↓ Skip to main content

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Impulse Control Disorders and Drug Addiction

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
147 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 Mendeley
Title
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Impulse Control Disorders and Drug Addiction
Published in
Drugs, November 2012
DOI 10.2165/11591790-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonardo F. Fontenelle, Sanne Oostermeijer, Ben J. Harrison, Christos Pantelis, Murat Yücel

Abstract

The basic concepts underlying compulsive, impulsive and addictive behaviours overlap, which may help explain why laymen use these expressions interchangeably. Although there has been a large research effort to better characterize and disentangle these behaviours, clinicians and scientists are still unable to clearly differentiate them. Accordingly, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), impulse control disorders (ICD) and substance-related disorders (SUD) overlap on different levels, including phenomenology, co-morbidity, neurocircuitry, neurocognition, neurochemistry and family history. In this review we summarize these issues with particular emphasis on the role of the opioid system in the pathophysiology and treatment of OCD, ICD and SUD. We postulate that with progression and chronicity of OCD, the proportion of the OCD-related behaviours (e.g. checking, washing, ordering and hoarding, among others) that are driven by impulsive 'rash' processes increase as involvement of more ventral striatal circuits becomes prominent. In contrast, as SUD and ICD progress, the proportion of the SUD- and ICD-related behaviours that are driven by compulsive 'habitual' processes increase as involvement of more dorsal striatal circuits become prominent. We are not arguing that, with time, ICD becomes OCD or vice versa. Instead, we are proposing that these disorders may acquire qualities of the other with time. In other words, while patients with ICD/SUD may develop 'compulsive impulsions', patients with OCD may exhibit 'impulsive compulsions'. There are many potential implications of our model. Theoretically, OCD patients exhibiting impulsive or addictive features could be managed with drugs that address the quality of the underlying drives and the involvement of neural systems. For example, agents for the reduction or prevention of relapse of addiction (e.g. heavy drinking), which modulate the cortico-mesolimbic dopamine system through the opioid (e.g. buprenorphine and naltrexone), glutamate (e.g. topiramate), serotonin (e.g. ondansetron) or γ-aminobutyric acid (e.g. baclofen and topiramate) systems, may prove to show some benefit in certain forms of OCD. Based on the available evidence, we suggest that the treatment of patients with these disorders must account for alterations in the underlying motivations and neurobiology of the condition. We provide an initial guide to the specific treatments that future clinical trials might consider in patients with OCD. For example, it might be wise to test naltrexone in patients with co-morbid SUD and ICD, topiramate in patients with co-morbid ICD and eating disorders, and baclofen in patients with co-morbid Tourette's syndrome. These trials could also include scales aimed at assessing underlying impulsivity (e.g. Barratt Impulsiveness Scale) to check whether this construct might predict response to drugs acting on the reward system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 212 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 14%
Student > Master 28 13%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Other 20 9%
Other 46 21%
Unknown 41 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 57 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 50 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 9%
Neuroscience 19 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 3%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 55 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,033,589
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#213
of 3,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,452
of 192,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#39
of 1,219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.