Carlsson (1999/2000) Flashcards
What was the aim of Carlsson?
The study aims to test the role of neurotransmitters in schizophrenia to look at the effectiveness and issues within drug treatment. He wanted to see if new drug treatments were better with less side effects.
What did the reviewed studies look at?
The studies looked at the relationship between neurotransmitters on schizophrenia and brain areas.
How many studies were reviewed?
32 studies.
How did they vary?
- rodents and primates to test neurotransmission
- brain structure scans
- individuals on medical drugs for Sz
- Parkinson’s patients
- acute Sz studies
- Sz in remission studies
What did Abi-Dargham et al. (1998) and Breier et al. (1997) find? What type of study are these?
Showed high levels of dopamine is linked to symptoms of psychosis through brain structure scans?
What did Laruelle et al. find?
Found that amphetamine-induced dopamine release in patients with Sz in remission are in normal range
What did he think about the Dopamine Hypothesis?
- too simplistic
- other neurotransmitters involved
e. g. serotonin and glutamate
How does glutamate link? What did Moghaddam & Adams (1998) say about glutamate?
- reduced glutamate = increased dopamine
- SO… hypoglutamatergia may be the actual cause
- NMDA antagonists e.g. PCP blocks the receptor and reduces glutamate levels. This drug has been linked to psychotic schizophrenia-like symptoms.
- Moghaddam & Adams (1998) found that low glutamate = development of psychotic symptoms.
Which brain areas did he find were linked? How were they linked?
- low glutamate in basal ganglia = positive symptoms
- low glutamate in cerebral cortex = negative symptoms
What did he find out about drug treatments? Why was it more effective?
Clozapine was found to be highly effective with reduced negative side effects. Clozapine focuses on being antiserotonergic as well as antidopaminergic.
What did he conclude?
Dopamine plays a role in Sz but other biological factors also have an effect e.g. role of other neurotransmitters.
Has this study been useful?
- found that clozapine would be more effective in treating Sz while reducing the side effects that patients have to suffer from.
Is it ethical?
- No because animal research - no consent, may cause harm but won’t know, etc.
- Yes because it is a review study which is a form of secondary data therefore Carlsson didn’t carry out any of the studies and can’t be held accountable.
Is it scientific?
Yes many studies e.g. Abi-Dargham (1998) used brain structure scans which measure objectively and are reliable.
How is secondary data not helpful?
Didn’t carry it out himself so can’t be sure of the exact procedure, whether the extraneous variables were actually controlled properly.
