Hirjak Dusan, Meyer-Lindenberg Andreas, Brandt Geva A, Dreßing Harald
Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Zentralinstitut für Seelische Gesundheit, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, 68159, Mannheim, Deutschland.
Nervenarzt. 2022 Jan;93(1):11-23. doi: 10.1007/s00115-021-01083-3. Epub 2021 Mar 3.
Substance-induced psychotic disorders (SIPD) are frequent and account for about 25% of the first admissions to a psychiatric hospital. From a clinical point of view the differential diagnosis of SIPD vs. primary (genuine or cryptogenic) psychotic disorders is often a challenge due to the similar psychopathology. This is complicated by the fact that SIPDs associated with cannabis, hallucinogens and amphetamines have a significant risk of transition to manifest psychotic disorder (e.g. schizophrenia). In the first section of this paper two case reports from general psychiatric and forensic practice are presented. Then, in a narrative review the relevance of the differential diagnostic distinction between both disorders is examined from the perspective of general and forensic psychiatry with respect to therapy, prognosis and judicial decisions regarding the placement in forensic commitment (§ 63 vs. § 64 German Penal Code, StGB). The last section aims to develop a structured procedure for the differentiation between SIPD and primary psychotic disorders. The concepts and findings presented and discussed in this paper are intended to help psychiatrists and psychologists make a diagnosis in a general and a forensic context.
物质所致精神障碍(SIPD)很常见,约占首次入住精神病院患者的25%。从临床角度来看,由于精神病理学相似,SIPD与原发性(真性或隐源性)精神障碍的鉴别诊断往往具有挑战性。与大麻、致幻剂和苯丙胺相关的SIPD有转变为明显精神障碍(如精神分裂症)的重大风险,这使得情况更加复杂。本文第一部分介绍了两例来自普通精神病学和法医实践的病例报告。然后,在一篇叙述性综述中,从普通精神病学和法医精神病学的角度,就治疗、预后以及关于法医强制住院安置的司法决定(《德国刑法典》第63条与第64条,StGB),探讨了这两种障碍鉴别诊断的相关性。最后一部分旨在制定一种区分SIPD和原发性精神障碍的结构化程序。本文所呈现和讨论的概念及研究结果旨在帮助精神科医生和心理学家在普通和法医背景下进行诊断。