Psychosis induced by amphetamines

Bramness, Jrgen G.; Rognli, Eline Borger

doi:10.1097/yco.0000000000000254

Cited by 59 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A second limitation is that the umbrella review approach may favour the selection of more commonly and readily studied factors, since they are more likely to be included in a metaanalysis. We cannot exclude the possibility that some promising factors, despite having sufficient data, do not have a corresponding eligible meta-analysis, such as mood and anxiety disorders [143][144][145] , personality disorders 146 , attachment 147 , alcohol and psychoactive substances [148][149][150][151] , sleep dysfunction 152 , homelessness 153 or pervasive developmental disorders 154 . However, this possibility is becoming less likely in the current era, with meta-analyses being performed massively, to the point that for several topics multiple meta-analyses are available 155,156 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What causes psychosis? An umbrella review of risk and protective factors

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychosis is a heterogeneous psychiatric condition for which a multitude of risk and protective factors have been suggested. This umbrella review aimed to classify the strength of evidence for the associations between each factor and psychotic disorders whilst controlling for several biases. The Web of Knowledge database was searched to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies which examined associations between socio-demographic, parental, perinatal, later factors or antecedents and psychotic disorders, and which included a comparison group of healthy controls, published from 1965 to January 31, 2017. The literature search and data extraction followed PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. The association between each factor and ICD or DSM diagnoses of non-organic psychotic disorders was graded into convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or non-significant according to a standardized classification based on: number of psychotic cases, random-effects p value, largest study 95% confidence interval, heterogeneity between studies, 95% prediction interval, small study effect, and excess significance bias. In order to assess evidence for temporality of association, we also conducted sensitivity analyses restricted to data from prospective studies. Fifty-five meta-analyses or systematic reviews were included in the umbrella review, corresponding to 683 individual studies and 170 putative risk or protective factors for psychotic disorders. Only the ultra-high-risk state for psychosis (odds ratio, OR59.32, 95% CI: 4.91-17.72) and Black-Caribbean ethnicity in England (OR54.87, 95% CI: 3.96-6.00) showed convincing evidence of association. Six factors were highly suggestive (ethnic minority in low ethnic density area, second generation immigrants, trait anhedonia, premorbid IQ, minor physical anomalies, and olfactory identification ability), and nine were suggestive (urbanicity, ethnic minority in high ethnic density area, first generation immigrants, North-African immigrants in Europe, winter/spring season of birth in Northern hemisphere, childhood social withdrawal, childhood trauma, Toxoplasma gondii IgG, and non-right handedness). When only prospective studies were considered, the evidence was convincing for ultra-high-risk state and suggestive for urbanicity only. In summary, this umbrella review found several factors to be associated with psychotic disorders with different levels of evidence. These risk or protective factors represent a starting point for further etiopathological research and for the improvement of the prediction of psychosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What causes psychosis? An umbrella review of risk and protective factors

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two studies assessing cognition in transient MAP also found impairments in executive function and memory compared to healthy controls, with MAP participants and individuals with schizophrenia presenting with (similar) deficit profiles (12,13). Notably, impairments in similar cognitive domains, particularly verbal memory, have also been demonstrated in studies investigating first episode psychosis (14), contributing to a growing body of evidence pointing to commonalities in the process of psychosis in MAP and primary psychotic disorders (5). Impairments in social cognition have also been identified across a range of primary psychotic disorders (15).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…A significant public health consequence of growing global methamphetamine use is the burden of associated mental health problems (1,2), particularly methamphetamine-related psychosis (MAP), on acute health and psychiatric inpatient services (3,4). Observed in between 20 and 60% of individuals who use the drug regularly (5), MAP is characterized by a transient paranoia, with or without hallucinations, which is very similar in appearance to acute paranoid schizophrenia (6). MA use has been associated with psychotic symptoms in both experimental studies and during acute intoxication with illicit use (5)(6)(7), with persistent forms resembling chronic primary psychotic disorder (5,8,9).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotion Recognition and Impulsive Choice in Relation to Methamphetamine Use and Psychosis Symptoms

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The cognitive profiles of people with methamphetamine use disorder are characterized by impulsivity and impairment in social cognition. However, previous studies have not fully accounted for the presence and impact of co-occurring mental health problems on these domains. For instance, psychotic symptoms are commonly experienced by people who use methamphetamine and may influence cognitive performance. We aimed to examine decision making and emotion recognition in individuals with methamphetamine use, compared to healthy controls, to map the nature and degree of impairments in relation to the presence of psychotic symptoms.Method: In this naturalistic study, we assessed reward-based decision-making and facial emotion recognition across three groups, methamphetamine-using individuals with (MAP, n = 29) and without psychotic symptoms (MNP, n = 70), and healthy controls (HC, n = 32). Results:In comparison to healthy controls, methamphetamine-using individuals presented with poorer performance on tasks of decision-making and emotion recognition. Emotion recognition was impaired across all methamphetamine-using individuals, with significantly poorer recognition of anger and sadness in those with psychotic symptoms. Conclusion:We found specific impairments in emotion recognition in relation to psychotic symptoms in people who use methamphetamine regularly. This builds on previous evidence on cognitive profiles in methamphetamine use disorder, highlighting the need to assess co-morbid mental health and psychotic symptoms. Our finding that methamphetamine-using individuals with psychotic symptoms present with particular difficulties recognizing anger has implications for frontline clinicians.

show abstract

“…[3536] The previous studies have reported similarities and significant differences in the cognitive functioning and performance on neurocognitive tests between MIP and schizophrenia. [373839] Although Jacobs et al . [37] did not find any differences in cognitive functioning between patients with MIP and schizophrenia, Ezzatpanah et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Functioning in Schizophrenia, Methamphetamine-induced Psychotic Disorder, and Healthy People: A Comparative Study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Methamphetamine-induced psychotic disorder (MIP) cannot be easily differentiated from other psychotic disorders. Some studies have reported that patients with MIP and schizophrenia have differences in their cognitive functioning. We hypothesized that their performance would be different on neuropsychological tests which assess executive functions and visual memory.Materials and Methods:In a cross-sectional study, 30 patients with MIP, 31 patients with schizophrenia, and 31 healthy controls were assessed by Rey–Osterrieth complex figure (ROCF) test and visual search and attention test (VSAT). One-way analysis of variance was performed to compare the mean scores of tests. Tukey's HSD test was used for post hoc analysis.Results:Three groups had significant differences according to ROCF test (F = 15.76, P < 0.0001), VSAT (F = 39.78, P < 0.0001), left VSAT (F = 37.96, P < 0.0001), right VSAT (F = 40.40, P < 0.0001), and the time of the test administration (F = 3.26, P = 0.04). The post hoc analysis showed that the mean score of ROCF test and VSAT (total, right, and left) was significantly higher in the control group than in the other two groups. The time of administering the test in the control group was significantly shorter than in the MIP group (P < 0.03) and nonsignificantly shorter than in the schizophrenia group (P = 0.54). The mean score of right side VSAT was significantly higher in the MIP group than in the schizophrenia group.Conclusion:ROCF could not differentiate MIP from schizophrenia. The better performance of patients with MIP on right side VSAT that is reported in this and in the previous study needs to be reevaluated in more controlled studies.

show abstract

Psychosis induced by amphetamines

Cited by 59 publications

References 39 publications

What causes psychosis? An umbrella review of risk and protective factors

What causes psychosis? An umbrella review of risk and protective factors

Emotion Recognition and Impulsive Choice in Relation to Methamphetamine Use and Psychosis Symptoms

Cognitive Functioning in Schizophrenia, Methamphetamine-induced Psychotic Disorder, and Healthy People: A Comparative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About