Commentary on McGorry PD (2017), Back to the future: Schizophrenia in retrospect and prospect
A. Jablensky
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867417715916
2017-06-28
Abstract:I first met Professor McGorry back in 1993, shortly after my arrival in Australia, when he was still planning his visionary project of a reform in the mental health services with a major focus on early intervention in schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders. Since then, much of what he proposed has happened and Patrick has become an international leader of a worldwide movement towards better, evidence-based treatment and care for young people caught up in the early stages of an illness that could jeopardise their aspirations for personal development and a meaningful life. Examples of promising treatment programs and embedded research include the Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode (RAISE) study in the United States, the Danish OPUS prospective study of early intervention in psychosis and many other endeavours which employ concepts of disease staging and assessment tools originally developed by Patrick and his collaborators. Yet, his Australian ‘retrospect’ is permeated by lament, while the ‘prospect’ is only conditionally optimistic, given more advocacy and sufficient resources. I share Patrick’s concerns about the ‘gap’ between what is possible and what is at present available. These concerns were amply underpinned by the evidence provided by the two Australian national surveys of psychotic disorders. While a negative, stigmatising stereotype of schizophrenia as a chronic and inevitably debilitating disorder still persists, there is compelling evidence that this image is far removed from the real state of the matter. During my 12 years of work at the World Health Organization (1975– 1987), I was a Principal Investigator of a major study of schizophrenia in 10 countries (Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, India, Ireland, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom and United States) where teams of psychiatrists, psychologists and community health workers, using the same criteria and research instruments in defined geographical catchment areas, identified and recruited all incident cases of schizophrenia (Jablensky et al., 1992). There were no significant differences in the patients’ symptom profiles across the areas, and the diagnosis of schizophrenia was corroborated for every case by a computer algorithm. All patients were re-examined at 2 and 5 years post-onset, and a long-term follow-up of 1171 cases added data on their outcome at 15 years post-onset. Notably, 48.1% had attained a nearly complete recovery, 50.7% had Global Assessment of Functioning at Discharge (DSM-IV) score greater than 60 and 56.8% had been working during the past 2 years. The best predictors of the 15-year outcome were as follows: the proportion of time with psychotic symptoms during the first 2 years, absence of social isolation, family involvement in patient care, and no significant substance use. Surprisingly, while the proportions of cases with continuous unremitting illness (11.1– 17.4%) were similar across the areas, the high rates of complete clinical remission were significantly more common in developing country areas (India and Nigeria) than in the high-income countries. After ruling out in the analysis any major effects of diagnostic misclassification or of differentials in the familial burden of psychotic disorders, the study concluded that ‘a strong case can be made for a real, pervasive influence of a powerful factor which can be referred to as “culture,” i.e. the context in which gene-environment interactions shape the clinical picture of human disease’ (Jablensky and Sartorius, 2007). The lessons of this multinational study confirm the critical importance of early intervention in emerging psychotic illness. Along with Patrick McGorry and many others, I support the call for united and strong advocacy towards a ‘transformational reform’ in the early intervention services to endow them with the capacity to reach out and assist all those in need. My only point of disagreement with Patrick is in his depiction of Emil Kraepelin as a dogmatic protagonist of a ‘failed paradigm’ who made a ‘fundamental mistake’. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Being a clinician-scientist and profound thinker, Kraepelin (1974 [1920]) was able to Commentaries 715916 ANP0010.1177/0004867417715916ANZJP CorrespondenceANZJP Correspondence research-article2017