Friday 23 September 2016

Why so Paranoid?



So, first up Schizophrenia is a syndrome of psychosis. Psychosis is a very broad term which covers a range of phenomenon which result as a problem with ‘reality testing’. As said previously the symptoms of this disorder are broadly lumped into ‘positive’ (things that are added in; perceptual abnormalities, delusions) and ‘negative’ (things that are taken away; poor motivation, blunting of affect). When people are ‘unwell’ they tend to be experiencing predominantly positive symptoms. These can be highly distressing and disruptive for the individual and may lead to hospitalisation. When people are ‘well’ they experience less positive symptoms but may be very disabled by negative symptoms. They may require a great deal of support as, for example, they may not take care their food, finances or personal care.

The term paranoia in the psychiatric sense is used to describe interpreting things around you as being related to yourself, i.e. having delusions of self-reference. It may include thoughts of persecution but it does not refer to them exclusively. So delusional thoughts of being monitored and tracked by a shady government organisation which is bent on ruining you by framing you for some heinous crime is a ‘paranoid’, but so too is holding the delusional belief that you are on a special mission to stop terrorism and the strangers on the bus are really fellow agents sending you subtle secret messages by holding their telephones a certain way or glancing at you from time to time.

Delusions in general can either be primary or secondary. Secondary delusions follow on from abnormal experiences. If you hear people muttering through the walls, have an uncanny sense of being watched all the time and feel threatened you may conclude that you are being spied on by people who mean you harm. In these cases I find it striking how delusions are really just a rational mind trying to make sense of highly abnormal experiences. These delusions can become highly detailed and complex. They also tend to be very representative of people’s social context. I’m lucky enough to own a copy of a book called ‘Presumed Curable’ which is a set of case studies, accompanied by photographic portraits, of patients admitted to Bethlem Hospital in the late 19th century. Spies of the Kaiser, nobles and religious miracles abound. During the latter half of the 20th century aliens and spacemen hounded our psychotic patients. Now they are increasingly tormented on social media. It’s fascinating how the content of delusional thought shifts over time and across cultures whilst the underlying cognitive errors remain static. Primary delusions are those which appear to just appear de novo without any other apparent psychotic phenomenon driving them.

As to why. I’ve got no choice but to be even more reductionist here that I already have been. First up: chemicals. Brain chemicals, neurotransmitters. The neurochemical theories of Schizophrenia are essentially exercises in reverse engineering. This has important implications for proclamations about the aetiology of psychiatric illnesses but also should not led us, in my view, to dismiss the utility of such drugs. The drugs used to treat the positive symptoms of Schizophrenia are essentially dopamine blocking agents. Dopamine is the primary inhibitory neurotransmitter in mammals. The first ‘antipsychotic’ developed was Chlorpromazine. This was synthesised in the first half of the 20th century on the back of another drug, Promethazine, which had been developed as an antihistamine (I used to love to take this drug for sedation and its antihistamine properties, doubling or even tripleing the recommended dose unitl it gave me akathsia prompting me to be kicked out of bed - not good for morale) The sedative effects quickly became apparent and these drugs were initially utilised for surgical procedures. Soon they were given to psychotic patients and the effects appeared dramatic to those using them. Remember that up until this point patients were commonly treated (or rather ‘brought under proper control’) with ECT (a safe and effective treatment to this day!), psychosurgery (neither safe nor effective, barbarism), insulin coma therapy (utter madness), seclusion and physical restraint. The dopamine hypothesis was born. Too much Dopamine made you psychotic, blocking dopamine made Schizophrenics better, right? 

The evidence for this hypothesis is really shaky. People really do get better when given antipsychotics (in terms of psychosis anyway) and we know these drugs primarily block dopamine. We know that if you pump someone full of cocaine their dopamine levels increase and they can become psychotic. We know that if we treat Parkinson’s patients with Levodopa (a dopamine precursor which is able to cross the blood-brain barrier) they can become psychotic. Cerebro-spinal fluid examination of psychotic patients shows homovanillic acid (a dopamine metabolite) levels correlate with the severity of psychosis but not with the psychosis itself.

Ropey stuff indeed. Is it likely that the most complex know object in the universe can malfunction? Yes. Is it likely that this is due to one single chemical imbalance? I very much doubt it. Do antipsychotic drugs have utility in the treatment of psychosis? Absolutely, but let us not kid ourselves that we know why that might be. Other neurotransmitters, such as Glutamate, have been the target of antipsychotic drug development but these avenues have not born fruit. How might all this help us unlock paranoia?  I personally don’t know enough to join the dots other than to say that positive symptoms in Schizophrenia have been related in functional MRI studies to disorders of the medial prefrontal cortex (executive functioning, attention and theory of mind), amygdala (fear) and hippocampus/para-hippocampal region (memory and spatial awareness) and that signalling problems in these areas probably leads to changes in cognitive processes which end up looking, phenotypically, like psychosis. I’m not trying to be a smart arse, throwing around neuroanatomical jargon here, as my view is that this sort of stuff lends us precious little understanding of what is happening and why.

The second way to approach this issue is to look at psychological or cognitive errors. Liddle (1987) proposed three clinical syndromes of Schizophrenia, one of which was that of ‘reality disturbance’. Liddle et al found regional cerebral blood-flow correlates in the left medial temporal lobe and cingulate cortex which led to impairments in an individual’s ability to ‘self-monitor’ and experience delusions and hallucinations. Think of it as the system which ‘tells you’ that your internal monologue is just that, breaks. Random intrusive thoughts become critical ‘third person’ auditory hallucinations (he’s so stupid), thoughts about what you are doing become a ‘running commentary’ (he’s buttering his toast again), intrusive thoughts or thoughts about genuine desires may become ‘command hallucinations’. This may seem more related to the first point about chemicals at first but it is a really important concept. The ability to appropriately self-monitor one’s own thoughts, emotions and bodily sensations is vital if one is to properly make sense of this information. The concepts of ‘self’ and ‘other’ break down in psychosis. Some people speak of their minds becoming porous during psychotic episodes. Humans are already seriously prone to magical thinking, attribution errors and biases. If the areas of the brain which regulate an individual’s ability to monitor their own internal experiences malfunctions and the ability to accurately determine other people’s thoughts, emotions and intent go awry, it seems logical to me that correlates are increasingly perceived as causatives.

People tend to be a bit mad in any case,,

No comments: