Psychopharm Paper
Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 46(9), 2009 C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pits.20426
USE AND IMPACT OF ANTIDEPRESSANTS IN THE SCHOOL SETTING
CHAD A. NOGGLE
Southern Illinois University, School of Medicine
RAYMOND S. DEAN
Ball State University
Depression-based presentations constitute some of the most commonly seen psychiatric manifes-
tations within the school-age population. In conjunction with increased numbers of children and
adolescents being diagnosed with depressive symptomology over the past 2 – 3 decades, there has
been seen a concurrent increase in the amount of antidepressant agents being prescribed within
this group. This increase is largely related to the development of the newer class antidepressants,
the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, which
have demonstrated preferred ef cacy and adverse effect pro les over the older monoamine oxi-
dase inhibitors and tricyclics. This article discusses the primary differences between the various
forms of antidepressants, including their utility and ef cacy. Positive and negative impacts are also
reviewed, including potential impact on schooling.
C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
It has been reported that major depressive disorder (MDD) and variants of depressive syndromes
effect up to 10% – 15% of children and are associated with substantial short- and long-term morbidity
and mortality (Fleming, Offord, & Boyle, 1989; Pataki & Carlson, 1995). Functional impairments
oftentimes correspond with de cits in school and work performance (Rao, Ryan, & Birmaher, 1995;
Rohde, Lewinsohn, & Seeley, 1994) related to aspects of cognitive dysfunction (Noggle, Neal, Hall,
Hiller, & Dean, 2006; Ravnkilde et al., 2002) as well as lack of motivation and vigilance (Easau,
Petermann, & Reynolds, 1999) among other factors. Although children and adolescents demonstrate
some overlap in functional outcomes associated with depression in adults, behavioral differences
tend to exist (Poznanski & Mokros, 1994), which has in the past distorted the clinical picture. In
the past 35 years, information has been gathered regarding the presentation, course, epidemiology,
and family factors of depression in childhood and adolescence that has begun to clarify the clinical
picture. As this information has been synthesized, in addition to re ning knowledge about the
presentation of depression in children and adolescents, there has been a concurrent advancement of
intervention and treatment strategies for depression within this age group. Although behavioral and
psychotherapeutic techniques have demonstrated substantial utility in this population, the ef cacy
of pharmacological intervention continues to be debated. In fact, antidepressants are frequently
prescribed in children and adolescents (Safer, 1997), and the use of these agents within this age
group, especially the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; Ma, Lee, & Stafford, 2005;
Murray, de Vries, & Wong, 2004), has increased signi cantly over the past decade (Zito, Safer,
Dosreis, 2000, 2002). Given this prevalence, professionals working with children and adolescents in
the schools would likely bene t from a general understanding of these agents. As such, this article
provides an overview of the different forms of antidepressants, differences and similarities between
them, including clinical indications for them, their impact on children and adolescents, both positive
and negative, and how they correspond with outcomes in the school.
P
REVALENCE OF DEPRESSION IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
Epidemiological research has estimated the point prevalence of depression in children and
adolescents (4 – 17 years of age) to be between 0.92% and 4.6% (Angold, Erkanli, Farmer, Fairbank,
Correspondence to: Chad A. Noggle, Southern Illinois University, School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry,
901 W. Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 19642, Spring eld, IL 62794. E-mail: [email protected]
857 858Noggle and Dean
Burns, et al., 2002; Canino, Shrout, Rubio-Stipec, Bird-Hector, Bravo, et al., 2004; Ford, Goddman,
& Meltzer, 2003). However, research has also demonstrated a trend in which point prevalence rates
climb the older the pediatric population. For example, in adolescents older than 13 years, point
prevalence is between 4% and 8% (Birmaher, Ryan, & Williamson, 1996). Overall, the lifetime
prevalence rates of depression in adolescents range from 15% to 20% (Birmaher et al., 1996).
However, in past years it has been suggested, and it likely holds true today, that numbers rendered
through epidemiological investigation, in the case of depression in children and adolescents, are
likely an underestimation (Lewisohn et al., 1994) as one may assume the percentage of children
and adolescents experiencing soft depressive symptoms or “mild depression” are even higher.
Furthermore, increases in rates as well as earlier symptom onset in children and adolescents have also
been outlined by research (e.g., Murphy, Laird, Monson, Sobol, & Leighton, 2000), thus numbers are
always changing. Regardless, what is clear is that there is a fair amount of children and adolescents
who present with depressive manifestations in the schools, and thus continued re nement of our
understanding and treatment of these presentations is warranted, especially given the relatively broad,
negativistic impact that depression may have on day-to-day functioning in children and adolescents.
F
UNCTIONAL IMPACT AND PRESENTATION OF DEPRESSION IN PEDIATRIC POPULATIONS
It has long been noted that although children and adolescents do exhibit symptoms of depres-
sion, the signs and symptoms present differently in this population than in adults (Cytryn & McKnew,
1974; Malmquist, 1977). For example, whereas adults may exhibit the traditional depressed mood
and tearfulness, children may instead become more irritable, angry, or aggressive. Compared to
adults, depressed adolescents are more likely to report feelings of worthlessness and/or guilt and
less likely to report weight/appetite changes and thoughts of death or suicide (Lewinsohn, Rohde,
& Seeley, 1998). Depressed children, in contrast, are less likely to display extensive motor retarda-
tion, hypersomnia, cognitive disorientation, and chronically disrupted appetite than are depressed
adolescents, adults, and elderly patients (Lewinsohn et al., 1998). This has even been cited in the
text revision of theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition – Text
Revision(American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000), in which it is stated that “In children
and adolescents, an irritable or cranky mood may develop rather than a sad or rejected mood.” In
prepubertal children, depression is less common, equally distributed among boys and girls, and less
likely to evolve into adult depression (Harrington, 2002) whereas somatic complaints, psychomo-
tor agitation, hallucinations, and comorbidities are more common (Ryan, Puig-Antich, Ambrosini,
1987). Adolescents are more likely to experience hopelessness and vegetative symptoms, and have
a higher incidence of substance use and suicidal behavior than do prepubertal children (Ryan et al.,
1987).
In addition to the mood symptoms, most commonly thought of when discussing depression,
decreased energy, tiredness, fatigue, diminished ability to think and concentrate, decreased vigilance
and interest in activities, and social withdrawal may all manifest secondary to depression (APA,
2000). The rami cations of these symptoms are broad in terms of functional compromise. For
the child or adolescent, mood disturbance may be just the tip of the iceberg as he or she is at
substantial risk for cognitive disturbance and diminished school performance as well as disruptions of
relationships with peers, family, and school personnel, which, in turn, increases risk of victimization,
truancy, and delinquency (Kovacs, Feinberg, Crouse-Novak, 1984a,b; Rao et al., 1995). Oftentimes
we may fail to appreciate the true scope of impairment that may manifest secondary to presentations
in children and adolescents, and depression is no different. In response, there is substantial utility in
continually educating psychological professionals who work with this age group about advances
in research that have developed our understanding of the presentations with which they work, but
also, and possibly even more importantly, provide updated reviews of the advances in addressing
Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits Antidepressant Medications859
those issues in clinical practice. With regard to depression, one area in which empirical knowledge
is constantly growing, which, in turn, corresponds with an ever-changing landscape of treatment,
is in the utilization and ef cacy of pharmacological intervention and practices. The fact that the
vast majority of psychological professionals do not have prescription privileges does not suggest an
acceptability of a lack of understanding of the practice, the agents commonly used, and the functional
outcomes. In fact, psychological professionals within the school may be in a position to have some of
the most dramatic impacts on pharmacological practice by serving as primary consultants monitoring
the clinical ef cacy in the children and adolescents being treated. For further discussion along this
line, see the last article of this special issue entitled “Future Trends in the Application and Impact of
Psychopharmacology within the School Setting.”
U
SE OF ANTIDEPRESSANTS BY CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
Based on reported prescription rates by child psychiatrists, as well as other medical professionals
who see children and adolescents, it is clear that antidepressant medications have become central
to management of depression within this age group (Wong, Besag, Santosh, & Murray, 2004).
However, literature still suggests that the decision to use this method of treatment comes only after
a period of careful observation and after nonpharmacological therapy options have been exhausted
(Garland, 2004). Regardless, there has never been a time when antidepressants have been more
frequently prescribed in children and adolescents than is presently the case (Zito, Safer, dosReis,
2000, 2002). While this re ects the prevalence of antidepressant use overall, this involves the
summation of different classes of agents. The term “antidepressant” re ects a general description of
the agents that fall under this umbrella. Medications termed antidepressants are generally classi ed
into one of four groups: monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs),
SSRIs, and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Although each of these classes
includes individual agents that are termed antidepressants due to their resulting impact, they differ
substantially in their chemical makeup, which corresponds with discrepancies in clinical indications,
ef cacy, and adverse effects. Together this speaks to their general utility and appropriateness for
use in children and adolescents. In the following section we discuss key features of each class of
antidepressant individually.
C
LASSES OF ANTIDEPRESSANTS AND THEIR IMPACT
MAOIs
Although the MAOIs fall under the umbrella of antidepressant agents, they are used consider-
ably less than other classes due to their prominent adverse effect pro les, especially in children and
adolescents. Although signi cant discrepancies between the rate at which MAOIs are prescribed in
comparison to other groups (i.e., TCAs, SSRIs, SNRIs) are quite prominent, this is not necessarily
due to signi cant differences in ef cacy, but rather related to signi cant adverse effects commonly
associated with MAOIs (Riederer, Lachenmayer, & Laux, 2004). In fact, whereas early studies sug-
gested that MAOIs were less effective than other antidepressants, more recent studies have demon-
strated that, when prescribed in adequate dosages, some of the MAOIs (e.g., phenelzine [Nardil]
and tranylcypromine [Parnate]) demonstrate ef cacies comparable to select TCAs and SSRIs. How-
ever, again, the side effects can be severe. The most frequent adverse effects of irreversible MAOIs
are orthostatic hypotension, sleep disturbances, and nervousness/agitation (Riederer et al., 2004).
Furthermore, the chemical makeup of MAOIs creates for dangerous interactions with tyramine-rich
foods and sympathomimetic and serotonergic substances (Ballenger, Wheadon, Steiner, Bushnell,
& Gergel, 1998). To avoid such interactions, patients must remain strongly compliant with dietary
restrictions, which can be variable, and thus dangerous in children and adolescents.
Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits 860Noggle and Dean
Given the aforementioned risk for adverse effects and concerns of negative interactions, utiliza-
tion of MAOIs, as suggested, is limited. The main indications for the classical irreversible MAOIs
are subgroups of depression such as atypical depression and/or dysthymia or for patients who do
not respond to reuptake inhibitors. For example, high doses of tranylcypromine, an MAOI, has
been shown to be effective in the treatment of therapy-resistant depressions (Riederer et al, 2004).
However, these studies have been of adults only, and have been strictly on an inpatient basis so to
assure dietary compliance and monitor possible adverse reactions.
Although nonselective, irreversible MAOIs, including those noted earlier in text, carry signif-
icant adverse effects that correspond with the prominent infrequency of their use, moclobemide
(Aurorix), a newer MAOI, has little effect on the cardiovascular system and does not demonstrate
as great a risk for interaction due to tyramine sensitivity (Riederer et al., 2004). In addition to a
more favorable adverse effect pro le, some research has shown moclobemide to be equivalent to
TCAs in ef cacy and tolerated just as well, if not better. Furthermore, long-term follow-up studies
demonstrated continued effectiveness of moclobemide over the treatment period of 1 year, with
more than 60% of patients having continued response (Riederer et al., 2004). Of concern is research
suggesting that adequate ef cacy of moclobemide is dependent upon higher dosages, especially in
cases of moderate to severe cases of depression, which may negate some of its previously noted
superiority in tolerability over other MAOIs.
Although additional research on newer variants of the MAOIs (e.g., moclobemide) may demon-
strate advanced ef cacy in their treatment of depression, in comparison to other antidepressants there
remain substantial concerns about the degree of adverse effects associated with their use. This latter
point has and will likely continue to prominently limit the amount of MAOIs used in children and
adolescents.
TCAs
TCAs represent a second class of antidepressants that, in comparison, are used far more of-
ten than MAOIs, especially within the pediatric population. Although TCAs are widely used in
the clinical management of depressed children and adolescents, published studies have failed to
produce a repeatable pattern of ef cacy (Emslie & Judge, 2000). In fact, Geller, Cooper, Mc-
Combs, Graham, and Wells (1989) found that, when compared to placebo, nortriptyline, a TCA,
did not demonstrate signi cant improvement in depressive symptomatology in a sample of patients
5-12 years old. In a follow-up study, they found similar results in a sample of patients 12 – 17 years
old (Geller, Cooper, Graham, Marsteller, & Bryant, 1990). Although these studies focused on the
ef cacy of nortriptyline (Aventyl), additional investigations have called into question the ef cacy of
imipramine (Tofranil; Puig-Antich, Perel, & Lupatkin, 1987; Ryan, Puig-Antich, Cooper, 1986) and
desipramine (Norpramin; Kutcher, Boulos, & Ward, 1994) in the pediatric population. These studies,
in addition to others like them, have contributed to meta-analyses that have concluded that TCAs
appear no more effective than placebo in the treatment of depression in children and adolescents
(Hazell, O’Connell, Heathcote, Robertson, & Henry, 1995). In addition to questionable ef cacy,
empirical research has documented the prominent adverse effects of TCAs when used in children
and adolescents. These negative effects include dry mouth, constipation, urinary retention, blurred
vision, sinus tachycardia, sedation, impaired motor functioning, weight gain, hypotension, imbal-
ance, impaired coordination, orthostatic hypotension, and cognitive dysfunction (Kasper, Ho ich,
Scholl, & Moller, 1994; Kuzel, DeWester, & Richardson, 1996; Nemeroff, 1994). In compari-
son, the SSRIs have a milder side-effect pro le and are better tolerated than the TCAs (Edwards,
1992; Edwards, Inman, Wilton, & Pearce, 1994; Grimsley & Jann, 1992; Murdoch & McTavish,
1992).
Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits Antidepressant Medications861
Although failure to demonstrate adequate effectiveness beyond that seen in placebo may in and
of itself question the utility of TCAs in the treatment of depression in children and adolescents, when
compared to that for SSRIs, the outlook for TCAs diminishes further. In head-to-head comparisons,
SSRIs have largely demonstrated superior ef cacy in the remediation of depressive symptomatology
in children and adolescents in comparison to TCAs (e.g., Colle, Belair, DiFeo, Weiss, & La Roche,
1994; Emslie, Rush, & Weinberg, 1997) while also demonstrating lower rates of discontinuation
compared to the TCAs (Beasley, Bosomworth, & Wernicke, 1990). Furthermore, SSRIs present with
a more preferential adverse event pro le compared to TCAs (Jain, Birmaher, Garcia, Al-Shabbout,
& Ryan, 1992). The speci cs of SSRIs, including their utility and possible adverse reactions, are
discussed later in this chapter. Although the potential for aforementioned adverse effects is troubling,
risk for cardiovascular events and cognitive dysfunction are particularly concerning. To date, the
TCAs have been associated with a number of sudden cardiac deaths in children and adolescents
(Nemeroff, 1994). In terms of cognitive performance, the TCAs have been more prominently linked
to cognitive skill impairments as well as degradation of psychomotor ability than have the SSRIs
(Peretti, Judge, & Hindmarch, 2000). Much of this impact has been related to the effects of TCAs
on cholinergic, histaminergic, and adrenergic receptors. A number of studies have demonstrated
the negative impact TCAs have had on cognition in comparison to placebos and/or SSRIs (e.g.,
Fairweather et al., 1996; Hindmarch, 1997). When seen in children and adolescents, the secondary
detriment this may create in school performance may be substantial. As a result, any student taking
a TCA, likely because there has been poor response to SSRIs, should be monitored closely to detect
any possible degradation along these lines as soon as they begin to present.
SSRIs and SNRIs
By far, the SSRIs and SNRIs are the most commonly used antidepressants in children and
adolescents. The basis for this is twofold. First, SSRIs and SNRIs have demonstrated a general
ef cacy in the management of depression in children and adolescents, in comparison to placebo
(Emslie, Walkup, Pliszka, & Ernst, 1999). This positive nding is seen in conjunction with ndings
that have demonstrated a lack of bene t of TCAs and MAOIs within this same population (Hazell,
O’Connell, & Heathcote, 2002). Second, in comparison to both the TCAs and the MAOIs, the SSRIs
and SNRIs have presented with a far better safety record (van Laar, van Willigenburg, & Volkerts,
2002). Although evidence appears largely in support of the use of SSRIs and SNRIs in the treatment
of depression in children and adolescents (Emslie et al., 1999), there are ndings in opposition to
this suggestion.
When discussing the ef cacy of the SSRIs one may offer a generalized coverage as there has
been some report that there is little evidence to suggest differentiation among these agents (SSRIs)
in the overall ef cacy of treating depression (e.g., Hansen, Gartlehner, Lohr, Gaynes, & Carey,
2005; Kroenke et al., 2001; Papakostas, Thase, Fava, Nelson, & Shelton, 2007). Furthermore, when
comparing SSRIs and SNRIs, although a few individual studies have reported differences between
these agents, no study has shown convincing improvements of ef cacy or a preferential adverse
effect pro le of one over the other (Olver, Burrows, & Norman, 2001). Nevertheless, there are
some who would disagree with this suggestion (e.g., Mallinckrodt et al., 2007; Papakostas, Petersen,
Sklarsky, et al., 2007). For example, there are some studies that have suggested increased ef cacy
of the SNRIs, due to their dualistic impact on serotonin as well as norepinephrine, as opposed to the
SSRIs, which inhibit only one monoamine (Stahl, Entsuah, & Rudolph, 2002; Thase, Entsuah, &
Rudolph, 2001). However, other ndings have failed to support this difference (APA, 2000; Hansen et
al, 2005). In terms of supporting this claim, investigations into the treatment of mild depression have
appeared to demonstrate slightly greater ef cacy of duloxetine (Cymbalta), an SNRI, in comparison
Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits 862Noggle and Dean
to SSRIs (Mallinckrodt et al., 2007). This nding does not suggest that the SSRIs were not bene cial,
rather, that in this grouping, duloxetine may be slightly better. As depression was more moderate
to severe, this discrepancy dissipated to some extent. Across groupings, there was found a general
ef cacy of the SSRIs in comparison to placebo. A second part of this study (Mallinckrodt et al.,
2007), demonstrated that duloxetine may not be as effective as the SSRIs when there is prominent
comorbid anxiety, which can be a common manifestation in depression. The overall ndings of this
study suggest that differences between SSRIs and duloxetine, a prominent SNRI, exist, although
minimally, and likely correspond to differences between agents in their responsiveness to symptom
type and severity and that these differences do not play out in such a way as to demonstrate
favorability of one agent over the others (Mallinckrodt et al., 2007). This point has been reiterated by
others as well. Speci cally, Fava and Rush (2006) report that mindfulness of subtle differences of the
responsiveness of certain depressive subtypes to different agents is essential in increasing chances
for symptom relief and possible remission. Nevertheless, the overall clinical picture suggests utility
of SSRIs and SNRIs in the treatment of depression in children and adolescents, although differences
exist between these classes, not consistently favoring one over the other.
Although the ef cacy of the SSRIs and SNRIs appears relatively positive, and, in comparison
to MAOIs and TCAs, these groups demonstrate a preferred adverse risk pro le (van Laar et al.,
2002), they are not without possible negative effects. Truly, they are associated with fewer adverse
effects than are other classes (Nutt, 2003; Peretti et al., 2000), and are relatively free from cognitive
and psychomotor impairment (Peretti et al., 2000). Most studies also suggest that SSRIs produce
fewer cardiotoxic, anticholinergic, and antihistaminergic side effects than do TCAs (Pacher &
Ungvari, 2001). However, other studies have called some of these claims into question. SSRIs
and SNRIs have been linked to increased fatigue (Papakostas, Thase, et al., 2007), and some
have suggested a link between their use and cognitive impairment. However, the suggestion of
“cognitive” impairment suggests too broad of an impact. In reality, positive ndings along this
front have merely suggested memory problems associated with SSRIs and SRNIs (Joss, Burton,
& Keller, 2003). In terms of this link with speci c SSRIs and/or SNRIs, uoxetine (Prozac; Joss
et al., 2003) and paroxetine (Paxil; Furlan et al., 2001) represent those previously associated with
memory impairments, yet they have also been linked with memory improvement (Schmitt, Jorissen,
& Sobczak, 2001). Without question, studies have shown that depression itself can impair cognitive
functioning (Alvarez-Rueda, Guiterrez-Aguilar, Rosales, Martinez, & Lablache, 2001), including
memory (Landro, Stiles, & Sletvold, 1997). In fact, within the geriatric population, cognitive de cits
associated with depression may manifest in such a way that, clinically, they appear similar to
those impairments associated with neurodegenerative courses (Noggle, 2006). Such manifestations
tend to re ect impaired retrieval skills as well as slowed cognitive processing, impaired attention,
and higher-order/abstract reasoning (Noggle, 2006). It has also been proposed that, as depressive
symptoms are relieved, concurrent improvements in cognition may be seen as well (Harmer, Shelley,
Cowen, & Goodwin, 2004; Zobel, Schulse-Rauschenbach, & von Widdern, 2004). This has led to the
cognitive impairment associated with depression being viewed as one form of reversible dementia.
In fact, some researchers have suggested that the link between SSRIs and/or SNRIs and cognitive
disturbances are more an artifact of (as yet) ineffectively treated anxiety or depression (Hemmeter,
Heimberg, Naber, Hobi, & Holsboer-Trachsler, 2000). Kent, Coplan, and Gorman (1988) reiterated
this suggestion by noting that changes in cognitive processing associated with SSRIs may occur
earlier in treatment than the therapeutic effect can occur, suggesting that changes in psychological
function precede the improvement in psychopathology (Harmer et al., 2004). This suggestion is
similar to that of Wadsworth, Moss, Simpson, and Smith (2005) in which they state that recall may
be impaired among those taking SSRIs whose symptoms have not (yet) resolved, leading to fewer
words correctly recalled, and more false alarms made. However, among those taking SSRIs whose
Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits Antidepressant Medications863
symptoms are controlled, fewer words may be recalled correctly, but fewer false alarms are also
made. In other words, there is improvement following SSRIs and/or SNRIs, but it may not be of such
a degree to alleviate all noted impairment. Further investigation along these lines is likely warranted,
but at the present time, although there may be some studies that oppose this suggestion, far more
studies appear to suggest no detrimental effect on cognition by SSRIs or SNRIs than those that do.
This includes, but is not limited to, the SSRIs/SNRIs having no detrimental effect on psychomotor
speed, momentary inef ciency, speed of focus of attention, speed of encoding of new information,
organization of response, mood, or perceived work performance (Peretti et al., 2000). In terms of
this subject matter in children and adolescents, the best advice is to remain vigilant in follow-up
with them during pharmacological intervention, so as to identify any negative impact as soon as it
begins to appear.
While raised concerns of the impact that SSRIs and SNRIs may have on cognitive functioning
may be unsupported to a certain degree, adverse behavioral effects may represent the negative
outcomes of greatest concern. Agitation, irritability and behavioral disinhibition, emotional lability,
increased conduct problems, and hostility as well as aggressiveness have all been linked to the use
of SSRIs and/or SNRIs (Garland, 2004). However, some researchers have questioned whether this is
a manifestation of the medications or merely secondary to unresolved symptomology. Of additional
concern are suggestions of increased suicidal ideation and gesturing in the use of SSRIs and/or
SNRIs. Following a review of research along these lines, the Medicine and Healthcare products
Regulatory Agency of the British Department of Health (MHRA) has warned against the use of
paroxetine as well as venlafaxine (Effexor)or any SSRI or SNRI other than uoxetine in pediatric
MDD patients, due to data suggesting some possible increase in suicidal behavior and thoughts.
However, in a more thorough evaluation done on the various SSRIs and SNRIs, it was revealed that
venlafaxine was the only individual drug with a statistically signi cant increased risk of suicidality
(Hammad, Laughren, & Racoosin, 2006). In fact, when used in the depressive states of bipolar
disorder, venlafaxine has been linked to the induction of mixed states. In this situation, there may be
a substantial increase in energy and grandiosity while mood remains depressed, and there possibly
remains a degree of hopelessness as well. Within such a psychological/behavioral constellation as
this, an individual may not only have the will to commit suicide, but then also have the energy and
disinhibition/impulsivity that will carry it through. Although this may represent one link between
the use of speci c SSRIs and/or SNRIs, there is also a link between suicidal ideation and a lack
of pharmacological intervention (Cheung, Emslie, & Mayes, 2006). For further review of issues
surrounding suicidal ideation and pharmacological intervention, see the article by Pierson (in this
issue) (2009). What appears to be the most effective is concurrent utilization of pharmacological and
psychotherapeutic techniques. In fact, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
(AACAP) recommends psychosocial and pharmacologic intervention for depression. However, it
also recommends psychotherapy as the preferred initial treatment for most adolescent patients, with
the induction of pharmacological efforts only coming after there is seen a lack of responsiveness to
therapeutic endeavors (Kane, Fagan, & Wolf, 2007). It is within this situation (i.e., lack of response
to nonpharmacological interventions) that physicians could choose an SSRI that has been approved
for use in children and adolescents, such as uoxetine (Garland, 2004) and then, upon doing so,
continue to offer psychotherapeutic interventions. Research along this line has supported this clinical
suggestion. In an investigation of the effectiveness of ouxetine and cognitive behavioral therapy
(CBT) together as well as in comparison to each other singularly, the combination of pharmacological
and psychotherapeutic treatment was found to be statistically superior to unipolar techniques (Kane
et al., 2007), although uoxetine alone outperformed CBT alone.
The only other drawback of SSRIs is their failure to demonstrate desired levels of effectiveness
in more severe forms of depression. Findings from meta-analyses have suggested that SSRIs are
Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits 864Noggle and Dean
signi cantly less effective than TCAs in more severe depression (Anderson, 1998). Parker, Roy,
Wilhelm, and Mitchell (2001) further support this nding in suggesting that, in the treatment of
severe depression of the melancholic subtype, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), TCAs, and MAOIs
are the most effective treatments and that SSRIs are less effective (Gillman, 2007). Of note, this
was determined in an adult sample; thus, MAOIs and de nitely ECT are substantially less viable
options. It has also been suggested that venlafaxine may be more effective than SSRIs in such cases
as well (Smith, Dempster, Glanville, Freemantle, & Anderson, 2002); however, as previously noted,
venlafaxine has also been associated with increased risk of suicidal ideation. Given the fact that
suicidal thoughts and gestures are most commonly seen in severe depressive forms, questions may
be raised about whether this proposed use may be contraindicated. Further empirical investigation is
likely warranted along these lines. For example, expansions of research incorporating other agents
such as sertraline (Zoloft), escitalopram (Lexapro), and citalopram (Celexa), to name a few, continue
to be needed as these too have shown some ef cacy in early trials, yet the number of studies remains
too few in comparison to those previously noted.
I
MPACT ON SCHOOLING
Antidepressants’ impact on schooling may be grouped into two categories, either positive or
negative. Determination of these reactions is related to outcome assessment, which psychological
professionals within the school or those who work with this age population are likely most capable
of performing. Speci cally, following administration of an antidepressant agent, an essential role of
psychological professionals is to assess responsiveness and outcome. This outcome may be positive,
negative, or a mixture of the two. With regard to positive outcome, this involves assessment of the
emotional and behavioral changes that appear to manifest secondary to the usage of the medication.
Although we use the term “positive,” not all medicinal responses will necessarily be of such a nature.
Notation of behavioral/emotional depletion may be seen as well. Of particular concern is an increase
in suicidal ideation. As previously noted, venlafaxine (Effexor) was the only individual drug with a
statistically signi cant increased risk of suicidality in a larger scale investigation of the links between
antidepressants, particularly SSRIs and SNRIs, and suicidal thoughts and gestures (Hammad et al.,
2006). This nding does not suggest that such manifestations are not possible when using other
medications, merely additional agents assessed were not related tosigni cantlyincreased suicidal
risk. Continued evaluation of suicidal ideation is recommended in all cases of depression, with
particularly close attention paid to changes in presentation along these lines in the acute stages of
medicinal use.
In addition to assessing the responsiveness of behavioral and emotional symptoms to antide-
pressants, attention may be paid to the evaluation of the remediation of secondary symptoms as well.
This may include, but is not necessarily limited to, improved attention and concentration, increased
energy (make note of induced mania if seen), decreased irritability and agitation, increased social
interaction, improved sleeping and eating habits, and improved academic achievement. Although
improvements may be seen across these aforementioned domains, it may not be of such a level
that it is deemed adequate. Clinical determination of these shortcomings may assist in medicinal
management while also indicating areas in which psychotherapeutic or behavioral services may be
focused. As previously discussed, in comparison, combined treatment that incorporates pharmaco-
logical treatment and psychotherapeutic services has been found to be superior to the singular forms
(Kane et al., 2007), leading the AACAP to support such an approach.
In terms of negative outcome, this involves recording/documenting the adverse reactions to
pharmacological interventions. Determination of utility can vary from person to person and is
usually seen as a numbers game. Speci cally, how much do the positive outcomes outweigh the
negative? It may be the case that behaviorally there is clinical improvement, but if it is viewed as
Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits Antidepressant Medications865
minimal to low-moderate (yet there are seen signi cant disruptions of sleep, decreased appetite and
weight, increased anxiety, etc.), then the positive responsiveness may be dwarfed by the negative
reactions. Just as positive outcomes may be used to determine medicinal management, so too can
the negative reactions. Data may suggest a need to change the medication altogether, alter dosage,
or supplement with other agents to remediate secondary symptoms. The article by Roberts, Floress,
and Ellis (2009) within this issue delves further into the issue of school impact.
S
UMMARY
It is undeniable that MDD and variants of depressive syndromes are seen in children and
adolescents. Furthermore, it is evident that the primary, secondary, and tertiary manifestations of
these presentations correspond with substantial impairment as well as increased morbidity and
mortality over both the short and long term (Pataki & Carlson, 1995; Rao et al., 1995; Rohde et al,
1994). As a means of ghting back against this psychiatric opponent, utilization of antidepressant
medication has become a major player in the management of depression in children and adolescents
(Wong et al., 2004). There are four primary classes of antidepressants including MAOI, TCAs,
SSRIs, and SNRIs, and research investigating ef cacy and adverse effect pro les have led to the
most prominent support for use of the latter two groups (i.e., SSRIs and SNRIs) in pediatric
populations. Although superior to placebos in terms of ef cacy, the SSRIs and SNRIs are not
without aws. They have shown diminished effectiveness in the remediation of severe depression
and have been, at times, associated with adverse effects that can include increased fatigue as well
as behavioral changes including irritability, aggression, and externalizing behaviors. There have
been suggestions of these agents being linked to increases in suicidal ideation, but this has been
more prominently linked to venlafaxine, an SNRI, and even in this instance, situational factors
play prominent roles (i.e., depressive state in bipolar compared to severe MDD). Still yet, lack of
pharmacological intervention has been related to far greater suicidal ideation in severe depressive
cases, thus the argument may be somewhat moot. Finally, although ef cacy is seen in the use of
these agents, research demonstrates that a combined utilization of pharmacology and psychotherapy
still remains superior. These ndings are of clinical importance as they demonstrate the need for
psychological professionals working with these children and adolescents to remain vigilant in their
therapeutic and behavioral offerings. It is essential to continue to maintain a supportive dialogue with
the child, parents, and teachers even after the start of antidepressant treatment, to not only continue
to offer therapeutic services, to alleviate the many common behavioral manifestations associated
with depression that may not be remedied medicinally, but also to assist in tracking the effects of
the antidepressant agent, both positive and negative. Although medical professionals have superior
training in the prescription of such agents, the work of psychological professionals, especially in
the schools, provides them with the opportunity to be essential consultative resources for medical
personnel in managing chosen pharmacological interventions. In the treatment of depression in
children and adolescents, this is a role that psychological professionals in the schools should strive
to perform.
R
EFERENCES
Alvarez-Rueda, J. M., Guiterrez-Aguilar, J., Rosales, J., Martinez, A. D., & Lablache, B. C. (2001). El efecto del zolpidem
en los pacientes con insomnio de corta evolucion. Salud Mental, 24, 33 – 42.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition – text revision.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder
(revision). American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(4), 1 – 45.
Anderson, I. M. (1998). SSRIs versus tricyclic antidepressants in depressed inpatients: a meta- analysis of ef cacy and
tolerability. Depression and Anxiety, 7(1), 11 – 17.
Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits 866Noggle and Dean
Angold, A., Erkanli, A., Farmer, E., Fairbank, J., Burns, B., Gordon, K., & Jane, C. K. (2002). Psychiatric disorder, impairment,
and service use in rural African American and white youth. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(10), 893–901.
Ballenger, J., Wheadon, D., Steiner, M., Bushnell, W., & Gergel, I. P. (1998). Double-blind, xed-dose, placebo-controlled
study of paroxetine in the treatment of panic disorder American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 36.
Beasley Jr., C. M., Bosomworth, J. C., & Wernicke, J. F. (1990). Fluoxetine: Relationships among dose, response, adverse
events, and plasma concentrations in the treatment of depression. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 26, 18 – 24.
Birmaher, B., Ryan, N. D., & Williamson, D. E. (1996). Childhood and adolescent depression: A review of the past 10 years.
Part I. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1427 – 1439.
Canino, G., Shrout, P. E., Rubio-Stipec, M., Bird-Hector, R., Bravo, M., et al., (2004). The DSM-IV rates of child and
adolescent disorders in Puerto Rico: Prevalence, correlates, service use, and the effects of impairment. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 61, 85 – 93.
Cheung, A. H., Emslie, G. J., & Mayes, T. L. (2006). The use of antidepressants to treat depression in children and
adolescents. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 174(2), 193 – 200.
Colle, L. M., Belair, J., DiFeo, M., Weiss, J., & La Roche, C. (1994). Extended open-label uoxetine treatment of adolescents
with major depression. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 4, 225 – 232.
Cytryn, L., & McKnew, D. (1974). Factors in uencing the changing clinical expression of the depressive process in children.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 879 – 881.
Easau, C. A., Petermann, F., & Reynolds, W. M. (1999). General issues. In C. A. Easau (Eds.), Depressive disorders in
children and adolescents: Epidemiology, risk factors, and treatment. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Edwards, J. G. (1992). Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors. British Medical Journal, 304, 1644 – 1646.
Edwards, J. G., Inman, W. H., Wilton, L., & Pearce, G. L. (1994). Prescription-event monitoring of 10,401 patients treated
with uvoxamine. British Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 387 – 395.
Emslie, G., & Judge, R. (2000). Tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: Use during pregnancy,
in children/adolescents and in the elderly. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 101(403), 26 – 34.
Emslie, G. J., Rush, A. J., & Weinberg, W. A. (1997). A double-blind, randomized, placebo- controlled trial of uoxetine in
children and adolescents with depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 1031 – 1037.
Emslie, G. J., Walkup, J. T., Pliszka, S. R., & Ernst, M. (1999). Nontricyclic antidepressants: Current trends in children and
adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 517 – 528.
Fairweather, D. B., Dal Pozzo, C., Yoon, J. S., Stanley, N., Kerr, J. S., & Hindmarch, I. (1996). Effects of uoxetine and
dothiepin on cognition and sleep in depressed patients. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 10(3), 32.
Fava, M., & Rush, A. J. (2006). Current status of augmentation and combination treatments for major depressive disorder:
A literature review and a proposal for a novel approach to improve practice. Psychotherapy Psychosomatics, 75,
139 – 153.
Fleming, J. E., Offord, D. R., & Boyle, M. H. (1989). Prevalence of childhood and adolescent depression in the community:
Ontario Child Health Study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 647 – 654.
Ford, T., Goodman, R., Meltzer, H. (2003). The British Child and Adolescent Mental Health Survey, 1999: The prevalence
of DSM-IV disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 1203 – 1211.
Furlan, P. M., Kallan, M. J., Ten-Have, T., Pollock, B. G., Katz, I., & Lucki, I. (2001). Cognitive and psychomotor effects
of paroxetine and sertraline on healthy elderly volunteers. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 9, 429 – 438.
Garland, E. J. (2004). Facing the evidence: Antidepressant treatment in children and adolescents. CMAJ, 170(4), 489 – 491.
Geller, B., Cooper, T. B., Graham, D. L., Marsteller, F. A., & Bryant, D. M. (1990). Double-blind, placebo-controlled
study of nortriptyline in depressed adolescents using a xed plasma level design. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 26,
85 – 90.
Geller, B., Cooper, T. B., McCombs, H. G., Graham, D., & Wells, J. (1989). Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of
nortriptyline in depressed children using a xed plasma level design. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 25, 101 – 108.
Gillman, P. K. (2007). Tricyclic antidepressant pharmacology and therapeutic drug interactions: Updated. British Journal of
Pharmacology, 151, 737 – 748.
Grimsley, S. R., & Jann, M. W. (1992). Paroxetine, sertraline, and uvoxamine: New selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
Clinical Pharmacology, 11, 930 – 957.
Hammad, T. A., Laughren, T., & Racoosin, J. (2006). Suicidality in pediatric patients treated with antidepressant drugs.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 63, 332 – 339.
Hansen, R. A., Gartlehner, G., Lohr, K. N., Gaynes, B. N., & Carey, T. S. (2005). Ef cacy and safety of second generation
antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Annals of Internal Medicine, 143, 415 – 426.
Harmer, C. J., Shelley, N. C., Cowen, P. J., & Goodwin, G. M. (2004). Increased positive versus negative affective perception
and memory in healthy volunteers following selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 1256 – 1263.
Harrington, R. (2002). Affective disorders. In M. Rutter & E. A. Taylor (Eds.), Child and adolescent psychiatry. London:
Blackwell Science.
Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits Antidepressant Medications867
Hazell, P., O’Connell, D., Heathcote, D., & Henry, D. A. (2008). Tricyclic drugs for depression in children and adolescents.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD002317. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002317.
Hazell, P., O’Connell, D., Heathcote, D., Robertson, J., & Henry, D. (1995). Ef cacy of tricyclic drugs in treating child and
adolescent depression: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Medicine, 310, 897 – 901.
Hemmeter, U., Heimberg, D. R., Naber, G., Hobi, V., & Holsboer-Trachsler, E. (2000). Contingent negative variation and
DEX/CRH test in patients with major depression. Journal of Psychiatry Research, 34, 365 – 367.
Hindmarch, I. (1997). Behavioral toxicity and depression: The search for optimum therapy. Primary Care Psychiatry, 3(1),
17 – 20.
Jain, U., Birmaher, B., Garcia, M., Al-Shabbout, M., & Ryan, N. (1992). Fluoxetine in children and adolescents with mood
disorders: A chart review of ef cacy and adverse effects. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 4,
225 – 232.
Joss, D. J., Burton, R. M., & Keller, C. A. (2003). Memory loss in a patient treated with uoxetine. Annals of Pharmacotherapy,
37, 1800 – 1802.
Kane, E., Fagan, H., & Wolf, D. G. (2007). Should we use SSRIs to treat adolescents with depression? The Journal of Family
Medicine, 56(9), 759 – 760.
Kasper, S., Ho ich, G., Scholl, H. P., & Moller, H. J. (1994). Safety and antidepressant ef cacy of selective serotonin
re-uptake inhibitors. Human Psychopharmacology, 9, 1 – 12.
Kent, J. M, Coplan, J. D., & Gorman, J. M. (1988). Clinical utility of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the
spectrum of anxiety. Biological Psychiatry, 44, 812 – 824.
Kovacs, M., Feinberg, T. L., & Crouse-Novak, M. A. (1984a). Depressive disorders in childhood I: A longitudinal prospective
study of characteristics and recovery. Archives of General Psychiatry, 41, 229 – 237.
Kovacs, M., Feinberg, T. L., & Crouse-Novak, M. A. (1984b). Depressive disorders in childhood II: A longitudinal study of
the risk for a subsequent major depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 41, 643 – 649.
Kroenke, K., West, S. L., Swindle, R., Gilsenan, A., Eckert, G. J., Dolor, R., et al. (2001). Similar effectiveness of paroxetine,
uoxetine, and sertraline in primary care: A randomized trial. JAMA, 286, 2947 – 2955.
Kutcher, S., Boulos, C., & Ward, B. (1994). Response to desipramine treatment in adolescent depression: A xed dose,
placebo-controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 686 – 694.
Kuzel, R. J., DeWester, J. N., & Richardson, F. (1996). Treating comorbid depression and anxiety. Journal of Family Practice,
43(6), 45 – 53.
Landro, N. I., Stiles, T. C., & Sletvold, H. (1997). Memory functioning in patients with primary bromyalgia and major
depression and health controls. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 42, 297 – 306.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Roberts, R. E., Seeley, J. R., Rohde, P., Gotlib, I. H., & Hops, H., (1994). Adolescent psychopathology:
II. Psychosocial risk factors for depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(2), 302 – 315.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Rohde, P., & Seeley, J. R. (1998). Major depressive disorder in older adolescents: Prevalence, risk factors,
and clinical implications. Clinical Psychology Review, 18(7), 765 – 794.
Ma, J., Lee, K. V., & Stafford, R. S. (2005). Depression treatment during outpatient visits by U.S. children and adolescents.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 434 – 442.
Mallinckrodt, C. H., Prakash, A., Houston, J. P., Swindle, R., Detke, M. J., & Fava, M. (2007). Differential antidepressant
symptoms ef cacy: Placebo-controlled comparisons of duloxetine and SSRIs ( uoxetine, paroxetine, escitalpram).
Neuropsychobiology, 56, 73 – 85.
Malmquist, C. P. (1977). Childhood depression: A clinical and behavioral perspective. In J. G. Schulter-Brandt & A. Raskin
(Eds.), Depression in childhood: Diagnosis, treatment, and conceptual models. New York: Raven Press.
Murdoch, D., & McTavish, D. (1992). Sertraline. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and
therapeutic potential in depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Drugs, 44, 604 – 642.
Murphy, J. M., Laird, N. M., Monson, R. R., Sobol, A. M., & Leighton, A. H. (2000). A 40-year perspective on the prevalence
of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(3), 209 – 215.
Murray, M. L., de Vries, C. S., & Wong, I. C. (2004). A drug utilization study of antidepressants in children and adolescents
using the General Practice Research Database. Archives of Disorders in Childhood, 89, 1098 – 1102.
Nemeroff, C. B. (1994). Evolutionary trends in the pharmacotherapeutic management of depression. Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 55(12), 3 – 15.
Noggle, C. A. (2006). Differential diagnosis of Alzheimer’s dementia and depression using the Dean-Woodcock Neuropsy-
chological Assessment System. Unpublished dissertation, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Noggle, C. A., Neal, T. J., Hall, J. J., Hiller, T. R., & Dean, R. S. (2006). Cognitive de cits in childhood depression. Presented
at the 26th Annual Conference of the National Academy of Neuropsychology, October 25–28, San Antonio, TX.
Nutt, D. J. (2003). Death and dependence: Current controversies over the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Journal of
Psychopharmacology, 17, 355 – 364.
Olver, J. S., Burrows, G. D., & Norman, T. R. (2001). Third-generation antidepressants: Do they offer advantages over the
SSRIs? CNS Drugs, 15(12), 941 – 954.
Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits 868Noggle and Dean
Pacher, P., & Ungvari, Z. (2001). Selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor antidepressants increase the risk of falls and hip
fractures in elderly people by inhibiting cardiovascular ion channels. Medical Hypotheses, 57, 469 – 471.
Papakostas, G. I., Petersen, T., Sklarsky, K. G., Nierenberg, A. A., Alpert, J. E., & Fava, M. (2007). Timing of clinical
improvement and symptom resolution in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Psychiatry Research, 149, 195 –
200.
Papakostas, G. I., Thase, M. E., Fava, M., Nelson, J. C., & Shelton, R. C. (2007). Are antidepressant drugs that combine
serotonergic and noradrenergic mechanisms of action more effective than the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in
treating major depressive disorder? A meta-analysis of studies of fewer agents. Biological Psychiatry, 151, 58 – 68.
Parker, G., Roy, K., Wilhelm, K., & Mitchell, P. (2001). Assessing the comparative effectiveness of antidepressant therapies:
A prospective clinical practice study. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62, 117 – 125.
Pataki, C. S., & Carlson, G. A. (1995). Childhood and adolescent depression: A review. Harvard Psychiatry Review, 3,
140 – 151.
Peretti, S., Judge, R., Hindmarch, I. (2000). Safety and tolerability considerations: Tricyclic antidepressants vs. selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. Supplementum, 403, 17 – 25.
Poznanski, E. O., & Mokros, H. B. (1994). Phenomenology and epidemiology of mood disorders in children and adolescents.
In W. M. Reynolds, & H. F. Johnston (Eds.), Handbook of depression in children and adolescents. New York: Plenum
Press.
Puig-Antich, J., Perel, J. M., & Lupatkin, W. (1987). Imipramine in prepubertal major depressive disorders. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 44, 81 – 89.
Rao, U., Ryan, N. D., & Birmaher, B. (1995). Unipolar depression in adolescents: Clinical outcome in adulthood. Journal of
the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 566 – 578.
Ravnkilde, B., Videbech, P., Clemmensen, K., Egander, A., Rasmussen, N. A., & Rosenberg, R. (2002). Cognitive de cits in
major depression. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 239 – 251.
Riederer, P., Lachenmayer, L., & Laux, G. (2004). Clinical applications of MAO-Inhibitors. Current Medicinal Chemistry,
11, 2003 – 2043.
Rohde, P., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Seeley, J. R. (1994). Are adolescents changed by an episode of major depression? Journal of
the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 1289 – 1298.
Ryan, N. D., Puig-Antich, J., & Ambrosini, P. (1987). The clinical picture of major depression in children and adolescents.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 854 – 861.
Ryan, N. D., Puig-Antich, J., & Cooper, T. (1986). Imipramine in adolescent major depression: Plasma level and clinical
response. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 73, 275 – 288.
Safer, D. J. (1997). Changing patterns of psychotropic medications prescribed by child psychiatrists in the 1990s. Journal of
Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 7, 267 – 274.
Schmitt, J. A., Jorissen, B. L., & Sobczak, S. (2000). Tryptophan depletion impairs memory consolidation but improves
focussed attention in healthy young volunteers. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 14, 21 – 29.
Smith, D., Dempster, C., Glanville, J., Freemantle, N., & Anderson, I. (2002). Ef cacy and tolerability of venlafaxine
compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other antidepressants: A meta-analysis. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 180, 396 – 404.
Stahl, S. M., Entsuah, R., & Rudolph, R. L. (2002). Comparative ef cacy between venlafaxine and SSRIs: A pooled analysis
of patients with depression. Biological Psychiatry, 52, 1166 – 1174.
Thase, M. E., Entsuah, A. R., & Rudolph, R. L. (2001). Remission rates during treatment with venlafaxine or selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 234 – 241.
van Laar, M. W., van Willigenburg, A. P., & Volkerts, E. R. (2002). Acute and sub-chronic effects of nefazodone and
imipramine on highway driving, cognitive functions, and daytime sleepiness in healthy adult and elderly subjects.
Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 15, 30 – 40.
Wadsworth, E. J. K., Moss, S. C., Simpson, S. A., & Smith, A. P. (2005). SSRIs and cognitive performance in a working
sample. Human Psychopharmacology, 20, 561 – 572.
Wong, I. C., Besag, F. M., Santosh, P. J., & Murray, M. L. (2004). Use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in children
and adolescents. Drug Safety, 27, 991 – 1000.
Zito, J. M., Safer, D. J., & dosReis, S. (2000). Trends in the prescribing of psychotropic medications to preschoolers. JAMA,
283, 1025 – 1030.
Zito, J. M., Safer, D. J., & dosReis, S. (2002). Rising prevalence of antidepressants among US youths. Pediatrics, 109,
721 – 727.
Zobel A. W., Schulse-Rauschenbach, S., & von Widdern, O. C. (2004). Improvement of working but not declarative memory
is correlated with HPA normalization during antidepressant treatment. Journal of Psychiatry Research, 38, 377 – 383.
Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits
