Skip to main content
Full access
Editorials
Published Online: 1 March 2021

Risk and Prevention of Aggression in Patients With Psychotic Disorders

Aggression is an important negative outcome, and its prediction and prevention are among the top priorities in psychosis care. In their contribution in this issue of the Journal, Krakowski et al. (1) compare the effects of antipsychotics on violent schizophrenia patients with and without comorbid conduct disorder. As expected, patients with a history of comorbid conduct disorders had more frequent and severe physical assaults compared with patients without conduct disorders. Interestingly, clozapine and olanzapine had more pronounced antiaggressive effects compared with haloperidol in patients with conduct disorders than in patients without this comorbidity. We put this new, important finding into perspective.
The exact magnitude of the problem at hand is not completely clear because studies use different definitions, methods, populations, and settings. In a 38-year follow-up study that included the total population in Sweden, the adjusted odds ratio for convictions of any violent offense—including homicide, sexual offenses, assault, and intimidation—in patients with psychotic disorders (N=24,297) was 7.4 (95% CI=7.1–7.8) compared with the general population (2). A recent study in two U.K. regions that used police data of patients with first-episode psychosis (N=177) found that 14.7% were arrested or charged for violent offenses within 12 months after their first contact with specialized mental health care (3). In contrast to increased rates of violence, patients with psychotic disorders are also more vulnerable for victimization. A meta-analysis found that 20% of patients with psychotic disorders reported violent victimization over a 3-year period, some five times higher than in the general community (4). For a national census in Norway, mental health clinicians performed an unstructured risk assessment on inpatients and outpatients in psychiatric treatment, which included 60%−65% of all patients. Risk was rated as none, low to moderate, high, or very high. Results showed that 7% of outpatients and 27% of inpatients were considered to be at low to moderate risk and that 5% of inpatients and less than 1% of outpatients were at high or very high risk (5). These risk assessments are considerably lower than the actual odds ratio for violent offenses, indicating a gap between estimated risk and actual occurrence of violence, yet reliable identification of patients at risk is crucial in the prevention of aggression. Several recent studies present interesting findings on risk factors.
First, a 6-year follow-up study of patients with psychotic disorders confirmed earlier studies that childhood trauma is a risk factor for aggression (hazard ratio=1.74, 95% CI=1.03–2.93) (6). Another important and well-known childhood risk factor, conduct disorder, was confirmed in the article by Krakowski et al. (1). Interestingly, Oakley et al. (7) found that conduct disorder was associated with childhood adversities and with later violence among a sample of 54 male patients with schizophrenia. The authors therefore suggested that there is a complex interplay between childhood adversity, conduct disorder, and later violent behavior in psychotic disorders (7).
Second, substance abuse has long been confirmed as an important risk factor for aggression. Lamsma et al. (8) synthesized two nationwide psychosis studies from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Compared with nondaily or no illicit drug use, daily use of cannabis (pooled odds ratio=1.6, 95% CI=1.2–2.0), stimulants (pooled odds ratio=2.8, 95% CI=1.7–4.5), and sedatives (opiates and inhalants) (pooled odds ratio=2.2, 95% CI=1.1–4.5) all increased the risk for violence (8). Kalk et al. (9) analyzed data of first-time admitted patients in an emergency psychiatric detention facility in the United Kingdom (N=1,089) and found that psychotic symptoms combined with recent cannabinoid use largely increased the risk for aggression (odds ratio=7.1, 95% CI=3.7–13.6). The risk was also increased, but to a lesser extent, among patients without psychotic symptoms but with recent use of both cannabinoids and stimulants (odds ratio=3.3, 95% CI=1.4–7.9).
Third, results from a cohort study in Switzerland that included patients with first-episode psychosis (N=265) confirmed that impulsivity increased the risk for violence (odds ratio=1.53, 95% CI=1.22–1.93), although not spectacularly. This relationship was not mediated by substance abuse (10). In more chronic psychotic disorders, 26% of the safety needs related to aggression were attributable to impulsivity 3 years earlier, assuming causality (6).
Fourth, Buchanan et al. (11) recently analyzed data from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) trial, in which patients with schizophrenia (N=1,435) were followed for 18 months, and found that medication nonadherence was related to injurious violence (hazard ratio=1.39, 95% CI=1.04–1.86). Other risk factors in this study included recent violent victimization (hazard ratio=3.52, 95% CI=1.62–7.64) and severity of illicit drug abuse (hazard ratio=2.93, 95% CI=1.65–5.18).

Interpretation of Risk

Most studies focus on individual risk factors, while aggression is contextual and relational. Moreover, risk factors are most interesting for clinical practice when they are causal and modifiable, but the relationship between a risk factor and aggression is usually not straightforward. Risk factors interact with each other and with aggression. Recently, Adams and Yanos (12) proposed a practical model that included psychosocial factors such as victimization and situational stressors, discrimination, social rejection, and hostile attributions. These pathways affect the interplay between psychotic symptoms, anger, and aggression, further increased by substance abuse and impulsivity.
An important practical measure is to interpret and discuss the risk for aggression with the patient, as it is also in the patient’s interest to prevent aggressive behavior. The patient can give views on etiology, triggers, and contributors to aggression. The patient’s family is a major source of information because of their experience with the patient. Ideally, the clinician, patient, and family determine in shared decision making if aggression should be a focus of treatment. This does, however, depend on the patient’s cooperation and insight.

Prevention

The most effective prevention highly depends on the origins and etiology of the aggression. Nonpharmacological options have not been studied as extensively as pharmacological interventions. Interventions specifically aimed at aggression reduction are often derived from offender populations. A systematic review found promising interventions, such as cognitive-behavioral therapies and cognitive skills programs focused on reasoning and rehabilitation, but there is insufficient evidence as to whether these are also effective in nonoffender populations with severe mental illness (13). A practical solution is to treat modifiable and causal risk factors or exacerbating behaviors. For example, treatment of impulsivity could decrease aggression risk, assuming causality, but specific and evidence-based interventions are needed (10). Likewise, trauma-informed treatment of aggression could be suitable if trauma is a perceived cause of aggression, but there is currently insufficient evidence for its efficacy (12).
As for pharmacological interventions, benzodiazepines are often used to prevent upcoming escalation. A recent systematic review on the effectiveness of benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression included 20 trials (N=695) comparing either benzodiazepine add-on to placebo or benzodiazepine to antipsychotic medication; however, most of these studies had low sample sizes and serious risk for bias due to problems with randomization and blinding (14). Despite these drawbacks, there was no apparent advantage of benzodiazapines over antipsychotic medication, and the addition of benzodiazepines showed efficacy in only one study. For persistent aggression in psychotic disorders, antipsychotics and, specifically, clozapine are an effective choice (15). In the Krakowski et al. (1) article, the authors compare clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol. This is a high-quality study, which is rare in this field, as an overt aggression scale is used, while most other studies use an indirect measure of aggression, such as the hostility item of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. Also, all patients were admitted to a research ward, allowing close observation and equivalent circumstances for all patients, including no access to illicit drugs. The authors found that clozapine was superior to haloperidol and olanzapine and that olanzapine was superior to haloperidol. This effect was stronger for patients with conduct disorder compared with patients without conduct disorder. Olanzapine was not significantly superior to haloperidol in patients without conduct disorder. These results are consistent with our meta-analysis showing that atypical antipsychotics are more effective against hostility compared with typical antipsychotics, and clozapine had the highest effect size (15).
As treatment nonadherence is a risk factor for aggressive behavior (11), long-acting injectables could have advantages over oral antipsychotics (16), which are available for olanzapine but not for clozapine. Other strategies to improve treatment adherence could help, as Drake et al. (17) showed that motivational interviewing, online psychoeducation, and text-message reminders are effective ways to enhance adherence.

Conclusions

Aggression is heterogeneous and common in patients with psychotic disorders. Risk should be interpreted carefully, preferably together with the patient and family, and should include evaluations of triggering factors, history of trauma and/or victimization, impulsive behavior, substance abuse, medication adherence, and presence of conduct disorder. As Krakowski et al. (1) show, clozapine and olanzapine are effective against aggression in patients with schizophrenia and have more pronounced antiaggressive effects in patients with comorbid conduct disorders. There is insufficient evidence for nonpharmacological treatment options, but such treatment represents an interesting area for further research.

References

1.
Krakowski M, Tural U, Czobor P: The importance of conduct disorder in the treatment of violence in schizophrenia: efficacy of clozapine compared with olanzapine and haloperidol. Am J Psychiatry 2021; 178:266–274
2.
Fazel S, Wolf A, Palm C, et al: Violent crime, suicide, and premature mortality in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders: a 38-year total population study in Sweden. Lancet Psychiatry 2014; 1:44–54
3.
Whiting D, Lennox BR, Fazel S: Violent outcomes in first-episode psychosis: a clinical cohort study. Early Interv Psychiatry 2020; 14:379–382
4.
de Vries B, van Busschbach JT, van der Stouwe ECD, et al: Prevalence rate and risk factors of victimization in adult patients with a psychotic disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull 2019; 45:114–126
5.
Ose SO, Lilleeng S, Pettersen I, et al: Risk of violence among patients in psychiatric treatment: results from a national census. Nord J Psychiatry 2017; 71:551–560
6.
Faay MDM, van Os J, Genetic Risk and Outcome of Psychosis (GROUP) Investigators: Aggressive behavior, hostility, and associated care needs in patients with psychotic disorders: a 6-year follow-up study. Front Psychiatry 2020; 10:934
7.
Oakley C, Harris S, Fahy T, et al: Childhood adversity and conduct disorder: a developmental pathway to violence in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2016; 172:54–59
8.
Lamsma J, Cahn W, Fazel S, et al: Use of illicit substances and violent behaviour in psychotic disorders: two nationwide case-control studies and meta-analyses. Psychol Med 2020; 50:2028–2033
9.
Kalk NJ, Robins JE, Ross KR, et al: Substance use in psychiatric crisis: relationship to violence. Psychol Med (Epub ahead of print, Nov 5, 2020)
10.
Moulin V, Golay P, Palix J, et al: Impulsivity in early psychosis: a complex link with violent behaviour and a target for intervention. Eur Psychiatry 2018; 49:30–36
11.
Buchanan A, Sint K, Swanson J, et al: Correlates of future violence in people being treated for schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 2019; 176:694–701
12.
Adams SW, Yanos PT: Pathways to aggression and violence in psychosis without longstanding antisocial behavior: a review and proposed psychosocial model for integrative clinical interventions. Psychiatry Res 2020; 293:113427
13.
Rampling J, Furtado V, Winsper C, et al: Non-pharmacological interventions for reducing aggression and violence in serious mental illness: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Eur Psychiatry 2016; 34:17–28
14.
Zaman H, Sampson S, Beck A, et al: Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation. Schizophr Bull 2018; 44:966–969
15.
Faay MDM, Czobor P, Sommer IEC: Efficacy of typical and atypical antipsychotic medication on hostility in patients with psychosis-spectrum disorders: a review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychopharmacology 2018; 43:2340–2349
16.
Mohr P, Knytl P, Voráčková V, et al: Long-acting injectable antipsychotics for prevention and management of violent behaviour in psychotic patients. Int J Clin Pract 2017; 71
17.
Drake RJ, Nordentoft M, Haddock G, et al: Modeling determinants of medication attitudes and poor adherence in early nonaffective psychosis: implications for intervention. Schizophr Bull 2015; 41:584–596

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
American Journal of Psychiatry
Pages: 218 - 220

History

Accepted: 11 January 2021
Published online: 1 March 2021
Published in print: March 01, 2021

Keywords

  1. Risk
  2. Preventions
  3. Violence/Aggression
  4. Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders

Authors

Details

Margo D.M. Faay, R.N., Ph.D.
Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (Faay); Department of Biomedical Sciences of Cells and Systems and Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (Sommer).
Iris E. Sommer, M.D., Ph.D. [email protected]
Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (Faay); Department of Biomedical Sciences of Cells and Systems and Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (Sommer).

Notes

Send correspondence to Dr. Sommer ([email protected]).

Competing Interests

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share