Saunders John B
aCentre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland bDisciplines of Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2017 Jul;30(4):227-237. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000332.
The present review compares and contrasts the diagnostic entities and taxonomy of substance use and addictive disorders in the beta draft of the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD 11), which was released in November 2016, and the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), which was published in mid-2013. Recently published papers relevant to these two classification systems are examined. New initiatives in diagnosis and assessment including the addictions neuroclinical assessment are noted.
The draft ICD 11 retains substance dependence as the 'master diagnosis' in contrast to the broader and heterogeneous concept of substance use disorder in DSM-5 and there is empirical support for the coherence of substance dependence for alcohol, cannabis, and prescribed opioids. Both systems now include gambling disorder in the addictive disorders section, with it being transferred from the impulse control disorders section. The new diagnosis of Internet gaming disorder is included in DSM-5 as a condition for further study, and gaming disorder is grouped with the substance and gambling disorders in the draft ICD 11. Initiatives from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) are highlighting the importance of capturing the neurobiological phases of the addictive cycle in clinical diagnosis and assessment.
Although most of the changes in the draft ICD 11 and DSM-5 are incremental, the contrast between DSM-5 substance use disorder and substance dependence in the draft ICD 11, and the inclusion of gambling disorder and gaming disorder will generate much discussion and research.
本综述对比了2016年11月发布的《国际疾病分类》第十一版(ICD - 11)beta草案和2013年年中出版的《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM - 5)中物质使用和成瘾性障碍的诊断实体及分类法。研究了近期发表的与这两种分类系统相关的论文。注意到了诊断和评估方面的新举措,包括成瘾神经临床评估。
与DSM - 5中更宽泛且异质性的物质使用障碍概念不同,ICD - 11草案保留了物质依赖作为“主要诊断”,并且有实证支持酒精、大麻和处方阿片类物质依赖的连贯性。两个系统现在都将赌博障碍纳入成瘾性障碍章节,它从前冲动控制障碍章节转移而来。新的网络游戏障碍诊断在DSM - 5中作为有待进一步研究的病症被纳入,而游戏障碍在ICD - 11草案中与物质和赌博障碍归为一组。美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)的举措强调了在临床诊断和评估中把握成瘾周期神经生物学阶段的重要性。
尽管ICD - 11草案和DSM - 5中的大多数变化是渐进式的,但DSM - 5中的物质使用障碍与ICD - 11草案中的物质依赖之间的对比,以及赌博障碍和游戏障碍的纳入将引发大量讨论和研究。