The Controversy Over the Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome Diagnosis

Researchers trace the history of the controversy over ‘Psychosis Risk Disorder’ and ‘Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome’ that culminated in the DSM-5 debates.

Ayurdhi Dhar, PhD
11
1287

A new article in Psychological Medicine traces the attempted development of a diagnostic category for ‘Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome’ in the Diagnosis and Statistical Manual-V (DSM-5). Scholars in the philosophy of psychiatry, Peter Zachar and Kenneth Kendler, as well as the current editor of revisions to the DSM, Michael First, authored the piece. They explain that while a specific disorder for psychosis risk was not included in the main DSM, due to a lack of evidence, debates about the utility of a diagnosis for those seen to be at risk for psychosis continue.

Attenuated psychosis syndrome was proposed as a category in the DSM-5 to diagnose those individuals who could be experiencing the early signs of psychosis and improve their access to treatment. Supporters suggested that early detection could potentially allow clinicians to stop the person from developing a full psychotic disorder. The authors of this review suggest that early detection of psychosis remains an important issue. Therefore, understanding the history of the controversy over attenuated psychosis syndrome and its exclusion from the main DSM-V is essential.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

In the 1990s, research interest in the ‘prodromal’ or early phases of ‘schizophrenia’ grew exponentially. The prodromal period refers to the initial phase of the disorder, where one experiences difficulties in functioning but may not have symptoms associated with psychosis. This led to an interest in what are referred to as At-Risk Mental States (ARMS). The symptoms of ARMS could include intrusive and irrelevant thoughts, heightened sensitivity to sounds, and being too literal or concrete in thinking, and many researchers argue that these states could predict the later development of psychosis.

Attenuated psychosis syndrome, which first appeared as psychosis risk disorder, is arguably one of the most controversial diagnostic proposals in recent psychiatric history. Researchers who support its inclusion argue that early detection can help avoid rapid deterioration, which may happen when more severe symptoms of psychosis, such as delusions or hallucinations, begin to appear. They claimed that developing a disorder diagnosis could reduce the duration of untreated psychosis, which is often linked to worse outcomes, by increasing access to treatment.

However, other researchers have consistently challenged these ideas. For example, the well-known schizophrenia researcher Sir Robin Murray has suggested that the neuro-degeneration and other brain changes seen in schizophrenia may be caused by antipsychotic medication use rather than the duration of untreated psychosis. The research suggesting a longer period of untreated psychosis necessarily leads to worse outcomes was also recently challenged by evidence that this finding is mainly due to the statistical effect of lead-time bias. Other researchers have noted that the enthusiasm for early detection has resulted in increased involuntary hospitalization.

For this review, the authors conducted interviews with people informed about attenuated psychosis syndrome and reviewed relevant literature around the topic. While many members of the advisory board for DSM-V Psychotic Disorders Workgroup were supportive of the inclusion of psychosis risk as a diagnostic category, most were not as enthusiastic.

In an editorial, William Carpenter, who chaired DSM-V’s Psychotic Disorder Workgroup, felt there was a need for more evidence supporting such early detection measures. At the same time, he stated that it was unclear if the prodrome phase was specific to ‘schizophrenia’ or a part of all psychotic disorders. He was also concerned about the potential for false positives, exposing people who might never develop psychotic symptoms to the increased risk of stigmatization, and the adverse effects of antipsychotics.

However, Carpenter and others ended up arguing in favor of the diagnostic category. He explained that, as there is no evidence that prodromal phases benefit from antipsychotics, doctors were unlikely to prescribe them. Thus, concern of overtreatment was unfounded.

In the past, Carpenter has also expressed dissatisfaction with ‘schizophrenia’ as a disease category. He has compared using the category to diagnosing someone with a fever, where you know something is wrong but clueless about what it is. He has also written about treating ‘schizophrenia’ with minimal use of antipsychotics and observed that such medication could make some patients more likely to relapse. The adverse effects of antipsychotics, especially over the long-term, are well documented in recent research.

Other supporters of the inclusion of psychosis risk syndrome suggested that people at risk of psychosis were already being diagnosed with DSM-IV’s “psychiatric disorder NOS,” making them more likely to be over-treated than if they were diagnosed with psychosis risk. Still, others suggested that the cluster of symptoms that mark someone as ‘at-risk’ should be considered a separate disorder. This eliminated the problem of false positives and officially turned psychosis risk into attenuated psychosis syndrome, but without much change is the actual criteria.

The opposition to this inclusion came from Allen Frances (among others) who chaired the DSM-IV task force. Frances did not only express concern about the high rate of false positives but was also suspicious of diagnostic fads such as this. In his experience as a clinician, he saw how the diagnosis of the same symptoms changed with different clinicians and how the pharmaceutical industry had exploited the DSM-IV Bipolar II diagnosis to expand their markets. Frances expressed concern that despite opposition and heavy criticism, DSM-V managed to sneak psychosis risk syndrome under attenuated psychosis disorder.

Some researchers pointed out that there was a false positive risk as high as 77 percent. This meant that someone could be diagnosed with Psychosis Risk, and there would be a 77% chance that they would never develop enough symptoms to meet the full criteria for psychosis. Others suggested that the threat of malpractice lawsuits for not treating someone who had this diagnosis with aggressive use of antipsychotics would result in the over-prescription of these drugs.

Another criticism of the disorder was that it would unnecessarily stigmatize people, but supporters of the diagnosis argued that by educating families, this stigma could be avoided. However, past research has found that using the bio-medical model of mental distress to educate people that “mental illness is like any other” actually increases stigma, rather than decreasing it.

Critics of the disorder category also pointed out the low predictive validity of the diagnosis, since research had found that ARMS clinics were not able to predict the course of the disorder. These clinics catered to people who were thought to be at a high risk of psychosis. The researcher Allison Yung, for example, openly voiced her concern against the inclusion of psychosis risk disorder because of a lack of evidence on its validity and reliability.

One of the most stringent opponents inside the workgroup was Jim van Os who has criticized the validity of schizophrenia as a nosological entity; he noted:

“It would be a mistake to take a group of people who are beginning to experience psychotic symptoms, anoint them a diagnostic class, and then look for that class in the general population.”

Others opposing the diagnostic category observed that hallucinations and delusions also occur in other diagnoses. This is supported by research, which shows that the content of hallucinations and the level of distress and dysfunction caused by them is dependent on the culture of the individual and the response of the society to the individual.

In 2012, the results of the DSM field trials supported those opposing the inclusion since too few cases had been studied, and the reliability of attenuated psychosis disorder was uncertain. It was eventually put under “Conditions for further study.”

The authors of this review conclude that while early detection remains important, without any evidence such as biomarkers pointing to underlying causes, the chances of false positives are too high to justify the creation of a disorder category for psychosis risk.

 

****

Zachar, P., First, M.B., & Kendler, K.S. The DSM-5 proposal for attenuated psychosis syndrome: a history. Psychological Medicine. Published online: April 1, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720000653 (Link)

Previous articleTherapy That Sticks
Next articleHow to Manage Panic Attacks
Ayurdhi Dhar, PhD
MIA Research News Team: Ayurdhi Dhar is instructor of psychology at the University of West Georgia, where she also finished her Ph.D. in Consciousness and Society in 2017. She is the author of Madness and Subjectivity: A Cross-Cultural Examination of Psychosis in the West and India (to be released in September 2019). Her research interests include the relation between schizophrenia and immigration, discursive practices sustaining the concept of mental illness, and critiques of acontextual and ahistorical forms of knowledge.

11 COMMENTS

  1. The symptoms of ARMS could include

    1. Intrusive and irrelevant thoughts:-
    This could include 90% of all normal thought.

    2. Heightened sensitivity to sounds:
    According to the UK Health & Safety Exec., if a person can’t hear a conversation at 1metre distance, then the Background Noise Environment is potentially causing hearing Loss.

    3. Being too literal or concrete in thinking:
    The interpretation of this, can depend entirely on the Status of the Person ‘doing the thinking’.

    4. Many researchers argue that these states could predict the later development of psychosis….

    …On stopping “Antipsychotics”, according to Robert Whitaker, a person is likely to suffer from a condition of “High Anxiety” and its how a person deals with this that decides whether they completely recover or not.

    ..The ABOVE could also be described as SYMPTOMS of:-
    1.Sress
    2. Black and White thinking.
    3. A person with a sense of humour

    …for me when I stopped ‘Medications’ and was ‘pre occupied’; I had to stop ‘pre occupying’, and ‘sit with my feelings’ until my Anxiety subsided; – and then ‘there was No Problem’.

      • If a person wants to overcome or cure the Above SYMPTOMS, this can be done through very straightforward inexpensive Psychotherapy; it doesn’t require the handing of a persons life over to the Psychiatric Services.

        Information on how to successfully overcome the Above SYMPTOMS can also be found in inexpensive ‘books’.

  2. Hallucinations and Delusions

    If a person can learn to live in Harmony with their Hallucinations (as many do) – the problem doesn’t exist:-

    “…When I wrote DIVIDED MINDS (under the name Pamela Wagner) with my twin sister, Carolyn S Spiro, I never dreamed that one day I would be able to write the words : voices don’t bother me any more…”

    “Delusions” are generally dependent on “pre occupation” (in the same way “anxiety” is); and if they are “put down” for any length of time they Lose their Power – in the same way as “Emotional Reasoning” does.

  3. According to my medical records, psychologists and psychiatrists believe any person who dreams, has gut instincts, or even thinks is “psychotic.” Which basically means all people are “psychotic,” according to the psychologists and psychiatrists. And the “mental health” workers now want a disorder for “psychosis risk?” God forbid a person even think about thinking, or dream about dreaming.

    And since the antipsychotics/neuroleptics and the antidepressants can create “psychosis,” via anticholinergic toxidrome.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxidrome

    I’m quite certain force drugging people with these “psychosis” inducing drug classes, merely because the person might think or dream, is absurd. Some of us like to think and dream, and we consider thinking and dreaming to be our God given human rights.

    I’m quite certain a less all inclusive definition of “psychosis” is really what is needed. And the psychologists and psychiatrists really should get out of the child abuse covering up – pedophile empowerment – business as well.

    https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2019/01/23/18820633.php?fbclid=IwAR2-cgZPcEvbz7yFqMuUwneIuaqGleGiOzackY4N2sPeVXolwmEga5iKxdo
    https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/04/heal-for-life/
    https://www.amazon.com/Pedophilia-Empire-Chapter-Introduction-Disorder-ebook/dp/B0773QHGPT
    https://community.healthimpactnews.com/topic/4576/america-1-in-child-sex-trafficking-and-pedophilia-cps-and-foster-care-are-the-pipelines

    Since, of course, systemically aiding and abetting pedophiles is illegal. And the DSM is a child abuse covering up “bible,” by design.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-child-does-not-have-bipolar-disorder/201402/dsm-5-and-child-neglect-and-abuse-1

  4. Any “diagnosis” that boasts a 75% “false positive” rate is worse than a waste of paper – it’s overtly destructive. Besides which, what does psychiatry have to offer for these “psychotic risk” patients BESIDES drugs? Is there some intervention they are touting that will lead to fewer of these people developing more serious “symptoms” and hence reduce the total number ultimately smacked with the “schizophrenia” or “bipolar” diagnoses? Or, and I think this FAR more likely, will this simply bring people to the attention of the system whose only tool is a hammer, leading such people to become another set of “nails” to be hit with psychiatry’s biological sledge hammer? (Not to mention ongoing “customers” to help pay for their yachts or their kids’ college educations?)

  5. Thank GOD for Dr. Jim van Os. He’s the only SANE one in the bunch! And I can sum up the entire DSM-5 “working group” in 1 scholarly word. *BULLSHIT*. YES, bullshit has been studied at University level, and scholarly papers and books written on it. So as a retired past master bullshit artist, i can say with 100% certainty, that the DSM-5 “working group” is BULLSHIT. Except Dr. van Os, of course….After all, psychiatry is a pseudoscience, a drugs racket, and a means of social control. It’s 21st Century Phrenology with potent neurotoxins. Psychiatry has done, and continues to do, FAR MORE HARM than good. That’s because it’s bullshit! But i repeat myself….

LEAVE A REPLY