Director’s Blog
April 19, 2010
What’s in a Name? — The Outlook for Borderline Personality Disorder

Thomas Insel

In Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet,” the question is posed to illustrate that a name doesn’t define a person’s feelings or intent. In psychiatry, the same may be said of that which we call borderline personality disorder. Noted primarily for symptoms such as impaired mood regulation, unstable relationships with others, and self-harming behaviors, the name “borderline personality disorder,” fails to capture the essence of this serious mental illness.

As currently defined, borderline personality disorder is considered a reflection of an essential aspect of a person’s character that influences his or her way of seeing and being seen in the world. Recent research, however, has shown that symptoms of the disorder aren’t constant and may not always be as enduring as some researchers and clinicians may think. Yet fluctuating moods and behavior also happen to define another mental illness, bipolar disorder, with which borderline personality disorder may be confused….

He concludes with this:

…Whatever the outcome of reclassification efforts, however, we must keep in mind the essence of the question — that “borderline personality disorder” by any other name would still be as real, as disabling, and as necessary to treat, as other serious mental illnesses.

Read the whole post here.

Related posts:

1. A New Name for Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)?
2. People with Borderline Personality Disorder over diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder
3. Angelina Jolie and Borderline Personality Disorder (again)

DSM-5 Type and Trait Cross-Walk

Related posts:

1. Shame and BPD
2. Role of Shame in BPD
3. Role of Shame in BPD

Wednesday, Mar. 11, 2009

Redefining Crazy: Researchers Revise the DSM

By John Cloud

If you wanted to make a list of important books you should read, what would you choose? Anna Karenina, maybe? The Bible? How about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?

It may not be at the top of your list, but the DSM, as it’s usually called, is one of the most important books in the world. It attempts to categorize, describe and give a code number to literally every problem that can occur in your mind, from schizophrenia to borderline personality disorder to something called mathematics disorder, which is essentially being so bad at math that it amounts to a mental problem.

The DSM is important not only because it is wildly ambitious but also because mental-health professionals around the world have adopted its classification system. In the U.S., it is virtually impossible to get reimbursed by an insurance company for treatment unless a mental-health professional identifies your condition by a DSM code number. (The number for mathematics disorder, if you were wondering, is 315.1. The code for Tourette’s syndrome is 307.23; the code for sexual sadism is 302.84. As I said, the DSM tries to cover everything.) (See the top 10 medical breakthroughs of 2008.)

The American Psychiatric Association (APA), which owns the DSM, is in the process of rewriting the book, which was first published in 1952. The DSM-V, as the fifth edition will be called, is set to be published in 2012. But the process of researching it began way back in 1999 — five years after the publication of the last major revision, the DSM-IV — meaning the new book’s production will take 13 years overall. (Read about how we get labeled by the DSM.)

Why so long? Last week, a research organization called the American Psychopathological Association (which goes by the acronym APPA, to distinguish it from the APA) brought many of the key players in the development of the DSM-V to a conference in New York City to discuss some of the reasons the writing of the book is so complicated.

One obvious reason is that so many people have a stake in what the world defines as crazy and what it calls normal. Famously, homosexuality was listed as a DSM condition until a 1974 vote among APA members removed it. Other groups of mental-health professionals and patients want certain disorders to be added (and covered by insurance): sexual compulsivity, for instance, is not in the DSM, even though “sexual aversion disorder” (302.79) — the persistent and distressing avoidance of genital contact not explained by another disorder like depression — is included. (Read an interview with an author who has bipolar disorder.)

Debates about what should and shouldn’t be in the DSM are fascinating and often bitter, and as I have pointed out before, the book makes at least one fundamental error in the way it conceives of mental problems: it ignores causes almost entirely. If you feel sad and tired for a couple of months, have trouble sleeping and making decisions, and gain weight, you can be given a DSM diagnosis of depression (296.31 or 296.32, mild or moderate, recurrent) and prescribed drugs for it — even if the reason for your funk is that you just lost your job. Such physiological responses as insomnia are evolutionarily natural (and sometimes helpful, in a jump-starting sort of way) when you suffer a trauma like losing your job. But according to the DSM, only perfect is considered normal. Another basic problem with the DSM: it tries to reduce the vastly complex experiences of your mind to a single number.

At last week’s conference, there were tantalizing hints that the DSM-V might fix some of these problems. Dr. Steven Hyman, provost of Harvard, a former psychiatry professor at its medical school and a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, agitated at the meeting for a new DSM framework that would stop trying to divide mental problems into discrete all-or-nothing categories. That method is appropriate for some medical problems — you either have leukemia or you don’t — but depression, for instance, doesn’t work like that. (Read “Why Do the Mentally Ill Die Younger?”)

Rather, Hyman argued that many mental illnesses are problems that lie along a continuum from normal and functioning to disordered and tragic. To the annoyance of some old-fashioned DSM defenders, he made the case that the DSM should regard mental illness as “continuous with normal”: less like leukemia and more like hypertension. You don’t get diagnosed with hypertension until you meet a cutoff point for high blood pressure that takes into account other extenuating factors: your age, for instance, or the conditions under which the blood-pressure reading is taken. Depression should be the same: if you are sad because you just got divorced, the DSM shouldn’t necessarily consider you to have an illness.

Such a diagnostic model wouldn’t be simple, though, which is one reason the DSM is taking 13 years to rewrite. And in the meantime, the book still has to be useful to everyday clinicians seeing patients who need a code number for insurance companies. “It’s like wondering how you repair the airport while the planes are still flying,” Hyman said at the conference.

Hyman noted that medical problems, whether in the mind or in the body or both, are usually caused by some combination of genes, environment, behavior and chance. Despite the comforting modern notion that severe psychological illnesses are simply due to an unfortunate genetic inheritance, it is the exceedingly rare mental condition that is caused only by genes. (Rett syndrome is one example.) Rather, if you take something like generalized anxiety disorder (300.02), there may be a variety of causes that set it off: genes that cause excessive activity in the fear-producing part of the brain called the amygdala, a stressful job that stimulates that activity, engaging in dumb behavior like having an affair that exacerbates your anxiety, then randomly getting into an anxiety-heightening situation like a car accident. The DSM has to try to account for all of that complexity — causes, effects, unintended consequences — and still be definitive.

Hyman said in an interview that one way the DSM currently handles this complexity is to have what he described as a “wastebasket” diagnosis — called “not otherwise specified” (NOS) — that captures just about anything that doesn’t easily fit the categorical model. One major problem with the NOS diagnosis: pretty much anyone can qualify for a diagnosis that, by definition, is not specified. A 2005 American Journal of Psychiatry paper found that nearly half of a group of 859 people who sought psychological help in Rhode Island could be considered to have a DSM personality disorder if diagnosticians were allowed to include the NOS option. Another problem: how do you adequately treat patients whose illness is unspecified?

A continuum model like the one Hyman proposes could help solve this problem by recognizing that people aren’t always one thing or another. They’re sometimes just a little depressed or a little anxious. To avoid medicalizing normal stress, the DSM-V would set a cutoff point within the spectrum. Of course, determining the right cutoff point for the DSM’s 350 illnesses would take an enormous research effort, one that has begun for some disorders like depression but probably hasn’t even been thought about for rare problems like sexual sadism.

Other attendees at the APPA conference indicated that the new DSM will almost certainly adopt a continuum model for mental illnesses. But don’t be surprised if the book doesn’t come out as scheduled in 2012. If the three-day conference came to any solid conclusion, it was that toting up all the ways our minds can fail is a lot harder than, say, explaining why your appendix might burst.

Read “Tallying Mental Illness’s Costs.”

Read “I’m O.K. You’re O.K. We’re Not O.K.”

Related posts:

1. NY Times Article that Mentions BPD
2. Interesting Article from Time Magazine on BPD
3. The DSM-IV and Bon’s view of BPD/ERD – What’s required?

A 2008 study of nearly 35,000 adults in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found that 5.9%–which would translate into 18 million Americans–had been given a BPD diagnosis. As recently as 2000, the American Psychiatric Association believed that only 2% had BPD. (In contrast, clinicians diagnose bipolar disorder and schizophrenia in about 1% of the population.) BPD has long been regarded as an illness disproportionately affecting women, but the latest research shows no difference in prevalence rates for men and women. Regardless of gender, people in their 20s are at higher risk for BPD than those older or younger.

Because generally, it has been acknowledged that BPD occurs in about 2% of the population (which is already equal to the level of bipolar and schizophrenia combined, yet the condition gets much less attention or funding); however, this article states that research has shown that BPD is more than twice as prevalent than previously thought (at 5.9%, which would be almost three times as much as bipolar and schizophrenia combined). Also, the article states that, against the previously published data, there is no difference in prevalence rates between men and women. Typically, the research has shown that BPD patients are 75% female. So, I decided to track down this study and did so. Here is an abstract of the study:

Prevalence, correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV borderline personality disorder: results from the Wave 2 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.

Grant BF, Chou SP, Goldstein RB, Huang B, Stinson FS, Saha TD, Smith SM, Dawson DA, Pulay AJ, Pickering RP, Ruan WJ.

Laboratory of Epidemiology and Biometry, Division of Intramural Clinical and Biological Research, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, USA. bgrant@willco.niaaa.nih.gov

OBJECTIVES: To present nationally representative findings on prevalence, sociodemographic correlates, disability, and comorbidity of borderline personality disorder (BPD) among men and women. METHOD: Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 34,653 adults participating in the 2004-2005 Wave 2 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Personality disorder diagnoses were made using the Wave 2 Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-DSM-IV Version. RESULTS: Prevalence of lifetime BPD was 5.9% (99% CI = 5.4 to 6.4). There were no differences in the rates of BPD among men (5.6%, 99% CI = 5.0 to 6.2) and women (6.2%, 99% CI = 5.6 to 6.9). BPD was more prevalent among Native American men, younger and separated/divorced/widowed adults, and those with lower incomes and education and was less prevalent among Hispanic men and women and Asian women. BPD was associated with substantial mental and physical disability, especially among women. High co-occurrence rates of mood and anxiety disorders with BPD were similar. With additional comorbidity controlled for, associations with bipolar disorder and schizotypal and narcissistic personality disorders remained strong and significant (odds ratios > or = 4.3). Associations of BPD with other specific disorders were no longer significant or were considerably weakened. CONCLUSIONS: BPD is much more prevalent in the general population than previously recognized, is equally prevalent among men and women, and is associated with considerable mental and physical disability, especially among women. Unique and common factors may differentially contribute to disorder-specific comorbidity with BPD, and some of these associations appear to be sex-specific. There is a need for future epidemiologic, clinical, and genetically informed studies to identify unique and common factors that underlie disorder-specific comorbidity with BPD. Important sex differences observed in rates of BPD and associations with BPD can inform more focused, hypothesis-driven investigations of these factors.

I suppose that the idea that BPD “is associated with considerable mental and physical disability, especially among women” points to the fact that more women seek treatment for the disorder because of the “disability” aspect of its presentation among women. Perhaps that can explain the previously acknowledged statistics of 75% occurrence in women.

Related posts:

1. Study Shows Greater Prevaleance of BPD than Previously Expected
2. People with Borderline Personality Disorder over diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder
3. Possible Genetic link in BPD?

Experts Argue That Borderline Personality Disorder Should Be Shifted to Axis I

Thursday October 16, 2008

In a recent paper published in Biological Psychiatry, Dr. Antonia New and her colleagues at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Bronx VA Medical Center argue the case for shifting borderline personality disorder (BPD) from Axis I to Axis II of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).In the most current, fourth edition of the DSM, BPD is diagnosed on Axis II, which is reserved for “longstanding disorders,” such as personality disorders. In their paper, Dr. New and her colleagues argue that research has not supported the distinction between BPD and Axis I disorders, and that moving BPD to Axis I will spur new research on this serious condition.

Related posts:

1. People with Borderline Personality Disorder over diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder
2. Angelina Jolie and Borderline Personality Disorder (again)
3. Four reasons bipolar disorder is accepted and borderline personality disorder is not

A POSSIBLE NEW NAME FOR BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER

Many people would like to change the terminology of the “borderline personality disorder” to a new term that more accurately describes the illness. The term “BPD” in and of itself is as if the whole person (and the personality) is flawed, rather than looking at the BPD as a medical problem it actually is.

The term “borderline personality disorder” implies that there is no hope for treatment as many mental health professionals unfortunately still believe. There is thought that this illness borders on schizophrenia, thus the term “borderline.”

What then is borderline personality disorder? These questions have been posed to Dr. Leland Heller, expert in treating borderline personality disorder.

Q. What do you think about the term “borderline personality disorder”?

A. “I think it’s a horrible, insulting label for a real medical illness. The name alone reduces serious research, stigmatizes victims, and implies the person is crazy. It denies the medical nature of the process, and implies simply a personality problem.”

Q. Do you think “borderline personality disorder” is an accurate description?

A. “No I don’t. It implies a character problem. While I’ve encountered many people with a bad character who had the BPD, most borderlines I’ve treated (over 2100) do not have character problems. “Borderline” means patients live “at the border” between psychosis and reality. When borderlines are well treated medically, psychotic experiences are few and far between – and can be treated well. Borderlines don’t live at that border, they simply go into psychosis too easily under stress.”

Q. What is the BPD?

A. “The BPD is a medical problem, likely a form of epilepsy (brain cells firing inappropriately and out of control). The characteristic symptoms include inappropriate moodiness, chronic anger, emptiness, boredom, dysphoria (anxiety, rage, depression and despair) and psychosis. The other criteria are symptoms related to these medical problems.

ALL neurological disorders can have an effect on the personality, such as Parkinson’s disease which isn’t called the ‘shaking personality disorder.’ ”

Q. What does this term “Dyslimbia” mean?

“ ‘Dys’ means malfunction, and limbia meaning from the limbic system.

‘Dyslimbia’ is malfunction of the limbic system. While other neuropsychiatric disorders involve malfunction of the limbic system, the limbic system dysfunction is profound in the BPD. I chose Dyslimbia for my patients to take the stigma away. The BPD needs a new name, one that emphasizes healing not labeling.

I don’t care if it’s renamed ‘Dyslimbia’ or not, but a more honest, humane, and hopeful name needs to be made for this illness. Patients deserve to get medical attention for ‘Dyslimbia’ (or an equivalent name), rather than have doctors and therapists shun them because they are ‘borderlines.’”

I’d like to write more about the struggle for a new name… but one of the things to note is that most researchers in this area have recommended dropping the word “personality” from the name and reclassifying it Axis I. The most common and likely new name is “Emotional Regulation Disorder (ERD).”

More on this later.

UPDATE: Well, the DSM-V has been previewed and it appears that the term “Borderline Type” is being considered.

When Hope is Not Enough
Get the Non-BPD book
that has helped hundreds!
If you have the disorder, give it to you loved ones! It will help.

Related posts:

1. People with Borderline Personality Disorder over diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder
2. NIHM Director Thomas Insel considers the name of “Borderline Personality Disorder”
3. Four reasons bipolar disorder is accepted and borderline personality disorder is not

If we look at the diagnostic criteria of BPD, I’d say some of those features are REQUIRED to have the disorder (again this is my opinion). From the DSM IV:

A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following – and the diagnosis only applies to 5 or more of ANY of these traits….

1. frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment. Note: Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.

OK, almost EVERY borderline I have come into contact with or have learned about has this feature including my wife. I didn’t think this was a big deal in my wife until she went into a crisis with one of her close friends and she told me (about the friend) “Don’t touch abandonment! That’s my ISSUE!” Abandonment by her father has had DEEP wounds for her. However, while it is very common, I don’t think it is required.

2. a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation.

I think this is a requirement, but not a “distinguishing characteristic” of BPD. Nons would not have a problem if this wasn’t an issue. It’s about splitting – however, splitting is not a feature that is exclusive to BPD. You see it in other disorders (although it might not be a diagnostic feature of others). You see it in PTSD, you see it in emotional immaturity… it is a very common cognitive distortion.

3. identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self.

I don’t know if this is required. I think this could be replaced with pervasive SHAME (which IS required IMO). The sense of self is more than “unstable” – it seems a bit self-judgmental… the invalidating of one’s emotions leads to shame, because it is wrong to feel like one feels. I think that causes an “unstable sense of self” because people have (or you yourself have) invalidated your very essence. It is not OK to be the way you are, so you have to search for a different way to be – in vain. That’s where acceptance can help.

4. impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating). Note: Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.

Personally, I think the impulsiveness is a requirement too. Maybe not the behaviors mentioned here… but BPs are in my experience incredibly impulsive. If you look at this from wikipedia you will see how other countries view BPD:

Comparable diagnoses

The World Health Organization’s ICD-10 has a comparable diagnosis called *Emotionally unstable* personality disorder – Borderline type (F60.31). This requires the following, in addition to the general criteria for personality disorder: disturbances in and uncertainty about self-image, aims, and internal preferences (including sexual); liability to become involved in intense and unstable relationships, often leading to emotional crisis; excessive efforts to avoid abandonment; recurrent threats or acts of self-harm; and chronic feelings of emptiness.

The Chinese Society of Psychiatry’s CCMD has a comparable diagnosis of *Impulsive Personality Disorder (IPD)*. A patient diagnosed as having IPD must display “affective outbursts” and “marked impulsive behavior”, plus at least three out of eight other symptoms. The construct has been described as a hybrid of the impulsive and borderline subtypes of the ICD-10′s Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, and also incorporates six of the nine DSM BPD criteria.

5. recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self- mutilating behavior

Self-mutilating… probably not. Although I have known of many, many BPs that do cut, burn or pull at their hair. Or starve themselves. I think suicidal ideation is a given. According to some sources 75% of BPs attempt suicide at sometime in their lives.

6. affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days).

THIS is IMO the CORE feature of ERD (and possibly BPD if it is the same diagnosis – see WHO above). This – in combination with impulsiveness – seems to the the very foundation for BPD/ERD. I don’t think someone can have the disorder that I describe in my book (which I call BPD – or at least my experience with it) without this. This is the main thing the skills in my book try and address, because IMO this is the engine of all other feelings and behaviors. If this can be healed/managed most other things will fall away. Again I am NOT a doctor.

7. chronic feelings of emptiness

Probably important, but not required. I think many BPs DO feel this. It is difficult for me to see this from the outside (or for any non, unless the BP reveals it).

8. inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)

Again, this is probably required and is what gets most nons to seek help. I think this is an out-growth of emotional dysregulation and shame. They FEEL angry, because angry is a powerful emotion and a natural reaction to threat – even if the threat is “imagined” (although felt).

9. transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms

Well, this is a hard one. I have seen this in my wife a couple of times. She walked around talking to pillows as if they were people at one point. It’s tough to say if this is “required.”

So, I have a certain view of the disorder that I think works in most cases (but possibly not all). I would encourage you guys to read the book and try it out. It takes some time to figure out what I’m saying though… because of the above view of BPs/nons is slightly “unstandard”. Again I’m not a doctor.

Related posts:

1. DSM-IV Criteria
2. The Myth of the High-Functioning Borderline
3. Reopened the diagnosis poll

A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment. Note: Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5. 2. a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation 3. identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self 4. impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating). Note: Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5. 5. recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior 6. affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days) 7. chronic feelings of emptiness 8. inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights) 9. transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms

To me, this seems sort of weird, because there would be hundreds, if not thousands, of flavors of BPD.http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/psychology/781/bpd-dsm.htm

Related posts:

1. The DSM-IV and Bon’s view of BPD/ERD – What’s required?
2. The Myth of the High-Functioning Borderline
3. Biology of Borderline Personality Disorder