[Epidemiology and treatment of aggression in patients with psychotic disorders]

BACKGROUND

Aggression is a major problem within psychiatry. During the recent years, a lot of research has been done, but many clinical decisions are still not evidence-based.

AIM

This article describes three studies of the thesis 'Aggression in Psychiatry'. The overarching goal was to contribute to the current knowledge on aggression with clinically relevant results. The three studies described in this article are focused on psychotic disorders.

METHOD

The first study is a survival analysis with data from a 6-year follow-up study. The second study is focused on associations between aggression and clinical factors and the effect of antipsychotics on aggression in first episode psychosis patients. The third study is a meta-analysis focused on the effectiveness of typical versus atypical antipsychotics on aggression.

RESULTS

The yearly incidence of aggression in patients with psychotic disorders is around 2%. Patients with symptoms such as impulsivity, but also childhood trauma are at risk for aggression. Amisulpride appears effective against aggression during the first weeks of treatment. In patients with more persistent aggression, clozapine is most effective.

CONCLUSION

Aggression is complex and heterogeneous. More research is needed, but with the findings of these three studies, we contribute to the current knowledge of aggression and treatment options.

Hostility and aggressive behaviour in first episode psychosis: Results from the OPTiMiSE trial

AIM

The aim of this paper is to determine clinical factors related to hostility and disturbing and aggressive behaviour and to examine the effect of medication on these behaviours in FEP.

METHODS

Data from phase I and II of the OPTiMiSE trial are used. Outcome measures are the hostility item of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS P7) and the disturbing and aggressive behaviour domain of the Personal and Social Performance scale (PSP-D).

RESULTS

Moderate, severe or extreme hostility (PANSS P7 > 3) was present in 42 patients (9.4%). The PANSS P7 and PSP-D were low to moderate but significantly associated with the selected PANSS items: delusions, hallucinatory behaviour, excitement, tension, uncooperativeness, unusual thought content, impulsivity, and lack of judgement and insight. In a subsample of 185 patients (41.5%) with baseline PANSS P7 > 1, the PANSS P7 and PSP-D scores improved in the first 4 weeks of amisulpride treatment. This effect remained significant after controlling for baseline positive symptoms (PANSS P1-P6). No significant differences were found between olanzapine and amisulpride in the second phase of the trial.

CONCLUSION

Clinical risk factors such as poor impulse control, uncooperativeness and excitement could help clinicians in detecting and treating hostile and aggressive behaviour in FEP. Amisulpride could be an effective antipsychotic choice in the treatment of FEP patients who express hostile or aggressive behaviour. Future research is needed to compare the effects of amisulpride and olanzapine on hostility in FEP during the first weeks of treatment.

Aggressive Behavior, Hostility, and Associated Care Needs in Patients With Psychotic Disorders: A 6-Year Follow-Up Study

Background: Hostility and aggressive behavior in patients with psychotic disorders are associated with demographic and clinical risk factors, as well as with childhood adversity and neglect. Care needs are an essential concept in clinical practice; care needs in the domain of safety for others reflect the actual problem the patient has. Hostility, aggressive behavior, and associated care needs, however, are often studied in retrospect. Method: In a sample of 1,119 patients with non-affective psychotic disorders, who were interviewed three times over a period of 6 years, we calculated the incidence of hostility, self-reported maltreatment to others and care needs associated with safety for other people (safety-to-others). Regression analysis was used to analyze the association between these outcomes and risk factors. The population attributable fraction (PAF) was used to calculate the proportion of the outcome that could potentially be prevented if previous expressions of adverse behavior were eliminated. Results: The yearly incidence of hostility was 2.8%, for safety-to-others 0.8% and for maltreatment this was 1.8%. Safety-to-others was associated with previous hostility and vice versa, but, assuming causality, only 18% of the safety-to-others needs was attributable to previous hostility while 26% was attributable to impulsivity. Hostility, maltreatment and safety-to-others were all associated with number of unmet needs, suicidal ideation and male sex. Hostility and maltreatment, but not safety-to-others, were associated with childhood adversity. Neither safety-to-others, maltreatment nor hostility were associated with premorbid adjustment problems. Conclusion: The incidence of hostility, self-reported aggressive behaviors, and associated care needs is low and linked to childhood adversity. Known risk factors for prevalence also apply to incidence and for care needs associated with safety for other people. Clinical symptoms can index aggressive behaviors years later, providing clinicians with some opportunity for preventing future incidents.

Warning Signs prior to Aggressive Behavior in Child Psychiatric Units

This study aims at detecting and categorizing early warning signs of aggressive behavior in child psychiatric units. We analyzed 575 violent incident report forms and developed a coding scheme consisting of 16 warning signs. From the 575 incident report forms, a total of 1087 signs were coded. Most common warning signs were 'restlessness' (21.2%), 'not listening' (15.2%) and 'anger' (9.8%). These were also the most prevalent warning signs for the severe incidents. Although warning signs differ for each individual child, this study indicates that there are common warning signs for imminent aggressive incidents in child psychiatric facilities.

Kennedy Axis V: Clinimetric properties assessed by mental health nurses

The Kennedy Axis V is a routine outcome measurement instrument which can assist the assessment of the short-term risk for violence and other adverse patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interrater reliability and clinical utility of the instrument when used by mental health nurses in daily care of patients with mental illness. This cross-sectional study was conducted in inpatient and outpatient adult psychiatric care units and in one adolescent inpatient unit at a university hospital in the Netherlands. Interrater reliability was measured based on the independent scores of two different nurses for the same patients. The clinical utility of the instrument was evaluated by means of a clinical utility questionnaire. To gain a deeper understanding of rating difficulties at the adolescent unit, additional data were collected in two focus group interviews. The overall results revealed a substantial level of agreement between nurses (intraclass correlation coefficient and Pearson 0.79). Some rating challenges were identified, including difficulties with scoring the instrument and using tailor-made interventions related to the scores. These challenges can be resolved using refined training and implementation strategies. When the Kennedy Axis V is accompanied by a solid implementation strategy in adult mental health care, the instrument can be used for short-term risk assessment and thereby contribute in efforts to reduce violence, suicide, self-harm, severe self-neglect, and enhanced objectivity in clinical decision-making.