Narcolepsy and psychosis: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Narcolepsy is a rare sleep disorder in which psychotic-like symptoms can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. We aimed to review the association between, and medical management of, narcolepsy and psychosis in children and adults.Methods
We reviewed the full text of 100 papers from 187 identified by a PubMed search on narcolepsy plus any of these keywords: psychosis, schizophrenia, delusion, side effects, safety, and bipolar disorder.Results
Three relevant groups are described. (i) In typical narcolepsy, psychotic-like symptoms include predominantly visual hallucinations at the sleep-wake transition (experienced as "not real") and dissociation because of intrusion of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep phenomena into wakefulness. (ii) Atypical patients ("the psychotic form of narcolepsy") experience more severe and vivid, apparently REM-related hallucinations or dream/reality confusions, which patients may rationalize in a delusion-like way. (iii) Some patients have a comorbid schizophrenia spectrum disorder with psychotic symptoms unrelated to sleep. Psychostimulants used to treat narcolepsy may trigger psychotic symptoms in all three groups. We analyzed 58 published cases from groups 2 and 3 (n = 17 and 41). Features that were reported significantly more frequently in atypical patients include visual and multimodal hallucinations, sexual and mystical delusions, and false memories. Dual diagnosis patients had more disorganized symptoms and earlier onset of narcolepsy.Conclusion
Epidemiological studies tentatively suggest a possible association between narcolepsy and schizophrenia only for very early-onset cases, which could be related to the partially overlapping neurodevelopmental changes observed in these disorders. We propose a clinical algorithm for the management of cases with psychotic-like or psychotic features.
SUBMITTER: Hanin C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8360149 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Among individuals experiencing amphetamine psychosis, it may be difficult to rule out schizophrenia. The use of antipsychotics for the treatment of amphetamine psychosis is sparse due to possible side effects. Some arguments disfavor their use, stating that the psychotic episode is self-limited. Without treatment, some individuals may?not fully?recover?from the?psychosis and may develop full-blown psychosis, emotional, and cognitive disturbance. This review aims to investigate the clinical benefits and risks of antipsychotics for the treatment of amphetamine psychosis. Methods: Electronic search on trials on antipsychotic drugs for amphetamine psychosis from their inception to November 2018 was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Cochrane Review Database, Medline Ovid, and EMBASE following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool assessed the risk of bias, the methodological quality of individual trials was assessed by the Oxford Quality Scoring System, and the quality of evidence for recommendations was judged by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). The results were synthesized qualitatively and quantitatively. Results: The investigation of six randomized controlled trials of 314 participants showed that aripiprazole, haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone were able to reduce or control the psychotic episode (positive and negative symptoms) induced by amphetamine use with no adverse event. Although the side-effect profile of these agents varied, no drug was clinically superior to others. Conclusions: This review suggests that antipsychotics seem to be efficacious for amphetamine psychosis on both positive and negative symptoms. Practitioners need to tailor their use based on risks for side effects individually.
| S-EPMC6804571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is little evidence on the accuracy of psychosis relapse prediction models. Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of relapse prediction models in psychosis.MethodWe conducted a literature search including studies that developed and/or validated psychosis relapse prediction models, with or without external model validation. Models had to target people with psychosis and predict relapse. The key databases searched were; Embase, Medline, Medline In-Process Citations & Daily Update, PsychINFO, BIOSIS Citation Index, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index, from inception to September 2016. Prediction modelling studies were assessed for risk of bias and applicability using the PROBAST tool.ResultsThere were two eligible studies, which included 33,088 participants. One developed a model using prodromal symptoms and illness-related variables, which explained 14% of relapse variance but was at high risk of bias. The second developed a model using administrative data which was moderately discriminative (C = 0.631) and associated with relapse (OR 1.11 95% CI 1.10, 1.12) and achieved moderately discriminative capacity when validated (C = 0.630). The risk of bias was low.ConclusionsDue to a lack of high quality evidence it is not possible to make any specific recommendations about the predictors that should be included in a prognostic model for relapse. For instance, it is unclear whether prodromal symptoms are useful for predicting relapse. The use of routine data to develop prediction models may be a more promising approach, although we could not empirically compare the two included studies.
| S-EPMC5608199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMental health is a significant contributor to global burden of disease and the consequences of perinatal psychiatric morbidity can be substantial. We aimed to obtain global estimates of puerperal psychosis prevalence based on population-based samples and to understand how postpartum psychosis is assessed and captured among included studies.MethodsIn June 2014, we searched PubMed, CiNAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Sociological Collections, and Global Index Medicus for publications since the year 1990. Criteria for inclusion in the systematic review were: use of primary data relevant to pre-defined mental health conditions, specified dates of data collection, limited to data from 1990 onwards, sample size >200 and a clear description of methodology. Data were extracted from published peer reviewed articles.ResultsThe search yielded 24,273 publications, of which six studies met the criteria. Five studies reported incidence of puerperal psychosis (ranging from 0.89 to 2.6 in 1000 women) and one reported prevalence of psychosis (5 in 1000). Due to the heterogeneity of methodologies used across studies in definitions and assessments used to identify cases, data was not pooled to calculate a global estimate of risk.ConclusionsThis review confirms the relatively low rate of puerperal psychosis; yet given the potential for serious consequences, this morbidity is significant from a global public health perspective. Further attention to consistent detection of puerperal psychosis can help provide appropriate treatment to prevent harmful consequences for both mother and baby.
| S-EPMC5534064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Given the global burden of psychotic disorders, the identification of patients with early-onset psychosis (EOP; that is, onset before the age of 18) at higher risk of adverse outcome should be a priority. A systematic search of Pubmed, Embase, and PsycInfo (1980 through August 2014) was performed to identify longitudinal observational studies assessing correlates and/or predictors of clinical, functional, cognitive, and biological outcomes in EOP. Seventy-five studies were included in the review. Using multivariate models, the most replicated predictors of worse clinical, functional, cognitive, and biological outcomes in EOP were premorbid difficulties and symptom severity (especially of negative symptoms) at baseline. Longer duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) predicted worse clinical, functional, and cognitive outcomes. Higher risk of attempting suicide was predicted by greater severity of psychotic illness and of depressive symptoms at the first episode of psychosis. Age at onset and sex were not found to be relevant predictors of outcome in most multivariate models, whereas studies using bivariate analyses yielded inconsistent results. Lower intelligence quotient at baseline predicted lower insight at follow-up, worse functional outcomes, and a diagnostic outcome of schizophrenia. Biological predictors of outcome in EOP have been little studied and have not been replicated. Lower levels of antioxidants at baseline predicted greater brain volume changes and worse cognitive functioning at follow-up, whereas neuroimaging markers such as regional cortical thickness and gray matter volume at baseline predicted remission and better insight at follow-up, respectively. EOP patients with poorer premorbid adjustment and prominent negative symptoms at initial presentation are at risk of poor outcome. They should therefore be the target of careful monitoring and more intensive interventions to address whether the disease course can be modified in this especially severely affected group. Early intervention strategies to reduce DUP may also improve outcome in EOP.
| S-EPMC4849440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) are mental diseases caused by a combination of genetic susceptibility and a number of environmental factors. Among these factors, the role of traumatic events suffered in childhood, as well as that of substance use, have been of particular research interest. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review to clarify whether there is an interaction between childhood trauma and substance use related to the diagnosis or symptoms of SSD. It was also the objective of this review to collate the associations that may exist between the three variables of the study (trauma, substance use and psychosis). Methods: We conducted a systematic search resulting in 240 articles. We considered all of the original articles that explored childhood trauma and substance use in patients suffering from SSD. Results: Twenty-three articles were selected for this review. Several of the reviewed papers found associations between childhood trauma and substance use with SSD, as well as interactions between trauma and drug use on SSD. Conclusions: The results suggest that childhood trauma and substance use may be present at the basis of psychosis. This double hit on the pathogenesis could have clinical implications, since each of these impacts could be considered a window of opportunity for the primary prevention of SSD.
| S-EPMC7191903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough the association between psychotic illness and cigarette smoking is well known, the reasons are unclear why people with psychosis are more likely to smoke than are the general population. We aimed to test several hypotheses. First, that daily tobacco use is associated with an increased risk of psychotic illness in both case-control and prospective studies. Second, that smoking is associated with an earlier age at onset of psychotic illness. Finally, that an earlier age at initiation of smoking is associated with an increased risk of psychosis. We also aimed to derive an estimate of the prevalence of smoking in patients presenting with their first episode of psychosis.MethodsWe searched Embase, Medline, and PsycINFO and selected observational studies in which rates of smoking were reported in people with psychotic disorders, compared with controls. We calculated the weighted mean difference for age at onset of psychosis and age at initiation of smoking. For categorical outcomes, we calculated odds ratios from cross-sectional studies and risk ratios from prospective studies.FindingsOf 3717 citations retrieved, 61 studies comprising 72 samples met inclusion criteria. The overall sample included 14 555 tobacco users and 273 162 non-users. The prevalence of smoking in patients presenting with their first episode of psychosis was 0·57 (95% CI 0·52-0·62; p<0·0001). In case-control studies, the overall odds ratio for the first episode of psychosis in smokers versus non-smokers was 3·22 (95% CI 1·63-6·33), with some evidence of publication bias (Egger's test p=0·018, Begg's test p=0·007). For prospective studies, we calculated an overall relative risk of new psychotic disorders in daily smokers versus non-smokers of 2·18 (95% CI 1·23-3·85). Daily smokers developed psychotic illness at an earlier age than did non-smokers (weighted mean difference -1·04 years, 95% CI -1·82 to -0·26). Those with psychosis started smoking at a non-significantly earlier age than did healthy controls (-0·44 years, 95% CI -1·21 to 0·34).InterpretationDaily tobacco use is associated with increased risk of psychosis and an earlier age at onset of psychotic illness. The possibility of a causal link between tobacco use and psychosis merits further examination.FundingNIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre.
| S-EPMC4698800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the comorbidities, presentations, and outcomes of adults with incident psychosis and a history of COVID-19.MethodsWe completed a descriptive systematic review of case reports according to PRISMA guidelines, including cases of adult patients with incident psychosis and antecedent or concurrent COVID-19. We extracted patient demographics, comorbidities, clinical course, and outcomes, and assessed cases for quality using a standardized tool.ResultsOf 2396 articles, we included 40 reports from 17 countries, comprising 48 patients. The mean age of patients was 43.9 years and 29 (60%) were males. A total of 7 (15%) had a documented psychiatric history, 6 (13%) had a substance use history and 11 (23%) had a comorbid medical condition. Delusions were the most common (44 [92%]) psychiatric sign and psychosis lasted between 2 and 90 days. A total of 33 (69%) patients required hospitalization to a medical service and 16 (33%) required inpatient psychiatric admission. The majority (26 [54%]) of cases did not assess for delirium and 15 (31%) cases were judged to be of high risk of bias.ConclusionsDespite the growing awareness of COVID-19's association with incident psychosis at a population level, cases of COVID-19-associated psychosis often lacked clinically relevant details and delirium was frequently not excluded. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021256746.
| S-EPMC8546431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether any psychological, pharmacological, or nutritional interventions can prevent or delay transition to psychotic disorders for people at high risk.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEmbase, Medline, PreMedline, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched to November 2011 without restriction to publication status.Review methodsRandomised trials comparing any psychological, pharmacological, nutritional, or combined intervention with usual services or another treatment. Studies of participants with a formal diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder were excluded. Studies were assessed for bias, and relevant limitations were considered in summarising the results.Results11 trials including 1246 participants and eight comparisons were included. Median sample size of included trials was 81 (range 51-288). Meta-analyses were performed for transition to psychosis, symptoms of psychosis, depression, and mania; quality of life; weight; and discontinuation of treatment. Evidence of moderate quality showed an effect for cognitive behavioural therapy on reducing transition to psychosis at 12 months (risk ratio 0.54 (95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.86); risk difference -0.07 (-0.14 to -0.01). Very low quality evidence for omega-3 fatty acids and low to very low quality evidence for integrated psychotherapy also indicated that these interventions were associated with reductions in transition to psychosis at 12 months.ConclusionsAlthough evidence of benefits for any specific intervention is not conclusive, these findings suggest that it might be possible to delay or prevent transition to psychosis. Further research should be undertaken to establish conclusively the potential for benefit of psychological interventions in the treatment of people at high risk of psychosis.
| S-EPMC3548617 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis is, to date, the first and most comprehensive to focus on the incidence of nonaffective psychoses among refugees.ObjectiveTo assess the relative risk (RR) of incidence of nonaffective psychosis in refugees compared with the RR in the native population and nonrefugee migrants.Data sourcesPubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase databases were searched for studies from January 1, 1977, to March 8, 2018, with no language restrictions (PROSPERO registration No. CRD42018106740).Study selectionStudies conducted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada were selected by multiple independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were (1) observation of refugee history in participants, (2) assessment of effect size and spread, (3) adjustment for sex, (4) definition of nonaffective psychosis according to standardized operationalized criteria, and (5) comparators were either nonrefugee migrants or the native population. Studies observing ethnic background only, with no explicit definition of refugee status, were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality and validity as well as risk of bias of included studies. A random-effects model was created to pool the effect sizes of included studies.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome, formulated before data collection, was the pooled RR in refugees compared with the nonrefugee population.ResultsOf the 4358 screened articles, 9 studies (0.2%) involving 540 000 refugees in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada were included in the analyses. The RR for nonaffective psychoses in refugees was 1.43 (95% CI, 1.00-2.05; I2 = 96.3%) compared with nonrefugee migrants. Analyses that were restricted to studies with low risk of bias had an RR of 1.39 (95% CI, 1.23-1.58; I2 = 0.0%) for refugees compared with nonrefugee migrants, 2.41 (95% CI, 1.51-3.85; I2 = 96.3%) for refugees compared with the native population, and 1.92 (95% CI, 1.02-3.62; I2 = 97.0%) for nonrefugee migrants compared with the native group. Exclusion of studies that defined refugee status not individually but only by country of origin resulted in an RR of 2.24 (95% CI, 1.12-4.49; I2 = 96.8%) for refugees compared with nonrefugee migrants and an RR of 3.26 (95% CI, 1.87-5.70; I2 = 97.6%) for refugees compared with the native group. In general, the RR of nonaffective psychosis was increased in refugees and nonrefugee migrants compared with the native population.Conclusions and relevanceRefugee experience appeared to be an independent risk factor in developing nonaffective psychosis among refugees in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Canada. These findings suggest that applying the conclusions to non-Scandinavian countries should include a consideration of the characteristics of the native society and its specific interaction with the refugee population.
| S-EPMC6694397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeople presenting with first-episode psychosis (FEP) have heterogenous outcomes. More than 40% fail to achieve symptomatic remission. Accurate prediction of individual outcome in FEP could facilitate early intervention to change the clinical trajectory and improve prognosis.AimsWe aim to systematically review evidence for prediction models developed for predicting poor outcome in FEP.MethodA protocol for this study was published on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number CRD42019156897. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance, we systematically searched six databases from inception to 28 January 2021. We used the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool to extract and appraise the outcome prediction models. We considered study characteristics, methodology and model performance.ResultsThirteen studies reporting 31 prediction models across a range of clinical outcomes met criteria for inclusion. Eleven studies used logistic regression with clinical and sociodemographic predictor variables. Just two studies were found to be at low risk of bias. Methodological limitations identified included a lack of appropriate validation, small sample sizes, poor handling of missing data and inadequate reporting of calibration and discrimination measures. To date, no model has been applied to clinical practice.ConclusionsFuture prediction studies in psychosis should prioritise methodological rigour and external validation in larger samples. The potential for prediction modelling in FEP is yet to be realised.
| S-EPMC7612705 | biostudies-literature