Valproate for schizophrenia

Treatment of Aggressive Behavior and Agitation in an 11-Year-Old Boy with Co-Occurring Autism and ADHD: A Case Report and Literature Review on the Use of Intravenous Valproate in Emergency Psychiatry

Background: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a persistent neurodevelopmental disorder frequently co-occurring with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and behavior-related disorders. While behavioral therapy is the first-line option to manage the core symptoms of ASD, pharmacological therapy is sometimes needed to treat acute problems, such as agitation and aggressive behaviors. Recent guidelines recommend the use of neuroleptics to reduce psychomotor agitation in patients with ASD. However, as children with ASD are often drug-resistant, alternative treatments are often justified. Reports from the literature have indicated that intravenous valproate (IV-VPA) can be effective in reducing agitation in psychiatric patients, with a lower frequency of adverse events compared to conventional treatments. However, as the related findings are occasionally inconsistent, IV-VPA is not yet an approved option in the context of clinical psychiatry. We aim to improve knowledge of the IV-VPA treatment option for emergency psychiatric treatment in pediatric patients. Methods: We report the case of an 11-year-old boy suffering from a complex neurodevelopmental condition who experienced a psychotic episode with severe aggressive and disruptive behaviors and was successfully treated with IV-VPA. Furthermore, we provide an updated literature review on this topic. Conclusion: In our case, first-line therapies proved to be ineffective. To the contrary, IV-VPA led to safe and prompt clinical success, which is in line with other reports. Based on our literature review, IV-VPA can be highly effective and reduces the risk of adverse events that frequently occur with the use of high-dose standard medications in emergency psychiatry.

An individualized medication model of sodium valproate for patients with bipolar disorder based on machine learning and deep learning techniques

Valproic acid/sodium valproate (VPA) is a widely used anticonvulsant drug for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorders. In order to balance the efficacy and adverse events of VPA treatment, an individualized dose regimen is necessary. This study aimed to establish an individualized medication model of VPA for patients with bipolar disorder based on machine learning and deep learning techniques. The sequential forward selection (SFS) algorithm was applied for selecting a feature subset, and random forest was used for interpolating missing values. Then, we compared nine models using XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost, random forest, GBDT, SVM, logistic regression, ANN, and TabNet, and CatBoost was chosen to establish the individualized medication model with the best performance (accuracy = 0.85, AUC = 0.91, sensitivity = 0.85, and specificity = 0.83). Three important variables that correlated with VPA daily dose included VPA TDM value, antipsychotics, and indirect bilirubin. SHapley Additive exPlanations was applied to visually interpret their impacts on VPA daily dose. Last, the confusion matrix presented that predicting a daily dose of 0.5 g VPA had a precision of 55.56% and recall rate of 83.33%, and predicting a daily dose of 1 g VPA had a precision of 95.83% and a recall rate of 85.19%. In conclusion, the individualized medication model of VPA for patients with bipolar disorder based on CatBoost had a good prediction ability, which provides guidance for clinicians to propose the optimal medication regimen.

Epigenetic factors and autism spectrum disorders

Autism is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder that has significant phenotypic overlap with several diseases, many of which fall within the broader category of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). The etiology of the disorder is unclear and seems to involve a complex interplay of polygenic as well as environmental factors. We discuss evidence that suggests that epigenetic dysregulation is highly implicated as a contributing cause of ASDs and autism. Specifically, we examine neurodevelopmental disorders that share significant phenotypic overlap with ASDs and feature the dysregulation of epigenetically modified genes including UBE3A, GABA receptor genes, and RELN. We then look at the dysregulated expression of implicated epigenetic modifiers, namely MeCP2, that yield complex and varied downstream pleiotropic effects. Finally, we examine epigenetically mediated parent-of-origin effects through which paternal gene expression dominates that of maternal contributing to contrasting phenotypes implicated in ASDs. Such preliminary evidence suggests that elucidating the complex role of epigenetic regulations involved in ASDs could prove vital in furthering our understanding of the complex etiology of autism and ASDs.

The epigenetics of social adversity in early life: implications for mental health outcomes

An organism's behavioral and physiological and social milieu influence and are influenced by the epigenome, which is composed predominantly of chromatin and the covalent modification of DNA by methylation. Epigenetic patterns are sculpted during development to shape the diversity of gene expression programs in the organism. In contrast to the genetic sequence, which is determined by inheritance and is virtually identical in all tissues, the epigenetic pattern varies from cell type to cell type and is potentially dynamic throughout life. It is postulated here that different environmental exposures, including early parental care, could impact epigenetic patterns, with important implications for mental health in humans. Because epigenetic programming defines the state of expression of genes, epigenetic differences could have the same consequences as genetic polymorphisms. Yet in contrast to genetic sequence differences, epigenetic alterations are potentially reversible. This review will discuss basic epigenetic mechanisms and how epigenetic processes early in life might play a role in defining inter-individual trajectories of human behavior. In this regard, we will examine evidence for the possibility that epigenetic mechanisms can contribute to later-onset neurological dysfunction and disease.

Why do delusions persist?

Delusions are bizarre and distressing beliefs that characterize certain mental illnesses. They arise without clear reasons and are remarkably persistent. Recent models of delusions, drawing on a neuroscientific understanding of learning, focus on how delusions might emerge from abnormal experience. We believe that these models can be extended to help us understand why delusions persist. We consider prediction error, the mismatch between expectancy and experience, to be central. Surprising events demand a change in our expectancies. This involves making what we have learned labile, updating and binding the memory anew: a process of memory reconsolidation. We argue that, under the influence of excessive prediction error, delusional beliefs are repeatedly reconsolidated, strengthening them so that they persist, apparently impervious to contradiction.

Diet and the epigenetic (re)programming of phenotypic differences in behavior

Phenotypic diversity is shaped by both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms that program tissue specific patterns of gene expression. Cells, including neurons, undergo massive epigenetic reprogramming during development through modifications to chromatin structure, and by covalent modifications of the DNA through methylation. There is evidence that these changes are sensitive to environmental influences such as maternal behavior and diet, leading to sustained differences in phenotype. For example, natural variations in maternal behavior in the rat that influence stress reactivity in offspring induce long-term changes in gene expression, including in the glucocorticoid receptor, that are associated with altered histone acetylation, DNA methylation, and NGFI-A transcription factor binding. These effects can be reversed by early postnatal cross-fostering, and by pharmacological manipulations in adulthood, including Trichostatin A (TSA) and L-methionine administration, that influence the epigenetic status of critical loci in the brain. Because levels of methionine are influenced by diet, these effects suggest that diet could contribute significantly to this behavioral plasticity. Recent data suggest that similar mechanisms could influence human behavior and mental health. Epidemiological data suggest indeed that dietary changes in methyl contents could affect DNA methylation and gene expression programming. Nutritional restriction during gestation could affect epigenetic programming in the brain. These findings provide evidence for a stable yet dynamic epigenome capable of regulating phenotypic plasticity through epigenetic programming.

Lithium for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, among them lithium.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of lithium for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (November 2006). This register is compiled by methodical searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED, Sociofile, supplemented with hand searching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of relevant studies to identify further trials and to obtain original patient data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing lithium to antipsychotics or to placebo (or no intervention), whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated random effects, relative risk (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, numbers needed to treat (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

The update search in 2006 did not detect further studies that met our inclusion criteria. The review thus still includes 20 studies with a total of 611 participants. Most studies were small, of short duration and incompletely reported, but a number of authors were willing to share their data with us. Three studies comparing lithium with placebo as the sole treatment showed no difference in any of the outcomes we analysed. In eight studies comparing lithium with antipsychotic drugs as the sole treatment, more participants in the lithium group left the studies early (n=270, RR 1.8, CI 1.2 to 2.9, NNT 9, CI 5 to 33). Several of the outcomes relating to these studies suggested that lithium is less effective than antipsychotic drugs, but it was difficult to summarise the data because a variety of rating scales were used in the studies. Eleven studies examined whether the augmentation of antipsychotic drugs with lithium salts is more effective than antipsychotic drugs alone. More participants who received lithium augmentation had a clinically significant response (n=244, RR 0.8, CI 0.7 to 0.96, NNT 8, CI 4 to 33). However, statistical significance became borderline when participants with schizoaffective disorders were excluded in a sensitivity analysis (n=120, RR 0.8, CI 0.6 to 1.0, p=0.07). Furthermore, more participants in the lithium augmentation groups left the studies early (n=320, RR 2.0 CI 1.3 to 3.1, NNT 7, CI 4 to 14), suggesting a lower acceptability of lithium augmentation compared to those on antipsychotics alone. No superior efficacy of lithium augmentation in any specific aspect of the mental state was found. While based on very little data, there were no differences between groups for adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no randomised trial-based evidence that lithium on its own is an effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. The evidence available on augmentation of antipsychotics with lithium is inconclusive, but does justify further, large, simple and well-designed trials. These should concentrate on two target groups: 1) people with no affective symptoms, so that trialists can determine whether lithium has an effect on the core symptoms of schizophrenia, 2) people with schizoaffective disorders for whom lithium is widely used in clinical practice, although there is no evidence to support this use.

Benzodiazepines for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, among them benzodiazepines.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of benzodiazepines for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The reviewers searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (last search March 2005). This register is compiled by methodical searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED, Sociofile, supplemented with hand searching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings. We also contacted authors of relevant studies in order to obtain missing data from existing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing benzodiazepine to antipsychotics or to placebo (or no intervention), whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected abstracts, selected studies and re-inspected and quality assessed the full reports. We independently extracted relevant outcomes. Dichotomous data were analysed using relative risks (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous data were analysed using weighted mean differences. Where possible the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) statistics were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 31 studies with over 2000 participants. Most studies were small, of short duration - one to 13 weeks - and inconsistently and incompletely reported. Eight studies compared benzodiazepines as a sole agent with placebo. More participants receiving benzodiazepines showed a clinically significant response (n=222, 4 RCTs, RR 0.54 CI 0.3 to 1.0, NNT 3 CI 2 to 17). Only one small study found a significant group difference in favour of benzodiazepines regarding the improvement in overall BPRS mental state. Different rating scales were used to assess general mental state, and therefore many outcomes could not be pooled and no overall direction of effect emerged. Some adverse events observed in these studies suggested that benzodiazepines were more harmful than placebos but again the data were incompletely reported and without overall effect. Thirteen studies examined the effects of benzodiazepines in comparison to antipsychotics as a sole treatment. Trials that reported on clinical response found no advantage for any treatment group concerning improvement of the participants' global state, except of one small study that analysed the mean CGI severity score at one hour. This comparison is highly limited by the low numbers of studies reporting on global function and the short trial duration. Two studies showed a statistically significant superiority of antipsychotics in terms of relapse prevention at one year. Desired sedation occurred significantly more often among participants in the benzodiazepine group than among participants in the antipsychotic treatment group at 20 (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 1.32 CI 1.2 -1.5, NNT 5, CI 3 to 8) and 40 minutes(n= 301, 1 RCT, RR 1.13 CI 1.0 to 1.2, NNT 9 CI 6 to 33), but not at 30, 60 or 12 minutes. Other outcomes relating to the general or specific mental state revealed no significant differences between groups. As far as adverse events were reported there were no results in favour of any group. Sixteen studies examined whether the augmentation of antipsychotics with benzodiazepines is more effective than antipsychotics as a sole treatment. During the first hour of treatment the combination treatment group benefited from the additional benzodiazepine in terms of the participants global state. This benefit diminished over time and was not reproducible at 2 hours or longer. No superior efficacy of benzodiazepine augmentation could be found regarding the general mental state. Specific aspects of the mental state showed no group difference except for desired sedation at 30 and 60 minutes. Somnolence affected the combination treatment group significantly more than the control group (n=118, 2 RCTs, RR 3.30 CI 1.0 to 10.4, NNH 8 CI 5 to 50). We found use of antiparkinson medication to be less frequently used in the combination treatment group (n=282, RR 0.68 CI 0.5 to 1.0, NNT 9 CI 6 to 48). Adverse events were poorly reported and the results were based on very little data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised trial-derived evidence is currently too poor to recommend benzodiazepines neither as a sole nor as an adjunctive agent in schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses. The only significant effects were seen in terms of short-term sedation, at best. The evidence available on augmentation of antipsychotics with benzodiazepines is inconclusive and justifies large, simple and well-designed future trials focusing on clinical response, mental state, aggressive behaviour and adverse events.