The Conflation of Chronic Sadness With Major Depression

When I bring up with many other professionals the idea that major depression is now over-diagnosed by relabeling what used to be called dysthymia as "mild' major depression, a lot of them seem to disagree. Or they just tune out. “That’s just your opinion,” I might hear. Well, luckily the DSM-V now provides evidence that I am on the right track. In the DSM-V, the term “dysthymia” has been replaced! It is now called Persistent Depressive Disorder. 

As I have discussed in many previous posts, my opinion about major depressive disorder is that it is more of a brain disorder than mere unhappiness. The word depression itself is a symptom, not a disorder. It is in the interest of drug companies to conflate chronic psychological unhappiness with major depression so they can sell more antidepressant drugs to people who will not actually benefit from them.  Now,  it is also possible to have both, which is called double depression.

While many of the criteria are the same for the new diagnosis as the previous criteria for dysthymia, there are subtle differences that obscure the difference between that disorder and major depressive disorder. In a percentage of people with the latter disorder, it may become chronic. This is seen in the new definition of the disorder, which reads “This disorder represents a consolidation of DSM-IV-defined chronic major depressive disorder and dysthymic disorder. These disorders should not be consolidated.

There is one additional change which is telling. The only specific criteria for the disorder that has been changed has gone from “The disturbance is not better accounted for by MDD or MDD in partial remission” to “Criteria for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) may be continuously present for 2 years, in which case patients should be given comorbid diagnoses of persistent depressive disorder and MDD."  Double depression has nothing to do with the length of the major depressive episode.

Drug companies have enlisted academic psychiatrists to become “key opinion leaders” in order to push this idea, and have even advocated the use self report surveys designed to screen for major depression (therefore having a lot of people test positive who don’t really have the disorder  – false positives) as diagnostic instruments.

This has led to a host of articles in the popular press that seem to indicate that antidepressants are nothing more than placebos. Nothing could be further from the truth, but a lot of psychiatry critics like Robert Whitaker have seized on “research” articles (which do a crappy job of making the correct diagnosis) that seem to show this to be the case.  After all, since most anti-depressants are generic,  it's better for drug companies' bottom line if instead of those drugs, expensive new anti-psychotic drugs can be recommended instead.

The critics also use the fact that we don’t know exactly what causes major depression to dismiss the whole diagnosis. The incorrect hypothesis that the condition is due to a “chemical imbalance,” which is sometimes advanced by clinicians, must mean that it is not a real disease. Dumb. Clinicians have often used this oversimplified idea to convince resistant patients to take the medications. Researchers rarely if ever actually said that a chemical imbalance was the cause of the disorder.

Of course, it’s not always easy for clinicians to tell the difference between dysthymia and major depression in a given patient, but in most cases it’s fairly straightforward.  There is nothing that stops anyone from being chronically unhappy when they are not having an episode(the euthymic state) of major depression. And major depression is episodic with normal-for-them baseline mood periods in between episodes.

A good clinician will define a response to antidepressants as good if the patient returns to their baseline. They don’t have to be in a good mood to have had a good response, but may just need psychotherapy like any other dysthymic patient. Nonetheless, many of these patients who have double depression are mislabeled in the literature as “treatment resistant,” which means that docs are encouraged to add still more drugs to antidepressants to “augment” them. There are of course patients who actually are treatment resistant and need this augmentation, but in my 45 years of practice this was a relatively small contingent.

Briefly and in an oversimplified manner, distinguishing the two disorders has to do with the “three P’s” – persistence, pervasiveness, and pathological. (You can tell if a study employs the correct definitions by seeing how the diagnosis was made with their subjects. The P’s are emphasized in an excellent diagnostic interview called the SCID). Persistent: this is the duration criteria. An episode has to last at least two weeks. Admittedly, the two-week criteria is arbitrary, but is put in so clinicians don’t make the diagnosis after too short a period.  The “everything is bipolar” crowd routinely poo poo's the duration criteria.

Pervasive: the symptoms have to be present nearly all day every day no matter what goes on in a patient’s life. This means that if a patient were to win the lottery, it wouldn’t cheer him up all that much.  Pathological: this means that the ways that the patient reacts to any stress is different from the way they might react if they were not in an episode. See the lottery statement. Also, if a lover were to, say, break their heart, this would not always make a whole lot of difference in how bad they feel.

These issues are not seen with good doctors, who not only know how to take a complete bio-psycho-social history but actually still do them.