91ɫƬ

How a scientific DSM will transform psychiatry

The decision of the leading US mental health institute to move away from the psychiatrists' "bible" means years of transition to biologically based diagnoses
What seems to be the trouble?
What seems to be the trouble?
(Image: BSIP/UIG/Getty Images)

EditorialOne manual shouldn’t dictate US mental health research

WELCOME to the future of psychiatric diagnosis. It will be based on science, and will look nothing like today’s . The DSM, the profession’s “bible”, has dominated medicine’s approach to mental illness for 60 years.

On 29 April, , director of world’s biggest funding agency for research into mental illness, advocated a major shift away from categorising psychiatric disorders according to a person’s symptoms. This approach has given us labels like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression.

Insel, who heads the , wants mental disorders to be diagnosed more objectively using a combination of genetics, brain scans that show abnormal patterns of activity, and cognitive testing. In a , Insel said the agency would be reorienting its research away from DSM‘s symptom-based approach. He delivered a blistering critique of DSM‘s limitations, stating that “patients with mental disorders deserve better”.

Coming just weeks before publication of the , Insel’s comments will be interpreted as a snub to the , which publishes the DSM – and a challenge to its hegemony over psychiatric diagnosis.

His comments certainly provide a powerful signal that psychiatry needs to be transformed for the 21st century. “I think it is quite a monumental thing to happen, for the director of NIMH to be so blunt,” says , director of the Welsh National Centre for Mental 91ɫƬ in Cardiff, UK, and a prominent critic of the DSM. “It’s a landmark.”

Still, don’t expect the landscape of mental illness to change any time soon. Insel accepts that it will take at least a decade to conduct the research necessary to devise a new approach to diagnosis. In the meantime, patients’ illnesses will continue to be diagnosed using the DSM‘s symptom-based categories.

“We’ve been telling patients for several decades that we are waiting for biomarkers. We’re still waiting,” says of the University of Pittsburgh, who led the DSM-5 revision. “The new manual, due for release later this month, represents the strongest system currently available for classifying disorders.”

Even the transition in research will be gradual – the NIMH isn’t going to stop funding projects based around DSM diagnoses overnight. But it is clear that new approaches will get priority in future, and with , the NIMH is in a position to call the shots.

“There is no question that NIMH has an unparalleled influence in shaping the research agenda in mental health,” says Geoffrey Reed of the World 91ɫƬ Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

The DSM revision has been embroiled in controversy, with concerns that it will further expand the boundaries of mental illness, meaning more people will be prescribed powerful psychoactive drugs. Insel’s objections are much more fundamental, however. The main drawback is that rapidly expanding knowledge about the genes and brain circuits that underlie human behaviour is not generating major clinical advances, because it doesn’t readily map onto the conditions described in the DSM.

The obvious conclusion is that many of those conditions aren’t “real” diseases. Instead, people with different underlying problems are lumped together and those with fundamentally similar issues separated.

“Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure,” Insel explained in his blog. “In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain, or the quality of fever.”

Viewed from this perspective, DSM-5 seems like an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. To accelerate the shift to biologically based diagnosis, Insel favours an approach embodied by an initiative launched 18 months ago by the NIMH, called the .

DSM-5 seems like an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”

This is based on the idea that mental disorders are biological problems involving brain circuits that influence patterns of cognition, emotion and behaviour. Rather than just studying people with major depression, for instance, the NIMH now wants researchers to involve patients from a broader range of diagnoses, and look for biomarkers that correlate with characteristics such as “anhedonia” – an inability to feel pleasure.

Similarly, Craddock believes researchers should be looking for an overlap between the underlying biological problems experienced by some patients currently diagnosed with schizophrenia, and others described as bipolar.

In the long run, Insel is convinced that studies like these will provide a better outlook for patients. “We cannot succeed if we use DSM categories as the gold standard,” he wrote in his blog.

Most psychiatrists contacted by New Scientist broadly support Insel’s bold initiative, but warn that there are some big challenges ahead to make his vision a reality. “It’s potentially game-changing, but needs to be based on underlying science that is reliable,” says of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London.

“These are incredibly complicated disorders,” agrees of the University of Cardiff, UK, a member of the DSM-5 work group on psychotic disorders. “To understand the neuroscience in sufficient depth and detail to build a diagnosis process will take a long time,” he says. Identifying specific brain circuits underlying complex phenomena such as paranoid delusions may prove particularly hard, says of Columbia University in New York City.

“To understand the neuroscience in sufficient depth to build a diagnosis process will take time”

Some mental health professionals also worry that Insel’s biology-driven approach leaves little room for considering psychological processes, which they argue may still provide the best means of understanding the problems experienced by many people with mental illness.

Debate over the future of psychiatric diagnosis is likely to intensify when the in San Francisco, where DSM-5 will be officially launched.

Sounding off

Psychiatrists are divided over the biggest challenge yet to the manual that defines their field

DSM is a nightmare and it’s been reified… [Diagnoses] have the miraculous bad property of being too broad and too narrow at the same time” Steven Hyman, former director, NIMH

“[This] may someday culminate in the genetic and neuroscience breakthroughs that will revolutionise our field. In the meantime, should we merely hand patients another promissory note that something may happen sometime?” David Kupfer, chair, DSM-5 task force

“It holds the potential of mental illnesses being on a par with the rest of healthcare, in having a number of biomarkers and being more objective in doing assessments” Wayne Lindstrom, president, Mental 91ɫƬ America

“This could eventually lead to an abandonment of much psychiatric research that recruits subjects on symptom-based diagnostic criteria” Geoffrey Reed, World 91ɫƬ Organization

“[It] is based on an assumption that everything of interest in understanding psychological conditions is reducible to biology. That is not a scientific finding” Jonathan Shedler, University of Colorado

Topics: Mental health / United States