Opinion Piece: The case for establishing a minimal medication alternative for psychosis and schizophrenia

Examining the Long-Term Impacts of Psychotropic Drugs and Considerations for People Discontinuing Treatment

Psychotropic drugs dominate the mental healthcare landscape. This is despite contention over their proposed mechanism of action, concerns for their adverse effects, and questionable effectiveness, especially over the long term. Mental health nurses are routinely involved in administering psychotropic drugs, observing for and managing adverse effects, and providing information and support to people prescribed these agents. This critique explores the current understanding of the mechanism of action for psychotropic drugs, evidence for their effectiveness, adverse effect burden and implications for long term use. The role of mental health nurses in deprescribing and supporting people to discontinue treatment is considered.

How important are informed consent, informed choice, and patient-doctor relationships, when prescribing antipsychotic medication?

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medications (APs) are used for people with psychosis diagnoses and, increasingly for other problems and groups.

AIMS

This study examines how APs are prescribed, from the perspective of recipients.

METHODS

757 people, from 30 countries, responded to questions about their experiences with APs, in an online survey.

RESULTS

Most (70%) were told nothing about adverse effects. Fewer than 2% recalled being told about the risks of diabetes, suicidality, sexual dysfunction, or reduced life span. None recalled being told about reduced brain volume or withdrawal effects. Only 28% recalled being offered other treatments; with only 14% offered talking therapies. 46% were not told how long to take the APs; and, of those who were told something, 48% were told to take them forever. Most respondents (76%) were not told how APs work. Only 19% were satisfied with the prescribing process, and only 25% reported a good, or very good, relationship with the prescriber. Information, satisfaction with the process, and the prescriber relationship were all positively related to three self-reported outcomes: reduction of problems the drugs were prescribed for, general helpfulness, and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Steps need to be taken to ensure people prescribed antipsychotics are fully informed, especially about adverse effects and alternatives.

Combination of Two Long-Acting Antipsychotics in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Up to 34% of patients with schizophrenia are resistant to several treatment trials. Lack of continuous and adequate treatment is associated with relapse, rehospitalization, a lower effect of antipsychotic therapy, and higher risk of side effects. Long-acting injectables antipsychotics (LAI APs) enhance compliance and improve clinical outcomes and quality of life in patients with schizophrenia, and thus it may be advisable to administer two LAI APs at the same time in cases of treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available literature regarding the combined use of two LAI APs in patients with schizophrenia or other psychotic spectrum disorders.

METHODS

An extensive literature search for relevant articles regarding any combination of two long-acting injectable antipsychotics has been performed from inception up to 9 February 2024, on PubMed, Scopus and APA PsycInfo, according to the PRISMA statement. Only studies reporting combination of two LAI APs and its clinical outcome in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders were selected.

RESULTS

After the selection process, nine case reports, four case series and two observational retrospective studies were included in the final analysis. All patients treated with dual LAI APs reported a good response, and no new or unexpected adverse effects due to the combination of two LAIs were reported. Different drug combinations were used, and the most frequent association resulted in aripiprazole monohydrate + paliperidone palmitate once monthly (32 times).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review highlights that the treatment regimen with two concurrent LAI APs is already widely used in clinical practice and is recognized as providing a promising, effective, and relatively safe therapeutic strategy for treating the schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

Psychosis and psychedelics: Historical entanglements and contemporary contrasts

Experiences of psychedelics and psychosis were deeply entangled in scientific practices in the mid-20th century, from uses of psychedelic drugs that could model psychosis, to detailed phenomenological comparisons of endogenous and drug-induced madness. After the moral panic of the 1960s shut down psychedelic research, however, these two phenomena became disentangled. In the decades following, the science of psychosis transformed, shedding the language of psychoanalysis, and adopting the new scientific veneer of psychiatry. Today, as psychedelic science re-emerges, the research programs surrounding psychosis and psychedelics now stand in stark contrast. Here, I look closely at how these research programs respond to questions related to what is worth measuring, what is worth investigating, and how we ought to respond to these experiences. This comparison reveals radically different assumptions and values that guide each research paradigm and shape clinical practice. While psychedelic research often includes scales that seek to capture experiences of mysticism, meaningfulness, and ego dissolution, research related to psychosis focuses on the measurement of pathological symptoms and functioning. Research into psychosis primarily seeks universal and reductionist causal explanations and interventions, while psychedelic research embraces the importance of set and setting in shaping unique experiences. Responses to psychedelic crisis involve warmth, compassion, and support, while responses to psychotic experiences often involve restraint, seclusion, and weapons. I argue that these differences contain important lessons for psychiatry. However, as psychedelic research struggles to meet regulatory requirements and fit within the paradigm of evidence-based medicine, these differences may quickly dissolve.

The Lost Social Context of Recovery Psychiatrization of a Social Process

From being a concept questioning the core of psychiatric knowledge and practice, recovery has been adopted as a guiding vison for mental health policy and practice by different local, national, and international organizations. The aim of this article is to contextualize the different understandings of recovery and its psychiatrization through the emergence of an individualizing and de-contextualized definition which have gained a dominant position. It ends with an attempt to formulate a new definition of recovery which integrates people in their social context. Research results from various follow-up studies showing the possibility of recovery from severe mental distress have stressed the importance of societal, social and relational factors as well of the person's own agency when facing their distress and reactions from their environment. These researches were published in the 1970s and 80s; a period of struggle for liberation from colonialism, of struggle by women and black people for their civil rights, and a time of de-institutionalization of services directed toward the poor, elderly, handicapped, prisoners, and people with mental health problems. Recovery research pointed at the central role of individuals in their recovery journey and it was understood as a personal process in a social context. However, with neo-liberal political agenda, the personal role of individuals and their own responsibility for their well-being was stressed, and contextual understandings and the role of social, material and cultural changes to promote recovery faded away. Thus, during recent decades recovery has been mostly defined as an individualistic journey of changing the persons and their perception of their situation, but not of changing this situation. Contextual aspects are almost absent. The most quoted definition accepts the limits posed by an illness-based model. This kind of definition might be a reason for the wide acceptance of a phenomenon that was initially experienced as a break with the bio-medical paradigm. Recently, this dominant individualized understanding of recovery has been criticized by service users, clinicians and researchers, making possible a redefinition of recovery as a social process in material and cultural contexts.

From Mental Health Industry to Humane Care. Suggestions for an Alternative Systemic Approach to Distress

The article proposes a rough outline of an alternative systemic approach to mental health issues and of a more humane mental health care system. It suggests focusing on understanding mental distress as stemming from problems in living, using medications as agents facilitating psychotherapy, or as a last resort and short-term help, according to the principles of harm reduction. It argues that understanding drugs as psychoactive substances and studying the subjective effects they produce could lead to better utilization of medications and improvements in terms of conceptualizing and assessing treatment effects. Qualitative research could be particularly useful in that regard. It also advocates a radical departure from current diagnostic systems and proposes a synthesis of already existing alternatives to be used for both research and clinical purposes. Accordingly, a general idea for an alternative mental health care system, based on a combination of Open Dialogue Approach, Soteria houses, individual and group psychotherapy, cautious prescribing, services helping with drug discontinuation, peer-led services and social support is presented. The proposition could be seen as a first step towards developing a systemic alternative that could replace the currently dominating approach instead of focusing on implementing partial solutions that can be co-opted by the current one.