Diagnosing the D.S.M. - NYT

At its annual meeting this week, the American Psychiatric Association did two wonderful things: it rejected one reckless proposal that would have exposed nonpsychotic children to unnecessary and dangerous antipsychotic medication and another that would have turned the existential worries and sadness of everyday life into an alleged mental disorder.

But the association is still proceeding with other suggestions that could potentially expand the boundaries of psychiatry to define as mentally ill tens of millions of people now considered normal. The proposals are part of a major undertaking: revisions to what is often called the "bible of psychiatry" — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M. The fifth edition of the manual is scheduled for publication next May.

I was heavily involved in the third and fourth editions of the manual but have reluctantly concluded that the association should lose its nearly century-old monopoly on defining mental illness. Times have changed, the role of psychiatric diagnosis has changed, and the association has changed. It is no longer capable of being sole fiduciary of a task that has become so consequential to public health and public policy.

Psychiatric diagnosis was a professional embarrassment and cultural backwater until D.S.M.-3 was published in 1980. Before that, it was heavily influenced by psychoanalysis, psychiatrists could rarely agree on diagnoses and nobody much cared anyway.

D.S.M.-3 stirred great professional and public excitement by providing specific criteria for each disorder. Having everyone work from the same playbook facilitated treatment planning and revolutionized research in psychiatry and neuroscience.

Surprisingly, D.S.M.-3 also caught on with the general public and became a runaway best seller, with more than a million copies sold, many more than were needed for professional use. Psychiatric diagnosis crossed over from the consulting room to the cocktail party. People who previously chatted about the meaning of their latest dreams began to ponder where they best fit among D.S.M.'s intriguing categories.

The fourth edition of the manual, released in 1994, tried to contain the diagnostic inflation that followed earlier editions. It succeeded on the adult side, but failed to anticipate or control the faddish over-diagnosis of autism, attention deficit disorders and bipolar disorder in children that has since occurred.

Indeed, the D.S.M. is the victim of its own success and is accorded the authority of a bible in areas well beyond its competence. It has become the arbiter of who is ill and who is not — and often the primary determinant of treatment decisions, insurance eligibility, disability payments and who gets special school services. D.S.M. drives the direction of research and the approval of new drugs. It is widely used (and misused) in the courts.

Until now, the American Psychiatric Association seemed the entity best equipped to monitor the diagnostic system. Unfortunately, this is no longer true. D.S.M.-5 promises to be a disaster — even after the changes approved this week, it will introduce many new and unproven diagnoses that will medicalize normality and result in a glut of unnecessary and harmful drug prescription. The association has been largely deaf to the widespread criticism of D.S.M.-5, stubbornly refusing to subject the proposals to independent scientific review.

Many critics assume unfairly that D.S.M.-5 is shilling for drug companies. This is not true. The mistakes are rather the result of an intellectual conflict of interest; experts always overvalue their pet area and want to expand its purview, until the point that everyday problems come to be mislabeled as mental disorders. Arrogance, secretiveness, passive governance and administrative disorganization have also played a role.

New diagnoses in psychiatry can be far more dangerous than new drugs. We need some equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration to mind the store and control diagnostic exuberance. No existing organization is ready to replace the American Psychiatric Association. The most obvious candidate, the National Institute of Mental Health, is too research-oriented and insensitive to the vicissitudes of clinical practice. A new structure will be needed, probably best placed under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Institute of Medicine or the World Health Organization.

All mental-health disciplines need representation — not just psychiatrists but also psychologists, counselors, social workers and nurses. The broader consequences of changes should be vetted by epidemiologists, health economists and public-policy and forensic experts. Primary care doctors prescribe the majority of psychotropic medication, often carelessly, and need to contribute to the diagnostic system if they are to use it correctly. Consumers should play an important role in the review process, and field testing should occur in real life settings, not just academic centers.

Psychiatric diagnosis is simply too important to be left exclusively in the hands of psychiatrists. They will always be an essential part of the mix but should no longer be permitted to call all the shots.

Allen Frances, a former chairman of the psychiatry department at Duke University School of Medicine, led the task force that produced D.S.M.-4.

Psychiatry Panel Backs Down on Changes to Diagnostic Manual - NYTimes.com

In a rare step, doctors on a panel revising psychiatry's influential diagnostic manual have backed away from two controversial proposals that would have expanded the number of people identified as having psychotic or depressive disorders.

The doctors dropped two diagnoses that they ultimately concluded were not supported by the evidence: "attenuated psychosis syndrome," proposed to identify people at risk of developing psychosis, and "mixed anxiety depressive disorder," a hybrid of the two mood problems.

They also tweaked their proposed definition of depression to allay fears that the normal sadness people experience after the loss of a loved one, a job or a marriage would not be mistaken for a mental disorder.

But the panel, appointed by the American Psychiatric Association to complete the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M., did not retreat from another widely criticized proposal, to streamline the definition of autism. Predictions by some experts that the new definition will sharply reduce the number of people given a diagnosis are off base, panel members said, citing evidence from a newly completed study.

Both the study and the newly announced reversals are being debated this week at the psychiatric association's annual meeting in Philadelphia, where dozens of sessions were devoted to the D.S.M., the standard reference for mental disorders, which drives research, treatment and insurance decisions.

Dr. David J. Kupfer, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and the chairman of the task force making revisions, said the changes came in response to field trials — real-world studies testing whether newly proposed diagnoses are reliable from one psychiatrist to the next — and public commentary. The psychiatric association has posted its proposals online, inviting public reaction. More than 10,500 comments have come through the site, many of them critical.

"At long last, DSM 5 is correcting itself and has rejected its worst proposals," said Dr. Allen Frances, a former task force chairman and professor emeritus at Duke University who has been one of the most prominent critics. "But a great deal more certainly needs to be accomplished. Most important are the elimination of other dangerous new diagnoses and the rewriting of all the many unreliable criteria sets."

The criticism of "mixed anxiety depressive disorder" was that it would unnecessarily tag millions of moderately neurotic people with a psychiatric label. Mixed states of depression and anxiety can be severe, but the proposed hybrid had looser criteria than either depression or anxiety on its own — lowering the bar significantly for a diagnosis.

The primary concern with "attenuated psychosis syndrome" was that it would lead to unwarranted drug treatment of youngsters. The diagnosis was meant to identify people, usually young, who exhibit psychosis-like symptoms and treat them early. But 70 percent to 80 percent of people who report having weird thoughts and odd hallucinations do not ever qualify for a full-blown diagnosis — and might be treated for something they did not have.

On the manual's site, in blogs and other public forums, advocates, therapists, scientists and people receiving services sounded off on the proposed changes. The psychiatric association made an effort to listen, Dr. Kupfer said. The site "is not just a P.R. effort," he said. "We're getting feedback, and it all goes to the working groups."

The proposed definition of autism, which would eliminate related labels like Asperger's syndrome and "pervasive developmental disorder," came under fire in January, when researchers at Yale University presented evidence that about half of the people who currently have a diagnosis on the high end of the "autism spectrum" would no long qualify under the new definition.

At this week's annual meeting, researchers presented data from an unpublished study of some 300 children, finding that the proposed definition would exclude very few who currently have a diagnosis of autism or a related disorder.

But meeting attendees got mixed messages on autism. In a talk on Tuesday, Dr. Susan E. Swedo, head of the panel proposing the new definition, said that many people who identify themselves as "aspes," for Asperger's syndrome, "don't actually have Asperger's disorder, much less an autism spectrum disorder." Dr. Swedo is a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health.

The issue is hardly settled. Findings from published studies are conflicting, but three recent analyses provide support for the Yale estimate, and more papers in the pipeline are also documenting a significant reduction in numbers of those who would qualify under the new criteria. Getting such a diagnosis is critical to obtain state-financed services for children with special needs.

"I certainly hope the D.S.M. task force is right, that the numbers won't change much," said Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, director of the Child Study Center at the Yale School of Medicine and senior author of the study presented in January. But if the new definition does not change who gets a diagnosis, he asked, "Why mess with it at all?"The D.S.M. panel also made an attempt to clarify the difference between normal sadness and depression, by spelling it out in a footnote added to the proposed depression definition.

The note reads, in part, "The normal and expected response to an event involving significant loss, including feelings of intense sadness, rumination about the loss, insomnia, poor appetite and weight loss, may resemble a depressive episode" but is not necessarily one.

Judging from the past year, the normal and expected response to most of these revisions will be more contentious disagreement that will most likely intensify over the coming weeks.

The psychiatric association send out reminders this week that the current — and final — period for public comment ends on June 15. The final draft of the manual is due at the printer at the end of the year and is scheduled for release in May 2013.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/health/dsm-panel-backs-down-on-diagnoses.html?