Seizure activity and individual vulnerability on first-episode interictal psychosis in epilepsy

Psychoses after an antiepileptic drug administration: Frequency, timing, and duration

OBJECTIVES

To clarify the pathophysiology of psychoses after the new administration of antiepileptic drugs (AED), we analyzed the annual incidence, timing of development, and duration of episodes.

METHODS

Psychotic outcomes in the first 6-month period after an AED or non-AED administration in patients with focal epilepsy were exhaustively reviewed in eight Japanese neuropsychiatry institutions. In cases with psychotic episodes, the subtype of psychosis, timing of development, previous history of psychosis, and duration of the episode were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between 1981 and 2015, 5018 new drugs (4402 AED and 616 non-AED) were administered to 2067 patients with focal epilepsy. In the first 6-month period, 105 psychotic episodes occurred (81 interictal psychosis [IIP] and 24 postictal psychosis). Furthermore, 55 cases were first episodes and 50 were recurrent episodes. The frequency of psychoses is significantly higher after AED administration (n = 102) compared with non-AED administration (n = 3). Psychosis occurred most frequently in the initial 1-month period after new-AED administration and tended to decrease with increasing time. The estimated annual incidence of all psychoses after a new AED administration was 3.5% (2.0% for first-episode psychosis and 1.8% for first-episode IIP). Duration of psychoses (mean, 38.5 weeks) was equivalent to overall IIP. Duration of IIP did not shorten with discontinuation of newly administered AED.

SIGNIFICANCE

Patients with epilepsy exhibit psychosis more frequently after new AED administration than after non-AED administration. This study shows the pathophysiology of psychoses after AED administration with annual incidence, the timing of development, and the duration of PAP, which have rarely been reported.

Bidirectionality of antiseizure and antipsychotic treatment: A population-based study

PURPOSE

To study the prevalence and directionality of comorbid epilepsy and psychosis in Norway.

METHODS

The Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD) provided individual-based information on all antiseizure medications (ASMs) and antipsychotic drugs (APDs) dispensed during 2004-2017. Subjects were ≥18 years of age at the end of the study period. Diagnosis-specific reimbursement codes from the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases/2nd edition of the International Classification of Primary Care (ICD-10/ICPC-2) combined with ATC codes were used as indicators of diagnosis. Subjects had collected ASMs for epilepsy or APDs for psychosis at least four times, at least once issued with an ICD-10 code from the specialist healthcare service. Directionality was analyzed in subjects receiving both treatments. To reduce prevalent comorbidity bias, we employed a four-year comorbidity-free period (2004-2007). The use of specific ASMs and APDs was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 31,289 subjects had collected an ASM for epilepsy at least four times, 28,889 an APD for psychosis. Both the prevalence of treatment for epilepsy and of treatment for psychosis was 0.8%. Further, 891 subjects had been treated for both conditions; 2.8% with epilepsy had been treated for psychosis, and 3.1% with psychosis had been treated for epilepsy. Among 558 subjects included in the analyses of directionality, 56% had collected the first APD before an ASM, whereas 41% had collected an ASM first. During the last year prior to comorbidity onset, levetiracetam, topiramate, or zonisamide had been used for epilepsy by approximately 40%, whereas olanzapine and quetiapine were most used in patients with psychosis, and clozapine in 13%.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of patients with prior antipsychotic treatment at onset of epilepsy is higher than previously acknowledged, as demonstrated in this nation-wide study. Apart from a shared neurobiological susceptibility, the bidirectionality of epilepsy and psychosis may be influenced by various environmental factors, including the interaction of pharmacodynamic effects. APDs may facilitate seizures; ASMs may induce psychiatric symptoms. In patients with combined treatment, these potential drug effects should receive ample attention, along with the psychosocial consequences of the disorders. A prudent multi-professional approach is required.

Quantitative psychopathology of interictal psychosis in epilepsy; interaction between epilepsy-related and psychosis-general effects

OBJECTIVE

There is a historical debate whether psychopathology of epilepsy psychosis is unique to epilepsy or common to other psychoses. However, a large comprehensive studies on this issue are scarce. To clarify the characteristics of interictal psychosis (IIP), we evaluated psychopathology quantitatively.

METHODS

This study included 150 patients with IIP (epilepsy+/psychosis+), 187 patients with schizophrenia (SC: epilepsy-/psychosis+), 182 patients with epilepsy (EP: epilepsy+/psychosis-), and 172 non-clinical individuals (NC: epilepsy-/psychosis-). The IIP group comprised 127 chronic and 23 brief psychoses. Age, sex, and years of education, onset and duration of psychosis, and onset and duration of epilepsy were matched among the groups. The psychopathology was evaluated using the 16-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), which comprises three symptom factors namely negative symptoms (NS), positive symptoms (PS), and anxiety-depressive symptoms (ADS).

RESULTS

For overall 16-BPRS and NS factor scores, there were significant interactions between epilepsy-related (epilepsy+/-) and psychosis-general (psychosis+/-) effects. The EP exhibited higher scores than did the NC, whereas the IIP exhibited lower scores than did the SC. For PS and ADS factor scores, the IIP and SC exhibited a significant psychosis-general effect. Chronic IIP was associated with more serious psychopathologies than was brief IIP. However, limited with chronic IIP, there was a significant interaction between epilepsy-related and psychosis-general effects on the overall 16-BPRS and NS factor scores.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate the first large quantitative evidence on the unique psychopathology of IIP which has been only narratively described. The psychopathology is associated with the interaction between epilepsy-related and psychosis-general effects.

Psychotic Disorders in Epilepsy: Do They Differ from Primary Psychosis?

Any attempt to compare the definitions of symptoms listed for "primary psychoses" with those adopted in studies of psychoses in patients with epilepsy (PWE) will encounter problems of heterogeneity within both conditions. In this manuscript, five psychotic illnesses listed in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th Edition (DSM-5), that is, brief psychotic illness, schizophreniform disorder, schizophrenia, delusional disorder, and schizoaffective disorder are compared with postictal (or periictal) and interictal psychotic disorders in PWE. After examining definitions of primary psychoses, definitions of psychoses adopted in the papers dealing with postictal and interictal psychoses are summarized. Further, diagnostic criteria of five types of psychotic disorders in PWE proposed in 2007 by Krishnamoorthy et al. are also discussed, which include postictal psychosis, comorbid schizophrenia, iatrogenic psychosis caused by antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) (AED-induced psychotic disorder: AIPD), and forced normalization. Evidently, a comparison between postictal psychosis and schizophrenia is pointless. Likewise, schizophrenia may not be an appropriate counterpart of forced normalization and AIPD, given their acute or subacute course.Based on these preliminary examinations, three questions are selected to compare primary psychoses and psychoses in PWE: Is postictal psychosis different from a brief psychotic disorder? Does epilepsy facilitate or prevent the development of psychosis or vice versa? Is interictal psychosis of epilepsy different from process schizophrenia? In conclusion, antagonism between psychosis and epileptic seizures in a later stage of active epilepsy seems not to be realized without reorganization of the nervous system promoted during an earlier stage. Both genetic predisposition and the summated effects of epileptic activity must be taken into consideration as part of a trial to explain interictal psychosis. Interictal psychosis is an aggregate of miscellaneous disorders, that is, co-morbid schizophrenia, AED-induced psychotic disorders, forced normalization, and "epileptic" interictal psychosis. Data are lacking to conclude whether differences exist between process schizophrenia and "epileptic" interictal psychosis in terms of negative symptoms, specific personal traits, and the "bizarre-ness" of delusory-hallucinatory contents. These discussions may shed light on the essence of process schizophrenia, thus allowing it stand out and receive increased focus.

Individual vulnerabilities to psychosis after antiepileptic drug administration

Background

Psychosis often develops after the administration of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in patients with epilepsy. However, the individual vulnerability and clinical condition of such patients have been rarely scrutinised. We investigated the effect of individually consistent (trait-dependent) and inconsistent (state-dependent) characteristics.

Methods

The individual characteristics, clinical states and psychotic outcome of patients from eight adult epilepsy clinics were retrospectively reviewed over 6-month periods after a new drug (AED or non-AED) administration between 1981 and 2015.

Results

A total of 5018 new drugs (4402 AEDs and 616 non-AEDs) were used in 2015 patients with focal epilepsy. Subsequently, 105 psychotic episodes (81 interictal and 24 postictal) occurred in 89 patients. Twelve patients exhibited multiple episodes after different AED administrations. Trait-dependent characteristics (early onset of epilepsy, known presumed causes of epilepsy, lower intellectual function and a family history of psychosis) were significantly associated with the patients who exhibited psychosis. Absence of family history of epilepsy was also associated with psychosis but not significantly. Subsequent logistic regression analysis with a model incorporating family history of psychosis and epilepsy, and intellectual function was the most appropriate (p=0.000). State-dependent characteristics, including previous psychotic history and epilepsy-related variables (longer duration of epilepsy, AED administration, higher seizure frequency and concomitant use of AEDs) were significantly associated with psychotic episodes. Subsequent analysis found that a model including AED administration and previous psychotic history was the most appropriate (p=0.000).

Conclusion

Psychosis occurring after new AED administration was related to the individual vulnerability to psychosis and intractability of epilepsy.

Psychosis rarely occurs in patients with late-onset focal epilepsy

AIMS

We examined psychosis occurrence in patients with late-onset focal epilepsy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Case records of consecutive patients with focal epilepsy without central nervous system (CNS) disease (n = 873) were retrospectively examined, with gender, age at epilepsy onset, duration of epilepsy, epilepsy type (temporal or extratemporal), and age at the initial examination used as clinical and demographic variables. Patients with onset ≤49 years old (control) were compared with those with late-onset.

RESULTS

In the control group (n = 775), 38 had a history of psychosis, while none in the late-onset group (n = 98) reported that (p = 0.016). Psychosis was only interictal in 32 and predominantly postictal in 6, while 2 patients showed both interictal and postictal psychosis. Duration of illness (p = 0.000001) and temporal lobe epilepsy (p = 0.000343) were significant determinants associated with psychosis. Gender (p = 0.210) and age at examination (p = 0.084) were found to be not contributory to psychosis.

DISCUSSION

The prevalence for a history of psychosis in the present cohort (2.5%) agrees well with that noted in previous studies, and duration of illness proved to be the most powerful determining factor leading to that. A keen awareness of unrecognized underlying CNS or metabolic disease is important when psychosis appears in patients with nonlesional late-onset epilepsy, which should lead to an in-depth investigation of possible underlying and still uncovered CNS disease.

[Interictal psychosis of epilepsy]

Interictal psychosis (IIP) refers to psychosis that occurs in clear consciousness in persons with epilepsy (PWE) with temporal onset not during or immediately following a seizure. The pooled prevalence estimate of psychosis in PWE is 5.6%. PWE and schizophrenia have very high mortality, and more than one in four persons with both disorders die between the age of 25 and 50years. IIP can manifest in brief or chronic forms. The chronic forms of IIP may closely resemble schizophrenia. However, some authors have described the typical presence of persecutory and religious delusions, sudden mood swings and the preservation of affect, as well as rarity of negative symptoms and catatonic states, but these differences remain controversial. Typically, IIP starts after many years of active temporal lobe epilepsy. Several epilepsy-related variables are considered pathogenically relevant in IIP including epilepsy type and seizure characteristics. Risk factors for developing IIP are family history of psychosis, learning disability, early age of onset of epilepsy, unilateral or bilateral hippocampal sclerosis, history of status epilepticus, history of febrile seizures, and poorly controlled temporal lobe epilepsy. In patients with epilepsy and psychosis, structural imaging studies have shown several relevant changes leading to conflicting findings. Altered neuronal plasticity and excitability have been described in epilepsy and psychotic disorders. Neuropathological data suggest that IIP are not the result of classic epileptic pathology of the temporal lobe. Forced normalization (FN) and alternating psychosis refer to patients with poorly controlled epilepsy (focal or generalized) who have had psychotic episodes associated with remission of their seizures and disappearance of epileptiform activity on their EEGs. FN mainly occurs in temporal lobe epilepsy when patients have frequent seizures that are abruptly terminated triggered by an antiepileptic drug, vagus nerve stimulation or epilepsy surgery. Treatment is based on withdrawal of the responsible drug, and by transient use of antipsychotics for acute symptomatic control on a case-by-case basis. FN is an entity whose pathophysiology remains uncertain. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may sometimes induce psychotic symptoms and psychosis could be a direct effect of the AEDs. IIP has been reported more frequently following the initiation of zonisamide, topiramate, and levetiracetam when compared with other antiepileptic drugs. However, AEDs do not appear to be the only determinant of IIP. The management of IIP requires a multidisciplinary approach with early involvement of a liaison psychiatrist associated with a neurologist. IIP are underdiagnosed and mistreated. Existing recommendations are extrapolated from those established for the treatment of schizophrenia with some additional guidance from expert opinions. A two-step procedure, not necessarily consecutive, is suggested. The first step requires reevaluation of the antiepileptic treatment. The second step requires initiation of atypical neuroleptics. Antipsychotic drugs should be selected with consideration of the balance between pharmacological profiles, efficacy, and adverse effects. Regarding pharmacokinetic interactions, AEDs with inducing properties reduce the blood levels of all antipsychotics. It is important to consider implications of combining neuroleptics and AEDs with a similar spectrum of side effects. Regarding the duration of treatment, IIP episodes are more likely to be recurrent than in primary schizophrenia. In practice, atypical neuroleptics with few motor side effects such as risperidone can be used as first choice, given the low propensity for drug-drug interactions and the low seizure risk, with the added suggestion to start low and go slow. Clozapine could be prescribed in selected cases.

Increased frequency of psychosis after second-generation antiepileptic drug administration in adults with focal epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

Many studies show psychoses after some antiepileptic drug (AED) administrations (post-AED administration psychoses [PAP]). It remains uncertain about psychogenetic potential of each AED and effects of clinical state factors on PAP. We examined the relations between AED-related factors (types, generations, dosages, and concomitant AED) and PAP.

METHODS

The clinical records of patients with focal epilepsy were retrospectively reviewed from eight adult epilepsy clinics, for every six-month period after administration of a new drug (either AED or non-AED) between 1981 and 2015. Characteristics of psychotic episodes, AED-related factors (type, daily dosage, and concomitant AED), and other state-related risk factors to psychosis (age, duration of epilepsy, history of psychosis, and seizure frequency) were examined. Psychogenetic risks of AED-related and state-related factors were analyzed with multifactorial procedures.

RESULTS

Of 2067 patients with focal epilepsy, 5018 new drugs (4402 AEDs and 616 non-AEDs) were administered. Within the first six-month period, 89 patients exhibited 105 psychotic episodes (81 interictal and 24 postictal psychoses: 55 first episodes and 50 recurrences). With second-generation AED (SAED) administration, particularly topiramate and lamotrigine, frequency of psychosis was significantly increased. Daily dosage of AED was not significantly associated with psychosis. Psychosis tended to occur with a higher number of concomitant AED. Subsequent analysis with AED-related and general factors showed that SAED administrations and previous psychotic history were the most significant risks for PAP.

CONCLUSION

Post-AED administration psychoses is associated with type of AED (SAED), rather than its dosage. Individual vulnerabilities are also associated with PAP.

Pharmacotherapy in patients with epilepsy and psychosis

The recognition and treatment of psychosis in persons with epilepsy (PWE) is recommended with the apparent dilemma between treating psychosis and opening the possibility of exacerbating seizures. The pooled prevalence estimate of psychosis in PWE is 5.6%. It has been proposed that a 'two hit' model, requiring both aberrant limbic activity and impaired frontal control, may account for the wide range of clinical phenotypes. The role of antiepileptic drugs in psychosis in PWE remains unclear. Alternating psychosis, the clinical phenomenon of a reciprocal relationship between psychosis and seizures, is unlikely to be an exclusively antiepileptic drug-specific phenomenon but rather, linked to the neurobiological mechanisms underlying seizure control. Reevaluation of antiepileptic treatment, including the agent/s being used and degree of epileptic seizure control is recommended. The authors found very few controlled studies to inform evidence-based treatment of psychosis in PWE. However, antipsychotics and benzodiazepines are recommended as the symptomatic clinical treatments of choice for postictal and brief interictal psychoses. The general principle of early symptomatic treatment of psychotic symptoms applies in epilepsy-related psychoses, as for primary psychotic disorders. In the authors' experience, low doses of antipsychotic medications do not significantly increase clinical risk of seizures in PWE being concurrently treated with an efficacious antiepileptic regimen.