Psychopathologic differences between cannabis-induced psychoses and recent-onset primary psychoses with abuse of cannabis

Individual Differences and Psychosis-Risk Screening: Practical Suggestions to Improve the Scope and Quality of Early Identification

Approaches to identifying individuals at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis currently do not carefully weigh considerations around individual differences. Effective identification depends on awareness of factors beyond psychopathology as it is reflected in the current literature, such as sensitivity to idiographic circumstances and individual differences. The inability to address contextual factors when employing the status quo method of identification likely contributes to the unacceptably poor accuracy when identifying people at CHR. Individual differences related to factors such as culture, race, comorbidity, and development likely play an important role in accurate identification, and have the potential to improve the validity of approaches intended to identify this population. Tailored approaches to assessment based on an awareness of context, identity, setting, and preferences of clients are possible, and customizing assessment efforts accordingly may be useful for accurate identification of people at CHR. Highlighting the potential for the existing early identification paradigm to marginalize or misunderstand certain groups, we describe how effective identification and ethical diagnosis require sensitivity to individual differences writ large. We suggest that recognizing the importance of these factors advances a more inclusive and accurate approach to identification.

Clinical characteristics of primary psychotic disorders with concurrent substance abuse and substance-induced psychotic disorders: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Distinguishing between a primary psychotic disorder with concurrent substance abuse (PPD+SA) and a substance-induced psychotic disorder (SIPD) can be diagnostically challenging. We aimed to determine if these two diagnoses are clinically distinct, particularly in relation to psychopathology. In addition, we aimed to examine the specific clinical features of cannabis-induced psychotic disorder (CIPD) as compared to primary psychotic disorder with concurrent cannabis abuse (PPD+CA) and also to SIPD associated with any substance.

METHODS

A systematic review of SIPD literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Using strict inclusion criteria, a total of six studies examining SIPD were included in the review (two of which only considered psychosis induced by cannabis alone). The findings did not reveal many consistent differences in psychopathology. However, we did find that that compared to PPD+SA, individuals with SIPD have a weaker family history of psychotic disorder; a greater degree of insight; fewer positive symptoms and fewer negative symptoms; more depression (only in CIPD) and more anxiety.

CONCLUSION

There remains a striking paucity of information on the psychopathology, clinical characteristics and outcome of SIPD. Our review highlights the need for further research in this area.

Psychological symptomatology and impaired prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex are associated with cannabis-induced psychosis

BACKGROUND

Cannabis-induced psychotic disorder (CIPD) is a psychiatric disorder induced by cannabis consumption. The psychological and psychophysiological features of this disorder are still unknown. We aimed to examine the psychological, personality and psychophysiological features of patients with CIPD. This study is an analytical extension of our previously published data, which previously found prepulse inhibition (PPI) deficits in the CIPD group used in this current paper.

METHODS

We used a sample of 45 patients with CIPD. After 9 months of follow up, these patients were assessed with a Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R) questionnaire of psychopathology, with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, and with a psychophysiological paradigm of inhibition of the startle reflex (PPI). These results were compared with a group of patients with schizophrenia and cannabis abuse (SCHZ) ( n = 54); patients with cannabis dependence (CD) ( n = 21); and healthy controls ( n = 50).

RESULTS

CIPD patients obtained significant higher scores in the SCL-90-R subscale of neuroticism. These patients showed PPI percentages similar to SCHZ patients within early attentional levels (30 ms). The variables with greater correlation, and that appeared in the CIPD group were interpersonal sensitivity, depression and phobia.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurotic symptomatology and difficulties in inhibition of the startle reflex might be risk factors for developing CIPD.

Short-term outcome of substance-induced psychotic disorder in a large UK first episode psychosis cohort

OBJECTIVE

The incidence and outcome of first-episode substance-induced psychotic disorder (SIPD) are unclear. The study aimed to compare the 1-year outcomes of those given a SIPD diagnosis by clinicians compared to other psychosis diagnoses in a first-episode cohort.

METHOD

Data were from a large (n = 1027) cohort of first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients admitted to early intervention services in the UK (National EDEN). Diagnosis, including that of SIPD, was made by treating psychiatrists at baseline using ICD10 criteria. Details on symptoms, functioning, quality of life, relapse and recovery were available at baseline and 12 months.

RESULTS

There were 67 cases of SIPD (6.5% of the cohort). At baseline, SIPD patients were no different to other psychoses on symptoms, functioning and quality of life. At 12 months, there was no difference in SIPD and other psychoses on functioning, quality of life or relapse and recovery rates. Levels of psychotic and general symptomatology were similar but depressive symptoms were higher in the SIPD group.

CONCLUSIONS

First-episode psychosis patients with a diagnosis of SIPD do not appear to have better outcomes than those with other primary psychotic diagnoses. The higher levels of depressive symptoms may be a specific marker in these patients.

A clinical comparison of schizophrenia with and without pre-onset cannabis use disorder: a retrospective cohort study using categorical and dimensional approaches

BACKGROUND

A high prevalence of cannabis use disorder has been reported in subjects suffering from schizophrenia, fuelling intense debate about whether schizophrenia with pre-onset cannabis use disorder may be a distinct entity with specific features or whether cannabis use disorder can precipitate schizophrenia in genetically vulnerable subjects.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed schizophrenia subjects with and without pre-onset cannabis use disorder on the basis of their clinical features, assessed categorically and dimensionally with the operational criteria checklist for psychotic illnesses (OCCPI). We also investigated whether the two groups could be differentiated on the basis of a history of psychiatric disorders in first-degree relatives. A principal component factor analysis of the OCCPI items was used to identify specific symptom dimensions. The relationships between symptom dimensions and cannabis status were analysed by point-biserial correlation analysis to control for sex and age at time of the assessment and illness duration.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-one subjects with a diagnosis of schizophrenia were included. Among them, forty-one patients (18.2 % of the sample) had a cannabis use disorder before or at the time of the onset of schizophrenia. We found similar results in symptoms patterns or family history between patients with and without pre-onset cannabis use disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results clearly argue against cannabis-associated schizophrenia being a relevant distinct clinical entity of schizophrenia with specific features.

Characterizing cannabis-induced psychosis: a study with prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex

Cannabis-induced psychotic disorder (CIPD) refers to psychotic symptoms that arise in the context of cannabis intoxication. Prepulse inhibition (PPI) deficits have been extensively identified in schizophrenia and in cannabis abusers. We aimed to characterize PPI in CIPD patients. We used a sample of 48 CIPD patients, 54 schizophrenia patients and cannabis abuse (SCHZ), 44 cannabis dependents (CD), and 44 controls. CIPD, SCHZ and CD were abstinent of cannabis consumption for 9 months. Participants were assessed with PPI at 30, 60, and 120 ms. At 30 ms, CIPD showed lower PPI levels than controls, and SCHZ obtained worse functioning than controls and CD. At 60 ms, only SCHZ exhibited worse PPI percentages (of object) than controls. Finally, at 120 ms, CIPD showed higher PPI levels than SCHZ, and SCHZ obtained lower percentages than controls. We found that CIPD and SCHZ patients showed deficits at the most pre-attentional levels, whereas CIPD patients performed better than SCHZ at higher attentional levels. These results suggest that CIPD constitutes a different group of patients than that of SCHZ. Deficits in PPI functioning at 30 ms could be a useful psychophysiological measure to detect CIPD patients, who are frequently confused with cannabis abusers whose symptoms may mimic that of schizophrenia.

The behavioral effects of acute Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol and heroin (diacetylmorphine) exposure in adult zebrafish

The use of psychotropic drugs in clinical and translational brain research continues to grow, and the need for novel experimental models and screens is becoming widely recognized. Mounting evidence supports the utility of zebrafish (Danio rerio) for studying various pharmacological manipulations, as an alternative model complementing the existing rodent paradigms in this field. Here, we explore the effects of acute 20-min exposure to two commonly abused psychotropic compounds, Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and heroin, on adult zebrafish behavior in the novel tank test. Overall, THC administration (30 and 50 mg/L) produces an anxiogenic-like reduction of top swimming, paralleled with a slower, continuous bottom swimming. In contrast, heroin exposure (15 and 25 mg/L) evoked a hyperlocomotor response (with rapid bouts of bottom swimming and frequent 'bouncing' motions) without altering anxiety-sensitive top/bottom endpoints. The behavioral effects of these two compounds in zebrafish seem to parallel the respective rodent and human findings. Collectively, this emphasizes the growing significance of novel emerging aquatic models in translational drug abuse research and small molecule screening.

Systematic review reveals heterogeneity in the use of the Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder (SUMD)

The Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder (SUMD) is one of the most widely used instruments to measure insight into mental disorders. The aim of this study was to review all studies using the SUMD in the last 20 years. We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE using PubMed to identify all relevant studies published from 1993 to 2012. The following data were extracted from each article: characteristics of the SUMD (version, rating scale, scoring, and item/dimension used), methodological aspects (country, language, subject inclusion criteria, and sample size), and statistical methods to analyse insight. Of the 133 articles screened, 100 studies were included in the review. Fifty-two studies were published over the past five years. The SUMD was rarely used in its entirety, and the use of selected items or subscales was heterogeneous across studies. The studies also varied in terms of response modalities and in the use of 3- or 5-point Likert scales. The calculation of insight scores was highly variable and included the following: treating items as categorical or continuous variables, separate analysis of individual items, items expressed in terms of the sum total or the mean scores, and a range of score values used to define insight. This paper provides a systematic review of studies using the SUMD and reveals important differences in the versions used, the methods of calculation, and the interpretation of scores across studies. The use of a modified SUMD may compromise the psychometric properties of the scale, lead to erroneous conclusions, and prevents comparison of results across studies. Our review underlines the need for the standardised use of the SUMD.