Harrow et al. have published another study demonstrating an association between antipsychotic treatment and poorer outcomes compared to non-antipsychotic treatment, this time for both schizophrenia and affective psychosis.
2/
To date, no RCT (no, not even Wunderink) exists to address potential causality or more precisely *direction* of causality. The million $$ question is whether antipsychotic discontinuation leads to recovery or whether recovery leads to discontinuation.
Harrow often uses baseline prognosis as a proxy of severity to address this question, but the only thing that really matters is *actual* disease severity. Why were meds stopped?
This is a chicken-egg issue as I discuss w/@awaisaftab here:
In his latest paper, Harrow writes "participants not prescribed antipsychotic medication are more likely to experience more episodes of recovery."
But without temporal knowledge of which came first, that's an unjustified and misleading leap.
5/
Isn't it just as likely, if not moreso based on shorter-term data, that "participants with more episodes of recovery are more likely to have antipsychotics deprescribed or discontinued?"
That's consistent with my clinical experience and practice.
6/
The "supersensitivity psychosis" (SSP) hypothesis is often invoked when psychiatrists note that our patients worsen off meds, to counter claims of simple symptomatic recurrence/relapse.
But it's unclear why Harrow invokes it by way of explanation here...
7/
Based on the outcomes in his study, there's no mention of those who discontinued medications having symptomatic worsening. On the contrary, the patients did fine off meds which supports that the good/bad outcomes are due to underlying disease state/course, not the meds.
8/
"If we imagined similar long-term studies of meds like anti-hypertensives or sulfonylureas, I don't think we'd be surprised if illness morbidity was greater among those who had to remain on medication due to illness severity, without invoking a medication toxicity effect."
9/
Now to be clear, Harrow's data clearly show that SOME patients diagnosed w/ schizophrenia can come off antipsychotic meds.
Less is often more.
The key question remaining is WHO can do so safely, an issue I address here for 1st-episode psychosis:
But until we answer that, it's empirically unsupported and potentially dangerous to conclude that *everyone* would probably benefit from APD discontinuation. And that if worsening occurred as a result, that it's just due to SSP, not relapse.
11/
The data also highlight what we see in clinical practice--that antipsychotic meds often fall far short of a cure for schizophrenia.
That is, patients with more severe disease may need antipsychotics, but their benefit is often suboptimal.
A few points worth discussing. First, addiction as disease is a counter-narrative in response to the:
"prevailing nonscientific, moralizing, and stigmatizing attitudes to addiction [that framed it as a] moral failing or weakness of character, rather than a 'real' disease.
3/
"This argument was particularly targeted to the public, policymakers and health care professionals, many of whom held that since addiction was a misery people brought on themselves, it fell beyond the scope of medicine..."
Finally got around to reading and really enjoyed this new paper by @JasperFeyaerts et al. that offers a critical view of traditional conceptualizations of delusions and the (mis)assumption of a delusional continuum.
It affirms my view that firmly distinguishing between delusions and delusion-like (and shared) beliefs is ultimately doomed, because we do not have coherent existing definitions of "delusions" nor for that matter "beliefs"
Here are my favorite quotations from this paper:
3/
"Jaspers... points towards the experiential context within which primary delusions originate. Whereas delusion-like ideas arise in intelligible ways from everyday experience, primary delusions develop... as "a transformation in our total awareness of reality."
I've been enjoying a moment of political apathy, resting on the laurels of a @JoeBiden@KamalaHarris victory, while doing my best to ignore Trump's bluster which can't hide the reality that he's been deflated & will be put to rest like so many Halloween decorations.
2/10
Last night @StephenAtHome compared Trump to herpes, suggesting that we'll likely see him "blossom" and reactivate from time to time like an annoying cold sore outbreak.
And yeah, maybe he will actually run for re-election in 2024.
But Trump aside, what will probably not go away is the myth that the election was stolen. Trumpers & GOP pols will likely perpetuate the myth as a rally cry "seeding for future social polarization & division on a scale America has never seen."
This @TheAtlantic article by @olgakhazan is a good synopsis of the seemingly unfathomable popularity of Trump and his policies that the left still can't wrap its head around.
Arlie Hochschild's quoted words echo @JonathanMetzl (who's also quoted):
"[White men's] economic prospects are bad & American culture tells them that their gender is too. So they’ve turned to Trump as a type of folk hero, one who can restore their sense of former glory."
ECT has been demonized for decades (thanks Miloš Forman) despite it being one of the most rapidly effective interventions in all of psychiatry, often when previous interventions are not possible or have failed.
2/12 Yes, ECT is a serious intervention requiring anesthetic support and medical monitoring. Memory loss is a common side effect and is sometimes long lasting.
But that must be balanced against the life-threatening nature of persistent severe depression and catatonia.
3/12 Some object to the basic premise of "electrocuting" the brain, but don't question the routine life-saving practice of electrical "shock" for cardiac resuscitation.