Co-Occurring Personality Disorders and Addiction - The ASAM Principles of Addiction Medicine 5th Edition

The ASAM Principles of Addiction Medicine 5th Edition

90. Co-Occurring Personality Disorders and Addiction

Stephen Ross, MD, Jeffrey R. Guss, MD, and Erin Zerbo, MD

CHAPTER OUTLINE

■ DEFINITIONS/CLASSIFICATION

■ EPIDEMIOLOGY

■ DIAGNOSIS: THEORETICAL ISSUES

■ DIAGNOSIS: PRACTICAL ISSUES

■ TREATMENT

■ CONCLUSION

Personality disorders (PDs) are defined by the DSM-IV-TR as “enduring patterns of inner experience and behavior” that are deep seated, inflexible, and at odds with cultural norms and expectations and produce psychopathologic symptoms affecting cognition, emotion, interpersonal functioning, and impulse regulation (1). The patterns cause repeated conflicts with one’s social and occupational environment and lead to emotional distress, while the individual usually experiences the disorder as ego-syntonic and externalizes blame for his or her dysfunction. The onset of PDs is in late adolescence or early adulthood when personality trait patterns become stable (1). Although PDs tend to have a chronic course of illness, longitudinal studies have generally supported the notion that PDs tend to improve over time from the perspective of decreases in clinical symptomatology, although the evidence is more mixed for cluster A and C disorders (2–6).

PDs and substance use disorders (SUDs) are highly associated with each other, especially in mental health and substance abuse treatment settings where they represent the norm in terms of comorbidity (7,8). Screening and the use of standardized assessment instruments are vital components of diagnostic formulation to determine the presence of a PD that is distinguishable from or co-occurring with an SUD. Given the epidemiologic data where the majority of patients with a PD have a co-occurring addictive disorder and vice versa (7), an a priori assumption diagnostically should be that there are two separate problems until proven otherwise. Patients with co-occurring SUDs and PDs can benefit from treatment as much as those without PDs, but the presence of a PD does negatively affect the course of treatment of the addictive disorder and is associated with worse outcomes (9). It is important to provide comprehensive care, optimally within a structured environment with a dual focus (i.e., PD and SUD), utilizing integrated psychosocial treatments for PDs and SUDs, in an integrated system of care, and providing symptom-targeted pharmacotherapy when appropriate as an adjunct to psychosocial interventions. This chapter reviews the following regarding PDs and co-occurring SUDs: definitions/classification systems, epidemiology, diagnostic assessment (theoretical and practical), and treatment (outcomes, psychosocial, pharmacologic).

DEFINITIONS/CLASSIFICATION

DSM-IV Categorical Approach

The DSM-IV employs a categorical classification system placing the PDs into three clusters based on symptom similarities (A, B, and C) that produces 10 distinct disorders:

■ Cluster A (paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal): These disorders are characterized by odd or eccentric cognition and behavior related to the schizophrenia spectrum (10).

■ Cluster B (antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic): These disorders are marked by emotional, dramatic, or erratic behavior and are related to trait impulsivity and/or affect dysregulation and are on the spectrum with impulse disorders (11).

■ Cluster C (avoidant, dependent, obsessive–compulsive): These disorders are marked by anxious symptoms, are related to trait anxiety or compulsivity, and are on the spectrum with anxiety disorders (12).

This categorical or typologic system is based on a variety of theoretical perspectives including psychoanalytic theory, classical phenomenology, and social learning theory (13). It includes a list of symptoms with diagnoses made if a threshold or cutoff level of a given number of diagnostic criteria is present.

Dimensional Considerations: Factor Models of Personality Structure

Another prominent diagnostic model with considerable empirical support within the PD field is the dimensional approach to personality and personality psychopathology. In this model, there are a continuous spectrum and normal distribution of basic personality traits within a given population, and personality psychopathology occurs at the extreme ends of this spectrum (14). PDs are conceptualized as quantitatively, rather than qualitatively, different from normal personality (15).

There are a number of dimensional models that have been theorized and empirically studied. In the 1960s, Eysenck (16,17) developed a model of higher-order dimensions of personality traits: neuroticism and extraversion, dubbed the “Big Two,” the most extensively researched and validated of the dimensional models (14). Neuroticism describes a tendency toward intrapsychic distress, negative emotions, and poor coping with stress, while extraversion includes positive emotionality, energy, and interpersonal style. Eysenck later added a third behavioral dimensional construct of disinhibition versus constraint to create the “Big Three.” In the last 20 years, there has been a general consensus in the Five-Factor Model (FFM; nicknamed “Big Five”), which demarcates five superordinate or higher-order personality domains: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (18,19). It is most commonly assessed using the NEO Personality Inventory (20). The FFM contains neuroticism and extraversion from the Big Two, while agreeableness (tendency for empathy, trust, mutuality) and conscientiousness (tendency toward organization and self-discipline) correspond to low disinhibition/high constraint. Opennessincludes a range of interconnected traits that includes aesthetic sensitivity and the tendency to enjoy creativity or culture, fantasy and imagination, an affective attunement in oneself or others, and permeability to new ideas and experiences (21); it is correlated with creativity (22) and cognitive ability (23) and has the lowest association with psychopathology compared to the other four FFM domains (24).

The FFM has been extensively studied including meta-analyses, is applicable cross-culturally (25,26), and demonstrates convergent and discriminant validity (27) as well as temporal stability in community (28,29) and clinical samples (30,31). Hundreds of studies have examined the relationship between measures on the FFM and psychopathology, including DSM PD symptoms (14,32). In general, high neuroticism, low agreeableness, low conscientiousness, and low extraversion are associated with most PDs (33,34), and each PD has a unique profile on the FFM. An exception to the general pattern of elevated intrapsychic distress (i.e., neuroticism) in PDs is the psychopathy component seen in antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which is characterized by low neuroticism, disinhibition, impulsivity, low agreeableness (i.e., interpersonal antagonism), sensation seeking (elevated extraversion), and deficits in empathy (low levels of warmth component of extraversion) (35).

Using the FFM, SUDs generally exhibit the following profile: high neuroticism, low conscientiousness, higher disinhibition, higher extraversion, and lower agreeableness (36). While the FFM has expanded the number of domains to five, its structure can still be collapsed back into two primary domains: behavioral undercontrol (extraversion + disinhibition) and neuroticism (i.e., negative emotionality). Behavioral undercontrol includes lack of constraint, sensation seeking, high risk taking, novelty seeking, impulsivity, and low conscientiousness. Although both behavioral under-control and negative emotionality have been correlated with SUDs, behavioral undercontrol has stronger evidence that it is a positive predictor of SUDs (see Etiologic Models section for a more detailed discussion) (37).

Changes from the DSM-IV to DSM-5 PD Classification System

The DSM-IV classification system for PDs was based on phenomenology and clinical observation and has been criticized as leading to high comorbidity between Axis II PDs, vaguely defining core commonalities among PDs and not accounting for the level of personality dysfunction or the complexity and individual manifestations of personality psychopathology (38). To address these shortcomings, the DSM-5 has proposed a new classification system, considered a “hybrid” categorical–dimensional system that includes (a) common diagnostic criteria, impairments in self (identify vs. self-direction) versus interpersonal(intimacy or empathy); (b) five levels of personality function that account for severity variability and generate 60 possible combinations of self versus interpersonal functioning; (c) a dimensional system with five domains (negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, psychoticism) comprising 25 pathologic personality traits; and (d) a categorical system with 6 of the 10 DSM-IV diagnoses (schizotypal, borderline, narcissistic, antisocial, avoidance, obsessive–compulsive) remaining although the methodology to diagnose them will be changed relative to the DSM-IV.

EPIDEMIOLOGY

PDs and SUDs are both prevalent in the general population. In looking at five well-designed (i.e., use of DSM-IIIR, DSM-IV, or ICD-10 diagnostic criteria and structured or semistructured interviews) community surveys of PDs published since 2000 with sample sizes ranging from 214 (39) to 43,093 (40), the estimated prevalence of any PD in the general population ranged from 4.4% to 13.4% with a median of 9.6% and with cluster C disorders (obsessive–compulsive personality disorder [OCPD] and avoidant PD) being the most commonly diagnosed (41). In comparison, SUDs, defined as either substance abuse or substance dependence, affect approximately 22.6 million (9.2% of the population) individuals 12 years of age or older, including both alcohol or illicit drugs (42). This does not include nicotine use disorders, which affect approximately 21% of the population (43).

In addition to both being prevalent conditions by themselves in the general population, PDs and SUDs are intimately related in community samples. For instance, in a nonpatient sample of approximately 800 individuals who were relatives of both normals and psychiatric patients, of those who had any PD, 43% and 53%, respectively, met the criteria for a lifetime alcohol use disorder (AUD) or drug use disorder (DUD), and having a PD increased the risk of both AUD and DUD by a factor of four compared to individuals without a PD (44). Using revised diagnostic criteria from the NESARC community sample, Trull et al. (8) found that each PD was strongly associated with lifetime dependence syndromes with the highest rates of co-occurrence as follows: alcohol dependence co-occurring with ASPD, borderline personality disorder (BPD), and histrionic personality disorder (HPD), all at approximately 50%; drug dependence co-occurring with HPD 29%, dependent PD 27%, and ASPD approximately 25%; and nicotine dependence co-occurring with ASPD, BPD, and dependent PD, all at approximately 50%.

Compared to the rates of PDs in community samples, the rates of PDs in psychiatric and substance abuse disorders are significantly increased (7,44). In selecting well-designed studies (i.e., random selection, sample size ≥100, use of standardized diagnostic instruments), Verheul (7) reported on the prevalence rates of Axis II psychopathology: 45% to 80% (median 60%) in psychiatric patients and 35% to 73% (median 57%) in patients treated for SUDs (30).

Even though cluster C diagnoses (OCPD, avoidant PD) are the most common PD diagnoses in the general population, cluster B disorders (ASPD and BPD) are the most commonly associated with SUDs either in community or in treatment (substance abuse or psychiatric) samples. In a review of comorbidity data between BPD and SUD, Trull et al. (45) reported that among those seeking addiction treatments, rates of BPD ranged from 5% to 65%, and conversely, among those receiving treatment for BPD, the prevalence of current SUDs is between 25% and 67%. From the Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA) study, ASPD (among men) was more frequently diagnosed with an SUD than any other Axis I or II disorder with 83% of individuals with ASPD also meeting the criteria for an SUD and with ASPD being diagnosed in 18% of those with a DUD and 14% with an AUD (46).

In addition to PDs co-occurring with Axis I SUDs, they also commonly co-occur with other non-SUD Axis I disorders. Patients with PD diagnoses, who present for treatment, have an average of approximately three co-occurring Axis I disorders (47,48).

DIAGNOSIS: THEORETICAL ISSUES

Before discussing the practical aspects of clinical diagnostic assessments for patients with co-occurring PDs and addictive illnesses, a brief discussion of the etiologic theories of these disorders is in order as well as any evidence that supports a particular model. Given the markedly high co-occurrence of SUDs and PDs (especially ASPD and BPD), a correlation between the two has long been assumed, theorized, and studied with the evidence for an association derived from genetic, epidemiologic, retrospective, and longitudinal studies (49). In addition to a discussion about the etiology of PDs, two main classification systems for PDs comorbid with SUDs will be discussed: co-occurring and etiologic.

Etiology of PDs

PDs are thought to arise from an interaction between biologic (genes, temperament), psychological, familial, and sociocultural risk factors over time, with the risk increasing with the number of risk factors involved. Temperament is an individual’s biologically determined innate disposition or pattern of thinking, feeling, and behaving and accounts for the majority of variance in personality traits (50). The biologic basis of temperament is supported by animal and human studies with parallels seen in temperament structure (i.e., defensive reactions to fear and anger, approach reactions of activity and pleasure to high intensity stimulation, attention and orienting) (14,51). There is no simple relationship between single genes and temperament, and it is likely that temperament is polygenetically determined (52). Personality traitsare defined as individual variation in behavior, cognition, and affect that are stable over time and represent a combination of temperament and longitudinal experience (53). In dimensional models of personality psychopathology (see Dimensional Considerations), PDs represent an amplification and psychopathological expression of normative personality traits leading to functional impairment (15). Both personality traits (54–56) and PDs have a genetic, heritable component with twin studies demonstrating the heritability of PDs ranging from approximately 40% (for cluster A disorders) to approximately 60% (for cluster B and C disorders) (57). Longitudinal studies have demonstrated a considerable link between temperament, adult personality, and personality psychopathology (58).

Co-Occurring Models

In co-occurring models, there is the presence of two distinct disorders, one psychiatric and one addiction related. One possibility is that both disorders have their own unique independent etiologic determinants (biologic and environmental) and that both disorders happen to co-occur randomly without a common set of etiologic factors. In contrast, in the common factor type of co-occurring model, the co-occurrence of both a PD and an SUD is caused by shared vulnerabilities or risk factors, ranging from genetic to sociocultural, of both disorders. This model would be most applicable to the interaction between addiction and ASPD and BPD because of the considerable comorbidity as mentioned above. This model is best evaluated by twin, family, and adoption studies. From a genetic perspective, it is salient to know if genetic susceptibility to one disorder increases the risk to another. If shared genetic risk factors to both a PD and addiction were to account for the increased comorbidity, an elevated incidence of one disorder (i.e., SUD) would be expected in relatives of individuals with the other disorder (i.e., PD). However, there is little evidence to support this model other than some data suggesting common genetic influences on the personality dimension of behavioral dyscontrol/impulsivity that accounts for a significant genetic etiology for both alcohol dependence and conduct disorder/ASPD (59–61).

Etiologic Models

Etiologic diagnoses come in two varieties: secondary SUD and secondary psychopathological models. In the secondary SUD models, the presence of a PD or pathologic personality traits are risk factors contributing to the development of an addictive spectrum disorder. Since the traits within a PD usually have some early manifestations in childhood and adolescence, it is possible to examine, prospectively, the relationship between maladaptive traits, seen prior to exposure to addictive substances, and the subsequent development of addiction. A number of traits have been identified that appear commonly in both SUDs and PDs (such as sensation seeking, novelty seeking, impulsivity, negative emotionality), and prospective studies with such traits identified in children or adolescents can assess for correlation with later onset of SUDs.

Several pathways have been proposed that might explain how certain personality traits or symptoms of a particular PD might lead to addiction (59). In all of these models, substance initiation and continued use in response to the personality psychopathology eventually translate into independent SUDs over a long enough period of time, typically with poor or no treatment for the psychiatric condition, whereby the neurobiology of the normative reward system can be sufficiently hijacked and corrupted leading to chronic neuroadaptive changes associated with the transition from substance misuse to abuse to dependence (62). Once dependence syndromes have developed, even if the original offending psychiatric condition (i.e., PD) is treated with remission of illness, the SUD is now established and can continue independent of its original relationship to the mental disorder causing it, effectively untethered. Of course, there will remain negative bidirectional effects now that there are two distinct problems:

(a) Behavioral disinhibition pathway: In this pathway, traits such as impulsivity, behavioral undercontrol, aggression, and diminished conscientiousness predict substance initiation and use syndromes presumably mediated through affiliation with deviant peer groups and poor socialization (63,64), consistent with ASPD and possibly BPD. Evidence for this comes from epidemiologic studies that demonstrate a strong link between SUDs and Axis I and II disorders along the impulsive spectrum, longitudinal studies that demonstrate a link between the above-mentioned antisocial traits that predates and predicts the development of an SUD in adolescents and young adults (65–69) and is associated with earlier onset of initiation of substance use, earlier onset of SUDs, and a more severe form of the illness (70). The high rates of co-occurrence between ASPD and SUDs have led some authors to propose an “externalizing dimension” of psychopathology, which would include both ASPD and SUD and where both disorders would theoretically share the following dimensional personality traits: disinhibition (low agreeableness and low conscientiousness) and elevated sensation seeking and impulsivity (63,71). In a meta-analysis examining the FFM characteristics of externalizing disorders that analyzed 63 samples (N = 15,331) cross-sectionally for three groups (ASPD, SUD alone, co-occurring ASPD/ SUD), all three groups demonstrated similar levels of disinhibition (low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness) and high levels of impulsivity (72).

(b) Stress reduction pathway: In this pathway, individuals with high neuroticism traits (i.e., stress sensitivity, negative emotionality, mood instability) can be predicted to develop an SUD as a way to attempt to self-treat these unpleasant affective and cognitive states. Khantzian’s “self-medication hypothesis” (SMH) is an example of a stress reduction pathway and views preexisting difficulties in self-esteem regulation, modulation of dysphoric affect, and self-care as establishing a vulnerability to the development of an SUD (73,74). The data supporting the SMH in general are mixed. Despite some studies from treatment samples suggesting specificity between a particular substance being used for a particular mental illness (75–77), the majority of the data across a broad spectrum of mental illnesses do not reveal a strong relationship between type of mental illness and type of substance (78). However, there is evidence that patients may use substances of abuse to medicate unpleasant affective (i.e., dysphoric affect) states, across a variety of diagnoses, in a less specific way, to alleviate the dysphoria (79). This construct makes more sense when considering substance abuse rather than dependence, in which the use of substances over shorter periods of time can alleviate psychic distress before use progresses to having less and less psychological utility, and tends to ultimately worsen psychiatric symptoms. Several longitudinal studies have shown that high neuroticism traits in children are predictive of SUDs in adolescence and young adulthood (64,65,80,81) and might explain the comorbidity of SUDs seen in avoidant and BPD (49).

(c) Reward sensitivity pathway: This pathway suggests that individuals who show traits of novelty seeking, reward seeking, and extraversion are at increased risk for developing an SUD. The mechanism hypothesizes that these individuals experience an exaggerated reward response with addictive substances, which leads to a sensitization process, further reinforcing the addictive behavior. Some evidence from longitudinal studies supports this model (64,65,67,82), and it might account for the co-occurrence of SUDs seen in narcissistic, histrionic, and antisocial PDs (49).

In the secondary psychopathology model, substance abuse precedes and causes personality psychopathology. To accurately ascertain whether a given PD is caused by a particular drug, it is key to entertain multiple factors: the pharmacologic nature of the drug (i.e., stimulant, depressive, psychotogenic), the relationship to intoxication and withdrawal syndromes, dose, route of administration, amount and length of use, and whether there is any underlying personality pathology that is being exacerbated by the drug. A key question is to consider how long a given drug (related to either intoxication or withdrawal) can cause PD symptoms without having to consider a separate PD where a co-occurring diagnostic model more fits the clinical situation. It is a frequent clinical observation that active addiction generates significant characterologic symptoms that can often be indistinguishable from the symptoms of a PD (see Substance-Induced PD Symptoms). An example of this would be pseudopsychopathy, symptoms consistent with antisocial PD occasioned by drug use. Certain drugs of abuse (i.e., IV heroin, crack cocaine), especially those that are illegal and perceived as very harmful, are associated with such antisocial behaviors. These apparent symptoms of personality psychopathology should remit with sobriety without a preexisting PD. However, in this model, it is postulated that the ongoing substance abuse would be sufficient to permanently occasion a new and enduring pattern of personality psychopathology that would not have developed if the individual had never used/abused substances. There is little to no evidence from the literature that supports this model (59).

However, in a recent novel experiment, MacLean et al. (83) examined the relationship between psilocybin dosing sessions (with volunteers receiving anywhere from 2 to 5 dosing sessions) in a cohort of 52 normal participants, with consecutive sessions separated by at least 3 weeks, and longer-term (14-month follow-up) changes in personality dimensional measures. In this study, the NEO Personality Inventory was assessed at screening, 1 to 2 months after each drug session, and at 14 months after the last drug session. Of the FFM subscales, the opennessdomain significantly changed, both acutely and in a sustained manner. Furthermore, increased scores of mystical states of consciousness were positively correlated with increased openness, and those who had “complete” mystical experiences had enduring changes in openness up to 14 months postdosing. This study was a landmark in the field of personality research as it was the first study to demonstrate that it is possible to pharmacologically change a core aspect of personality through an experimentally mediated discrete event, presumably mediated by a profound spiritually oriented shift in consciousness.

DIAGNOSIS: PRACTICAL ISSUES

Screening is a crucial step prior to diagnostic formulation. Since patients with PDs tend to have more severe pathology and more frequent treatment contact, they are more likely to present in the situations with the least time for assessment, such as emergency rooms or incarcerated settings (84,85). However, most screening questionnaires focus on specific PDs or require too much time to be used in routine clinical practice. To remedy this, Cloninger (86) has proposed a 20-item screen that focuses on four core features that are suggestive of any PD: low self-directedness, low cooperativeness, low affective stability, and low self-transcendence (the last encompassing unstable self-image, emptiness, and erratic world view). Clinicians can keep these features in mind as “red flags” for the need to pursue more thorough PD assessment.

The use of standardized assessment instruments is important in diagnosing PDs because traditional unstructured clinical diagnostic interviews are poorly reliable and are associated with missed and incorrect diagnoses (87–89); there are a number of formal assessment tools used in evaluating personality pathology, although they were not specifically designed for an SUD population. The ones mentioned in this section demonstrate good reliability and validity from research. These tools range from self-report questionnaires to semistructured and structured diagnostic interviews. Self-report questionnaires that offer a comprehensive assessment of PDs from the DSM perspective include the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III (MCMI-III) (90) (perhaps the most widely used in research and clinical practice), the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (91), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) Personality Disorder Scales (92), and the Coolidge Axis II Inventory (CATI) (93), although the MMPI and the CATI are not specifically coordinated with the DSM-IV. Other self-administered questionnaires are more specific for particular PDs, such as the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (94), the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (95), and the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (96). Although self-report questionnaires assessing PDs have the advantage of being highly sensitive and therefore useful as screening tools, they have the disadvantage of a significant false-positive rate leading to overdiagnoses of PDs (97). This effect may be pronounced for an SUD population, since the questionnaires do not differentiate the effects of substance use from personality traits. Clinical interviews are important here to determine if a particular behavior is substance related or more global. Examples of clinician-administered diagnostic interviews, specifically designed for the DSM-IV, include the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (98), the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) (99), and the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (100). Such assessments are useful to formally establish DSM-IV diagnoses but can be labor intensive and time consuming to administer, diminishing their feasibility and utility in routine clinical settings.

Any assessment tool must be considered along with other information sources, such as unstructured patient interview, collateral information, and longitudinal assessment. Collateral contacts can be helpful in elucidating long-standing behavior patterns, they can provide information that the patient is not able or willing to provide, and they can increase the convergent validity of diagnoses (101). Risk assessment for suicidality, self-injury, and violence deserves special attention, especially in patients with BPD and ASPD (102). Given the high-risk nature of these patients, a team-based approach and access to referral services is ideal for optimal management.

In addition to a careful substance history and risk assessment, important areas of focus include a history of trauma (abuse, neglect, conflict in the household), familial history of personality dysfunction, and quality/quantity of current and past interpersonal relationships. Inflexible or maladaptive coping skills are the hallmark of a PD. Close attention to interpersonal style and transference/countertransference can yield important diagnostic information. For example, patients with BPD tend to develop transference quickly and intensely and to have extreme and rapid oscillations (the clinician is experienced as all good and ideal and then suddenly all bad and malicious after a seemingly small disappointment). Schizoid or avoidant patients may be especially deferential or reserved in a clinical encounter. It is also important to rule out other co-occurring Axis I disorders whose symptom presentation may mimic symptoms of various PDs. For example, bipolar I or II disorder should be excluded before diagnosing BPD, and social phobia should be ruled out before diagnosing avoidant PD. A detailed temporal history and longitudinal observation and assessment are key to differentiate acute-state phenomenon usually associated with Axis I disorders (i.e., acute mood instability associated with mania) versus longer-term traits associated with PDs.

The ultimate goal of assessment is to determine the presence of a PD that is distinguishable from or co-occurring with an SUD. Several factors can help in this process (see Table 90-1). Given the epidemiologic data where the majority of patients with a PD (especially BPD and ASPD) have a co-occurring addictive disorders and vice versa, an a priori assumption diagnostically should be that there are two separate problems until proven otherwise by a process of exclusion (i.e., that it is a case of an etiologic diagnosis). As a general clinical rule, symptoms that persist beyond 1 month of abstinence are more likely to be primary. It is further important to assess substances of abuse and medical conditions that can occasion symptoms that mimic those of PDs or exacerbate them.

TABLE 90-1 DIAGNOSTIC FORMULATION

From American Psychiatric Association (APA). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Jang KL, Livesley WJ, Vernon PA, et al. Heritability of personality disorder traits: a twin study. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1996;94:438–444; Widiger TA. The DSM-III-R categorical personality disorder diagnoses: a critique and an alternative. Psychol Inq 1993;4:75–90; Ross S. The mentally ill substance abuser. In: Galanter M, Kleber M, eds. Textbook of substance abuse treatment, 4th ed. Washington, DC: The American Psychiatric Publishing, 2008:537–554, Ref. (103).

Substance-Induced PD Symptoms

Substances can mimic a wide variety of personality phenomenology and pathology along a temporal spectrum from acute to chronic. From a diagnostic perspective, it is important to know these effects to take into account when considering etiologic (i.e., secondary psychopathology) versus co-occurring diagnostic models. Below are salient examples, as categorized by DSM-IV PD clusters A, B, and C.

Cluster A

Consider psychotogenic substances. These include NMDA antagonists (e.g., PCP, ketamine, dextromethorphan, nitrous oxide), 5HT2 agonists (e.g., LSD, DMT), kappa opioid agonists (e.g., salvia divinorum), stimulants (e.g., cocaine, methamphetamines, substituted cathinones [i.e., mephedrone, “bath salts”]), CB1 agonists (e.g., cannabis, synthetic cannabinoids), inhalants (e.g., nitrous oxide, toluene), and chronic heavy alcohol use. Heavy methamphetamine or PCP use can occasion psychotic states that last for weeks to months even in the absence of underlying psychotic spectrum illnesses, including affective psychoses (104,105), and could be incorrectly diagnosed as schizotypal or paranoid PD. Of all substances, alcohol is the most psychotogenic and can cause chronic psychotic disorders (i.e., alcoholic hallucinosis, Korsakoff syndrome, Marchiafava-Bignami syndrome). This chronic psychotic state could appear like the new onset of cluster A symptoms especially if the psychotic symptoms were attenuated (105).

Cluster B

The affective instability of BPD can be mimicked by the intoxication and/or withdrawal states of many substances. Interpersonal difficulties, impulsivity, transient paranoia, and identity disturbance are all features that can be seen in patients with active addiction. One should be especially cautious of diagnosing ASPD during states of active drug use, since patients can be manipulative or resort to criminal activity to maintain their addiction. If there is no history of conduct disorder or criminal activity prior to the onset of SUD, pseudopsychopathy is the more likely diagnosis.

Cluster C

Consider anxiogenic substances, such as stimulants, CB1 agonists, and the serotonergic hallucinogens (i.e., LSD), especially when used in uncontrolled settings. While alcohol and opioids are both acute-acting anxiolytics, chronic use can lead to marked anxiety during periods of withdrawal, and protracted withdrawal can last for months (106).

Medically Induced PD Symptoms

In addition to drugs of abuse, there are other general medical conditions that can sufficiently alter physiologic brain processes to produce changes in personality, either acutely or over a longer period of time. Examples of conditions than can cause acute changes in personality include infections (i.e., herpes encephalitis, meningitis, sepsis), hematomas (i.e., epidural, subdural), and metabolic syndromes (i.e., hyperglycemia, hyperthyroidism, hypoxia, hypercarbia). Examples of medical conditions that can occasion longer-term changes in personality include frontal lobe traumatic brain injury (i.e., Phineas Gage), dementing syndromes (i.e., Pick’s, Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, Wilson’s), infectious illness (i.e., Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease), CNS tumors (i.e., frontal lobe, pituitary), strokes, porphyrias, and chronic temporal lobe epilepsy. Traumatic brain injury predominantly damages frontal and temporal brain regions irrespective of etiology such as hemorrhages, contusions, or diffuse axonal injury (107). One of the most common effects of frontal lobe damage can be dramatic changes in personality and behavior. At least three major syndromes have been identified depending on the specific frontal cortical area damaged: medial frontal regions (including anterior cingulate and superior medial frontal regions) resulting in “pseudodepression” marked by avolition, lethargy, anhedonia, and delays in cognitive processing speed; orbito-frontal cortexleading to “pseudopsychopathy” marked by aggression, disinhibition, impulsivity, lack of empathy, and childish behavior; and ventro- and dorsolateral frontal areas leading to “pseudodementia” or “dysexecutive syndrome” marked by impairments in organization, reasoning, planning, motivation, and self-monitoring (108).

TREATMENT

General Treatment Guidelines and Treatment Outcomes

See Table 90-2 for general principles for treating patients with co-occurring PDs and SUDs. The best predictor of therapeutic outcome for PD patients is severity of illness, not type of personality psychopathology (9,111). One would expect that with co-occurring PDs and SUDs, the presence of two distinct disorders, irrespective of etiologic commonality, would raise the issue of bidirectional interaction considering the ways that each disorder might influence the persistence, expression, or progression of the other, thus altering its course, and failure to treat one disorder (either mental illness or the SUD) would be predicted to negatively affect the severity of illness and longitudinal course of the other (112).

TABLE 90-2 GENERAL TREATMENT PRINCIPLES

However, when examining co-occurring PDs and SUDs, the data are mixed as to whether co-occurring PDs in general, in individuals with SUDs, predict a worse response to treatment. A growing number of studies have consistently demonstrated that personality psychopathology, although associated with pre- and posttreatment problem severity, is not a strong predictor of clinical improvement in this population (113–119). Alternatively, a number of studies have shown that PDs can predict a shorter time to relapse, worse substance abuse outcomes in general, increased treatment dropout rates, or lack of aftercare compliance after discharge in patients with SUDs (120–123). Studies focusing on “normal” personality traits in individuals with SUDs have delineated low persistence, high novelty seeking, high neuroticism, and low conscientiousness as strong predictors of a shorter time to relapse (49).

Other factors that have been identified as positively affecting treatment outcomes in individuals with co- occurring PDs and SUDs include higher level of motivation for change, longer length of time in treatment, and increased therapist alliance (117,121,124). Regarding the comorbidity of Axis I and Axis II disorders, it has been demonstrated that PDs are associated with worse outcomes for patients with a broad range of Axis I diagnoses including SUDs (125). Prospective longitudinal outcome studies of SUD patients with both Axis I and Axis II disorders suggest that having a combination of both Axis I and Axis II disorders, more so than either disorder alone, predicted worse outcomes such as increased likelihood of relapse (126) or worse psychosocial outcomes (127,128). Co-occurring non-SUD Axis I psychiatric pathology in individuals with PDs and SUDs (“triply” diagnosed) has also been associated with worse treatment outcomes in terms of aftercare compliance (123).

Psychosocial Treatments

Despite a relative abundance of research into the efficacy of different types of psychotherapies for those with singly diagnosed PDs or with SUDs, only a small number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of integrated psychotherapy approaches to treat those with co-occurring PDs and SUDs (129). Therefore, the literature on the efficacy of psychotherapies for singly diagnosed PDs or SUDs is a good place to start to develop a psychosocial treatment strategy.

Substance Use Disorders

The psychosocial treatments that have demonstrated efficacy for SUDs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses include brief interventions, motivational interviewing, cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions such as relapse prevention, contingency management (CM), community reinforcement, couples therapy, family therapy, contract therapy, social skills training, case management, and 12-step interventions (Alcoholics Anonymous [AA], Narcotics Anonymous [NA], 12-step facilitation) (130–133).

Cluster A Disorders

Even though some PD experts recommend psychotherapy as the optimal treatment for individuals with cluster A disorders (134), there are no published RCTs in the literature evaluating psychotherapeutic interventions for any of the cluster A disorders; however, several case reports or uncontrolled studies have suggested the efficacy of certain psychotherapeutic techniques, specifically psychodynamic psychotherapy, CBT, supportive psychotherapy, or mixed approaches (135). A more structured setting (i.e., inpatient, day program) with a greater dosed intensity of psychosocial treatment may be better than nonintensive outpatient treatment. In a prospective nonexperimental, nonrandomized study of individuals with cluster A PDs, comparing inpatient treatment (average treatment duration 9 months) to day treatment (average treatment duration 10 months) to outpatient treatment (average treatment duration 13 months), those in the inpatient and day treatment groups demonstrated significantly greater improvements in global functioning, greater core PD symptom reductions, and improved quality of life (109).

Cluster B Disorders

The cluster B disorders have by far received the most attention in the psychotherapy literature compared to either the cluster A or the cluster C disorders, with the majority of psychotherapy RCTs being conducted for these disorders (136).

Borderline PD

Several psychotherapeutic interventions for BPD have been specifically developed and evaluated in RCTs: dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) (137), transference-focused psychotherapy (TFP) (138), schema-focused therapy (SFT) (139,140), and mentalization-based therapy (MBT) (141). DBT was the first psychotherapy specifically designed to treat BPD and has received the most empirical attention in research settings. DBT is a type of CBT integrated with Eastern mindfulness techniques that specifically addresses skill deficits, maladaptive cognitions, and self-injurious behavior in patients with BPD (137). The modified version adapted for patients with SUD is DBT substance abuse (DBT-S), which includes the standard components of DBT plus a focus on abstinence issues, improving motivation for change, additional modified skills, and strategies to strengthen the therapeutic alliance by enhancing the therapist’s skills and motivation to engage difficult, “easily lost” patients (142). Several RCTs in both inpatient and outpatient settings have demonstrated the efficacy of DBT compared to a control group (usually treatment as usual [TAU]), and a meta-analysis of DBT (including eight RCTs and eight non-RCTs) demonstrated moderate treatment effect sizes for reducing parasuicidal and suicidal behaviors (143). TFP is a psychodynamic-based intervention that theorizes that splitting (intrapsychic and interpersonal) is a core source of pathology in BPD leading to identify diffusion, interpersonal dysfunction, and affect dysregulation (144). The treatment focuses on the analysis and utilization of the relationship between the patient and therapist to allow the patient to more accurately perceive and optimally respond to interpersonal relationships (135). TFP has been evaluated in several RCTs. In one of the RCTs with approximately 100 participants randomized to outpatient TFP versus treatment by experienced community clinicians, compared to the community treatment group, the TFP group demonstrated statistically significant enhanced improvements in core BPD symptoms, improved psychosocial functioning, fewer suicide attempts, less inpatient admissions, and approximately a 50% lower dropout rate (145). In another RCT of 90 participants randomized to yearlong outpatient treatment of TFP versus DBT versus supportive dynamic psychotherapy, all three modalities demonstrated significant reductions in depression and anxiety as well as improvements in global functioning, DBT and TFP were significantly associated with reductions in suicidal behavior, and only TFP was significantly predictive of reductions in irritability, impulsivity, and aggressive behavior toward others (138). SFT is a cognitive–behavioral intervention based on identifying maladaptive cognitive schemas that develop as a result of adverse childhood events and lead to cognitive distortions associated with BPD (139). Two RCTs have demonstrated the efficacy of SFT for BPD in outpatient settings (139,146). In an outpatient comparative effectiveness RCT of 88 participants randomized to SFT versus TFP, at 3-year followup, both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all core BPD symptoms and improved quality of life, while the SFT group was superior to the TFP group in terms of the degree of clinical improvement or recovery from BPD as well as improved general psychopathologic dysfunction (139). MBT is a type of psychoanalytic and social cognitive intervention based on attachment theory and theorizes that impairments in mentalization (defined as a mental activity that allows one to perceive and interpret behavior in terms of intentional mental states) lead to core pathologies associated with BPD, specifically difficulties in differentiating mental states of self and others; MBT is delivered in individual and group formats and focuses on improving the patient’s ability to mentalize in the context of attachment relationships (141). Several RCTs of MBT versus TAU, delivered in a day treatment or outpatient setting, have demonstrated superiority of the MBT group versus TAU in terms of improvements in core BPD symptoms, fewer suicide attempts, and improved psychosocial functioning (147–150).

Antisocial PD

Once considered to be an untreatable disorder, there is growing promise for utilizing psychosocial interventions to treat ASPD as demonstrated by research over the last two decades (135). Regarding the efficacy of family-based interventions for juveniles with conduct disorder, several controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of multisystemic family therapy versus controls in terms of lower rates of recidivism, reductions in deviant peer affiliation, and improved familial communication (151–153). In a meta-analysis of 42 studies of psychotherapy for the psychopathic variant of ASPD, there was evidence for the benefits of psychotherapy (psychodynamic psychotherapy, CBT, or mixed approaches) versus control conditions in terms of reductions in psychopathic behaviors (i.e., decrease in lying, increase in empathy or remorse, improved interpersonal functioning) with the most successful interventions being intensive (i.e., average of four sessions per week for 1 year) and consisting of a combination of individual, group, and family therapies (110). In one psychotherapy RCT that evaluated ASPD, of 52 adult men with ASPD with acts of aggression in 6 months prior to study entry who were randomized to 6 months of CBT plus TAU versus TAU alone, there was a trend toward improvement of the CBT-augmented group with respect to problematic drinking, social functioning, and beliefs about others (154).

Two RCTs have examined the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for individuals with co-occurring ASPD and SUDs. The first RCT examined individuals with opioid dependence on methadone maintenance (MM), an intervention that has consistently been associated with a variety of positive outcomes such as decreased illicit drug use, decreased mortality, reduced rates of HIV, increased engagement in prosocial activities, and reduced criminal behavior (155). In one of the RCTs, of 40 opioid-dependent patients on MM randomized to an intensive behavioral approach, CM, versus MM TAU without CM, short-term outcomes (i.e., 4-month follow-up) demonstrated improvements in both groups in terms of substance abuse outcomes (i.e., use reduction, abstinence) and psychosocial outcomes (156). This suggests that MM treatment can be an effective treatment for individuals with co-occurring ASPD and an SUD irrespective of whether a more intensive behavioral component is part of the treatment. However, given the small sample size of this study and given the substantial evidence base supporting the efficacy of CM (157–160) in individuals with SUDs, further investigation is needed to ascertain if adding a more intensive psychosocial intervention like CM can improve outcomes in those with co-occurring ASPD and SUDs. A well-designed study that provided such support was an RCT of 108 opioid-dependent participants on MM with comorbid cocaine dependence, with and without co-occurring ASPD who were randomized to four study conditions: CM alone, CBT alone, CBT + CM, and MM alone (control). At follow-up, those with ASPD in all three treatment conditions were more likely to be abstinent from cocaine use than those without ASPD, and the treatment effect for the ASPD was largely due to the CM intervention as this treatment condition had significantly improved abstinence rates compared to the CBT only and CBT + CM groups (161).

Narcissistic and Histrionic PD

There are no RCTs in the literature evaluating the efficacy of psychotherapies for narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) and HPD, and the available evidence suggests that these are difficult to treat disorders associated with poor outcomes and high dropout rates (136,162–164).

Cluster C Disorders

Of the cluster C PDs, psychotherapies for avoidant PD have been the most studied. Several RCTs have demonstrated core reductions in APD symptoms (i.e., decreased anxiety, increased social functioning) with several different psychotherapies demonstrating efficacy including social skills training with gradual exposure to social situations, psychodynamic psychotherapy, and CBT (165–167).

There are no published RCTs examining the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for either OCPD or dependent PD (135).

Integrated PD and SUD Psychosocial Treatments

There have been two RCTs for DBT-S conducted in outpatients with comorbid SUD and BPD. The first study compared DBT-S to a community-based TAU, and the second study compared DBT-S to comprehensive validation therapy plus a 12-step approach (CVT + 12S). In the first RCT, compared to the TAU group, the DBT-S group had significantly greater reductions in substance abuse throughout the treatment period and including up until the final follow-up point at 16 months and had significantly superior improvements in global and social functioning at follow-up (168). In the second RCT, the DBT group maintained reductions in opioid use throughout the 12 months of treatment, while the CVT + 12S group significantly increased opioid use during the final 4 months of active treatment; both groups demonstrated significant reductions in psychopathology from baseline to the 16-month follow-up point (169). Given the substantial evidence base in support of DBT for BPD and the data from the two above-mentioned RCTs of DBT-S in those with BPD and co-occurring SUDs, it would seem reasonable to include DBT or DBT-S as a standard treatment modality for those with co-occurring BPD and SUDs in either substance abuse or mental health treatment settings. However, it may not be readily available especially since most substance abuse programs do not have expertise in delivering DBT and often DBT programs, inexplicably, exclude people with SUDs.

Dual-focus schema therapy (DFST) is a manualized CBT delivered in an individual psychotherapy format and represents the first attempt to develop an integrated approach across the spectrum of PDs that co-occur with SUDs (170). It focuses on identifying maladaptive cognitive schemas associated with various PDs and acquiring new coping skills for symptom-focused relapse prevention. Three RCTs have evaluated the efficacy of DFST. In one of the RCTs comparing DFST to 12-step facilitation (TSF) in outpatients on MM, DFST demonstrated improved substance abuse outcomes and stronger therapeutic alliance between therapists and participants compared to TSF (171). In an RCT comparing DFST to standard group substance abuse counseling (SAC) in a cohort of homeless men with PDs and SUDs, although the DFST group overall demonstrated greater therapy utilization than the SAC group, individuals with more severe PD symptoms had better utilization of SAC compared to DFST (172). In another RCT comparing DFST with individual drug counseling in a residential treatment setting of individuals with co-occurring PDs and SUDs, contrary to the author’s hypothesis, although both interventions led to overall reductions in PD symptoms at 6-month follow-up, individual drug counseling resulted in more sustained PD symptom reductions compared to DFST (173).

Therapeutic communities (TCs) were developed in the 1960s to specifically treat individuals with severe addictive spectrum disorders with comorbid antisocial traits. The core principles underlying TCs include provision of a highly structured daily routine; “community as method” approach where the peerled community provides the active treatment ingredient through a combination of positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and coercion; promoting personal responsibility and self-reliance by developing vocational and independent living skills; and promoting prosocial values within a hierarchical social network that sustains abstinence and recovery (174,175). Community-based residential TCs have demonstrated efficacy in reducing substance use, reducing criminality, and increasing employment in prospective, longitudinal trials (176–178). RCTs have demonstrated the efficacy of prison-based TCs in reducing substance abuse and recidivism relative to the control condition (179,180), and a meta-analysis of 15 trials evaluating TCs in correctional settings concluded that TCs were associated with significant positive reductions in recidivism (181). TCs have further been modified to treat individuals with co-occurring disorders in the criminal justice system, and two RCTs have demonstrated improvements in the modified TC group compared to TAU in terms of reductions in recidivism and reincarceration rates (175,182). Even though it would appear that TCs would be a specific type of integrated treatment program for individuals with co-occurring ASPD and SUDs, research specifically evaluating retention among individuals with co-occurring ASPD and SUDs in TCs has been mixed. For instance, at least one study has found ASPD to be positively associated with treatment retention (183), others have found ASPD to be negatively associated with treatment retention (184), while other studies have found that ASPD is not related to treatment retention outcomes (185–187). Several studies have demonstrated that the presence of any PD is associated with worse retention in a TC compared to the absence of any PD (187–189).

Similar to TCs, AA, NA, and other 12-step mutual-help groups can be conceptualized as integrated psychosocial interventions for those with co-occurring PDs and SUDs. Twelve-step philosophy incorporates a broad array of therapeutic modalities that can operate on multiple change levels: spiritual/religious changes (i.e., spiritual awakening), cognitive, affective, behavioral, and social. Several of the 12-steps and the program more broadly address personality psychopathology. The participant surrenders himself or herself to a higher power, makes a personal inventory of transgressions with a focus on how one has harmed others, reveals this to a sponsor and one’s higher power, makes “amends” to those he or she has wronged, and then provides ongoing community service and has a duty to pass on the message he or she has received. A set of moral codes and behaviors is prescribed along with abstinence within a social and communal network. These are antinarcissistic and prosocial steps that deinvest from the self and reinvest into the group or community (190). AA is more than a methodology to maintain abstinence from alcohol and can be considered more broadly in social terms. More than helping addicts stay abstinent, it provides a means for recovery by acting as a steady and readily available community of connection, cohesion, and meaning. Furthermore, it promotes a sense of community over the self through its antin-arcissistic steps (i.e., taking personal inventory and making amends, asking for forgiveness) and through its altruistic commitment to helping others and spreading the message of AA (i.e., 12th step) (191,192). In support of this, there is some evidence that being a sponsor in AA and mentoring/supporting others in their recovery is associated with positive outcomes (193,194). Over the past 15 years, cross-sectional, retrospective, and increasingly rigorous longitudinal research (supported by two meta-analyses for AA) (133,195) has established the efficacy of 12-step interventions and supports the association between 12-step participation and positive substance abuse outcomes (both short and longer term), with therapeutic benefits similar to professional interventions, and evidence to support its use as a cost-effective adjunct and complement to standard treatment (196–204). There are no published RCTs examining 12-step interventions specifically for PDs and co-occurring SUDs. This is an area of inquiry that deserves further investigation.

Pharmacologic Treatments

Pharmacotherapy can serve as a useful adjunct to psychotherapy in the treatment of dually diagnosed PD patients by targeting specific symptom domains of PDs and possibly by reducing substance abuse. Like psychosocial interventions, there is a paucity of research examining pharmacologic interventions for individuals with co-occurring PDs and SUDs leaving only the literature on the pharmacotherapy for singly diagnosed PDs or SUDs to draw from. Pharmacotherapies to treat SUDs are established for nicotine, opioids, and alcohol (with FDA-approved medications) but not available for any other class of drug of abuse (205). These treatments will not be reviewed here as they are extensively reviewed in other sections.

In the early 1990s, the PD field underwent a paradigm shift away from the notion that only Axis I disorders ( considered biologic/neurologic in etiology) warranted treatment with pharmacotherapy, whereas Axis II disorders (alternatively considered psychological in origin) were treated only with psychosocial interventions. This led to an increase in research examining the efficacy of pharmacotherapies to treat specific domains of personality psychopathology. From the perspective of considering the neurobiologic basis of PDs, a pharmacologic approach to treatment is based on a symptom-specific approach utilizing medications to influence neurotransmitter systems and brain regions that might underlie the expression of dimensional personality biologic trait pathology (i.e., affect dysregulation, impulsivity) and acute-statesymptomatology (i.e., depression, anger) (206). Siever and Davis (10) provided one of the first models considering PDs from a neurobiologic perspective and conceptualized Axis II symptoms broadly on a dimensional spectrum with certain Axis I disorders and focused specifically on the following core symptom dimensions common across PDs: affect dysregulation (i.e., angry, depressed, mood instability, rejection sensitivity) continuous with mood disorders (i.e., depression and bipolar disorders), cognitive–perceptual symptoms (i.e., psychoticism–paranoid ideation, referential thinking, illusions, derealization) continuous with psychotic spectrum illnesses, impulsive–behavioral dyscontrol (i.e., impulsive aggression, self-harm, substance abuse) continuous with impulse control disorders, and anxiety/inhibition continuous with anxiety disorders.

Of the common domains mentioned, the first three (affective, cognitive, impulse symptom domains) have garnered the most attention as they tend to produce more problematic and urgent symptoms such as violence and suicidal behaviors (206). BPD has by far been the most studied PD in terms of psychopharmacological research followed by schizotypal PD (SPD) and then ASPD. The other PDs have essentially not been empirically studied from a pharmacologic intervention perspective. Even though there are no FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for PDs and despite their lack of adequate empirical support, patients with PDs are prescribed medications at one of the highest rates for all diagnostic groups (207).

Cluster A: Schizotypal PD

Cognitive–perceptual abnormalities (i.e., psychotic-like symptoms, cognitive deficits) and interpersonal dysfunction are the hallmarks of SPD. Psychotic-like symptoms (alterations in cognition, perception, affect) centrally define SPD, which exists along the schizophrenia spectrum (208).

Antipsychotics have been more extensively studied than any other class of medication for PDs with the majority of studies done in patients with BPD and SPD (206). For schizotypal PD, meta-analyses of RCTs of typical and atypical neuroleptics have demonstrated efficacy in reducing both cognitive–perceptual psychotic-like symptoms (moderate effect size) and anger/hostility (moderate to large effect size) within the affect dysregulation dimension (209). Despite improving psychoticism and angry affect, low-dose antipsychotics do not lead to remission of schizotypal disorder, do not improve social cognitive dysfunction (i.e., social isolation, deficits in relatedness), and are associated with well-known side effect–induced toxic syndromes (i.e., tardive dyskinesia for typicals and metabolic syndrome for small for gestational ages). As such, they should be used with caution and only as necessary especially if the symptoms are largely ego-syntonic for the individual and they don’t want to medicate away parts of themselves they may like and, for example, consider creative. Besides SPD, there is little evidence to suggest the utility of using antipsychotics in schizoid or paranoid PDs (210). Cognitive enhancement by dopaminergic or noradrenergic alpha-2A agonist is a possible future avenue of research (207).

Cluster B: BPD

BPD consists of several symptom domains of dysfunction: affective instability, intense and unstable relationships, identity diffusion, transient psychotic-like symptoms, impulsivity, anger, and self-injurious behaviors (211). Although there are no FDA-approved medications to treat BPD and despite their lack of global clinical improvement associated pharmacotherapies, their use in clinical practice is common where patients receive an average of three medications with a significant increase in prescriptions written for antipsychotics and mood stabilizers over the last decade (212).

Antidepressants

Regarding the efficacy of antidepressants in BPD, several meta-analyses have been performed and demonstrate that ADs have small but significant effects on reducing anxiety, anger, aggression, and impulsive self-harm although they have limited to no efficacy in reducing depression and chronic emptiness and have no effect on global functioning or remission of BPD (209,213). The efficacy of serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is limited with more consistent effects on anger, aggression, and self-harm as compared to mood lability and depression (213–217). Tricyclic antidepressants and monoamine oxidase inhibitors should be used with caution especially in patients with suicidality, noncompliance, comorbid medical illness (i.e., cardiac), and potentially hazardous drug–drug interactions.

Antipsychotics

Evidence from several meta-analyses including RCTs and open-label studies suggests that antipsychotics are effective at treating affect dysregulation (anger) and impulsive–behavioral dyscontrol core symptoms of BPD as well as reducing cognitive–perceptual symptoms (i.e., micro-psychotic) (209,218–221). However, there were no significant differences in overall dropout rates between patients on medications and those on placebo (217), and total BPD severity was not significantly affected (219).

Mood Stabilizers

Despite BPD being considered by some on the bipolar spectrum (222), there is little evidence to definitively support this link, and although mood stabilizers commonly effect treatment remission in bipolar disorder, they do not lead to remission of BPD (223). In a meta-analyses of 21 placebo-controlled RCTs from 1980 to 2007 examining the effect sizes of pharmacologic interventions for borderline PDs, mood stabilizers had a very large effect on impulsive– behavioral dyscontrol and anger, a large effect on anxiety, a moderate effect on depressed mood, and a more pronounced effect on global functioning than antipsychotics (209). The only RCT of lithium in BPD showed reductions in affective instability but no changes in global clinical improvement (224). Anticonvulsants have been shown to be effective in treating certain symptom clusters of BPD. Carbamazepine has been shown to reduce behavioral dyscontrol (i.e., impulsivity), anxiety, anger, and suicidal behavior (225,226). Like the SSRIs, valproic acid is more effective at treating anger and impulsive aggression rather than affective instability (220). A smaller dataset exists for topiramate (227) and lamotrigine (228) with studies showing decreased anger and anxiety and less mood instability. In summary, mood stabilizes may be useful for impulsive–behavioral dyscontrol (i.e., aggression) and affective symptoms, but less so for affective instability in patients with BPD (220).

Cluster B: ASPD

Meta-analysis of controlled trials to treat ASPD has only been conducted with nortriptyline, bromocriptine, and phenytoin, and although there is some evidence for a reduction in impulsive aggression, this is not a consistent finding, and currently, pharmacotherapy is not a standard part of treatment for ASPD (229).

CONCLUSION

PDs commonly occur in both psychiatric and substance abuse treatment settings, and there is considerable co-occurrence between PDs and SUDs, especially with ASPD and BPD. Screening, the use of standardized diagnostic assessments, FH, age of onset of symptoms, premorbid symptom patterns, temporal history of PD symptoms versus substance initiation and ongoing use, periods of abstinence, collateral history, the use of serial and longitudinal assessments, and ruling out substances of abuse or medical conditions that can masquerade as PD symptoms are key to establishing the diagnosis of an independent PD. Patients with co-occurring SUDs and PDs can benefit from treatment as much as those without PDs, but the presence of a PD does negatively affect the course of treatment of the addictive disorder and is associated with noncompliance and relapse. It is therefore important to continue treatments specifically aimed at the PD so as to minimize the impact of specific PD symptoms on poor substance abuse outcomes. It is important to provide comprehensive care, optimally within a structured environment (i.e., Dual Diagnosis Day Program, Methadone Maintenance Treatment Program [MMTP], TC) with a dual focus (i.e., PD and SUD), in an integrated system of care, and utilizing symptom-targeted pharmacotherapy when appropriate as an adjunct to psychosocial interventions. A focus on therapeutic alliance, risk assessment, as well as addressing motivational/interpersonal/perceptual problems are key to engage patients in longer-term treatments that are associated with improved outcomes. Utilize integrated psychosocial treatments developed specifically for PDs and SUDs (i.e., DBT-S) when possible, although additional training is necessary for this and the logistics and resources for such large-scale training need to be considered.

REFERENCES

1.American Psychiatric Association (APA). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000.

2.Grilo CM, Shea MT, Sanislow CA, et al. Two-year stability and change in schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders. J Consult Clin Psychol2004;72:767–775.

3.Johnson JG, Cohen P, Kasen S, et al. Age-related change in personality disorder trait levels between early adolescence and adulthood: a community-based longitudinal investigation. Acta Psychiatr Scand2000;102:265–275.

4.Lenzenweger MJ. Stability and change in personality disorder features: the longitudinal study of personality disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999;56:1009–1015.

5.Shea MT, Stout RL, Gunderson J, et al. Short-term diagnostic stability of schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders. Am J Psychiatry2001;159:2036–2041.

6.Seivewright H, Tyrer P, Johnson T. Change in personality status in neurotic disorders. Lancet 2002;359:2253–2254.

7.Verheul R. Co-morbidity of personality disorders in individuals with substance use disorders. Eur Psychiatry 2001;16:274–282.

8.Trull TJ, Jahng S, Tomko RL, et al. Revised NESARC personality disorder diagnoses: gender, prevalence, and comorbidity with substance dependence disorders. J Personal Disord2010;24(4):412–426.

9.Verheul R, Andrea H, Berghout CC, et al. Severity indices of personality problems (SIPP-118) development, factor structure, reliability, and validity. Psychol Assess 2008;20(1):23–34.

10.Siever LJ, Davis K. A psychobiological perspective on the personality disorders. Am J Psychiatry 1991;148:1647–1658.

11.Zanarini MC. Borderline personality as an impulse spectrum disorder. In: Paris J, ed. Borderline personality disorder: etiology and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1993:67–86.

12.Livesley WJ, Jang KL. Toward an empirically based classification of personality disorder. J Personal Disord 2000;14:137–151.

13.Bagby M, Costa PT, Widiger TA, et al. DSM-IV personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality: a multi-method examination of domain and facet-level prediction. Eur J Personal 2005;19:307–324.

14.Andersen AM, Bienvenu JO. Personality and psychopathology. Int Rev Psychiatry 2011;23:234–247.

15.Widiger TA, Simonsen E. Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: finding a common ground. J Personal Disord 2005;19(2):110–130.

16.Eysenck HJ. Dimensions of personality. London, UK: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1947.

17.Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton, 1976.

18.Markon KE, Krueger RF, Watson D. Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: an integrative hierarchical approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 2005;88:139–157.

19.McCrae RR. The five-factor model of personality traits: consensus and controversy. In: Corr PJ, Matthews G, eds. The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

20.McCrae RR, John OP. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J Pers 1992;60(2):175–215.

21.DeYoung CG, Peterson JB, Higgins DM. Sources of openness/ intellect: cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. J Pers 2005;73(4):825–858.

22.Silvia PJ, Nusbaum EC, Berg C, et al. Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: exploring lower-order, higher-order and interactive effects. J Res Person 2009;43(6):1087–1090.

23.DeYoung CG, Shamosh NA, Green AE, et al. Intellect as distinct from Openness: differences revealed by fMRI of working memory. J Pers Soc Psychol 2009;97:883–892.

24.Caspi A, Roberts BW, Shiner RI. Personality development: stability and change. Annu Rev Psychol 2005;56:453–484.

25.Allik J. Personality dimensions across cultures. J Personal Disord 2005;19:212–232.

26.McCrae RR, Allik J. The five-factor model of personality across cultures. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 2002.

27.Costa PT, McCrae RR. Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1992.

28.Costa PT, Herbst JH, McCrae RR, et al. Personality at midlife: stability, intrinsic maturation, and response to life events. Assessment 2000;7:365–378.

29.Roberts BW, DelVecchio WF. The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull 2000;126:3–25.

30.Costa PT, Bagby RM, Herbst JH, et al. Personality self-reports are concurrently reliable and valid during acute depressive episodes. J Affect Disord 2006;89:45–55.

31.De Fruyt F, Van Leeuwen K, Bagby RM, et al. Assessing and interpreting personality change and continuity in patients treated for major depression. Psychol Assess 2006;18(1):71–80.

32.Lynam DR, Widiger TA. Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: an expert consensus approach. J Abnorm Psychol 2001;110(3):401–412.

33.Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, Schutte NS. The relationship between the five-factor model of personality and symptoms of clinical disorders: a meta-analysis. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 2005;27:101–114.

34.Saulsman IM, Page AC. The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: a meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev 2004;23:1055–1085.

35.Lynam DR, Widiger TA. Using a general model of personality to identify the basic elements of psychopathy. J Personal Disord 2007;21:160–178.

36.Kotov R, Gamez W, Schmidt F, et al. Linking ‘big’ personality traits to anxiety, depressive and substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 2010;136:768–821.

37.Chassin L, Flora DB, King KM. Trajectories of alcohol and drug use and dependence form adolescence to adulthood: the effects of familial alcoholism and personality. J Abnorm Psychol2004;113(4):483–498.

38.Verheul R. Personality disorder proposal for DSM-5: a heroic and innovative but nevertheless fundamentally flawed attempt to improve DSM-4. Clin Psychol Psychother 2012;19(5):369–371.

39.Kessler RC, Merikangas KR. The National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R): background and aims. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2004;13:60–68.

40.Stinson FS, Grant BF, Dawson DA, et al. Comorbidity between DSM-IV alcohol and specific drug use disorders in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Drug Alcohol Depend 2005;80:105–116.

41.Samuels J. Personality disorders: epidemiology and public health issues. Int Rev Psychiatry 2011;23(3):223–233.

42.SAMHSA. Results from the 2006 national survey on drug use and health: national findings. (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07–4293, NSDUR series H-32). Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies, 2007.

43.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56:1157–1161.

44.Zimmerman M, Coryell W. DSM-III personality disorder diagnoses in a nonpatient sample: demographic correlates and comorbidity. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1989;46:682–689.

45.Trull TJ, Sher KJ, Minks-Brown C, et al. Borderline personality and substance use disorders: a review and integration. Clin Psychol Rev 2000;20(2):235–253.

46.Regier DA, Farmer MD, Raem DS, et al. Comorbidity of mental disorders with alcohol and other drug abuse. JAMA 1990;246(19):2511–2518.

47.Harned MS, Chapman AL, Dexter-Mazza ET, et al. Treating co-occurring Axis I disorders in recurrently suicidal women with borderline personality disorder: a 2-year randomized trial of dialectical behavioral therapy versus community treatment by experts. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat 2009;5:35–45.

48.McMain SF, Links PS, Gnam WH, et al. A randomized trial of dialectical behavioral therapy versus general psychiatric management for borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry2009;166:1365–1374.

49.Verheul R, van den Bosch LM, Ball SA. Substance abuse. In: Oldham JM, Skodol AE, Bender DS, eds. Textbook of personality disorders. Arlington, VA: The American Psychiatric Publishing, 2005.

50.Plomin R, DeFries JC, McClearn GE, et al. Behavioral genetics, 4th ed. New York, NY: Freeman, 2001.

51.Rothbart MK. Temperament, development and personality. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2007;16:207–212.

52.Rutter M, Plomin R. Opportunities for psychiatry from genetic findings. Br J Psychiatry 1997;11:19–33.

53.Paris J. A current integrative perspective on personality disorders. In: Oldham JM, Skodol AE, Bender DS, eds. Textbook of personality disorders. Washington, DC: The American Psychiatric Publishing, 2005.

54.Livesley WJ, Jang KL, Jackson DN, et al. Genetic and environmental contributions to dimensions of personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 1993;150:1826–1831.

55.Livesley WJ, Jang KL, Vernon PA. Phenotypic and genetic structure of traits delineating personality disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998;55:941–948.

56.Gillespie NA, Cloninger CR, Heath AC, et al. The genetic and environmental relationship between Cloninger’s dimensions of temperament and character. Pers Individ Dif 2003;35:1931–1946.

57.Jang KL, Livesley WJ, Vernon PA, et al. Heritability of personality disorder traits: a twin study. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1996;94:438–444.

58.Caspi A, Harrington O, Milne B, et al. Children’s behavioral styles at age 3 are linked to their adult personality traits at age 26. J Pers 2003;71:495–513.

59.Verheul R, van den Brink W. Causal pathways between substance use disorders and personality pathology. Aust Psychol 2005;40(2):127–136.

60.Slutske WS, Cronk NJ, Sher KJ, et al. Genes, environment, and individual differences in alcohol expectancies among female adolescents and young adults. Psychol Addict Behav2002;16(4):308–317.

61.Krueger RF, Hicks BM, Patrick CJ, et al. Etiologic connections among substance dependence, antisocial behavior, and personality: modeling the externalizing spectrum. J Abnorm Psychol 2002;111:411–424.

62.Ross S, Peselow E. The neurobiology of addictive disorders. Clin Neuropharmacol 2009;32(5):269–276.

63.Sher KJ, Trull TJ. Personality and disinhibitory psychopathology: alcoholism and antisocial personality disorder. J Abnorm Psychol 1994;103(1):92–102.

64.Wills TA, Windle M, Cleary SD. Temperament and novelty seeking in adolescent substance use: convergence of dimensions of temperament with constructs from Cloninger’s theory. J Pers Soc Psychol1998;74:387–406.

65.Caspi A, Begg D, Dickson N, et al. Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood: evidence from a longitudinal study. J Pers Soc Psychol 1997;73:1052–1063.

66.Krueger RF, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, et al. Personality traits are differentially linked to mental disorders: a multitrait–multidiagnosis study of an adolescent birth cohort. J Abnorm Psychol1996;105:299–312.

67.Masse LC, Tremblay RE. Behaviour of boys in kindergarten and the onset of substance use during adolescence. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997;54:62–68.

68.Sher KJ, Bartholow BD, Wood MD. Personality and substance use disorders: a prospective study. J Consult Clin Psychol 2000;68(5):818–829.

69.Bahlmann M, Preuss UW, Soyka M. Chronological relationship between antisocial personality disorder and alcohol dependence. Eur Addict Res 2002;8(4):195–200.

70.Verheul R, Hartgers C, van den Brink W, et al. The effect of sampling, diagnostic criteria and assessment procedures on the observed prevalence of personality disorders in alcoholics. J Stud Alcohol1998;59:227–236.

71.Krueger RF, Markon KE. Reinterpreting comorbidity: a model-based approach to understanding and classifying psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2006;2:111–133.

72.Ruiz MA, Pincus AL, Schinka JA. Externalizing pathology and the five-factor model: a meta-analysis of personality traits associated with antisocial personality disorder, substance use disorder, and their co-occurrence. J Personal Disord 2008;22(4):365–368.

73.Khantzian EJ. The self-medication hypothesis of addictive disorders: a focus on heroin and cocaine. Am J Psychiatry 1985;142:1259–1264.

74.Khantzian EJ. The self-medication hypothesis of substance use disorders: a reconsideration and recent applications. Harv Rev Psychiatry 1997;4:231–244.

75.Tournier M, Sorbara F, Gindre C, et al. Cannabis use and anxiety in daily life: a naturalistic investigation in a non-clinical population. Psychiatry Res 2003;118:1–8.

76.Carrigan MH, Randall CL. Self-medication in social phobia: a review of the alcohol literature. Addict Behav 2003;28:269–284.

77.Ogborne AC, Smart RG, Weber T, et al. Who is using cannabis as a medicine and why: an exploratory study. J Psychoactive Drugs 2000;32:435–443.

78.Kessler RC. The epidemiology of dual diagnosis. Biol Psychiatry 2004;56:730–737.

79.Mueser KT, Drake RE, Wallach MA. Dual diagnosis: a review of etiological theories. Addict Behav 1998;23(6):717–734.

80.Cloninger CR, Sigvardsson S, Bohman M. Childhood personality predicts alcohol abuse in young adults. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1988;12:494–505.

81.Conrod PJ, Pihl RO, Vassileva J. Differential sensitivity to alcohol reinforcement in groups of men at risk for distinct alcoholism subtypes. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1998;22:585–597.

82.Schuckit MA, Klein J, Twitchell G, et al. Personality test scores as predictors of alcoholism almost a decade later. Am J Psychiatry 1994;151:1038–1043.

83.MacLean KA, Johnson MW, Griffiths RR. Mystical experiences occasioned by the hallucinogen psilocybin lead to increases in personality domain of openness. J Psychopharmacol2011;25(11):1453–1461.

84.Nace EP, Davis CW, Gaspari JP. Axis II comorbidity in substance abusers. Am J Psychiatry 1991;148(1):118–120.

85.Bender DS, Dolan RT, Skodol AE, et al. Treatment utilization by patients with personality disorders. Am J Psychiatry 2001;158(2):295–302.

86.Cloninger CR. A practical way to diagnosis personality disorder: a proposal. J Personal Disord 2000;14(2):99–108.

87.Rogers R. Standardizing DSM-IV diagnoses: the clinical applications of structured interviews. J Pers Assess 2003;81:220–225.

88.Zimmerman M, Mattia JI. Differences between clinical and research practices in diagnosing borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 1999;156:1570–1574.

89.Zimmerman M, Mattia JI. Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice: is comorbidity being missed? Compr Psychiatry 1999;40:182–191.

90.Millon T, Davis R, Millon C. Manual for the MCMI-III. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems, 1997.

91.Hyler SE. Personality diagnostic questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4). New York, NY: New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1994.

92.Morey LC, Waugh MH, Blashfield RK. MMPI scales for DSM-III personality disorders: their derivation and correlates. J Pers Assess 1985;49:245–251.

93.Coolidge FL, Merwin MM. Reliability and validity of the Coolidge Axis II Inventory: a new inventory for the assessment of personality disorders. J Pers Assess 1992;59:223–238.

94.Lilienfield SO, Andrews BP. Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. J Pers Assess 1996;60:488–524.

95.Raskin RN, Tery H. A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence fits construct validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988;54:890–902.

96.Raine A. The SPQ: a scale for the assessment of schizotypal personality based on DSM-III-R criteria. Schizophr Bull 1991;17:555–564.

97.McDermut W, Zimmerman, M. Assessment instruments and standardized evaluation. In: Oldham JM, Skodol AE, Bender DS, eds. Textbook of personality disorders. Washington, DC: The American Psychiatric Publishing, 2005:89–101.

98.Zanarini MC, Frankenburg FR, Sickel AE. Diagnostic interview for DSM-IV personality disorders. Boston, MA: Laboratory for the Study of Adult Development, McLean Hospital and the Department of Psychiatry, Harvard University, 1996.

99.First MB, Gibbon RL, Spitzer RL, et al. Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis II personality disorders (SCID-II). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1997.

100.Pfohl B, Blum N, Zimmerman M. Structured Interview for DSM-IV personality. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1997.

101.Widiger TA. The DSM-III-R categorical personality disorder diagnoses: a critique and an alternative. Psychol Inq 1993;4: 75–90.

102.Preuss UW, Koller G, Barnow S, et al. Suicidal behavior in alcohol-dependent subjects: the role of personality disorders. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2006;30(5):866–877.

103.Ross S. The mentally ill substance abuser. In: Galanter M, Kleber M, eds. Textbook of substance abuse treatment, 4th ed. Washington, DC: The American Psychiatric Publishing, 2008:537–554.

104.Grelotti DJ, Kanayama G, Pope HG Jr. Remission of persistent methamphetamine-induced psychosis after electroconvulsive therapy: presentation of a case and review of the literature. Am J Psychiatry2010;167(1):17–23.

105.Ross S, Peselow E. Co-occurring psychotic and addictive disorders: neurobiology and diagnosis. Clin Neuropharmacol 2012;35(5):235–243.

106.Weiss F, Ciccocioppo R, Parsons LH, et al. Compulsive drug-seeking behavior and relapse. Neuroadaptation, stress and conditioning factors. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2001;937:1–26.

107.Stuss DT. Traumatic brain injury: relation to executive dysfunction and the frontal lobes. Curr Opin Neurol 2011;24(6):584–589.

108.Zappala G, Thierbaut de Schotten M, Eslinger PJ. Traumatic brain injury and the frontal lobes: what can we gain with diffusion tensor imaging? Cortex 2012;48(2):156–165.

109.Bartak A, Andrea H, Spreeuwenberg MD, et al. Patients with Cluster A personality disorders in psychotherapy: an effectiveness study. Psychother Psychosom 2011;80:88–99.

110.Salekin RT. Psychopathy and therapeutic pessimism. Clinical lore or clinical reality? Clin Psychol Rev 2002;22:79–112.

111.Morey LC, Berghuis H, Bender DS, et al. Toward a model of assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, part II: empirical articulation of a core dimension of personality pathology. J Pers Assess2011;93(4):347–353.

112.Hser H, Grella C, Evans E, et al. Utilization and outcomes of mental health services among patients in drug treatment. J Addict Dis 2006;25(1):73–85.

113.Alterman AI, Rutherford MJ, Cacciola JS, et al. Prediction of 7 months methadone maintenance treatment response by four measures of antisociality. Drug Alcohol Depend1998;49:217–223.

114.Cacciola JS, Alterman AI, Rutherform MJ, et al. Treatment response of antisocial substance abusers. J Nerv Ment Dis 1995;183:166–171.

115.Cacciola JS, Alterman AI, Rutherford MJ, et al. Personality disorders and treatment outcome in methadone maintenance patients. J Nerv Ment Dis 1996;184:234–239.

116.Cecero JJ, Ball SA, Tennen H, et al. Concurrent and predictive validity of antisocial personality disorder subtyping among substance abusers. J Nerv Ment Dis 1999;187:478–486.

117.Crits-Cristoph P, Siqueland L, Blaine J, et al. Psychosocial treatments for cocaine dependence: NIDA collaborative cocaine treatment study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999;56:493–502.

118.Powell BJ, Penick EC, Nickel EJ, et al. Outcomes of comorbid alcoholic men: a 1-year follow-up. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1992;16:131–138.

119.Verheul R, van den Brink W, Hartgers C, et al. Anti-social alcoholic patients show as much improvement at 14-month follow-up as non-anti-social alcoholic patients. Am J Addict1999;8:24–33.

120.Thomas VH, Melchert TP, Banken JA. Substance dependence and personality disorders: comorbidity and treatment outcome in an inpatient treatment population. J Stud Alcohol1999;60:271–277.

121.Verheul R, van den Brink W, Hartgers C. Personality disorders predict relapse in alcoholic patients. Addict Behav 1998;23: 869–882.

122.Kosten TA, Kosten TR, Rounsaville BJ. Personality disorders in opiate addicts show prognostic specificity. J Subst Abuse Treat 1989;6(3):163–168.

123.Ross S, Dermatis, H, Levounis P, et al. A comparison between dually diagnosed inpatients with and without Axis II co-morbidity and the relationship to treatment outcome. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse2003;29(2):263–279.

124.Gerstley LJ, McLellan AT, Alterman AI, et al. Ability to form an alliance with the therapist: a possible marker of prognosis for patients with antisocial personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry1989;57:698–704.

125.Reich JH, Vasile RG. Effect of personality disorders on the treatment outcome of Axis I conditions: an update. J Nerv Ment Dis 1993;181:475–484.

126.Pettinati HM, Pierce JD, Belden PP, et al. The relationship of Axis II personality disorders to other known predictors of addiction treatment outcome. Am J Addict 1999;8(2):136–147.

127.Cacciola JS, Alterman AI, Rutherford MJ, et al. The relationship of psychiatric comorbidity to treatment outcomes in methadone maintained patients. Drug Alcohol Depend2001;61(3):271–280.

128.Westermeyer J, Thuras P. Association of antisocial personality disorder and substance disorder morbidity in a clinical sample. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2005;31(1):93–110.

129.Kienast T, Foerster J. Psychotherapy of personality disorders and concomitant substance dependence. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2008;21:619–624.

130.Carroll KM, Onken LS. Behavioral therapies for drug abuse. Am J Psychiatry 2005;162:1452–1460.

131.Miller WR, Wilbourne PL, Hettema JE. What works? A summary of alcohol treatment outcome research. In: Hester RK, Miller WR, eds. Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2003:13–63.

132.Miller WR, Wilbourne PL. Mesa Grande: a methodological analysis of clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders. Addiction 2002;97:265–277.

133.Kaskutas LA. Alcoholics anonymous effectiveness: faith meets science. J Addict Dis 2009;28(2):145–157.

134.Gabbard GO. Psychodynamic psychiatry in clinical practice, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 2000.

135.Dixon-Gordon KL, Turner BJ, Chapman AL. Psychotherapy for personality disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry 2011;23:282–302.

136.Duggan C, Huband N, Smailagic N, et al. The use of psychological treatments for people with personality disorder: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Personal Ment Health 2007;1:95–125.

137.Linehan MM. Cognitive behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 1993.

138.Clarkin JF, Levy K, Lenzenweger M, et al. Evaluating three treatments for borderline personality disorder: a multiwave study. Am J Psychiatry 2007;164:922–928.

139.Giesen-Bloo J, van Dyck R, Spinhoven P, et al. Outpatient psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder: randomized trial of schema-focused therapy vs. transference-focused psychotherapy. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006;63:649–658.

140.Young JF. Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: a schema-focused approach, rev. ed. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press, 1994.

141.Fonagy P, Luyten P. A developmental, mentalization-based approach to the understanding and treatment of borderline personality disorder. Dev Psychopathol 2009;21(4):1355–1381.

142.Dimeff LA, Linehan MM. Dialectical behavior therapy for substance abusers. Addict Sci Clin Pract 2008;4(2):39–47.

143.Kliem S, Kroger C, Kosfelder J. Dialectical behavior therapy for borderline personality disorder: a meta-analysis using mixed-effects modeling. J Consult Clin Psychol 2010;78:936–951.

144.Kernberg OF. A psychoanalytic theory of personality disorders. In: Clarkin JF, Lenzenweger MF, eds. Major theories of personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 1996:106–140.

145.Doering S, Horz S, Rentrop M, et al. Transference-focused psychotherapy v treatment by community psychotherapists for borderline personality disorder. Randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry2010;196:389–395.

146.Farrell JM, Shaw IA, Webber MA. A schema-focused approach to group psychotherapy for outpatients with borderline personality disorder: a randomized controlled trial. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry2009;40:317–328.

147.Bateman AW, Fonagy P. Effectiveness of partial hospitalization in the treatment of borderline personality disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry 1999;156:1563–1569.

148.Bateman AW, Fonagy P. Treatment of borderline personality disorder with psychoanalytically oriented partial hospitalization: an 18-month follow-up. Am J Psychiatry 2001;158:36–42.

149.Bateman AW, Fonagy P. 8-year follow-up of patients treated for borderline personality disorder: mentalization-based treatment versus treatment as usual. Am J Psychiatry2008;165:631–638.

150.Bateman AW, Fonagy P. Randomized controlled trial of outpatient mentalization-based treatment versus structured clinical management for borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2009;166:1355–1364.

151.Bourdin CM, Schaeffer CM, Heiblum N. A randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders: effects on youth social ecology and criminal activity. J Consult Clin Psychol2009;77:26–37.

152.Henggeler SW, Melton GB, Smith LA. Family preservation using multisystemic therapy: an effective alternative to incarcerating serious juvenile offenders. J Consult Clin Psychol1992;60: 953–961.

153.Henggeler SW, Rodick JD, Bourdin CM, et al. Multisystemic treatment of juvenile offenders: effects on adolescent behaviors and family interventions. Dev Psychol 1986;22:132–141.

154.Davidson K, Tyrer P, Tata P, et al. Cognitive behavior therapy for violent men with antisocial personality disorder in the community: an exploratory randomized controlled trial. Psychol Med 2009;39:569–577.

155.Martin J, Zweben JE, Payte JT. Opioid maintenance treatment. In: Ries RK, Fiellin DA, Miller SC, et al., eds. Principles of addiction medicine, 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009:671–687.

156.Brooner RK, Kidorf M, King VL, et al. Preliminary evidence of good treatment response in antisocial drug abusers. Drug Alcohol Depend 1998;49:249–260.

157.Lussier JP, Heil SH, Mongeon JA, et al. A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction 2006;101:192–203.

158.Griffith JD, Rowan-Szal GA, Roark RR, et al. Contingency management in outpatient methadone treatment: a meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000;58:55–66.

159.Pendergrast M, Podus D, Finney J, et al. Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Addiction 2006;101:1546–1560.

160.Dutra L, Stathopoulou G, Basden SL, et al. A meta-analytic review of interventions for substance use disorders. Am J Psychiatry 2008;165:179–187.

161.Messina N, Farabee D, Rawson R. Treatment responsivity of cocaine-dependent patients with antisocial personality disorder to cognitive behavioral and contingency management interventions. J Consult Clin Psychol 2003;71:320–329.

162.Dhawan N, Kunik ME, Oldham J, et al. Prevalence and treatment of narcissistic personality disorder in the community: a systematic review. Compr Psychiatry 2010;51:333–339.

163.Kernberg OF. The almost untreatable narcissistic patient. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 2007;55:503–539.

164.Larochelle S, Diguer L, Laverdiere O, et al. Psychological dimensions of antisocial personality disorder as predictors of psychotherapy noncompletion among sexual offenders. Bull Menn Clin 2010;74:1–28.

165.Alden L. Short-term structured treatment for avoidance personality disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol 1989;56:756–764.

166.Emmelkamp PM, Benner A, Kuipers A, et al. Comparison of brief dynamic and cognitive behavioural therapies in avoidance personality disorder. Br J Psychiatry 2006;189:60–64.

167.Stravynski A, Belisle M, Marcouiller M, et al. The treatment of avoidant personality disorder by social skills training in the clinic or in real-life settings. Can J Psychiatr 1994;39:377–383.

168.Linehan MM, Schmidt H, Dimeff LA, et al. Dialectical behavior therapy for patients with borderline personality disorder and drug-dependence. Am J Addict 1999;8:279–292.

169.Linehan MM, Dimeff LA, Reynolds SK, et al. Dialectical behavior therapy versus comprehensive validation plus 12-step for the modified treatment of opioid dependent women meeting criteria for borderline personality disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002;67:13–26.

170.Ball S, Cecero J. Addicted patients with personality disorders: traits, schemas, and presenting problems. J Personal Disord 2001;15(1):72–83.

171.Ball SA. Comparing individual therapies for personality disordered opioid dependent patients. J Personal Disord 2007;21(3):305–321.

172.Ball SA, Cobb-Richardson P, Connolly AJ, et al. Substance abuse and personality disorders in homeless drop-in center clients: symptom severity and psychotherapy retention in a randomized clinical trial. Compr Psychiatry 2005;46(5):371–379.

173.Ball SA, Maccarelli LM, LaPaglia DM, et al. Randomized trial of dual-focused vs single-focused individual therapy for personality disorders and substance dependence. J Nerv Ment Dis2011;199(5):319–328.

174.DeLeon G. The therapeutic community: theory, model & method. New York, NY: Springer Publishers, 2000.

175.Sacks S, Chaple M, Sacks JY, et al. Randomized trial of reentry modified therapeutic community for offenders with co-occurring disorders: crime outcomes. J Subst Abuse Treat2012;42(3):247–259.

176.DeLeon G. The therapeutic community: study of effectiveness. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) research monograph, DHHS Pub No ADM 84–1286. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, 1984.

177.Hubbard RL, Rachal JV, Craddock SG, et al. Treatment outcome prospective Study (TOPS): client characteristics and behaviors before, during and after treatment. In: Tims FM, Ludford JP, eds. Drug abuse treatment evaluation: strategies, progress, and prospects. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) research monograph 51, DHHS Pub. No. ADM 84–1329. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, 1984:42–68.

178.Simpson DD, Sells SB. Effectiveness of treatment of drug abuse: an overview of the DARP research program. Adv Alcohol Subst Abuse 1982;2:7–29.

179.Hser YI, Anglin D, Powers K. A 24-year follow-up of California narcotics addicts. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993;50:577–584.

180.Wexler HK, Falkin GP, Lipton DS. Outcome evaluation of a prison TC for substance abuse treatment. Crim Justice Behav 1990;17:71–92.

181.Lipton DS, Pearson FS, Cleland CM, et al. The effects of therapeutic communities and milieu therapy on recidivism: meta-analytic findings from the Correctional Drug Abuse Treatment Effectiveness (CDATE) Study. In: McGuire J, ed. Offender and treatment: effective programmes and policies to reduce re-offending. London, UK: John Wiley, 2003:39–77.

182.Sacks S, Sacks JY, McKendrick K, et al. Modified TC for MICA offenders: crime outcomes. Behav Sci Law 2004;22:477–501.

183.Haller DL, Knisley JS, Elswick RK, et al. Perinatal substance abusers: factors influencing treatment retention. J Subst Abuse Treat 1997;14:513–519.

184.Goldstein RB, Powers SI, McCuster J, et al. Antisocial behavioral syndromes among residential drug abuse treatment clients. Drug Alcohol Depend 1998;49:201–216.

185.Messina NP, Wish ED, Nemes S. Therapeutic community treatment for substance abusers with antisocial personality disorder. J Subst Abuse Treat 1999;17:121–128.

186.Messina N, Wish ED, Hoffman JA, et al. Antisocial personality disorder and TC treatment outcomes. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2002;28:197–212.

187.Douglas SB, LaPaglia DM, Maccarelli LM, et al. Personality disorders and retention in a therapeutic community for substance dependence. Am J Addict 2011;20:555–562.

188.Justus AN, Burling TA, Weingardt KR. Client predictors of treatment retention and completion in a program for homeless veterans. Subst Use Misuse 2002;41:751–762.

189.Ravndal E, Vaglum P, Lauritzen G. Completion of long-term inpatient treatment of drug abusers: a prospective study from 13 different units. Eur Addict Res 2005;11:180–185.

190.Mack JE. Alcoholism, AA, and the governance of the self. In: Bean MH, Zinberg NE, eds. Dynamic approaches to the understanding and treatment of alcoholism. New York, NY: Free Press, 1981.

191.Humphreys K, Mavis BE, Stoffelmayr BE. Are twelve step programs appropriate for disenfranchised groups? Evidence from a study of posttreatment mutual help involvement. Prev Hum Serv 1994;11:165–179.

192.Groh DR, Jason LA, Keys CB. Social network variables in alcoholics anonymous: a literature review. Clin Psychol Rev 2008;28:430–450.

193.Cross GM, Morgan CW, Mooney AJ, et al. Alcoholism treatment: a ten-year follow-up study. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1990;14:169–173.

194.Crape BR, Latkin CA, Laris AS, et al. The effects of sponsorship in 12-step treatment of injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002;65:291–301.

195.Ferri M, Amato L, Davoli M. Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(3):CD005032.

196.Kelly JF, Stout RL, Magill MJ, et al. Spirituality in recovery: a lagged mediational analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous’ principal theoretical mechanism of behavior change. Alcohol Clin Exp Res2011;35(3):454–463.

197.Kelly JF, Stout RL, Magill M, et al. The role of Alcoholics Anonymous in mobilizing adaptive social network changes: a prospective lagged mediational analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend2011;114:119–126.

198.Kelly JF, Yeterian JD. Mutual-help groups. In: O’Donohue W, Cunningham JR, eds. Evidence-based adjunctive treatments. New York, NY: Elsevier, 2008:61–105.

199.Humphreys K, Moos RH. Can encouraging substance abuse patients to participate in self-help groups reduce demand for health care? A quasi-experimental study. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2001;25:711–716.

200.Humphreys K. Circles of recovery: self-help organizations for addictions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

201.Poage ED, Ketzenberger KE, Olson J. Spirituality, contentment, and stress in recovering alcoholics. Addict Behav 2004;29:1857–1862.

202.Tonigan JS, Connors GJ, Miller WR. Participation and involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous. In: Babor T, DelBoca F, eds. Treatment matching in alcoholism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2003:184–204.

203.Sandoz CJ. The spiritual experience in recovery: a closer look. J Minist Addict Recover 1999;6:53–59.

204.Emrick CD, Tonigan JS, Montgomery H, et al. Alcoholics Anonymous: what is currently known? In: McCrady BS, Miller WR, eds. Research on Alcoholics Anonymous: opportunities and alternatives. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, 1993.

205.Ross S, Peselow E. Pharmacotherapies for addictive disorders. Clin Neuropharmacol 2009;32(5):277–289.

206.Soloff PH. Somatic treatments. In: Oldham JM, Skodol AE, Bender DS, eds. Textbook of personality disorders. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2005:387–403.

207.Ripoll LH, Triebwasser J, Siever LJ. Evidence-based pharmacotherapy for personality disorders. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2011;14(9):1257–1288.

208.Siever LJ, Davis KL. The pathophysiology of schizophrenia disorders: perspectives from the spectrum. Am J Psychiatry 2004;161(3):398–413.

209.Ingenhoven T, Lafay P, Rinne T, et al. Effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for severe personality disorders: meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Psychiatry2010;71(1):14–25.

210.Paris J. Pharmacological treatments for personality disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry 2011;23(3):303–309.

211.Lieb K, Zanarini MC, Schmahl C, et al. Borderline personality disorder. Lancet 2004;364(9432):453–461.

212.Pascual JC, Martín-Blanco A, Soler J, et al. A naturalistic study of changes in pharmacological prescription for borderline personality disorder in clinical practice: from APA to NICE guidelines. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2010;25(6):349–355.

213.Mercer D, Douglass AB, Links PS. Meta-analyses of mood stabilizers, antidepressants and antipsychotics in the treatment of borderline personality disorder: effectiveness for depression and anger symptoms. J Personal Disord 2009;23(2):156–174.

214.Coccaro EF, Kavoussi RJ. Fluoxetine and impulsive aggressive behavior in personality-disordered subjects. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997;54:1081–1088.

215.Zanarini MC, Frankenburg FR, Parachini EA. A preliminary, randomized trial of fluoxetine, olanzapine, and the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination in women with borderline personality disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 2004;65:903–907.

216.Markowitz PJ, Calabrese JR, Schulz SC, et al. Fluoxetine in the treatment of borderline and schizotypal personality disorders. Am J Psychiatry 1991;148:1064–1067.

217.Markowitz PJ, Wagner SL. Venlafaxine in the treatment of borderline personality disorder. Psychopharmacol Bull 1995;31:773–777.

218.Vita A, De Peri L, Sacchetti E. Pharmacological interventions for borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;16(6):CD005653.

219.Stoffers J, Vollm BA, Rucker G, et al. Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;8:CD005652.

220.Bellino S, Rinaldi C, Bozzatello P, et al. Pharmacotherapy of borderline personality disorder: a systematic review for publication purpose. Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(22):3322–3329.

221.Mercer D, Douglass AB, Links PS. Antipsychotics, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and placebo on the symptom dimensions of borderline personality disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled and open-label trials. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2011;31(5):613–624.

222.Akiskal HS. Demystifying borderline personality: critique of the concept and unorthodox reflections on its natural kinship with bipolar spectrum. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2004;110(6):401–407.

223.Paris J, Gunderson JG, Weinberg I. The interface between borderline personality disorder and bipolar spectrum disorder. Compr Psychiatry 2007;48:145–154.

224.Links PS, Steiner M, Boiago I, et al. Lithium therapy for borderline patients: preliminary findings. J Personal Disord 1990;4: 173–181.

225.Cowdry RW, Gardner DL. Pharmacotherapy of borderline personality disorder: Alprazolam, carbamazepine, trifluoperazine, and tranylcypromine. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988;45:111–119.

226.De la Fuente JM, Lotstra F. A trial of carbamazepine in borderline personality disorder. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 1994;4:479–486.

227.Nickel MK, Nickel C, Mitterlehner FO, et al. Topiramate treatment of aggression in female borderline personality disorder patients: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Psychiatry 2004;65:1515–1519.

228.Tritt K, Nickel C, Lahmann C, et al. Lamotrigine treatment of aggression in female borderline-patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Psychopharmacol2005;19: 287–291.

229.Khalifa N, Duggan C, Stoffers J, et al. Pharmacological interventions for antisocial personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;4(8):CD007667.

230.Muran J, Safran J, Samstag L, et al. Evaluating an alliance-focused treatment for personality disorders. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 2005;42:532–545.

231.Budman SH, Demby A, Soldz S, et al. Time-limited group psychotherapy for patients with personality disorders: outcomes and dropouts. Int J Group Psychother 1996;46(3):357–377.

232.Hoglend P, Dahl HS, Hersoug AG, et al. Long-term effects of transference interpretation in dynamic psychotherapy of personality disorders. Eur Psychiatry 2011;26(7):419–424.

233.Monsen J, Odland T, Faugli A, et al. Personality disorders and psychosocial changes after intensive psychotherapy: a prospective follow-up study of an outpatient psychotherapy project, 5 years after end of treatment. Scand J Psychol 1995;36(3):256–268.

234.Stevenson J, Meares R. An outcome study of psychotherapy for patients with borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 1992;149(3):358–362.

235.McKay JR. Is there a case for extended interventions for alcohol and drug use disorders? Addiction 2005;100(11):1594–1610.

236.Van den Bosch LMC, Verheul R. Patients with addiction and personality disorder: treatment outcomes and clinical implications. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2007;20:67–71.

237.Brunette MF, Mueser KT. Psychosocial interventions for the long-term management of patients with severe mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorder. J Clin Psychiatry2006;67 (Suppl 7):10–17.

238.Kienast T, Foerster J. Psychotherapy of personality disorders and concomitant substance dependence. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2008;21(6):619–624.

Page

Contents

If you find an error or have any questions, please email us at admin@doctorlib.info. Thank you!