Somatoform Disorders in DSM-V

Proinflammatory cytokine levels in patients with conversion disorder

OBJECTIVE

It was aimed to evaluate the relationship between proinflammatory cytokine levels and conversion disorder both commonly known as stress regulated.

METHOD

Baseline proinflammatory cytokine levels-[Tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), Interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), Interleukin-6 (IL-6)]-were evaluated with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 35 conversion disorder patients and 30 healthy controls. Possible changes in proinflammatory cytokine levels were evaluated again, after their acute phase in conversion disorder patients.

RESULTS

Statistically significant decreased serum TNF-α levels were obtained in acute phase of conversion disorder. Those levels increased after acute conversion phase. There were no statistically significant difference observed between groups in serum IL-1β and (IL-6) levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Stress associated with conversion disorder may suppress immune function in acute conversion phase and may have diagnostic and therapeutic value.

Somatization and somatic symptom presentation in cancer: a neglected area

Abstract The recognition of somatization process in cancer patients is a challenging and neglected area, for the extreme difficulty in differentiating and assessing the psycho(patho)logical components from those biologically determined and related to cancer and cancer treatment, as well as for the scarce usefulness of rigid categorical DSM criteria. However, several dimensions of somatization (and the interconnected concept of abnormal illness behaviour) have been shown to be diagnosable in cancer patients and to negatively influence coping and quality of life outcomes. An integration of the formal DSM-ICD nosology with a system specifically taking into account the patients' emotional responses to cancer and cancer treatment, such as the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR), is suggested. More data on some specific symptom dimensions, including pain, fatigue and sexual disorders, are needed to examine their possible psychological components. More research is also needed regarding the association of somatization with personality traits (e.g. type D distressed personality, alexithymia), developmental dimensions (e.g. attachment), and cultural issues (e.g. culturally mediated attributional styles to somatic symptoms). Also, the impact and effectiveness of specific therapeutic intervention in 'somatizing' cancer patients is necessary.

Current debates over nosology of somatoform disorders

There is a wide debate among the researchers and clinicians over the diagnostic categories subsumed under the rubric of somatoform disorders (SDs). Recent proposals vary from radical views that call for removing this category altogether to the conservative views that suggests cosmetic changes in the diagnostic criteria of SDs. We have the reviewed the relevant literature through PUBMED search supplemented with manual search on current concepts of SD.

Understanding and managing somatoform disorders: Making sense of non-sense

Somatization is a clinical and public health problem as it can lead to social dysfunction, occupational difficulties and increased healthcare use. Hence understanding somatoform disorders is of paramount importance, especially so in developing countries like India. This paper discusses the history and evolution of the concept of somatization and somatoform disorders, etiological considerations, classification, assessment, diagnosis and clinical management. Research from India, controversies and criticisms and future perspectives are mentioned. A new model to understand functional somatic symptoms, in Indian setting is also proposed.

Validity of current somatoform disorder diagnoses: perspectives for classification in DSM-V and ICD-11

BACKGROUND

The impending revisions of DSM-IV and ICD-10 provide an excellent opportunity to improve the diagnostic accuracy of the current somatoform disorder classification. To prepare for these revisions, this study systematically investigates the validity of the current classification of somatoform disorders.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Psycinfo and reference lists to investigate convergent, divergent, criterion and predictive validity of the current somatoform disorder classification.

RESULTS

Substantial associations of somatoform disorders with functional impairment and elevated health care costs give evidence for the clinical and societal importance of somatoform disorders and for the convergent validity of the current operationalization. The specificity of the current somatoform disorder classification, i.e. their divergent validity, is demonstrated by the fact that functional somatic syndromes and their consequences are only partially explained by association with anxiety and depression. However, the imprecision of the diagnostic criteria, which are not based on positive criteria but on the exclusion of organic disease, largely limits the criterion validity of the current classification systems. Finally, studies investigating the predictive potential of somatoform disorders are lacking, and to date predictive validity has to be considered as low.

CONCLUSIONS

The insufficient criterion and predictive validity of the present somatoform classification underlines the need to revise the diagnostic criteria. However, an abolishment of the whole category of somatoform disorders would ignore the substantial convergent and divergent validity of the current classification and would exclude patients with somatoform symptoms from the current health care system. A careful revision of the current somatoform disorder diagnoses, based on positive criteria of psychological, biological and social features, has the potential to substantially improve the reproducibility and clinical utility of the existing classification system.

Psychotherapies for hypochondriasis

BACKGROUND

Hypochondriasis is associated with significant medical morbidity and high health resource use. Recent studies have examined the treatment of hypochondriasis using various forms of psychotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of any form of psychotherapy for the treatment of hypochondriasis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

1. CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References were searched on 7/8/2007, CENTRAL, Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cinahl, ISI Web of Knowledge, AMED and WorldCat Dissertations; Current Controlled Trials meta-register (mRCT), CenterWatch, NHS National Research Register and clinicaltrials.gov; 2. Communication with authors of relevant studies and other clinicians in the field; 3. Handsearching reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles, and electronic citation search in ISI Web of Knowledge for all included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled studies, both published and unpublished, in any language, in which adults with hypochondriasis were treated with a psychological intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two authors using a standardised extraction sheet. Study quality was assessed independently by the two authors qualitatively and using a standardised scale. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan software. Standardised or weighted mean differences were used to pool data for continuous outcomes and odds ratios were used to pool data for dichotomous outcomes, together with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies were included, with a total of 440 participants. The interventions examined were cognitive therapy (CT), behavioural therapy (BT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural stress management (BSM) and psychoeducation. All forms of psychotherapy except psychoeducation showed a significant improvement in hypochondriacal symptoms compared to waiting list control (SMD (random) [95% CI] = -0.86 [-1.25 to -0.46]). For some therapies, significant improvements were found in the secondary outcomes of general functioning (CBT), resource use (psychoeducation), anxiety (CT, BSM), depression (CT, BSM) and physical symptoms (CBT). These secondary outcome findings were based on smaller numbers of participants and there was significant heterogeneity between studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive therapy, behavioural therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural stress management are effective in reducing symptoms of hypochondriasis. However, studies included in the review used small numbers of participants and do not allow estimation of effect size, comparison between different types of psychotherapy or whether people are "cured". Most long-term outcome data were uncontrolled. Further studies should make use of validated rating scales, assess treatment acceptability and effect on resource use, and determine the active ingredients and nonspecific factors that are important in psychotherapy for hypochondriasis.

Should conversion disorder be reclassified as a dissociative disorder in DSM V?

Pseudoneurological symptoms (i.e., conversion disorder), historically subsumed within the "hysteria" concept alongside phenomena such as psychogenic amnesia and multiple personality disorder, have been classified as somatoform disorders since DSM-III. Since then, there have been repeated calls to reclassify conversion disorder with the dissociative disorders, as in ICD-10. The authors review issues such as the high correlations between pseudoneurological and dissociative symptoms, the high rates of trauma reported for both groups, and the position that these phenomena share underlying processes. Although reintegrating pseudoneurological symptoms with the dissociative disorders is not without complications, there is a strong case for such a reclassification.

Revising the Classification of Somatoform Disorders: Key Questions and Preliminary Recommendations

As the DSM-V process unfolds, Somatoform Disorders are a diagnostic category for which major revisions seem warranted. The Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders (CISSD) project recently convened three workshops, involving 24 experts. The CISSD identified key questions related to stakeholders; terminology; appropriate axis (I versus III); medically unexplained criteria; status of functional somatic syndromes; and symptom counts, grouping, lifetime recall, and checklists. Preliminary recommendations include substantial revision of the category of Somatization Disorder, elimination of Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder and Pain Disorder, terminology changes, and potential shifting of certain disorders to different DSM categories or axes.

Personality disorders in somatization disorder patients: a controlled study in Spain

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to assess personality disorder (PD) comorbidity in somatization disorder (SD) patients compared with psychiatric controls in a Spanish sample.

METHODS

This is a case-control study. Selection of 70 consecutive SD patients was made, and an age-, sex-, and ethnic-group-matched control group of 70 mood and/or anxiety disorder patients recruited in psychiatric outpatient clinics was selected. PDs were measured using the International Personality Disorder Examination, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Axis I morbidity was measured by means of the Standardized Polyvalent Psychiatric Interview.

RESULTS

PD comorbidity in SD patients was 62.9%, compared to 28.2% in controls [odds ratio (OR)=3.7; 95% confidence interval (95% CI)=1.8-7.6]. The highest ORs of PD in SD patients, compared with controls, were for paranoid (OR=9.2; 95% CI=1.9-43), obsessive-compulsive (OR=6.2; 95% CI=1.2-53.6), and histrionic (OR=3.6; 95% CI=0.9-13.9) PDs.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a controlled study with the largest sample of SD patients. The prevalence of PD comorbidity is similar to that of a previously published controlled study but is different from those of the most frequent PD subtypes.

Why reassurance fails in patients with unexplained symptoms--an experimental investigation of remembered probabilities

BACKGROUND

Providing reassurance is one of physicians' most frequently used verbal interventions. However, medical reassurance can fail or even have negative effects. This is frequently the case in patients with medically unexplained symptoms. It is hypothesized that these patients are more likely than patients from other groups to incorrectly recall the likelihoods of medical explanations provided by doctors.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Thirty-three patients with medically unexplained symptoms, 22 patients with major depression, and 30 healthy controls listened to an audiotaped medical report, as well as to two control reports. After listening to the reports, participants were asked to rate what the doctor thinks the likelihood is that the complaints are caused by a specific medical condition. Although the doctor rejected most of the medical explanations for the symptoms in his verbal report, the patients with medically unexplained complaints remembered a higher likelihood for medical explanations for their symptoms. No differences were found between patients in the other groups, and for the control conditions. When asked to imagine that the reports were applicable to themselves, patients with multiple medical complaints reported more concerns about their health state than individuals in the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians should be aware that patients with medically unexplained symptoms recall the likelihood of medical causes for their complaints incorrectly. Therefore, physicians should verify correct understanding by using check-back questions and asking for summaries, to improve the effect of reassurance.

Somatoform Disorders and DSM-V: Conceptual and Political Issues in the Debate

This article furthers the debate on the future of somatoform disorders by critically reviewing the relevant terminology and validity for the separate grouping and classification of these disorders. It is suggested that political pressures to change certain terms should be resisted, and that such changes should be made only if the alternatives have clear advantages.

Idiopathic physical symptoms: a common manifestation of psychiatric disorders in primary care

Worldwide, patients with common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety, have a tendency to present first to primary care exhibiting idiopathic physical symptoms. Typically, these symptoms consist of pain and other physical complaints that remain medically unexplained. While in the past, traditional psychopathology emphasized the relevance of somatic presentations for disorders, such as depression, in the last few decades, the "somatic component" has been neglected in the assessment and treatment of psychiatric patients. Medical specialties have come up with a variety of "fashionable" labels to characterize these patients and the new psychiatric nomenclatures, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, attempt to classify these patients into a separate "somatoform disorders" category. These efforts fall short, and revisionists are asking altogether for the elimination of "somatoform disorders" from future nomenclatures. This review emphasizes the importance of idiopathic physical symptoms to the clinical phenomenology of many psychiatric disorders, offers suggestions to the diagnostic conundrum, and provides some hints for the proper assessment and management of patients with these common syndromes.

Somatoform disorders: the role of consultation liaison psychiatry

The somatoform disorders are encountered commonly in both primary and secondary care. Despite their high incidence, few hospitals have teams with the expertise to manage this group of conditions. The lack of appropriate carers leads to inappropriate care, including increased numbers of admissions and investigations, to the detriment of the patients. The absence of appropriate care also increases the cost to the health services. Multidisciplinary Consultation Liaison (C-L) Psychiatry teams operate within non-psychiatric settings and are dedicated to the mental health care of patients presenting in these areas. Their unique skills and approaches offer support and education to these non-psychiatric teams and care to this group of patients. They are thus ideally placed to assess, diagnose and manage individuals presenting with somatoform disorders. Unfortunately, these teams are not widely available, largely because the current climate within psychiatry leads services to concentrate on what is defined as serious mental illness, a term usually used synonymously with psychotic disorders, despite the large number of people suffering from somatoform disorders and the cost of their care. The dislike that some colleagues have for this group of conditions may further hamper the creation of these services. In order to provide efficient assessment of and treatment for individuals with somatoform disorders, C-L Psychiatry teams must be created to lead clinical development, research and training in this discipline. These teams will also lead on the further research required.

Towards better understanding and management of somatoform disorders

Much research has recently been conducted on somatoform disorders demonstrating their clinical importance, associated health-service burden and economic cost. These conditions are often comorbid with other mental and physical disorders and particularly prevalent in primary care and general medical settings. Although culture-specific manifestations and variations of somatization occur--it is now accepted that medically unexplained somatic symptoms are a universal phenomenon. The management of somatoform disorders is generally a complex and lengthy process; however, a number of recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of short-term treatments such as cognitive behaviour therapy and educational interventions. Despite advances in their understanding and treatment, debate still surrounds the conceptualization and categorization of somatoform disorders, with a number of experts proposing a complete re-evaluation and reassignment of this diagnostic classification category. The following paper represents a review of recently published literature on frequency, characteristics, conceptualization, impact and management of somatoform disorders.

Depression, pain, and somatoform disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The frequent co-occurrence of depression and somatic symptoms poses a continuing challenge to clinicians, researchers and experts involved in drawing up classifications. In this review we present recently published literature on aspects of epidemiology, classification and treatment in this important overlap area.

RECENT FINDINGS

From the multitude of papers published annually on the co-occurrence of different pain conditions and depression, temporomandibular dysfunction stands out this year by sheer quantity; it can be seen as a model case of the necessity for differentiated high-quality assessments on the biological as well as the psychosocial level. There is a general move to separate utility of diagnostic classifications from their validity, and this strengthens classificatory approaches that help to view the regular overlap of depression, pain and other somatic symptoms as the rule rather than the exception. The incorporation of cognitive variables like causal attributions should help to distinguish clinically relevant subtypes among overlap cases. The classificatory future of the category of 'somatoform disorders' is somewhat in doubt, but reforms seem to be more productive than abolishment. Psychopharmacology provides rather intense recent coverage of the overlap field, with newer dual serotonergic-noradrenergic reuptake inhibitors offering some promise.

SUMMARY

Treating the overlap of depression, pain and other somatic symptoms as the rule rather than the exception is necessary for adequate aetiological research as well as for diagnosis and treatment, with one-dimensional classificatory and treatment approaches almost certainly being insufficient.

Somatization revisited: diagnosis and perceived causes of common mental disorders

The assessment of somatoform disorders is complicated by persistent theoretical and practical questions of classification and assessment. Critical rethinking of professional concepts of somatization suggests the value of complementary assessment of patients' illness explanatory models of somatoform and other common mental disorders. We undertook this prospective study to assess medically unexplained somatic symptoms and their patient-perceived causes of illness and to show how patients' explanatory models relate to professional diagnoses of common mental disorders and how they may predict the short-term course of illness. Tertiary care patients (N=186) with prominent somatoform symptoms were evaluated with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, a locally adapted Explanatory Model Interview to elicit patients' illness experience (priority symptoms) and perceived causes, and clinical self-report questionnaires. The self-report questionnaires were administered at baseline and after 6 months. Diagnostic overlap between somatoform, depressive, and anxiety disorders occurred frequently (79.6%). Patients explained pure somatoform disorders mainly with organic causal attributions; they explained pure depressive and/or anxiety disorders mainly with psychosocial perceived causes, and patients in the diagnostic overlap group typically reported mixed causal attributions. In this last group, among patients with similar levels of symptom severity, organic perceived causes were related to a lower physical health sum score on the MOS Short Form, and psychosocial perceived causes were related to less severe depressive symptoms, assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months. Among patients meeting criteria for comorbid somatoform with anxiety and/or depressive disorders, complementary assessment of patient-perceived causes, a key element of illness explanatory models, was related to levels of functional impairment and short-term prognosis. For such patients, causal attributions may be particularly useful to clarify clinically significant features of common mental disorders and thereby contribute to clinical assessment.

Exploration of DSM-IV criteria in primary care patients with medically unexplained symptoms

OBJECTIVES

Investigators and clinicians almost always rely on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, 4th edition's (DSM-IV) somatoform disorders (and its derivative diagnoses) to characterize and identify patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Our objective was to evaluate this use by determining the prevalence of DSM-IV somatoform and nonsomatoform disorders in patients with MUS proven by a gold standard chart review.

METHODS

In a community-based staff model HMO, we identified subjects for a clinical trial using a systematic and reliable chart rating procedure among high-utilizing MUS patients. Only baseline data are reported here. The World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview provided full and abridged DSM-IV diagnoses. Patients with full or abridged DSM-IV somatoform diagnoses were labeled "DSM somatoform-positive," whereas those without them were labeled "DSM somatoform-negative."

RESULTS

Two hundred six MUS patients averaged 13.6 visits in the year preceding study, 79.1% were females, and the average age was 47.7 years. We found that 124 patients (60.2%) had a nonsomatoform ("psychiatric") DSM-IV diagnosis of any type; 36 (17.5%) had 2 full nonsomatoform diagnoses, and 41 (19.9%) had >2; 92 (44.7%) had some full anxiety diagnosis and 94 (45.6%) had either full depression or minor depression diagnoses. However, only 9 of 206 (4.4%) had any full DSM-IV somatoform diagnosis, and only 39 (18.9%) had abridged somatization disorder. Thus, 48 (23.3%) were "DSM somatoform-positive" and 158 (76.7%) were "DSM somatoform-negative." The latter exhibited less anxiety, depression, mental dysfunction, and psychosomatic symptoms (all p <.001) and less physical dysfunction (p = .011). Correlates of this DSM somatoform-negative status were female gender (p = .007), less severe mental (p = .007), and physical dysfunction (p = .004), a decreased proportion of MUS (p <.10), and less psychiatric comorbidity (p <.10); c-statistic = 0.77.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that depression and anxiety characterized MUS patients better than the somatoform disorders. Our data suggested radically revising the somatoform disorders for DSM-V by incorporating a new, very large group of now-overlooked DSM somatoform-negative patients who were typically women with less severe dysfunction.