Does marijuana contribute to psychotic illness?

Current Psychiatry on marijuana and schizophrenia:

Cannabis and psychosis: 4 clinical pearls Cannabis use increases the risk of developing psychosis and is estimated to double the risk for later schizophrenia (5 to 10 new cases per 10,000 person-years) The association is not an artifact of confounding factors such as prodromal symptoms or concurrent use of other substances (including amphetamines) The risk increases with the frequency and length of use (a dose-effect relationship) Self-medication is not the connection between cannabis use and schizophrenia, according to empiric evidence

I'll keep an eye out for responses to this. It's so hard to know what to trust on something like this. This article seems reasonable, but it feels a little reminiscent of Reefer Madness. Also, the increased risk of schizophrenia may be statistically significant but I find it difficult to get too alarmed about the risk going from 1 in 2000 to 1 in 1000. (Maybe I should be more alarmed. I suppose that you start talking about large numbers when you multiply these numbers by large numbers of users.)

Psychiatric disorders and substance misuse

Last night I posted an article about gender and substance misuse. I didn't realize that the Psychiatric Times had a special report section on psychiatric disorders and substance misuse. I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet. What I did read seemed okay other than a sky high prevalence estimate for borderline personality disorder in people with substance use disorders:

Nearly one third of those with a lifetime SUD diagnosis also have BPD (median, 27%; range, 5.2% to 74.0%).^16,20 BPD appears to be less prevalent in persons with alcohol use disorders (median, 16%; range, 3.2% to 27.4%) than in those with drug use disorders, especially cocaine and opioid abuse.^17,20 For example, Ross and colleagues¹⁷ found that almost half (47%) of individuals using heroin who entered treatment for SUD also had BPD.

Here's a list of all the articles:

• The Link Between Psychotic Disorders and Substance Use By Emma Barkus, PhD
• Safe Treatment of Pain in the Patient With a Substance Use Disorder By Penelope P. Ziegler, MD
• Schizophrenia and Substance Abuse: Is There a Role for Atypical Antipsychotics? By Giovanni Caracci, MD
• Implications for Treatment and Prognosis of Borderline and Substance Use DisordersBy Ulrike Feske, PhD, Paul H. Soloff, MD, and Ralph E. Tarter, PhD
• Substance Abuse in Women: Does Gender Matter?By Sudie E. Back, PhD, Regana Contini, MD, and Kathleen T. Brady, MD, PhD

My Adventures in Psychopharmacology

A 23 year old women tells of her nightmarish experience with the psychiatric and addiction treatment system. She was prescribed 15 different drugs over a period of 5 years and, surprise, surprise, when treatment failed, she was blamed. The story ends with her being presumably correctly diagnosed and treated, but it's hard not to wonder if she has a chronic mentally illness at all.

Aside from the iatrogenic harm that professional hubris can cause, this story illustrates the hazards of a system that encourages rapid diagnosis.

Bias in co-occurring research

An interesting new study on drinking and depression:

"Not all studies have found a significant relationship between drinking and depression," said Kathryn Graham, senior scientist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, "and some have found a relationship for one gender but not the other. In our study, we included two quite different types of measures of depression. We also used four clearly different types of alcohol consumption measures that examined both drinking pattern as well as overall consumption." Graham is the corresponding author for the study.

I hate to sound jaded, but when I read this it felt a little like a search for conclusive proof of a strong relationship between the two and self-medication as the probable explanation. I figured I was just too jaded and read on...

Results indicate that measurement and gender are key issues in interpreting findings on the relationship between alcohol and depression. Specifically, depression is primarily related to drinking larger quantities per occasion, is unrelated to drinking frequency, and these effect are stronger for women than for men.

"Depression is most strongly related to a pattern of binge drinking," said Graham. "A pattern of frequent but low quantity drinking is not associated with depression. In fact, those who usually drink less than two drinks per occasion and never drink as much as five drinks are less depressed -- for both measures of depression -- than former drinkers. This relationship with drinking pattern is greater for women than for men."

Second, the overall relationship between depression and alcohol consumption is stronger for women than for men, but only when depression is measured as meeting a clinical diagnosis of major depression. Conversely, there is no gender difference when depression is measured as recent depressed feelings, which is commonly done in research on this topic.

The first conclusion is interesting--it makes a lot of sense that depression would be more strongly associated with heavy drinking episodes rather than the frequency of drinking. The second finding also is not surprising, women self-report depressive symptoms at higher levels then men, and the study is based on a phone survey.

Finally comes the self-medication hypothesis:

"This pattern of associations is more consistent with women using alcohol to counteract depression -- by high-quantity drinking and intoxication -- than with chronic alcohol consumption tending to make women depressed," said Wilsnack. "However, a vicious circle could possibly begin with drinking in response to depression....

The bottom line, said Wilsnack, is that "clinical depression may encourage some women to drink large amounts of alcohol in hopes of numbing depressed feelings, with risks of alcohol abuse and dependence. Therefore, clinicians treating women for depression really need to be concerned about women's use of alcohol, because of the risks that women may try to medicate their moods with alcohol."

This in spite of the fact that the source article itself says "these cross-sectional data do not provide information about temporal ordering or causation".

Recovery: The bridge to integration?

Bill White and Larry Davidson suggest that shifts toward recovery orientation models in mental health and addiction services could serve as a bridge toward integration:

“Recovery-oriented system transformation” is becoming an umbrella concept for integrating behavioral healthcare and creating systems of care that are culturally competent, trauma-informed, evidence-based, inclusive of families, based on strengths, and connected to communities (as indigenous sources of recovery support). Leading the call for such system transformation are new recovery advocacy movements in both the addictions and mental health fields. These movements, led by people in recovery, their families, and visionary professionals, are demanding that care be focused on the processes of long-term recovery and anchored within natural supports and local communities.

Theoretically, I don't disagree at all. My fear is that this process will not be a merger between equals, my experience (admittedly limited to southeastern Michigan) is of watching mental health systems devour addiction treatment systems. This fear is compounded by the fact that, at least in our region, mental health agencies are well-organized and well-connected governmental behemoths while addiction treatment programs are small, unstable and diffused.

Consider these historical reflections from some of Bill's other works:

The Segregation/Integration Pendulum
American history is replete with failed efforts to integrate the care of alcoholics and addicts into other helping systems. These failed experiments are followed by efforts to move such care into a categorically segregated system that, once achieved, is followed with renewed proposals for service integration. After fighting 40 years to be born as an autonomous field of service, addiction treatment is once again in the throes of service-integration mania. This cynical evolution in the organization of addiction treatment services seems to be part of two broader pendulum swings in the broader culture, between specialization and generalization and between centralization and decentralization. Once we have destroyed most of the categorically segregated addiction treatment institutions in America, a grassroots movement will likely arise again to recreate them. When the 21^st century once again gives birth to specialized addiction treatment, perhaps this “new” institution will be given a colorful name fitted to its form and function – perhaps something like inebriate asylum.

Diffusion and Diversion
Diffusion and diversion constitute two of the most pervasive threats in the history of addiction treatment institutions and mutual-aid societies. Diffusion is the dissipation of an organization’s core values and identity, most often as a result of rapid expansion and diversification. Diffusion creates a porous organization (or field) that is vulnerable to corruption and consumption by people and institutions in its operating environment. Diversion occurs when an organization follows what appears to be an opportunity, only to discover in retrospect that this venture propelled the organization away from its primary mission.

The current absorption of addiction treatment into the broader identity of behavioral health is an example of a diffusion process that might replicate two earlier periods – the absorption of inebriate asylums into insane asylums and the integration of alcoholism and drug-abuse counseling into community mental health centers in the 1960s. This diffusion-by-integration has generally led to two undesirable consequences: 1) the erosion of core addiction treatment technologies; and 2) the diversion of financial and human resources earmarked to support addiction treatment into other problem arenas.

A Panicked Field In Search of Its Soul and Its Future
In the face of such threats (managed care, facility closures, merger mania & integration into behavioral health systems), the field is experiencing a strange phenomenon. As the core of the addiction treatment field shrinks, the field is growing at the periphery. Where the total amount allocated to residential and inpatient treatment services is shrinking, the numbers of outpatient services is actually increasing, as is a growing number of new specialty programs that extend addiction treatment services into allied fields. The growth zone of the addiction treatment industry is not at the traditional core but in the delivery of addiction treatment services into the criminal justice system, the public health system (particularly AIDS related projects), the child welfare system, the mental health system, and the public-welfare system. If one looks at these trends as a whole, what is emerging in the 1990s is a treatment system less focused on the goal of long-term personal recovery than on social control of the addict. The goal of this evolving system is moving from a focus on the personal outcome of treatment to an assurance that the alcoholic and addict will not bother us and will cost us as little as possible.

The fate of the field will be determined by its ability to redefine its niche in an increasingly turbulent health-care and social-service ecosystem. That fate will also be dictated by more fundamental issues – the ability of the field to: 1) reconnect with the passion for service out of which it was born; 2) re-center itself clinically and ethically; 3) forge new service technologies in response to new knowledge and the changing characteristics of clients, families, and communities; and 4) the ability of the field to address the problem of leadership development and succession.