Posted by Don_Bristol on May 10, 2006, at 10:10:32
In reply to Re: MAOIs, posted by Jost on May 9, 2006, at 23:27:19
> > Hi Don,
> > The figures you quoted, were they from http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic318.htm ? You posted a link to the aapcc's website, but I honestly couldn't make heads or tails of anything on it.
> The figures Don quoted, unless I'm mistaken (which I might be) were from a "Summary of fatal exposures reported to TESS in 2002" published in the Am J. of Emergency Med.
> However, the Summary, as I read it, noted only one death from an maoi, ie parnate; and the cause of death was "ther. err."--ie therapist error, rather than an adverse drug reaction.
> Possibly, Don's statistics are from another source. However, the type of AD associated with the highest number of fatalities on this report, by far, was tricyclics, particularly. amitriptyline. Is this the most widely prescribed tricylic?
> Most of the deaths were intentional. There are a few other causes, such as "malicious," "adv. react." and "ther. err." The number of adverse reactions is so small that it would seem hard to draw any conclusions from this one report.
> Last night I came across a paper--I can't find it now--that suggested that deaths from tricyclics were greater in absolute numbers than those from maois, although a somewhat greater proportion of the maoi fatalities were intentional. The difference didn't seem so great as to make the argument that maois are to be avoided at all costs. Obviously, care must be taken in their use..
> I'd be interested in Don's sources, though.
This is the document in PDF form
Go to page 404 (PDF doc page 12).
Read the line across for MAOIs. Last figures shows 2 deaths, 26 major and 81 moderate. I put it into a spreadsheet. http://tinyurl.com/ppmd5 Let me know if the percentages are wrong because I did for my own use and approximate figures were good enough for what I needed. The breakdown by type occurs there which is why I said about a third were intentional (81 out of 181 intentional plus the 81 intentional) because the data is patchy and the categories overlap so UNintentional + Intentional + unknowns will equal the total population sampled.
That is what I was quoting. I used those 2003 figures in June 2004 because they were the lastest available. Now newer figures are available and you can compile them (save me the trouble!) from http://www.aapcc.org/annual.htm then "View Report By Sections" then "Table 22A-22B".
Not sure where you got your data about "ther. err." and that sort of breakdown. Do you have a link?
Was it you who posted this to this thread?: "However the chance of a stroke and unilateral or bilateral neurological damage is higher. Its worse than death. Its immobilization and life debilitating."
In a funny way I really do agree. When you're dead, you're dead. But to live with severe brain damage is a living death and is an even more frightening prospect to me than death.