Humans Y Y N N Y Y Y NA

Reactive aggression

Richard Wrangham further built upon this body of research, addressing how bonobos and chimpanzees could elucidate development of aggression in humans. Academics have raised concerns with inconsistencies with the self-domestication hypothesis, pointing out that it isn't logical that humans could potentially be domesticated given the profundity of violent acts for which they are responsible. Reconciling this paradox, Wrangham posited that self-domestication is the outcome of two different kinds of aggression: proactive and reactive aggression.

Proactive aggression, which is commonly observed in chimpanzees, is defined as an attack that was planned, motivated by achieving an end goal. Generally, humans demonstrate lower aggression within groups. Reactive aggression, much more closely associated with anger, is characterized as an immediate response to a threat—the human equivalent being "bar fights". Aligned with the behavior of self-domesticated bonobos, humans do not have a high propensity for reactive aggression. This lends further evidence to supporting the self-domestication hypothesis, of which reduced reactive aggression is a central trait.

Population density hypothesis

The population density hypothesis attempts to explain the decreased reactive aggression that is observed in modern humans. During periods of high population density, higher tolerance of associates may be favored due to an increased reliance upon social networks for reliable access to otherwise limited, scarce resources like food. H. sapiens began to exhibit this higher degree of social tolerance approximately 300,000 years ago, which—if this hypothesis upholds—would be associated with a higher population size. However, recent genetic data has currently put this hypothesis to rest, as H. sapiens actually underwent a population decline about 200,000 years ago.

Language-based conspiracy

The language-based conspiracy provides a convincing argument—and is currently the best-supported theory—explaining why reactive aggression was selected against in modern humans, thereby resulting in self-domestication. H. sapiens are theorized to have developed an elegant propensity for language that surpassed its predecessors, including H. neanderthalensis. Enhanced linguistic ability would have allowed for greater suppression and control over a power-hungry member of early hunter-gatherer societies. Those who attempted to achieve dominance over others would be subject to capital punishment, which was facilitated by shared intentionality from others that was easily communicated through language. Language allowed subordinates to collaborate, coordinating plans to dampen the attempt at dominance by the instigator. Over time, this resulted in the selection against reactive aggression.

Theoretical criticism

The self-domestication hypothesis has been met with some degree of criticism. Some researchers have argued that the human brain is peramorphic, instead of paedomorphic. Wrangham puts forth that these arguments do not address the evolution of Homo sapiens from their most recent ancestor, instead focusing too heavily on a direct contrast between apes and humans.

Romance (love)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w...