Posts

What is an Antipsychotic?

Introduction

Antipsychotics, also known as neuroleptics, are a class of psychotropic medication primarily used to manage psychosis (including delusions, hallucinations, paranoia or disordered thought), principally in schizophrenia but also in a range of other psychotic disorders.

They are also the mainstay together with mood stabilisers in the treatment of bipolar disorder.

Recent research has shown that use of any antipsychotic results in smaller brain tissue volumes and that this brain shrinkage is dose dependent and time dependent. A review of the research has also reinforced this effect.

The use of antipsychotics may result in many unwanted side effects such as involuntary movement disorders, gynecomastia, impotence, weight gain and metabolic syndrome. Long-term use can produce adverse effects such as tardive dyskinesia.

First-generation antipsychotics, known as typical antipsychotics, were first introduced in the 1950s, and others were developed until the early 1970s. Second-generation drugs, known as atypical antipsychotics, were introduced firstly with clozapine in the early 1970s followed by others. Both generations of medication block receptors in the brain for dopamine, but atypicals tend to act on serotonin receptors as well. Neuroleptic, originating from Greek: νεῦρον (neuron) and λαμβάνω (take hold of) – thus meaning “which takes the nerve” – refers to both common neurological effects and side effects.

Brief History

The original antipsychotic drugs were happened upon largely by chance and then tested for their effectiveness. The first, chlorpromazine, was developed as a surgical anaesthetic. It was first used on psychiatric patients because of its powerful calming effect; at the time it was regarded as a non-permanent “pharmacological lobotomy”. Lobotomy at the time was used to treat many behavioural disorders, including psychosis, although its effect was to markedly reduce behaviour and mental functioning of all types. However, chlorpromazine proved to reduce the effects of psychosis in a more effective and specific manner than lobotomy, even though it was known to be capable of causing severe sedation. The underlying neurochemistry involved has since been studied in detail, and subsequent antipsychotic drugs have been discovered by an approach that incorporates this sort of information.

The discovery of chlorpromazine’s psychoactive effects in 1952 led to further research that resulted in the development of antidepressants, anxiolytics, and the majority of other drugs now used in the management of psychiatric conditions. In 1952, Henri Laborit described chlorpromazine only as inducing indifference towards what was happening around them in nonpsychotic, non-manic patients, and Jean Delay and Pierre Deniker described it as controlling manic or psychotic agitation. The former claimed to have discovered a treatment for agitation in anyone, and the latter team claimed to have discovered a treatment for psychotic illness.

Until the 1970s there was considerable debate within psychiatry on the most appropriate term to use to describe the new drugs. In the late 1950s the most widely used term was “neuroleptic”, followed by “major tranquilizer” and then “ataraxic”. The first recorded use of the term tranquilizer dates from the early nineteenth century. In 1953 Frederik F. Yonkman, a chemist at the Swiss-based Cibapharmaceutical company, first used the term tranquiliser to differentiate reserpine from the older sedatives. The word neuroleptic was coined in 1955 by Delay and Deniker after their discovery (1952) of the antipsychotic effects of chlorpromazine. It is derived from the Greek: “νεῦρον” (neuron, originally meaning “sinew” but today referring to the nerves) and “λαμβάνω” (lambanō, meaning “take hold of”). Thus, the word means taking hold of one’s nerves. It was often taken to refer also to common side effects such as reduced activity in general, as well as lethargy and impaired motor control. Although these effects are unpleasant and in some cases harmful, they were at one time, along with akathisia, considered a reliable sign that the drug was working. The term “ataraxy” was coined by the neurologist Howard Fabing and the classicist Alister Cameron to describe the observed effect of psychic indifference and detachment in patients treated with chlorpromazine. This term derived from the Greek adjective “ἀτάρακτος” (ataraktos), which means “not disturbed, not excited, without confusion, steady, calm”. In the use of the terms “tranquiliser” and “ataractic”, medical practitioners distinguished between the “major tranquilizers” or “major ataractics”, which referred to drugs used to treat psychoses, and the “minor tranquilizers” or “minor ataractics”, which referred to drugs used to treat neuroses. While popular during the 1950s, these terms are infrequently used today. They are being abandoned in favour of “antipsychotic”, which refers to the drug’s desired effects. Today, “minor tranquiliser” can refer to anxiolytic and/or hypnotic drugs such as the benzodiazepines and nonbenzodiazepines, which have some antipsychotic properties and are recommended for concurrent use with antipsychotics, and are useful for insomnia or drug-induced psychosis. They are potentially addictive sedatives.

Antipsychotics are broadly divided into two groups, the typical or first-generation antipsychotics and the atypical or second-generation antipsychotics. The difference between first- and second-generation antipsychotics is a subject of debate. The second-generation antipsychotics are generally distinguishable by the presence of 5HT2A receptor antagonism and a corresponding lower propensity for extrapyramidal side effects compared to first-generation antipsychotics.

Medical Uses

Antipsychotics are most frequently used for the following conditions:

  • Schizophrenia.
  • Schizoaffective disorder most commonly in conjunction with either an antidepressant (in the case of the depressive subtype) or a mood stabiliser (in the case of the bipolar subtype).
  • Bipolar disorder (acute mania and mixed episodes) may be treated with either typical or atypical antipsychotics, although atypical antipsychotics are usually preferred because they tend to have more favourable adverse effect profiles and, according to a recent meta-analysis, they tend to have a lower liability for causing conversion from mania to depression.
  • Psychotic depression. In this indication it is a common practice for the psychiatrist to prescribe a combination of an atypical antipsychotic and an antidepressant as this practice is best supported by the evidence.
  • Treatment resistant depression as an adjunct to standard antidepressant therapy.

Antipsychotics are generally not recommended for treating behavioural problems associated with dementia, given that the risk of use tends to be greater than the potential benefit. The same can be said for insomnia, in which they are not recommended as first-line therapy. There are evidence-based indications for using antipsychotics in children (e.g. tic disorder, bipolar disorder, psychosis), but the use of antipsychotics outside of those contexts (e.g. to treat behavioural problems) warrants significant caution.

Schizophrenia

Antipsychotic drug treatment is a key component of schizophrenia treatment recommendations by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the American Psychiatric Association, and the British Society for Psychopharmacology. The main aim of treatment with antipsychotics is to reduce the positive symptoms of psychosis that include delusions and hallucinations. There is mixed evidence to support a significant impact of antipsychotic use on negative symptoms (such as apathy, lack of emotional affect, and lack of interest in social interactions) or on the cognitive symptoms (memory impairments, reduced ability to plan and execute tasks). In general, the efficacy of antipsychotic treatment in reducing both positive and negative symptoms appears to increase with increasing severity of baseline symptoms. All antipsychotic medications work relatively the same way, by antagonising D2 dopamine receptors. However, there are some differences when it comes to typical and atypical antipsychotics. For example, atypical antipsychotic medications have been seen to lower the neurocognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia more so than conventional antipsychotics, although the reasoning and mechanics of this are still unclear to researchers.

Applications of antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of schizophrenia include prophylaxis in those showing symptoms that suggest that they are at high risk of developing psychosis, treatment of first episode psychosis, maintenance therapy (a form of prophylaxis, maintenance therapy aims to maintain therapeutic benefit and prevent symptom relapse), and treatment of recurrent episodes of acute psychosis.

Prevention of Psychosis and Symptom Improvement

Test batteries such as the PACE (Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation Clinic) and COPS (Criteria of Prodromal Syndromes), which measure low-level psychotic symptoms and cognitive disturbances, are used to evaluate people with early, low-level symptoms of psychosis. Test results are combined with family history information to identify patients in the “high-risk” group; they are considered to have a 20-40% risk of progression to frank psychosis within two years. These patients are often treated with low doses of antipsychotic drugs with the goal of reducing their symptoms and preventing progression to frank psychosis. While generally useful for reducing symptoms, clinical trials to date show little evidence that early use of antipsychotics improves long-term outcomes in those with prodromal symptoms, either alone or in combination with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).

First Episode Psychosis

First episode psychosis (FEP), is the first time that psychotic symptoms are presented. NICE recommends that all persons presenting with first episode psychosis be treated with both an antipsychotic drug, and CBT. NICE further recommends that those expressing a preference for CBT alone are informed that combination treatment is more effective. A diagnosis of schizophrenia is not made at this time as it takes longer to determine by both DSM-5 and ICD-11, and only around 60% of those presenting with a first episode psychosis will later be diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The conversion rate for a first episode drug induced psychosis to bipolar disorder or schizophrenia are lower, with 30% of people converting to either bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. NICE makes no distinction between a substance-induced psychosis, and any other form of psychosis. The rate of conversion differs for different classes of drug.

Pharmacological options for the specific treatment of FEP have been discussed in recent reviews. The goals of treatment for FEP include reducing symptoms and potentially improving long-term treatment outcomes. Randomised clinical trials have provided evidence for the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in achieving the former goal, with first-generation and second generation antipsychotics showing about equal efficacy. Evidence that early treatment has a favourable effect on long term outcomes is equivocal.

Recurrent Psychotic Episodes

Placebo controlled trials of both first and second generation antipsychotic drugs consistently demonstrate the superiority of active drug to placebo in suppressing psychotic symptoms. A large meta-analysis of 38 trials of antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia acute psychotic episodes showed an effect size of about 0.5. There is little or no difference in efficacy among approved antipsychotic drugs, including both first- and second-generation agents. The efficacy of such drugs is suboptimal. Few patients achieve complete resolution of symptoms. Response rates, calculated using various cutoff values for symptom reduction, are low and their interpretation is complicated by high placebo response rates and selective publication of clinical trial results.

Maintenance Therapy

The majority of patients treated with an antipsychotic drug will experience a response within four weeks. The goals of continuing treatment are to maintain suppression of symptoms, prevent relapse, improve quality of life, and support engagement in psychosocial therapy.

Maintenance therapy with antipsychotic drugs is clearly superior to placebo in preventing relapse but is associated with weight gain, movement disorders, and high dropout rates. A 3-year trial following persons receiving maintenance therapy after an acute psychotic episode found that 33% obtained long-lasting symptom reduction, 13% achieved remission, and only 27% experienced satisfactory quality of life. The effect of relapse prevention on long term outcomes is uncertain, as historical studies show little difference in long term outcomes before and after the introduction of antipsychotic drugs.

While maintenance therapy clearly reduces the rate of relapses requiring hospitalization, a large observational study in Finland found that, in people that eventually discontinued antipsychotics, the risk of being hospitalized again for a mental health problem or dying increased the longer they were dispensed (and presumably took) antipsychotics prior to stopping therapy. If people did not stop taking antipsychotics, they remained at low risk for relapse and hospitalisation compared to those that stopped taking antipsychotics. The authors speculated that the difference may be because the people that discontinued treatment after a longer time had more severe mental illness than those that discontinued antipsychotic therapy sooner.

A significant challenge in the use of antipsychotic drugs for the prevention of relapse is the poor rate of adherence. In spite of the relatively high rates of adverse effects associated with these drugs, some evidence, including higher dropout rates in placebo arms compared to treatment arms in randomised clinical trials, suggest that most patients who discontinue treatment do so because of suboptimal efficacy. If someone experiences psychotic symptoms due to nonadherence, they may be compelled to treatment through a process called involuntary commitment, in which they can be forced to accept treatment (including antipsychotics). A person can also be committed to treatment outside of a hospital, called outpatient commitment.

Antipsychotics in long-acting injectable (LAI), or “depot”, form have been suggested as a method of decreasing medication nonadherence (sometimes also called non-compliance). NICE advises LAIs be offered to patients when preventing covert, intentional nonadherence is a clinical priority. LAIs are used to ensure adherence in outpatient commitment. A meta-analysis found that LAIs resulted in lower rates of rehospitalisation with a hazard ratio of 0.83, however these results were not statistically significant (the 95% confidence interval was 0.62 to 1.11).

Bipolar Disorder

Antipsychotics are routinely used, often in conjunction with mood stabilisers such as lithium/valproate, as a first-line treatment for manic and mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder. The reason for this combination is the therapeutic delay of the aforementioned mood stabilisers (for valproate therapeutic effects are usually seen around five days after treatment is commenced whereas lithium usually takes at least a week before the full therapeutic effects are seen) and the comparatively rapid antimanic effects of antipsychotic drugs. The antipsychotics have a documented efficacy when used alone in acute mania/mixed episodes.

Three atypical antipsychotics (lurasidone, olanzapine and quetiapine) have also been found to possess efficacy in the treatment of bipolar depression as a monotherapy, whereas only olanzapine and quetiapine have been proven to be effective broad-spectrum (i.e. against all three types of relapse – manic, mixed and depressive) prophylactic (or maintenance) treatments in patients with bipolar disorder. A recent Cochrane review also found that olanzapine had a less favourable risk/benefit ratio than lithium as a maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder.

The American Psychiatric Association and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend antipsychotics for managing acute psychotic episodes in schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, and as a longer-term maintenance treatment for reducing the likelihood of further episodes. They state that response to any given antipsychotic can be variable so that trials may be necessary, and that lower doses are to be preferred where possible. A number of studies have looked at levels of “compliance” or “adherence” with antipsychotic regimes and found that discontinuation (stopping taking them) by patients is associated with higher rates of relapse, including hospitalisation.

Dementia

Psychosis and agitation develop in as many as 80 percent of people living in nursing homes. Despite a lack of Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approval and black-box warnings, atypical antipsychotics are often prescribed to people with dementia. An assessment for an underlying cause of behaviour is needed before prescribing antipsychotic medication for symptoms of dementia. Antipsychotics in old age dementia showed a modest benefit compared to placebo in managing aggression or psychosis, but this is combined with a fairly large increase in serious adverse events. Thus, antipsychotics should not be used routinely to treat dementia with aggression or psychosis, but may be an option in a few cases where there is severe distress or risk of physical harm to others. Psychosocial interventions may reduce the need for antipsychotics. In 2005, the FDA issued an advisory warning of an increased risk of death when atypical antipsychotics are used in dementia. In the subsequent 5 years, the use of atypical antipsychotics to treat dementia decreased by nearly 50%.

Major Depressive Disorder

A number of atypical antipsychotics have some benefits when used in addition to other treatments in major depressive disorder. Aripiprazole, quetiapine extended-release, and olanzapine (when used in conjunction with fluoxetine) have received FDA labelling for this indication. There is, however, a greater risk of side effects with their use compared to using traditional antidepressants. The greater risk of serious side effects with antipsychotics is why, e.g. quetiapine was denied approval as monotherapy for major depressive disorder or generalised anxiety disorder, and instead was only approved as an adjunctive treatment in combination with traditional antidepressants.

Other

Besides the above uses antipsychotics may be used for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), personality disorders, Tourette syndrome, autism and agitation in those with dementia. Evidence however does not support the use of atypical antipsychotics in eating disorders or personality disorder. The atypical antipsychotic risperidone may be useful for OCD. The use of low doses of antipsychotics for insomnia, while common, is not recommended as there is little evidence of benefit and concerns regarding adverse effects. Low dose antipsychotics may also be used in treatment of impulse-behavioural and cognitive-perceptual symptoms of borderline personality disorder.

In children they may be used in those with disruptive behaviour disorders, mood disorders and pervasive developmental disorders or intellectual disability. Antipsychotics are only weakly recommended for Tourette syndrome, because although they are effective, side effects are common. The situation is similar for those on the autism spectrum. Much of the evidence for the off-label use of antipsychotics (for example, for dementia, OCD, PTSD, personality disorders, Tourette’s) was of insufficient scientific quality to support such use, especially as there was strong evidence of increased risks of stroke, tremors, significant weight gain, sedation, and gastrointestinal problems. A UK review of unlicensed usage in children and adolescents reported a similar mixture of findings and concerns. A survey of children with pervasive developmental disorder found that 16.5% were taking an antipsychotic drug, most commonly for irritability, aggression, and agitation. Both risperidone and aripiprazole have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of irritability in autistic children and adolescents.

Aggressive challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability is often treated with antipsychotic drugs despite lack of an evidence base. A recent randomised controlled trial, however, found no benefit over placebo and recommended that the use of antipsychotics in this way should no longer be regarded as an acceptable routine treatment.

Antipsychotics may be an option, together with stimulants, in people with ADHD and aggressive behaviour when other treatments have not worked. They have not been found to be useful for the prevention of delirium among those admitted to hospital.

Typicals vs Atypicals

It is unclear whether the atypical (second-generation) antipsychotics offer advantages over older, first generation antipsychotics. Amisulpride, olanzapine, risperidone and clozapine may be more effective but are associated with greater side effects. Typical antipsychotics have equal drop-out and symptom relapse rates to atypicals when used at low to moderate dosages.

Clozapine is an effective treatment for those who respond poorly to other drugs (“treatment-resistant” or “refractory” schizophrenia), but it has the potentially serious side effect of agranulocytosis (lowered white blood cell count) in less than 4% of people.

Due to bias in the research the accuracy of comparisons of atypical antipsychotics is a concern.

In 2005, a US government body, the National Institute of Mental Health published the results of a major independent study (the CATIE project). No other atypical studied (risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone) did better than the typical perphenazine on the measures used, nor did they produce fewer adverse effects than the typical antipsychotic perphenazine, although more patients discontinued perphenazine owing to extrapyramidal effects compared to the atypical agents (8% vs. 2% to 4%).

Atypical antipsychotics do not appear to lead to improved rates of medication adherence compared to typical antipsychotics.

Many researchers question the first-line prescribing of atypicals over typicals, and some even question the distinction between the two classes. In contrast, other researchers point to the significantly higher risk of tardive dyskinesia and other extrapyramidal symptoms with the typicals and for this reason alone recommend first-line treatment with the atypicals, notwithstanding a greater propensity for metabolic adverse effects in the latter. NICE recently revised its recommendation favouring atypicals, to advise that the choice should be an individual one based on the particular profiles of the individual drug and on the patient’s preferences.

The re-evaluation of the evidence has not necessarily slowed the bias toward prescribing the atypical

Adverse Effects

Generally, more than one antipsychotic drug should not be used at a time because of increased adverse effects.

Very rarely antipsychotics may cause tardive psychosis.

By Rate

Common (≥ 1% and up to 50% incidence for most antipsychotic drugs) adverse effects of antipsychotics include:

  • Sedation (particularly common with asenapine, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, chlorpromazine and zotepine).
  • Headaches.
  • Dizziness.
  • Diarrhoea.
  • Anxiety.
  • Extrapyramidal side effects (particularly common with first-generation antipsychotics), which include:
    • Akathisia, an often distressing sense of inner restlessness.
    • Dystonia, an abnormal muscle contraction.
    • Pseudoparkinsonism, symptoms that are similar to what people with Parkinson’s disease experience, including tremulousness and drooling.
  • Hyperprolactinaemia (rare for those treated with clozapine, quetiapine and aripiprazole), which can cause:
    • Galactorrhoea, the unusual secretion of breast milk.
    • Gynaecomastia, abnormal growth of breast tissue.
    • Sexual dysfunction (in both sexes).
    • Osteoporosis.
  • Orthostatic hypotension.
  • Weight gain (particularly prominent with clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine and zotepine).
  • Anticholinergic side-effects (common for olanzapine, clozapine; less likely on risperidone) such as:
    • Blurred vision.
    • Constipation.
    • Dry mouth (although hypersalivation may also occur).
    • Reduced perspiration.
  • Tardive dyskinesia appears to be more frequent with high-potency first-generation antipsychotics, such as haloperidol, and tends to appear after chronic and not acute treatment. It is characterised by slow (hence the tardive) repetitive, involuntary and purposeless movements, most often of the face, lips, legs, or torso, which tend to resist treatment and are frequently irreversible. The rate of appearance of TD is about 5% per year of use of antipsychotic drug (whatever the drug used).

Rare/Uncommon (<1% incidence for most antipsychotic drugs) adverse effects of antipsychotics include:

  • Blood dyscrasias (e.g., agranulocytosis, leukopenia, and neutropoenia), which is more common in patients on clozapine.
  • Metabolic syndrome and other metabolic problems such as type II diabetes mellitus – particularly common with clozapine, olanzapine and zotepine. In American studies African Americans appeared to be at a heightened risk for developing type II diabetes mellitus. Evidence suggests that females are more sensitive to the metabolic side effects of first-generation antipsychotic drugs than males. Metabolic adverse effects appear to be mediated by the following mechanisms:
    • Causing weight gain by antagonising the histamine H1 and serotonin 5-HT2Creceptors] and perhaps by interacting with other neurochemical pathways in the central nervous system.
  • Neuroleptic malignant syndrome, a potentially fatal condition characterised by:
    • Autonomic instability, which can manifest with tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, diaphoresis, etc.
    • Hyperthermia – elevated body temperature.
    • Mental status change (confusion, hallucinations, coma, etc.).
    • Muscle rigidity.
    • Laboratory abnormalities (e.g. elevated creatine kinase, reduced iron plasma levels, electrolyte abnormalities, etc.).
  • Pancreatitis.
  • QT interval prolongation – more prominent in those treated with amisulpride, pimozide, sertindole, thioridazine and ziprasidone.
  • Torsades de pointes.
  • Seizures, particularly in people treated with chlorpromazine and clozapine.
  • Thromboembolism.
  • Myocardial infarction.
  • Stroke.

Long-Term Effects

Some studies have found decreased life expectancy associated with the use of antipsychotics, and argued that more studies are needed. Antipsychotics may also increase the risk of early death in individuals with dementia. Antipsychotics typically worsen symptoms in people who suffer from depersonalisation disorder. Antipsychotic polypharmacy (prescribing two or more antipsychotics at the same time for an individual) is a common practice but not evidence-based or recommended, and there are initiatives to curtail it. Similarly, the use of excessively high doses (often the result of polypharmacy) continues despite clinical guidelines and evidence indicating that it is usually no more effective but is usually more harmful.

Loss of grey matter and other brain structural changes over time are observed amongst people diagnosed with schizophrenia. Meta-analyses of the effects of antipsychotic treatment on grey matter volume and the brain’s structure have reached conflicting conclusions. A 2012 meta-analysis concluded that grey matter loss is greater in patients treated with first generation antipsychotics relative to those treated with atypicals, and hypothesized a protective effect of atypicals as one possible explanation. A second meta-analysis suggested that treatment with antipsychotics was associated with increased grey matter loss. Animal studies found that monkeys exposed to both first- and second-generation antipsychotics experience significant reduction in brain volume, resulting in an 8-11% reduction in brain volume over a 17-27 month period.

Subtle, long-lasting forms of akathisia are often overlooked or confused with post-psychotic depression, in particular when they lack the extrapyramidal aspect that psychiatrists have been taught to expect when looking for signs of akathisia.

Adverse effect on cognitive function and increased risk of death in people with dementia along with worsening of symptoms has been describe in the literature.

Discontinuation

The British National Formulary recommends a gradual withdrawal when discontinuing antipsychotics to avoid acute withdrawal syndrome or rapid relapse. Symptoms of withdrawal commonly include nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite. Other symptoms may include restlessness, increased sweating, and trouble sleeping. Less commonly there may be a feeling of the world spinning, numbness, or muscle pains. Symptoms generally resolve after a short period of time.

There is tentative evidence that discontinuation of antipsychotics can result in psychosis. It may also result in recurrence of the condition that is being treated. Rarely tardive dyskinesia can occur when the medication is stopped.

Unexpected psychotic episodes have been observed in patients withdrawing from clozapine. This is referred to as supersensitivity psychosis, not to be equated with tardive dyskinesia.

Tardive dyskinesia may abate during withdrawal from the antipsychotic agent, or it may persist.

Withdrawal effects may also occur when switching a person from one antipsychotic to another, (it is presumed due to variations of potency and receptor activity). Such withdrawal effects can include cholinergic rebound, an activation syndrome, and motor syndromes including dyskinesias. These adverse effects are more likely during rapid changes between antipsychotic agents, so making a gradual change between antipsychotics minimises these withdrawal effects. The British National Formulary recommends a gradual withdrawal when discontinuing antipsychotic treatment to avoid acute withdrawal syndrome or rapid relapse. The process of cross-titration involves gradually increasing the dose of the new medication while gradually decreasing the dose of the old medication.

City and Hackney Clinical Commissioning Group found more than 1,000 patients in their area in July 2019 who had not had regular medication reviews or health checks because they were not registered as having serious mental illness. On average they had been taking these drugs for six years. If this is typical of practice in England more than 100,000 patients are probably in the same position.

List of Agents

Clinically used antipsychotic medications are listed below by drug group. Trade names appear in parentheses. A 2013 review has stated that the division of antipsychotics into first and second generation is perhaps not accurate.

Notes:

  • † indicates drugs that are no longer (or were never) marketed in English-speaking countries.
  • ‡ denotes drugs that are no longer (or were never to begin with) marketed in the United States. Some antipsychotics are not firmly placed in either first-generation or second-generation classes.
  • # denotes drugs that have been withdrawn worldwide.

First-Generation (Typical)

  • Butyrophenones:
    • Benperidol‡
    • Bromperidol†
    • Droperidol‡
    • Haloperidol
    • Moperone (discontinued)†
    • Pipamperone (discontinued)†
    • Timiperone †
  • Diphenylbutylpiperidines:
    • Fluspirilene ‡
    • Penfluridol ‡
    • Pimozide
  • Phenothiazines:
    • Acepromazine † – although it is mostly used in veterinary medicine.
    • Chlorpromazine
    • Cyamemazine †
    • Dixyrazine †
    • Fluphenazine
    • Levomepromazine‡
    • Mesoridazine (discontinued)†
    • Perazine
    • Pericyazine‡
    • Perphenazine
    • Pipotiazine ‡
    • Prochlorperazine
    • Promazine (discontinued)
    • Promethazine
    • Prothipendyl †
    • Thioproperazine‡ (only English-speaking country it is available in is Canada)
    • Thioridazine (discontinued)
    • Trifluoperazine
    • Triflupromazine (discontinued)†
  • Thioxanthenes:
    • Chlorprothixene †
    • Clopenthixol
    • Flupentixol ‡
    • Thiothixene
    • Zuclopenthixol ‡

Disputed/Unknown

This category is for drugs that have been called both first and second-generation, depending on the literature being used.

  • Benzamides:
    • Sulpiride ‡
    • Sultopride †
    • Veralipride †
  • Tricyclics:
    • Carpipramine †
    • Clocapramine †
    • Clorotepine †
    • Clotiapine ‡
    • Loxapine
    • Mosapramine †
  • Others:
    • Molindone #

Second-Generation (Atypical)

  • Benzamides:
    • Amisulpride ‡ – Selective dopamine antagonist. Higher doses (greater than 400 mg) act upon post-synaptic dopamine receptors resulting in a reduction in the positive symptoms of schizophrenia, such as psychosis. Lower doses, however, act upon dopamine autoreceptors, resulting in increased dopamine transmission, improving the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Lower doses of amisulpride have also been shown to have antidepressant and anxiolytic effects in non-schizophrenic patients, leading to its use in dysthymia and social phobias.
    • Nemonapride † – Used in Japan.
    • Remoxipride # – Has a risk of causing aplastic anaemia and, hence, has been withdrawn from the market worldwide. It has also been found to possess relatively low (virtually absent) potential to induce hyperprolactinaemia and extrapyramidal symptoms, likely attributable to its comparatively weak binding to (and, hence, rapid dissociation from) the D2 receptor.
    • Sultopride – An atypical antipsychotic of the benzamide chemical class used in Europe, Japan, and Hong Kong for the treatment of schizophrenia. It was launched by Sanofi-Aventis in 1976. Sultopride acts as a selective D2 and D3 receptor antagonist.
  • Benzisoxazoles/benzisothiazoles:
    • Iloperidone – Approved by the FDA in 2009, it is fairly well tolerated, although hypotension, dizziness, and somnolence were very common side effects. Has not received regulatory approval in other countries, however.
    • Lurasidone – Approved by the FDA for schizophrenia and bipolar depression, and for use as schizophrenia treatment in Canada.
    • Paliperidone – Primary, active metabolite of risperidone that was approved in 2006.
    • Paliperidone palmitate – Long-acting version of paliperidone for once-monthly injection.
    • Perospirone † – Has a higher incidence of extrapyramidal side effects than other atypical antipsychotics.
    • Risperidone – Divided dosing is recommended until initial titration is completed, at which time the drug can be administered once daily. Used off-label to treat Tourette syndrome and anxiety disorder.
    • Ziprasidone – Approved in 2004 to treat bipolar disorder. Side-effects include a prolonged QT interval in the heart, which can be dangerous for patients with heart disease or those taking other drugs that prolong the QT interval.
  • Butyrophenones:
    • Melperone † – Only used in a few European countries. No English-speaking country has licensed it to date.
    • Lumateperone.
  • Phenylpiperazines/quinolinones:
    • Aripiprazole – Partial agonist at the D2 receptor unlike almost all other clinically-utilized antipsychotics.
    • Aripiprazole lauroxil – Long-acting version of aripiprazole for injection.
    • Brexpiprazole – Partial agonist of the D2 receptor. Successor of aripiprazole.
    • Cariprazine – A D3-preferring D2/D3 partial agonist.
  • Tricyclics:
    • Asenapine – Used for the treatment of schizophrenia and acute mania associated with bipolar disorder.
    • Clozapine – Requires routine laboratory monitoring of complete blood counts every one to four weeks due to the risk of agranulocytosis. It has unparalleled efficacy in the treatment of treatment-resistant schizophrenia.
    • Olanzapine – Used to treat psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, acute manic episodes, and maintenance of bipolar disorder. Used as an adjunct to antidepressant therapy, either alone or in combination with fluoxetine as Symbyax.
    • Quetiapine – Used primarily to treat bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Also used and licensed in a few countries (including Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States) as an adjunct to antidepressant therapy in patients with major depressive disorder. It is the only antipsychotic that has demonstrated efficacy as a monotherapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder. It indirectly serves as a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor by means of its active metabolite, norquetiapine.
    • Zotepine – An atypical antipsychotic indicated for acute and chronic schizophrenia. It is still used in Japan and was once used in Germany but it was discontinued.†
  • Others:
    • Blonanserin – Approved by the PMDA in 2008. Used in Japan and South Korea.
    • Pimavanserin – A selective 5-HT2A receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease psychosis in 2016.
    • Sertindole ‡ – Developed by the Danish pharmaceutical company H. Lundbeck. Like the other atypical antipsychotics, it is believed to have antagonist activity at dopamine and serotonin receptors in the brain.

Mechanism of Action

Antipsychotic drugs such as haloperidol and chlorpromazine tend to block dopamine D2 receptors in the dopaminergic pathways of the brain. This means that dopamine released in these pathways has less effect. Excess release of dopamine in the mesolimbic pathway has been linked to psychotic experiences. Decreased dopamine release in the prefrontal cortex, and excess dopamine release in other pathways, are associated with psychotic episodes in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In addition to the antagonistic effects of dopamine, antipsychotics (in particular atypical neuroleptics) also antagonise 5-HT2A receptors. Different alleles of the 5-HT2A receptor have been associated with schizophrenia and other psychoses, including depression. Higher concentrations of 5-HT2A receptors in cortical and subcortical areas, in particular in the right caudate nucleus have been historically recorded.

Typical antipsychotics are not particularly selective and also block dopamine receptors in the mesocortical pathway, tuberoinfundibular pathway, and the nigrostriatal pathway. Blocking D2 receptors in these other pathways is thought to produce some unwanted side effects that the typical antipsychotics can produce (see above). They were commonly classified on a spectrum of low potency to high potency, where potency referred to the ability of the drug to bind to dopamine receptors, and not to the effectiveness of the drug. High-potency antipsychotics such as haloperidol, in general, have doses of a few milligrams and cause less sleepiness and calming effects than low-potency antipsychotics such as chlorpromazine and thioridazine, which have dosages of several hundred milligrams. The latter have a greater degree of anticholinergic and antihistaminergic activity, which can counteract dopamine-related side-effects.

Atypical antipsychotic drugs have a similar blocking effect on D2 receptors; however, most also act on serotonin receptors, especially 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C receptors. Both clozapine and quetiapine appear to bind just long enough to elicit antipsychotic effects but not long enough to induce extrapyramidal side effects and prolactin hypersecretion. 5-HT2A antagonism increases dopaminergic activity in the nigrostriatal pathway, leading to a lowered extrapyramidal side effect liability among the atypical antipsychotics.

Society and Culture

Terminology

The term major tranquiliser was used for older antipsychotic drugs. The term neuroleptic is often used as a synonym for antipsychotic, even though – strictly speaking – the two terms are not interchangeable. Antipsychotic drugs are a subgroup of neuroleptic drugs, because the latter have a wider range of effects.

Antipsychotics are a type of psychoactive or psychotropic medication.

Sales

Antipsychotics were once among the biggest selling and most profitable of all drugs, generating $22 billion in global sales in 2008. By 2003 in the US, an estimated 3.21 million patients received antipsychotics, worth an estimated $2.82 billion. Over 2/3 of prescriptions were for the newer, more expensive atypicals, each costing on average $164 per year, compared to $40 for the older types. By 2008, sales in the US reached $14.6 billion, the biggest selling drugs in the US by therapeutic class.

Overprescription

Antipsychotics in the nursing home population are often overprescribed, often for the purposes of making it easier to handle dementia patients. Federal efforts to reduce the use of antipsychotics in US nursing homes has led to a nationwide decrease in their usage in 2012.

Legal

Antipsychotics are sometimes administered as part of compulsory psychiatric treatment via inpatient (hospital) commitment or outpatient commitment.

Formulations

They may be administered orally or, in some cases, through long-acting (depot) injections administered in the dorsgluteal, ventrogluteal or deltoid muscle. Short-acting parenteral formulations also exist, which are generally reserved for emergencies or when oral administration is otherwise impossible. The oral formulations include immediate release, extended release, and orally disintegrating products (which are not sublingual, and can help ensure that medications are swallowed instead of “cheeked”). Sublingual products (e.g. asenapine) also exist, which must be held under the tongue for absorption. The first transdermal formulation of an antipsychotic (transdermal asenapine, marketed as Secuado), was FDA-approved in 2019.

Recreational Use

Certain second-generation antipsychotics are misused or abused for their sedative, tranquilising, and (paradoxically) “hallucinogenic” effects. The most commonly second-generation antipsychotic implicated is quetiapine. In case reports, quetiapine has been abused in doses taken by mouth (which is how the drug is available from the manufacturer), but also crushed and insufflated or mixed with water for injection into a vein. Olanzapine, another sedating second-generation antipsychotic, has also been misused for similar reasons. There is no standard treatment for antipsychotic abuse, though switching to a second-generation antipsychotic with less abuse potential (e.g. aripiprazole) has been used.

Controversy

Joanna Moncrieff has argued that antipsychotic drug treatment is often undertaken as a means of control rather than to treat specific symptoms experienced by the patient.

Use of this class of drugs has a history of criticism in residential care. As the drugs used can make patients calmer and more compliant, critics claim that the drugs can be overused. Outside doctors can feel under pressure from care home staff. In an official review commissioned by UK government ministers it was reported that the needless use of antipsychotic medication in dementia care was widespread and was linked to 1800 deaths per year. In the US, the government has initiated legal action against the pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson for allegedly paying kickbacks to Omnicare to promote its antipsychotic risperidone (Risperdal) in nursing homes.

There has also been controversy about the role of pharmaceutical companies in marketing and promoting antipsychotics, including allegations of downplaying or covering up adverse effects, expanding the number of conditions or illegally promoting off-label usage; influencing drug trials (or their publication) to try to show that the expensive and profitable newer atypicals were superior to the older cheaper typicals that were out of patent. Following charges of illegal marketing, settlements by two large pharmaceutical companies in the US set records for the largest criminal fines ever imposed on corporations. One case involved Eli Lilly and Company’s antipsychotic Zyprexa, and the other involved Bextra. In the Bextra case, the government also charged Pfizer with illegally marketing another antipsychotic, Geodon. In addition, Astrazeneca faces numerous personal-injury lawsuits from former users of Seroquel (quetiapine), amidst federal investigations of its marketing practices. By expanding the conditions for which they were indicated, Astrazeneca’s Seroquel and Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa had become the biggest selling antipsychotics in 2008 with global sales of $5.5 billion and $5.4 billion respectively.

Harvard medical professor Joseph Biederman conducted research on bipolar disorder in children that led to an increase in such diagnoses. A 2008 Senate investigation found that Biederman also received $1.6 million in speaking and consulting fees between 2000 and 2007 – some of them undisclosed to Harvard – from companies including makers of antipsychotic drugs prescribed for children with bipolar disorder. Johnson & Johnson gave more than $700,000 to a research centre that was headed by Biederman from 2002 to 2005, where research was conducted, in part, on Risperdal, the company’s antipsychotic drug. Biederman has responded saying that the money did not influence him and that he did not promote a specific diagnosis or treatment.

Pharmaceutical companies have also been accused of attempting to set the mental health agenda through activities such as funding consumer advocacy groups.

Special Populations

It is recommended that persons with dementia who exhibit behavioural and psychological symptoms should not be given antipsychotics before trying other treatments. When taking antipsychotics this population has increased risk of cerebrovascular effects, parkinsonism or extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, confusion and other cognitive adverse effects, weight gain, and increased mortality. Physicians and caretakers of persons with dementia should try to address symptoms including agitation, aggression, apathy, anxiety, depression, irritability, and psychosis with alternative treatments whenever antipsychotic use can be replaced or reduced. Elderly persons often have their dementia treated first with antipsychotics and this is not the best management strategy.

On This Day … 23 June

People (Births)

Ellyn Kaschak

Ellyn Kaschak (born 23 June 1943), is an American clinical psychologisy, Professor of Psychology at San Jose State University. She is one of the founders of the field of feminist psychology, which she has practiced and taught since 1972.

Her many publications, including Engendered Lives: A New Psychology of Women’s Experience (Kaschak, 1993), and Sight Unseen: Gender and Race through Blind Eyes (Kaschak, 2015), have helped define the field. She was the editor of the academic journal, Women & Therapy, for twenty years.

What is Behavioural Neurology?

Introduction

Behavioural neurology is a subspecialty of neurology that studies the impact of neurological damage and disease upon behaviour, memory, and cognition, and the treatment thereof.

Refer to Behavioural Neuroscience.

Background

Two fields associated with behavioural neurology are neuropsychiatry and neuropsychology. In the United States, ‘Behavioural Neurology & Neuropsychiatry’ has been recognised as a single subspecialty by the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties (UCNS) since 2004.

Symptoms

Syndromes and diseases commonly studied by behavioural neurology include:

  • Agraphia.
  • Agnosias.
  • Agraphesthesia.
  • Alexia (acquired dyslexia).
  • Amnesias.
  • Anosognosia.
  • Aphasias.
  • Apraxias.
  • Aprosodias.
  • Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
  • Autism.
  • Dementia.
  • Dyslexia.
  • Epilepsy.
  • Hemispatial Neglect.
  • Psychosis.
  • Stroke.
  • Traumatic brain injury.

Brief History

While descriptions of behavioural syndromes go back to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, it was during the 19th century that behavioural neurology began to arise, first with the primitive localisation theories of Franz Gall, followed in the mid 19th century by the first localisations in aphasias by Paul Broca and then Carl Wernicke. Localisationist neurology and clinical descriptions reached a peak in the late 19th and early 20th century, with work extending into the clinical descriptions of dementias by Alois Alzheimer and Arnold Pick. The work of Karl Lashley in rats for a time in the early to mid 20th century put a damper on localisation theory and lesion models of behavioural function.

In the United States, the work of Norman Geschwind led to a renaissance of behavioural neurology. He is famous for his work on disconnection syndromes, aphasia, and behavioural syndromes of limbic epilepsy, also called Geschwind syndrome. Having trained generations of behavioural neurologists (e.g. Antonio Damasio), Geschwind is considered the father of behavioural neurology.

The advent of in vivo neuroimaging starting in the 1980s led to a further strengthening of interest in the cognitive neurosciences and provided a tool that allowed for lesion, structural, and functional correlations with behavioural dysfunction in living people.

What is the Biopsychiatry Controversy?

Introduction

The biopsychiatry controversy is a dispute over which viewpoint should predominate and form a basis of psychiatric theory and practice.

The debate is a criticism of a claimed strict biological view of psychiatric thinking. Its critics include disparate groups such as the antipsychiatry movement and some academics.

Overview of Opposition to Biopsychiatry

Biological psychiatry or biopsychiatry aims to investigate determinants of mental disorders devising remedial measures of a primarily somatic nature.

This has been criticised by Alvin Pam for being a “stilted, unidimensional, and mechanistic world-view”, so that subsequent “research in psychiatry has been geared toward discovering which aberrant genetic or neurophysiological factors underlie and cause social deviance”. According to Pam the “blame the body” approach, which typically offers medication for mental distress, shifts the focus from disturbed behaviour in the family to putative biochemical imbalances.

Research Issues

2003 Status in Biopsychiatric Research

Biopsychiatric research has produced reproducible abnormalities of brain structure and function, and a strong genetic component for a number of psychiatric disorders (although the latter has never been shown to be causative, merely correlative). It has also elucidated some of the mechanisms of action of medications that are effective in treating some of these disorders. Still, by their own admission, this research has not progressed to the stage that they can identify clear biomarkers of these disorders.

Research has shown that serious neurobiological disorders such as schizophrenia reveal reproducible abnormalities of brain structure (such as ventricular enlargement) and function. Compelling evidence exists that disorders including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism to name a few have a strong genetic component. Still, brain science has not advanced to the point where scientists or clinicians can point to readily discernible pathologic lesions or genetic abnormalities that in and of themselves serve as reliable or predictive biomarkers of a given mental disorder or mental disorders as a group. Ultimately, no gross anatomical lesion such as a tumour may ever be found; rather, mental disorders will likely be proven to represent disorders of intercellular communication; or of disrupted neural circuitry. Research already has elucidated some of the mechanisms of action of medications that are effective for depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, attention deficit, and cognitive disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease. These medications clearly exert influence on specific neurotransmitters, naturally occurring brain chemicals that effect, or regulate, communication between neurons in regions of the brain that control mood, complex reasoning, anxiety, and cognition. In 1970, The Nobel Prize was awarded to Julius Axelrod, Ph.D., of the National Institute of Mental Health, for his discovery of how anti-depressant medications regulate the availability of neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine in the synapses, or gaps, between nerve cells. (American Psychiatric Association, Statement on Diagnosis and Treatment of Mental Disorders, 26 September 2003).

Focus on Genetic Factors

Researchers have proposed that most common psychiatric and drug abuse disorders can be traced to a small number of dimensions of genetic risk and reports show significant associations between specific genomic regions and psychiatric disorders. Though, to date only a few genetic lesions have been demonstrated to be mechanistically responsible for psychiatric conditions. For example, one reported finding suggests that in persons diagnosed as schizophrenic as well as in their relatives with chronic psychiatric illnesses, the gene that encodes phosphodiesterase 4B (PDE4B) is disrupted by a balanced translocation.

The reasons for the relative lack of genetic understanding is because the links between genes and mental states defined as abnormal appear highly complex, involve extensive environmental influences and can be mediated in numerous different ways, for example by personality, temperament or life events. Therefore, while twin studies and other research suggests that personality is heritable to some extent, finding the genetic basis for particular personality or temperament traits, and their links to mental health problems, is “at least as hard as the search for genes involved in other complex disorders.” Theodore Lidz and The Gene Illusion argue that biopsychiatrists use genetic terminology in an unscientific way to reinforce their approach. Joseph maintains that biopsychiatrists disproportionately focus on understanding the genetics of those individuals with mental health problems at the expense of addressing the problems of the living in the environments of some extremely abusive families or societies.

Focus on Biochemical Factors

The chemical imbalance hypothesis states that a chemical imbalance within the brain is the main cause of psychiatric conditions and that these conditions can be improved with medication which corrects this imbalance. In that, emotions within a “normal” spectrum reflect a proper balance of neurotransmitter function, but abnormally extreme emotions which are severe enough to impact the daily functioning of patients (as seen in schizophrenia) reflect a profound imbalance. It is the goal of psychiatric intervention, therefore, to regain the homeostasis (via psychopharmacological approaches) that existed prior to the onset of disease.

This conceptual framework has been debated within the scientific community, although no other demonstrably superior hypothesis has emerged. Recently, the biopsychosocial approach to mental illness has been shown to be the most comprehensive and applicable theory in understanding psychiatric disorders. However, there is still much to be discovered in this area of inquiry. As a prime example – while great strides have been made in the field of understanding certain psychiatric disorders (such as schizophrenia) others (such as major depressive disorder) operate via multiple different neurotransmitters and interact in a complex array of systems which are (as yet) not completely understood.

Reductionism

Niall McLaren emphasizes in his books Humanizing Madness and Humanizing Psychiatry that the major problem with psychiatry is that it lacks a unified model of the mind and has become entrapped in a biological reductionist paradigm. The reasons for this biological shift are intuitive as reductionism has been very effective in other fields of science and medicine. However, despite reductionism’s efficacy in explaining the smallest parts of the brain this does not explain the mind, which is where he contends the majority of psychopathology stems from. An example would be that every aspect of a computer can be understood scientifically down to the last atom; however, this does not reveal the program that drives this hardware. He also argues that the widespread acceptance of the reductionist paradigm leads to a lack of openness to self-criticism and therefore halts the very engine of scientific progress. He has proposed his own natural dualist model of the mind, the biocognitive model, which is rooted in the theories of David Chalmers and Alan Turing and does not fall into the dualist’s trap of spiritualism.

Economic Influences on Psychiatric Practice

American Psychiatric Association president Steven S. Sharfstein, M.D. has stated that when the profit motive of pharmaceutical companies and human good are aligned, the results are mutually beneficial for all. In that, “Pharmaceutical companies have developed and brought to market medications that have transformed the lives of millions of psychiatric patients. The proven effectiveness of antidepressant, mood-stabilising, and antipsychotic medications has helped sensitize the public to the reality of mental illness and taught them that treatment works[citation needed]. In this way, Big Pharma has helped reduce stigma associated with psychiatric treatment and with psychiatrists.” However, Sharfstein acknowledged that the goals of individual physicians who deliver direct patient care can be different from the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. Conflicts arising from this disparity raise natural concerns in this regard including:

  • A “broken health care system” that allows “many patients [to be] prescribed the wrong drugs or drugs they don’t need”;
  • “medical education opportunities sponsored by pharmaceutical companies [that] are often biased toward one product or another”;
  • “[d]irect marketing to consumers [that] also leads to increased demand for medications and inflates expectations about the benefits of medications”;
  • “drug companies [paying] physicians to allow company reps to sit in on patient sessions to learn more about care for patients.”

Nevertheless, Sharfstein acknowledged that without pharmaceutical companies developing and producing modern medicines – virtually every medical specialty would have few (if any) treatments for the patients that they care for.

Pharmaceutical Industry Influences in Psychiatry

Studies have shown that promotional marketing by pharmaceutical and other companies has the potential to influence physician decision making. Pharmaceutical manufacturers (and other advocates) would argue that in today’s modern world – physicians simply do not have the time to continually update their knowledge base on the status of the latest research and that by providing educational materials for both physicians and patients, they are providing an educational perspective and that it is up to the individual physician to decide what treatment is best for their patients. The idea of pure promotion (e.g. lavish dinners) is a remnant of bygone era. It has been replaced by educationally-based activities that became the basis for the legal and industry reforms involving physician gifts, influence in graduate medical education, physician disclosure of conflicts of interest, and other promotional activities.

In an essay on the effect of advertisements for marketed anti-depressants there is some evidence that both patients and physicians can be influenced by media advertisements and this has the possibility of increasing the frequency of certain medicines being prescribed over others.

What is the Body Attitudes Questionnaire?

Introduction

The Ben-Tovim Walker Body Attitudes Questionnaire (BAQ) is a 44 item self-report questionnaire divided into six subscales that measures a woman’s attitude towards their own body.

The BAQ is used in the assessment of eating disorders. It was devised by D.I. Ben-Tovim and M.K. Walker in 1991.

Refer to the Body Attitudes Test.

Sub-Scales

The six subscales measured by the BAQ are:

  • Overall fatness.
  • Self disparagement.
  • Strength.
  • Salience of weight.
  • Feelings of attractiveness.
  • Consciousness of lower body fat.
  • Foreign-language versions.

Portuguese Version

The BAQ was the first body attitudes scale to be translated into Portuguese. The validity of the Portuguese language version was proven in a test conducted on a cohort of Brazilian women who speak Portuguese as their native language. The test-retest reliability was 0.57 and 0.85 after a one-month interval. The test was conducted by Scagliusi et al.

Japanese Version

The BAQ was translated into Japanese and tested on 68 males and 139 females in Japan and 68 Japanese males living in Australia (Kagawa et al.) The scores were assessed against 72 Australian men using the English-language version as well as scores from previous female Australian participants. There was a significant difference between the Japanese and Australian groups (p,0.05). The BAQ was deemed adequate for use in both Japanese males and females.

References

Ben-Tovim, D.I. & Walker, M.K. (1991) The development of the Ben-Tovim Walker Body Attitudes Questionnaire (BAQ), a new measure of women’s attitudes towards their own bodies. Psychological Medicine. 21(3), pp.775-784. doi:10.1017/S0033291700022406.

Kagawa, M., Uchida, H., Uenishi, K., Binns, C.W. & Hills, A.P. (2007) Applicability of the Ben-Tovim Walker Body Attitudes Questionnaire (BAQ) and the Attention to Body Shape scale (ABS) in Japanese males and females (PDF). Eating Behaviors. 8(3), pp.2772-284. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2006.11.002.

Scagliusi, F.B., Polacow, V.O., Cordas, T.A., Coelho, D., Alvarenga, M., Philippi, S.T. & Lancha Jr, A.H. (2005) Psychometric testing and applications of the Body Attitudes Questionnaire translated into Portuguese. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 101(1), pp.25-41. doi:10.2466/PMS.101.5.25-41.

What is the Body Attitudes Test?

Introduction

The Body Attitudes Test (BAT) was developed by Probst and colleagues in 1995.

Refer to Body Attitudes Questionnaire.

Background

It was designed for the assessment of eating disorders in women. The BAT measures an individual’s subjective body experience and attitudes towards one’s own body it differentiates between clinical and non-clinical subjects and between anorexics and bulimics. It is composed of twenty items which yield four factors:

  1. Negative appreciation of body size.
  2. Lack of familiarity with one’s own body.
  3. General body dissatisfaction.
  4. A rest factor.

Reference

Probst, M. Van Coppenolle, H. & Vandereycken, W. (1997) Further experience with the Body Attitude Test. Eating and Weight Disorders. 2(2), pp.100104. doi:10.1007/bf03339956.

On This Day … 22 June

People (Births)

  • 1871 – William McDougall, English psychologist and polymath (d. 1938).
  • 1891 – Franz Alexander, Hungarian psychoanalyst and physician (d. 1964).
  • 1919 – Henri Tajfel, Polish social psychologist (d. 1982).
  • 1940 – Joan Busfield, English sociologist, psychologist, and academic.
  • 1946 – Sheila Hollins, Baroness Hollins, English psychiatrist and academic.

People (Deaths)

  • 2008 – Natalia Bekhtereva, Russian neuroscientist and psychologist (b. 1924).

William McDougall

William McDougall FRS (22 June 1871 to 28 November 1938) was an early 20th century psychologist who spent the first part of his career in the United Kingdom and the latter part in the United States. He wrote a number of influential textbooks, and was important in the development of the theory of instinct and of social psychology in the English-speaking world.

McDougall was an opponent of behaviourism and stands somewhat outside the mainstream of the development of Anglo-American psychological thought in the first half of the 20th century; but his work was known and respected among lay people.

Psychical Research

McDougall was a strong advocate of the scientific method and academic professionalisation in psychical research. He was instrumental in establishing parapsychology as a university discipline in the US in the early 1930s. The traditional historiography of psychical research, dominated by the ‘winners’ of the race for ‘the science of the soul’, reveals fascinating epistemological incommensurabilities and a complex set of interplays between scientific and metaphysical presuppositions in the making and keeping alive of the scientific status of psychology. Thus, revised histories of psychical research and its relationship to psychology with a critical thrust not limited to that which has been viewed with suspicion anyway, offer both a challenge and a promise to historians, the discussion of which the present article hopes to stimulate (Sommer, 2012). In 1920, McDougall served as president of the Society for Psychical Research, and in the subsequent year of its US counterpart, the American Society for Psychical Research.

McDougall worked to enlist a number of scientific, religious, ethical, political and philosophical issues and causes into a wide “actor-network” which finally pushed through the institutionalization and professionalisation of parapsychology. He was also a member of the Scientific American committee that investigated the medium Mina Crandon. He attended séances with the medium and was sceptical about her “ectoplasmic hand”. He suspected that it was part of an animal, artificially manipulated to resemble a hand. McDougall’s suspicion was confirmed by independent experts who had examined photographs of the hand.

McDougall was critical of spiritualism, he believed that some of its proponents such as Arthur Conan Doyle misunderstood psychical research and “devote themselves to propaganda”. In 1926, McDougall concluded “I have taken part in a considerable number of investigations of alleged supernormal phenomena; but hitherto have failed to find convincing evidence in any case, but have found rather much evidence of fraud and trickery.”

McDougall, however, continued to encourage scientific research on psychic phenomena and in 1937 was a founding co-editor (with Joseph Banks Rhine) of the peer-reviewed Journal of Parapsychology, which continues to be published. Because he was the first to formulate a theory of human instinctual behaviour, he influenced the development of the new field of social psychology.

Franz Alexander

Franz Gabriel Alexander (22 January 1891 to 0 8 March 1964) was a Hungarian-American psychoanalyst and physician, who is considered one of the founders of psychosomatic medicine and psychoanalytic criminology.

Life

Franz Gabriel Alexander, in Hungarian Alexander Ferenc Gábor, was born into a Jewish family in Budapest in 1891, his father was Bernhard Alexander, a philosopher and literary critic, his nephew was Alfréd Rényi, a Hungarian mathematician who made contributions in combinatorics, graph theory, number theory but mostly in probability theory. Alexander studied in Berlin; there he was part of an influential group of German analysts mentored by Karl Abraham, including Karen Horney and Helene Deutsch, and gathered around the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute. ‘In the early 1920s, Oliver Freud was in analysis with Franz Alexander’ there — Sigmund Freud’s son — while ‘Charles Odier, one of the first among French psychoanalysts, was analysed in Berlin by Franz Alexander’ as well.

In 1930 he was invited by Robert Hutchins, then President of the University of Chicago, to become its Visiting Professor of Psychoanalysis. Alexander worked there at the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis, where Paul Rosenfels was one of his students. End 1950s he was among the first members of the Society for General Systems Research.

Franz Alexander died in Palm Springs, California in 1964.

Early Writings (1923-1943)

Alexander was a prolific writer. Between ‘The Castration Complex in the Formation of Character [1923] … [&] Fundamental Concepts of Psychosomatic Research [1943]’ he published nearly twenty other articles, contributing on a wide variety of subjects to the work of the “second psychoanalytic generation”.

‘Alexander in his “vector analysis”… measured the relative participation of the three basic directions in which an organism’s tendencies towards the external world may be effective: reception, elimination, and retention’. In this he may have been a forerunner to Erik H. Erikson’s later exploration of ‘Zones, Modes, and Modalities’.

He also explored the ‘morality demanded by the archaic superego … an automatized pseudo morality, characterized by Alexander as the corruptibility of the superego’.

Notable too was his exploration of acting out in real life, ‘in which the patient’s entire life consists of actions not adapted to reality but rather aimed at relieving unconscious tensions. It was this type of neurosis that was first described by Alexander under the name of neurotic character’.

Psychosomatic Work and Short-Term Psychotherapy

Franz Alexander led the movement looking for the dynamic interrelation between mind and body. Sigmund Freud pursued a deep interest in psychosomatic illnesses following his correspondence with Georg Groddeck who was, at the time, researching the possibility of treating physical disorders through psychological processes.

Together with Freud and Sándor Ferenczi, Alexander developed the concept of autoplastic adaptation. They proposed that when an individual was presented with a stressful situation, he could react in one of two ways:

  • Autoplastic adaptation: The subject tries to change himself, i.e. the internal environment.
  • Alloplastic adaptation: The subject tries to change the situation, i.e. the external environment.

From the 1930s through the 1950s, numerous analysts were engaged with the question of how to shorten the course of therapy but still achieve therapeutic effectiveness. These included Alexander, Ferenczi, and Wilhelm Reich. Alexander found that the patients who tended to benefit the most greatly from therapy were those who could rapidly engage, could describe a specific therapeutic focus, and could quickly move to an experience of their previously warded-off feelings. These also happened to represent those patients who were the healthiest to begin with and therefore had the least need for the therapy being offered. Clinical research revealed that these patients were able to benefit because they were the least resistant. They were the least resistant because they were the least traumatised and therefore had the smallest burden of repressed emotion. However, among the patients coming to the clinic for various problems, the rapid responders represented only a small minority. What could be offered to those who represented the vast bulk of patients coming for treatment? See further Intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy.

Henri Tajfel

Henri Tajfel (born Hersz Mordche; 22 June 1919 to 03 May 1982) was a Polish social psychologist, best known for his pioneering work on the cognitive aspects of prejudice and social identity theory, as well as being one of the founders of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology.

Early Research

Tajfel’s early research at University of Durham and University of Oxford involved examining the processes of social judgement. He believed that the cognitive processes of categorisation contributed strongly to the psychological dimensions of prejudice, which went against the prevailing views of the time. Many psychologists assumed that extreme prejudice was the result of personality factors, such as authoritarianism. According to this perspective, only those with personalities that predisposed them to prejudice were likely to become bigots. Tajfel believed this was mistaken. He had seen how large numbers of Germans – not just those with particular personalities – had given their support to Nazism and had held extreme views about Jews. Nazism would not have been successful without the support of “ordinary” Germans. Tajfel sought to discover whether the roots of prejudice might be found in “ordinary” processes of thinking, rather than in “extraordinary” personality types.

He conducted a series of experiments, investigating the role of categorization. One of his most notable experiments looked at the way that people judged the length of lines. He found that the imposition of a category directly affected judgements. If the lines, which were presented individually, were shown without any category label, then errors of judgement tended to be random. If the longest lines were each labelled A, and the shortest were labelled B, then the errors followed a pattern. Perceivers would tend to judge the lines of each category (whether A or B) as being more similar to each other than they were; and perceivers would judge the differences between categories as greater than they were (i.e., the differences between the longest B line and the shortest ‘A’ line). These findings have continued to influence subsequent work on categorisation and have been replicated subsequently.

Tajfel viewed these investigations into social judgement as being directly related to the issue of prejudice. Imposing category distinctions on lines (A and B) was like dividing the social world into different groups of people (e.g., French, Germans, British). The results of his experiments showed how cognitively deep-seated it was for perceivers to assume that all members of a certain nationality-based category (for instance, all the French or all the British) were more similar to each other than they actually were, and to assume that the members of different categories differed more than they did (for instance, to exaggerate the differences between the French and the British). In this respect, the judging of lines was similar to making stereotyped judgements about social groups. Tajfel also argued that if the categories were of value to the perceiver, then these processes of exaggeration were likely to be enhanced.

The implications of this position were profound. It meant that some of the basic psychological roots of prejudice lay not in particular personality types, but in general, “ordinary” processes of thinking, especially processes of categorising. Tajfel outlined these ideas in his article, “Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice”, which was first published in 1969 and has been republished subsequently. For this article, Tajfel was awarded the first annual Gordon Allport Intergroup Relations Prize by the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.

Intergroup Relations

Having moved to Bristol University, Tajfel began his work on intergroup relations and conducted the renowned minimal groups experiments. In these studies, test subjects were divided arbitrarily into two groups, based on a trivial and almost completely irrelevant basis. Participants did not know other members of the group, did not even know who they were, and had no reason to expect that they would interact with them in the future. Still, members of both groups allocated resources in such a way that showed favouritism for members of their own group in a way that maximized their own group’s outcomes in comparison to the alternate group, even at the expense of maximum gains for their own group. Even “on the basis of a coin toss…simple categorization into groups seems to be sufficient reason for people to dispense valued rewards in ways that favor in-group members over those who are ‘different'”.

Social Identity Theory

Subsequently, Tajfel and his student John Turner developed the theory of social identity. They proposed that people have an inbuilt tendency to categorise themselves into one or more “ingroups”, building a part of their identity on the basis of membership of that group and enforcing boundaries with other groups.

Social identity theory suggests that people identify with groups in such a way as to maximise positive distinctiveness. Groups offer both identity (they tell us who we are) and self-esteem (they make us feel good about ourselves). The theory of social identity has had a very substantial impact on many areas of social psychology, including group dynamics, intergroup relations, prejudice and stereotyping, and organizational psychology.

Tajfel’s Influence

Henri Tajfel’s influence on social psychology, especially in Britain and Europe, continues to be significant. His influence has reached beyond his particular views on social identity and social judgement, as he had a wide vision of creating a social psychology that was genuinely social and was engaged with broader issues. Too much social psychology was, in his view, trivial and based on what he called “experiments in a vacuum”. Tajfel thought that social psychologists should seek to address serious social problems by examining how psychological dimensions interact with historical, ideological, and cultural factors.

The influence of his general vision can be seen in the book Social Groups and Identities. This book was a posthumous tribute to Tajfel, containing chapters written by many of his former students. Some of his students went on to develop his theories of social identity and some continued his early work on social judgement. There were also chapters from former students who developed very different sorts of social psychology. However, both those who continued Tajfel’s work directly and those who moved in other directions were united in paying tribute to the force of Tajfel’s vision for a broad-based, politically important social psychology.

Joan Busfield

Joan Busfield (born 22 June 1940), is a British sociologist and psychologist, Professor of Sociology at the University of Essex and former President of the British Sociological Association (2003-2005). Her research focuses on psychiatry and mental disorder.

She originally trained as a clinical psychologist at the Tavistock Clinic, and holds an MA from St Andrews, and an MA and a PhD from Essex.

Sheila Hollins

Sheila Clare Hollins, Baroness Hollins, (born 22 June 1946) is a professor of the psychiatry of learning disability at St George’s, University of London, and was created a crossbench life peer in the House of Lords on 15 November 2010 taking the title Baroness Hollins, of Wimbledon in the London Borough of Merton and of Grenoside in the County of South Yorkshire.

She was President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists from 2005 to 2008, succeeded by Dinesh Bhugra. From 2012 to 2013 she was president of the British Medical Association (BMA) and was formerly chair of the BMA Board of Science. In 2014 Pope Francis appointed her a member of the newly created Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. The Baroness is also a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Centre for Child Protection and is President of the Royal Medical Benevolent Fund.

Natalia Bekhtereva

Natalia Petrovna Bekhtereva (07 July 1924 to 22 June 2008) was a Soviet and Russian neuroscientist and psychologist who developed neurophysiological approaches to psychology, such as measuring the impulse activity of human neurons. She was a participant in the documentary films The Call of the Abyss (Russian: Зов бездны) and Storm of Consciousness (Russian: Штурм сознания), which aroused wide public interest. Candidate of Biological Sciences, Doctor of Medicine, Full Professor.

She is Vladimir Bekhterev’s granddaughter. She was brought up with her brother in an orphanage. She graduated from the First Pavlov State Medical University of St. Petersburg (1941-1947) and graduate school of the Pavlov Institute of Physiology. In the summer of 1941, more than 700 students entered the University; by the end of the training, only 4 graduates survived. The rest perished from war and hunger. She survived the Siege of Leningrad.

She worked as a junior research fellow at the Institute of Experimental Medicine, USSR Academy of Medical Sciences (1950-1954). After working her way up from a senior research fellow to the head of the laboratory and Deputy Director, she worked at the Research Neurosurgical Institute named after Professor Andrey L. Polenov of the USSR Ministry of Health (1954-1962). In 1959 she became a Doctor of Medicine. Since 1962 – at the Institute of Institute of Experimental Medicine, USSR Academy of Medical Sciences (the head of the Department of human neurophysiology; the Deputy Director for Research; from 1970 to 1990 – the Director).

In 1975, she became an academician of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences (subsequently Russian Academy of Medical Sciences). In 1981, she became an academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union. Starting in 1990, she was the scientific director of the Centre “Brain” of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union. In 1992 she became the head of the scientific group of the neurophysiology of thinking, creativity and consciousness of the Institute for Human Brain of the RAS.

She was Vice President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (1974-1980) and Vice President of the International Organization for Psychophysiology (1982-1994).

She worked as editor-in-chief of the academic journals Human Physiology (1975-1987) and International Journal of Psychophysiology (1984-1994).

Deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union of the 8th convocation (1970-1974) and People’s Deputy of the Soviet Union (1989-1991).

What is Clinical Neuroscience?

Introduction

Clinical neuroscience is a branch of neuroscience that focuses on the scientific study of fundamental mechanisms that underlie diseases and disorders of the brain and central nervous system.

It seeks to develop new ways of conceptualising and diagnosing such disorders and ultimately of developing novel treatments.

A clinical neuroscientist is a scientist who has specialised knowledge in the field. Not all clinicians are clinical neuroscientists. Clinicians and scientists – including psychiatrists, neurologists, clinical psychologists, neuroscientists, and other specialists – use basic research findings from neuroscience in general and clinical neuroscience in particular to develop diagnostic methods and ways to prevent and treat neurobiological disorders. Such disorders include addiction, Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, anxiety disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, bipolar disorder, brain tumours, depression, Down syndrome, dyslexia, epilepsy, Huntington’s disease, multiple sclerosis, neurological AIDS, neurological trauma, pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, sleep disorders, stroke and Tourette syndrome.

While neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry are the main medical specialties that use neuroscientific information, other specialties such as cognitive neuroscience, neuroradiology, neuropathology, ophthalmology, otorhinolaryngology, anaesthesiology and rehabilitation medicine can contribute to the discipline. Integration of the neuroscience perspective alongside other traditions like psychotherapy, social psychiatry or social psychology will become increasingly important.

One Mind for Research

The “One Mind for Research” forum was a convention held in Boston, Massachusetts on 23 to 25 May 2011 that produced the blueprint document A Ten-Year Plan for Neuroscience: From Molecules to Brain Health. Leading neuroscience researchers and practitioners in the United States contributed to the creation of this document, in which 17 key areas of opportunities are listed under the Clinical Neuroscience section. These include the following:

  • Rethinking curricula to break down intellectual silos.
  • Training translational neuroscientists and clinical investigators.
  • Investigating biomarkers.
  • Improving psychiatric diagnosis.
  • Developing a “Framingham Study of Brain Disorders” (i.e. longitudinal cohort for central nervous system disease).
  • Identifying developmental risk factors and producing effective interventions.
  • Discovering new treatments for pain, including neuropathic pain.
  • Treating disorders of neural signalling and pathological synchrony.
  • Treating disorders of immunity or inflammation.
  • Treating metabolic and mitochondrial disorders.
  • Developing new treatments for depression.
  • Treating addictive disorders.
  • Improving treatment of schizophrenia.
  • Preventing and treating cerebrovascular disease.
  • Achieving personalized medicine.
  • Understanding shared mechanisms of neurodegeneration.
  • Advancing anaesthesia.

In particular, it advocates for better integrated and scientifically driven curricula for practitioners, and it recommends that such curricula be shared among neurologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, neurosurgeons and neuroradiologists.

Given the various ethical, legal and societal implications for healthcare practitioners arising from advances in neuroscience, the University of Pennsylvania inaugurated the Penn Conference on Clinical Neuroscience and Society in July 2011.

What is Clinical Neuropsychology?

Introduction

Clinical neuropsychology is a sub-field of psychology concerned with the applied science of brain-behaviour relationships.

Clinical neuropsychologists use this knowledge in the assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and or rehabilitation of patients across the lifespan with neurological, medical, neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, as well as other cognitive and learning disorders. The branch of neuropsychology associated with children and young people is paediatric neuropsychology.

Clinical neuropsychology is a specialised form of clinical psychology. Strict rules are in place to maintain evidence as a focal point of treatment and research within clinical neuropsychology. The assessment and rehabilitation of neuropsychopathologies is the focus for a clinical neuropsychologist. A clinical neuropsychologist must be able to determine whether a symptom(s) may be caused by an injury to the head through interviewing a patient in order to determine what actions should be taken to best help the patient. Another duty of a clinical neuropsychologist is to find cerebral abnormalities and possible correlations. Evidence based practice in both research and treatment is paramount to appropriate clinical neuropsychological practice.

Assessment is primarily by way of neuropsychological tests, but also includes patient history, qualitative observation and may draw on findings from neuroimaging and other diagnostic medical procedures. Clinical neuropsychology requires an in-depth knowledge of: neuroanatomy, neurobiology, psychopharmacology and neuropathology.

Brief History

During the late 1800s, brain-behaviour relationships were interpreted by European physicians who observed and identified behavioural syndromes that were related with focal brain dysfunction.

Clinical neuropsychology is a fairly new practice in comparison to other specialty fields in psychology with history going back to the 1960s. The specialty focus of clinical neuropsychology evolved slowly into a more defined whole as interest grew. Threads from neurology, clinical psychology, psychiatry, cognitive psychology, and psychometrics all have been woven together to create the intricate tapestry of clinical neuropsychology, a practice which is very much so still evolving. The history of clinical neuropsychology is long and complicated due to its ties to so many older practices. Researchers like Thomas Willis (1621-1675) who has been credited with creating neurology, John Hughlings Jackson (1835-1911) who theorised that cognitive processes occurred in specific parts of the brain, Paul Broca (1824-1880) and Karl Wernicke (1848-1905) who studied the human brain in relation to psychopathology, Jean Martin Charcot (1825-1893) who apprenticed Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) who created the psychoanalytic theory all contributed to clinical medicine which later contributed to clinical neuropsychology. The field of psychometrics contributed to clinical neuropsychology through individuals such as Francis Galton (1822-1911) who collected quantitative data on physical and sensory characteristics, Karl Pearson (1857-1936) who established the statistics which psychology now relies on, Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) who created the first psychology lab, his student Charles Spearman (1863-1945) who furthered statistics through discoveries like factor analysis, Alfred Binet (1857-1911) and his apprentice Theodore Simon (1872-1961) who together made the Binet-Simon scale of intellectual development, and Jean Piaget (1896-1980) who studied child development. Studies in intelligence testing made by Lewis Terman (1877-1956) who updated the Binet-Simon scale to the Stanford-Binet intelligence scale, Henry Goddard (1866-1957) who developed different classification scales, and Robert Yerkes (1876-1956) who was in charge of the Army Alpha and Beta tests also all contributed to where clinical neuropsychology is today.

Clinical neuropsychology focuses on the brain and goes back to the beginning of the 20th century. As a clinician a clinical neuropsychologist offers their services by addressing three steps: assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. The term clinical neuropsychologist was first made by Sir William Osler on 16 April 1913. While clinical neuropsychology was not a focus until the 20th century evidence of brain and behaviour treatment and studies are seen as far back as the neolithic area when trephination, a crude surgery in which a piece of the skull is removed, has been observed in skulls. As a profession, clinical neuropsychology is a subspecialty beneath clinical psychology. During World War I (1914-1918) the early term shell shock was first observed in soldiers who survived the war. This was the beginning of efforts to understand traumatic events and how they affected people. During the Great Depression (1929-1941) further stressors caused shell shock like symptoms to emerge. In World War II (1939-1945) the term shell shock was changed to battle fatigue and clinical neuropsychology became even more involved with attempting to solve the puzzle of peoples’ continued signs of trauma and distress. The Veterans Administration or VA was created in 1930 which increased the call for clinical neuropsychologists and by extension the need for training. The Korean War (1950-1953) and Vietnam War (1960-1973) further solidified the need for treatment by trained clinical neuropsychologists. In 1985 the term post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD was coined and the understanding that traumatic events of all kinds could cause PTSD started to evolve.

The relationship between human behaviour and the brain is the focus of clinical neuropsychology as defined by Meir in 1974. There are two subdivisions of clinical neuropsychology which draw much focus; organic and environmental natures. Ralph M. Reitan, Arthur L. Benton, and A.R. Luria are all past neuropsychologists whom believed and studied the organic nature of clinical neuropsychology. Alexander Luria is the Russian neuropsychologist responsible for the origination of clinical psychoneurological assessment after WWII. Building upon his original contribution connecting the voluntary and involuntary functions influencing behaviour, Luria further conjoins the methodical structures and associations of neurological processes in the brain. Luria developed the ‘combined motor method’ to measure thought processes based on the reaction times when three simultaneous tasks are appointed that require a verbal response. On the other side, environmental nature of clinical neuropsychology did not appear until more recently and is characterised by treatments such as behaviour therapy. The relationship between physical brain abnormalities and the presentation of psychopathology is not completely understood, but this is one of the questions which clinical neuropsychologists hope to answer in time. In 1861 the debate over human potentiality versus localisation began. The two sides argued over how human behaviour presented in the brain. Paul Broca postulated that cognitive problems could be caused by physical damage to specific parts of the brain based on a case study of his in which he found a lesion on the brain of a deceased patient who had presented the symptom of being unable to speak, that portion of the brain is now known as Broca’s Area. In 1874 Carl Wernicke also made a similar observation in a case study involving a patient with a brain lesion whom was unable to comprehend speech, the part of the brain with the lesion is now deemed Wernicke’s Area. Both Broca and Wernicke believed and studied the theory of localisation. On the other hand, equal potentiality theorists believed that brain function was not based on a single piece of the brain but rather on the brain as a whole. Marie J.P Flourens conducted animal studies in which he found that the amount of brain tissue damaged directly affected the amount that behaviour ability was altered or damaged. Kurt Goldstein observed the same idea as Flourens except in veterans who had fought in World War I. In the end, despite all of the disagreement, neither theory completely explains the human brains complexity. Thomas Hughlings Jackson created a theory which was thought to be a possible solution. Jackson believed that both potentiality and localisation were in part correct and that behaviour was made by multiple parts of the brain working collectively to cause behaviours, and Luria (1966-1973) furthered Jackson’s theory.

The Role

When considering where a clinical neuropsychologist works, hospitals are a common place for practitioners to end up. There are three main variations in which a clinical neuropsychologist may work at a hospital; as an employee, consultant, or independent practitioner. As a clinical neuropsychologist working as an employee of a hospital the individual may receive a salary, benefits, and sign a contract for employment. In the case of an employee of a hospital the hospital is in charge of legal and financial responsibilities. The second option of working as a consultant implies that the clinical neuropsychologist is part of a private practice or is a member of a physicians group. In this scenario, the clinical neuropsychologist may work in the hospital like the employee of the hospital but all financial and legal responsibilities go through the group which the clinical neuropsychologist is a part of. The third option is an independent practitioner whom works alone and may even have their office outside of the hospital or rent a room in the hospital. In the third case, the clinical neuropsychologist is completely on their own and in charge of their own financial and legal responsibilities.

Assessment

Assessments are used in clinical neuropsychology to find brain psychopathologies of the cognitive, behavioural, and emotional variety. Physical evidence is not always readily visible so clinical neuropsychologists must rely on assessments to tell them the extent of the damage. The cognitive strengths and weaknesses of the patient are assessed to help narrow down the possible causes of the brain pathology. A clinical neuropsychologist is expected to help educate the patient on what is happening to them so that the patient can understand how to work with their own cognitive deficits and strengths. An assessment should accomplish many goals such as; gage consequences of impairments to quality of life, compile symptoms and the change in symptoms over time, and assess cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Accumulation of the knowledge earned from the assessment is then dedicated to developing a treatment plan based on the patient’s individual needs. An assessment can also help the clinical neuropsychologist gauge the impact of medications and neurosurgery on a patient. Behavioural neurology and neuropsychology tools can be standardised or psychometric tests and observational data collected on the patient to help build an understanding of the patient and what is happening with them. There are essential prerequisites which must be present in a patient in order for the assessment to be effective; concentration, comprehension, and motivation and effort.

Lezak lists six primary reasons neuropsychological assessments are carried out: diagnosis, patient care and its planning, treatment planning, treatment evaluation, research and forensic neuropsychology. To conduct a comprehensive assessment will typically take several hours and may need to be conducted over more than a single visit. Even the use of a screening battery covering several cognitive domains may take 1.5-2 hours. At the commencement of the assessment it is important to establish a good rapport with the patient and ensure they understand the nature and aims of the assessment.

Neuropsychological assessment can be carried out from two basic perspectives, depending on the purpose of assessment. These methods are normative or individual. Normative assessment, involves the comparison of the patient’s performance against a representative population. This method may be appropriate in investigation of an adult onset brain insult such as traumatic brain injury or stroke. Individual assessment may involve serial assessment, to establish whether declines beyond those which are expected to occur with normal aging, as with dementia or another neurodegenerative condition.

Assessment can be further subdivided into sub-sections:

History Taking

Neuropsychological assessments usually commence with a clinical interview as a means of collecting a history, which is relevant to the interpretation of any later neuropsychological tests. In addition, this interview provides qualitative information about the patient’s ability to act in a socially apt manner, organise and communicate information effectively and provide an indication as to the patient’s mood, insight and motivation. It is only within the context of a patient’s history that an accurate interpretation of their test data and thus a diagnosis can be made. The clinical interview should take place in a quiet area free from distractions. Important elements of a history include demographic information, description of presenting problem, medical history (including any childhood or developmental problems, psychiatric and psychological history), educational and occupational history (and if any legal history and military history).

Selection of Neuropsychological Tests

It is not uncommon for patients to be anxious about being tested; explaining that tests are designed so that they will challenge everyone and that no one is expected to answer all questions correctly may be helpful. An important consideration of any neuropsychological assessment is a basic coverage of all major cognitive functions. The most efficient way to achieve this is the administration of a battery of tests covering: attention, visual perception and reasoning, learning and memory, verbal function, construction, concept formation, executive function, motor abilities and emotional status. Beyond this basic battery, choices of neuropsychological tests to be administered are mainly made on the basis of which cognitive functions need to be evaluated in order to fulfil the assessment objectives.

Report Writing

Following a neuropsychological assessment it is important to complete a comprehensive report based on the assessment conducted. The report is for other clinicians, as well as the patient and their family so it is important to avoid jargon or the use of language which has different clinical and lay meanings (e.g. intellectually disabled as the correct clinical term for an IQ below 70, but offensive in lay language). The report should cover background to the referral, relevant history, reasons for assessment, neuropsychologists observations of patient’s behaviour, test administered and results for cognitive domains tested, any additional findings (e.g. questionnaires for mood) and finish the report with a summary and recommendations. In the summary it is important to comment on what the profile of results indicates regarding the referral question. The recommendations section contains practical information to assist the patient and family, or improve the management of the patient’s condition.

Educational Requirements of Different Countries

The educational requirements for becoming a clinical neuropsychologist differ between countries. In some countries it may be necessary to complete a clinical psychology degree, before specialising with further studies in clinical neuropsychology. While some countries offer clinical neuropsychology courses to students who have completed 4 years of psychology studies. All clinical neuropsychologists require a postgraduate qualification, whether it be a Masters or Doctorate (Ph.D, Psy.D. or D.Psych).

Australia

To become a clinical neuropsychologist in Australia requires the completion of a 3-year Australian Psychology Accreditation Council (APAC) approved undergraduate degree in psychology, a 1-year psychology honours, followed by a 2-year Masters or 3-year Doctorate of Psychology (D.Psych) in clinical neuropsychology. These courses involve coursework (lectures, tutorials, practicals etc.), supervised practice placements and the completion of a research thesis. Masters and D.Psych courses involve the same amount of coursework units, but differ in the amount of supervised placements undertaken and length of research thesis. Masters courses require a minimum of 1,000 hours (125 days) and D.Psych courses require a minimum of 1,500 hours (200 days), it is mandatory that these placements expose students to acute neurology/neurosurgery, rehabilitation, psychiatric, geriatric and paediatric populations.

Canada

To become a clinical neuropsychologist in Canada requires the completion of a 4-year honours degree in psychology and a 4-year doctoral degree in clinical neuropsychology. Often a 2-year master’s degree is required before commencing the doctoral degree. The doctoral degree involves coursework and practical experience (practicum and internship). Practicum is between 600 and 1,000 hours of practical application of skills acquired in the programme. At least 300 hours must be supervised, face-to-face client contact. The practicum is intended to prepare students for the internship/residency. Internships/residencies are a year long experience in which the student functions as a neuropsychologist, under supervision. Currently, there are 3 CPA-accredited Clinical Neuropsychology internships/residencies in Canada, although other unaccredited ones exist. Prior to commencing the internship students must have completed all doctoral coursework, received approval for their thesis proposal (if not completed the thesis) and the 600 hours of practicum.

United Kingdom

To become a clinical neuropsychologist in the UK, requires prior qualification as a clinical or educational psychologist as recognised by the Health Professions Council, followed by further postgraduate study in clinical neuropsychology. In its entirety, education to become a clinical neuropsychologist in the UK consists of the completion of a 3-year British Psychological Society accredited undergraduate degree in psychology, 3-year Doctorate in clinical (usually D.Clin.Psy.) or educational psychology (D.Ed.Psy.), followed by a 1-year Masters (MSc) or 9-month Postgraduate Diploma (PgDip) in Clinical Neuropsychology. The British Psychological Division of Counselling Psychology are also currently offering training to its members in order to ensure that they can apply to be registered Neuropsychologists also.

United States

In order to become a clinical neuropsychologist in the US and be compliant with Houston Conference Guidelines, the completion of a 4-year undergraduate degree in psychology and a 4 to 5-year doctoral degree (Psy.D. or Ph.D.) must be completed. After the completion of the doctoral coursework, training and dissertation, students must complete a 1-year internship, followed by an additional 2 years of supervised residency. The doctoral degree, internship and residency must all be undertaken at American Psychological Association approved institutions. After the completion of all training, students must apply to become licensed in their state to practice psychology. The American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, The American Board of Professional Neuropsychology, and The American Board of Paediatric Neuropsychology all award board certification to neuropsychologists that demonstrate competency in specific areas of neuropsychology, by reviewing the neuropsychologist’s training, experience, submitted case samples, and successfully completing both written and oral examinations. Although these requirements are standard according to Houston Conference Guidelines, even these guidelines have stated that the completion of all of these requirements is still aspirational, and other ways of achieving clinical neuropsychologist status are possible.

What is the Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood?

Introduction

The Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood (DC) is a developmentally based diagnostic manual that provides clinical criteria for categorising mental health and developmental disorders in infants and toddlers.

It is organised into a five-part axis system. The book has been translated into several languages and its model is widely adopted for the assessment of children of up to five years in age.

The DC 0-3R is meant to complement, but not replace, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) of the World Health Organisation (WHO). It is intended to enhance the understanding of young children by making it possible to assess, diagnose, and treat mental health problems in infants and toddlers by allowing for the identification of disorders not addressed in other classification systems.

The DC is organised around three primary principles:

  1. That children’s psychological functioning unfolds in the context of relationships;
  2. That individual differences in temperament and constitutional strengths and vulnerabilities play a major role in how children experience and process events; and
  3. That the family’s cultural context is important for the understanding of the child’s developmental course.

Brief History

Originally published in 1994, ZERO TO THREE’s Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood (DC:03) was the first developmentally based system for diagnosing mental health and developmental disorders of infants and toddlers (i.e. 0 to 3).

The revised DC:03, published in 2005 (DC:03R) drew on empirical research and clinical practice that had occurred worldwide since the 1994 publication and extended the depth and criteria of the original DC:03.

DC:05 captures new findings relevant to diagnosis in young children and addresses unresolved issues in the field since DC:03R was published in 2005.

DC:05 is designed to help mental health and other professionals: recognize mental health and developmental challenges in infants and young children, through 5 years old; understand that relationships and psychosocial stressors contribute to mental health and developmental disorders and incorporate contextual factors into the diagnostic process; use diagnostic criteria effectively for classification, case formulation, and intervention; and facilitate research on mental health disorders in infants and young children. DC:05 enhances the professional’s ability to prevent, diagnose, and treat mental health problems in the earliest years by identifying and describing disorders not addressed in other classification systems and by pointing the way to effective intervention approaches. Individuals across disciplines, mental health clinicians, counsellors, physicians, nurses, early interventionists, social workers, and researchers will find DC:05 to be an essential guide to evaluation and treatment planning with infants, young children, and their families in a wide range of settings.

The Diagnostic Process

The diagnostic process is one that is ongoing and done over a period of time. The process includes gathering a series of information regarding the child’s behaviour and presenting problems. The information is collected by a clinician and pertains to the child’s adaptation and development across different occasions and contexts.

According to the DC, the diagnostic process consists of two aspects:

  1. The classification of disorders; and
  2. The assessment of individuals.

One of the primary reasons for the classification of disorders is to facilitate communication between professionals. Once a diagnosis has been made, a clinician can then make associations between their clients’ symptoms and previously existing knowledge regarding the disorders’ aetiology, pathogenesis, treatment, and prognosis. Furthermore, using the classification of disorders can facilitate the process of finding existing services and mental health systems that are appropriate for the particular needs of the affected child. The assessment of children thus becomes a pivotal process that is undertaken by clinicians in order to grant access to treatment and intervention services related to specified disorders.

Clinical assessment and diagnosis involves making observations and gathering information from multiple sources relating to the child’s life in conjunction with a general diagnostic scheme. Both the DSM and ICD classification systems have evolved to use a multiaxial scheme, thus, clinicians have been using them not only for the classification of disorder but also as a guide for assessment and diagnosis. The first three axes of the DSM and ICD relate to the classification of disorder, and the fourth and fifth relate to the assessment of the individual within their personal environment. Similarly, the DC also follows a multiaxial scheme.

Classification

The DC 0-3R provides a provisional diagnosis system, focusing on multi-axial classification. The system is a provisional system because it recognises the fluidity and change that may occur with more knowledge in the field. This classification system is not entirely synonymous with the DSM-IV and the ICD-10, because it concentrates on developmental issues. There is also an emphasis placed on dynamic processes, relationships, and adaptive patterns within a developmental framework. The use of this classification system imparts knowledge about the diagnostic profile of a child, and the various contextual factors that may contribute to difficulties.

The DC functions as a reference for the earlier manifestations of problems in infants and children, which can be connected to later problems in functioning. Secondly, the categorisation focuses on types of difficulties in young children that are not addressed in other classification models.

The diagnostic categories vary in description, with more familiar categories described less. Categories that are more specific to young childhood and infancy, and newly based on clinical approaches are described in more detail. Furthermore, some categories may have subtypes to promote research, clinical awareness, and intervention planning, whereas others do not. This is important information to keep in mind when reading the DC.

The Multi-Axial System

Axis I: Clinical Disorders

Axis 1 of the DC provides diagnostic classifications for the most primary symptoms of the presenting difficulties. These diagnoses focus on the infant or child’s functioning. The primary diagnoses include:

  1. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder:
    • This refers to children who may be experiencing or have experienced a single traumatic event (e.g. an earthquake), a series of traumatic events (e.g. air raids), or chronic stress (e.g. abuse).
    • Furthermore, the nature of the trauma and its effect on the child must be understood in the context of the child. Specifically, attention must be paid to factors such as social context, personality factors, and the caregivers’ ability to assist with coping.
  2. Disorders of Affect:
    • This classification of disorders is related to the infant or child’s affective and behavioural experiences.
    • This group of disorders includes mood disorders and deprivation/maltreatment disorder.
    • This classification focuses on the infant or child’s functioning in its entirety rather than a specific event or situation (refer to Affective spectrum).
  3. Adjustment Disorder:
    • When considering a diagnosis of adjustment disorder, one has to examine the situational factors to determine if it is a mild disruption in the child’s usual functioning (e.g. switching schools).
    • These difficulties must also not meet the criteria for other disorders included in the categories.
  4. Regulation Disorders of Sensory Processing:
    1. The child manifests difficulties in regulating behavioural, motor, attention, physiological, sensory, and affective processes.
    2. These difficulties can affect the child’s daily functioning and relationships (refer to Sensory processing disorder).
  5. Sleep Behaviour Disorder:
    • To diagnose a sleep disorder, the child should be showing a sleep disturbance and not be demonstrating sensory reactive or processing difficulties.
    • This diagnosis should not be used when sleep problems are related to issues of anxiety or traumatic events.
  6. Eating Behaviour Disorder:
    • This diagnosis may become evident in infancy and young childhood as the child may show difficulties in regular eating patterns.
    • The child may not be regulating feeding with physiological reactions of hunger. This diagnosis is a primary diagnosis in the absence of traumatic, affective, and regulatory difficulties (refer to eating disorder).
  7. Disorders of Relating and Communicating:
    • These disorders involve difficulties in communication, in conjunction with difficulties in regulation of physiological, motor, cognitive, and many other processes.

Axis II: Relationship Classification

Axis II focuses on children and infants developing in the context of emotional relationships. Specifically, the quality of caregiving can have a strong impact in nurturance and steering a child on a particular developmental course, either adaptive or maladaptive. This particular axis concentrates on the diagnosis of a clinical issue in the relationship between the child and the caregiver. The presence of a disorder indicates difficulties in relationships. These disorders include various patterns that highlight behaviour, affective, and psychological factors between the child and the caregiver.

  • Overinvolved.
  • Underinvolved.
  • Anxious/Tense.
  • Angry/Hostile.
  • Mixed Relationship Disorder.
  • Abusive.

Axis III: Medical and Developmental Disorders and Conditions

Axis III focuses on physical, mental, or developmental classification using other diagnosis methods. These disorders and conditions are not treated as a single diagnosis, but as a problem that may co-exist with others, as it may involve developmental difficulties.

Axis IV: Psychosocial Stressors

This axis allows clinicians to focus on the intensity of psychosocial stress, which may act as influencing agents in infant and childhood difficulties/disorders. Psychosocial stress can have direct and indirect influences on infants and children, and depends on various factors.

Axis V: Emotional and Social Functioning

Emotional and social functioning capacities can be assessed using observations of the child with primary caregivers. The essential domains of functioning can be used in these observations on a 5-point scale, that describes overall functional emotional level.

Rating Scales and Checklists

The DC contains four forms that aid clinicians in identifying disorders in infants and toddlers, in examining the extent of problem behaviours, and in determining the nature of external factors influencing the child.

  • Functional Rating Scale for Emotional and Social Functioning Capacities: to evaluate the child’s communication skills and expressions of thoughts and feelings.
  • The Parent-Infant Relationship Global Assessment Scale (PIR-GAS; from Axis II): to evaluate the quality of a caregiver-child relationship and identify relationship disorders.
  • Relationship Problems Checklist (RPCL; from Axis II): allows the clinician to identify the extent to which a caregiver-child relationship can be described by a number of criterion-based qualities.
  • Psychosocial and Environmental Stressors Checklist (from Axis IV): to provide information on the stressors experienced by the child in various contexts.

The Future of DC

Important questions remain to be answered, in spite of the revisions made in the DC. Such questions include the following:

  • How can the functional adaptation of infants and children be evaluated and described independent of diagnosis?
  • How can disruptive behaviours of typical development in infants and children be distinguished from disordered behaviours that lead to atypical development?
  • Should Excessive Crying Disorder be considered as a functional regulatory disorder? Other functional regulatory disorders include Sleeping Behaviour and Feeding Behaviour Disorders.
  • Should future editions of the DC include a Family Axis containing information about family history of mental illness, family structure and available supports, and family culture? These aspects are all central to assessment and treatment planning.