Comparative physiological effects of antipsychotic drugs in children and young people: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The degree of physiological responses to individual antipsychotic drugs is unclear in children and adolescents. With network meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the effects of various antipsychotic medications on physiological variables in children and adolescents with neuropsychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions. METHODS: For this network meta-analysis, we searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus from database inception until Dec 22, 2023, and included randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotics with placebo in children or adolescents younger than 18 years with any neuropsychiatric and neurodevelopmental condition. Primary outcomes were mean change from baseline to end of acute treatment in bodyweight, BMI, fasting glucose, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, prolactin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and QT interval corrected for heart rate (QTc) for patients receiving either active treatment or placebo. For multigroup trials reporting several doses, we calculated a summary value for each physiological variable for all doses. After transitivity assessment, we fitted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses for all comparisons in the network. A Kilim plot was used to summarise the results for all treatments and outcomes, providing information regarding the strength of the statistical evidence of treatment effects, using p values. Network heterogeneity was assessed with τ, risk of bias of individual trials was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias, and the credibility of findings from each network meta-analysis was assessed with the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINEMA) app. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021274393). FINDINGS: Of 6676 studies screened, 47 randomised controlled trials were included, which included 6500 children (mean age 13·29 years, SD 2·14) who received treatment for a median of 7 weeks (IQR 6-8) with either placebo (n=2134) or one of aripiprazole, asenapine, blonanserin, clozapine, haloperidol, lurasidone, molindone, olanzapine, paliperidone, pimozide, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone (n=4366). Mean differences for bodyweight change gain compared with placebo ranged from -2·00 kg (95% CI -3·61 to -0·39) with molindone to 5·60 kg (0·27 to 10·94) with haloperidol; BMI -0·70 kg/m2 (-1·21 to -0·19) with molindone to 2·03 kg/m2 (0·51 to 3·55) with quetiapine; total cholesterol -0·04 mmol/L (-0·39 to 0·31) with blonanserin to 0·35 mmol/L (0·17 to 0·53) with quetiapine; LDL cholesterol -0·12 mmol/L (-0·31 to 0·07) with risperidone or paliperidone to 0·17 mmol/L (-0·06 to 0·40) with olanzapine; HDL cholesterol 0·05 mmol/L (-0·19 to 0·30) with quetiapine to 0·48 mmol/L (0·18 to 0·78) with risperidone or paliperidone; triglycerides -0·03 mmol/L (-0·12 to 0·06) with lurasidone to 0·29 mmol/L (0·14 to 0·44) with olanzapine; fasting glucose from -0·09 mmol/L (-1·45 to 1·28) with blonanserin to 0·74 mmol/L (0·04 to 1·43) with quetiapine; prolactin from -2·83 ng/mL (-8·42 to 2·75) with aripiprazole to 26·40 ng/mL (21·13 to 31·67) with risperidone or paliperidone; heart rate from -0·20 bpm (-8·11 to 7·71) with ziprasidone to 12·42 bpm (3·83 to 21·01) with quetiapine; SBP from -3·40 mm Hg (-6·25 to -0·55) with ziprasidone to 10·04 mm Hg (5·56 to 14·51) with quetiapine; QTc from -0·61 ms (-1·47 to 0·26) with pimozide to 0·30 ms (-0·05 to 0·65) with ziprasidone. INTERPRETATION: Children and adolescents show varied but clinically significant physiological responses to individual antipsychotic drugs. Treatment guidelines for children and adolescents with a range of neuropsychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions should be updated to reflect each antipsychotic drug's distinct profile for associated metabolic changes, alterations in prolactin, and haemodynamic alterations. FUNDING: UK Academy of Medical Sciences, Brain and Behaviour Research Foundation, UK National Institute of Health Research, Maudsley Charity, the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, National Institute of Health and Care Research Biomedical Centre at King's College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, the Italian Ministry of University and Research, the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan, and Swiss National Science Foundation.

Cognitive domains affected post-COVID-19; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This review aims to characterize the pattern of post-COVID-19 cognitive impairment, allowing better prediction of impact on daily function to inform clinical management and rehabilitation. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of neurocognitive sequelae following COVID-19 was conducted, following PRISMA-S guidelines. Studies were included if they reported domain-specific cognitive assessment in patients with COVID-19 at >4 weeks post-infection. Studies were deemed high-quality if they had >40 participants, utilized healthy controls, had low attrition rates and mitigated for confounders. RESULTS: Five of the seven primary Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) cognitive domains were assessed by enough high-quality studies to facilitate meta-analysis. Medium effect sizes indicating impairment in patients post-COVID-19 versus controls were seen across executive function (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45), learning and memory (SMD -0.55), complex attention (SMD -0.54) and language (SMD -0.54), with perceptual motor function appearing to be impacted to a greater degree (SMD -0.70). A narrative synthesis of the 56 low-quality studies also suggested no obvious pattern of impairment. CONCLUSIONS: This review found moderate impairments across multiple domains of cognition in patients post-COVID-19, with no specific pattern. The reported literature was significantly heterogeneous, with a wide variety of cognitive tasks, small sample sizes and disparate initial disease severities limiting interpretability. The finding of consistent impairment across a range of cognitive tasks suggests broad, as opposed to domain-specific, brain dysfunction. Future studies should utilize a harmonized test battery to facilitate inter-study comparisons, whilst also accounting for the interactions between COVID-19, neurological sequelae and mental health, the interplay between which might explain cognitive impairment.

Neurological and psychiatric presentations associated with human monkeypox virus infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Neuropsychiatric presentations of monkeypox (MPX) infection have not been well characterised, despite evidence of nervous system involvement associated with the related smallpox infection. Methods: In this pre-registered (PROSPERO ID 336649) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED and the preprint server MedRxiv up to 31/05/2022. Any study design of humans infected with MPX that reported a neurological or psychiatric presentation was included. For eligible symptoms, we calculated a pooled prevalence using an inverse variance approach and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The degree of variability that could be explained by between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool. Findings: From 1705 unique studies, we extracted data on 19 eligible studies (1512 participants, 1031 with confirmed infection using CDC criteria or PCR testing) most of which were cohort studies and case series with no control groups. Study quality was generally moderate. Three clinical features were eligible for meta-analysis: seizure 2.7% (95% CI 0.7-10.2%, I2 0%), confusion 2.4% (95% CI 1.1-5.2%, I2 0%) and encephalitis 2.0% (95% 0.5-8.2%, I2 55.8%). Other frequently reported symptoms included myalgia, headache and fatigue, where heterogeneity was too high for estimation of pooled prevalences, possibly as a result of differences in viral clades and study methodology. Interpretation: There is preliminary evidence for a range of neuropsychiatric presentations including severe neurological complications (encephalitis and seizure) and nonspecific neurological features (confusion, headache and myalgia). There is less evidence regarding the psychiatric presentations or sequelae of MPX. This may warrant surveillance within the current MPX outbreak, with prospective longitudinal studies evaluating the mid- to long-term sequelae of the virus. Robust methods to evaluate the potential causality of MPX with these clinical features are required. More evidence is necessary to explain heterogeneity in prevalence estimates. Funding: UKRI/MRC (MR/V03605X/1), MRC-CSF (MR/V007181/1), MRC/AMED (MR/T028750/1) and the Wellcome Trust (102186/B/13/Z) and (102186/B/13/Z) and UCLH BRC.

The shared genetic architecture of modifiable risk for Alzheimer's disease: a genomic structural equation modelling study.

Targeting modifiable risk factors may help to prevent Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the pathways by which these risk factors influence AD risk remain incompletely understood. We identified genome-wide association studies for AD and its major modifiable risk factors. We calculated the genetic correlation among these traits and modelled this using genomic structural equation modelling. We identified complex networks of genetic overlap among AD risk factors, but AD itself was largely genetically distinct. The data were best explained by a bi-factor model, incorporating a Common Factor for AD risk, and 3 orthogonal sub-clusters of risk factors. Taken together, our findings suggest that there is extensive shared genetic architecture between AD modifiable risk factors, but this is largely independent of AD genetic pathways. Extensive genetic pleiotropy between risk factors may influence AD indirectly by decreasing cognitive reserve or increasing risk of multimorbidity, leading to poorer brain health. Further work to understand the biology reflected by this communality may provide novel mechanistic insights that could help to prioritise targets for dementia prevention.

Dementia risk in a diverse population: A single-region nested case-control study in the East End of London.

Background: Most evidence about dementia risk comes from relatively affluent people of White European ancestry. We aimed to determine the association between ethnicity, area level socioeconomic deprivation and dementia risk, and the extent to which variation in risk might be attributable to known modifiable clinical risk factors and health behaviours. Methods: In this nested case-control study, we analysed data from primary care medical records of a population of 1,016,277 from four inner East London boroughs, United Kingdom, collected between 2009 and 2018. The outcome measures were odds ratios for dementia according to ethnicity and deprivation, before and after the addition of major modifiable risk factors for dementia; and weighted population attributable risk for comparison between individual risk factors. Findings: We identified 4137 dementia cases and 15,754 matched controls (mean age for cases and controls were 80·7 years, (SD 8·7); 81·3 years, (SD 8·9) respectively, range 27-103). Black and South Asian ethnicity were both associated with increased risk of dementia relative to White (odds ratios [95% CI]: Black 1·43 [1·31-1·56]; South Asian 1.17 [1·06-1·29]). Area-level deprivation was independently associated with an increased risk of dementia in a dose-dependent manner. Black and South Asian ethnicity were both associated with a younger age at dementia diagnosis (odds ratios [95%CI]: 0·70 [0·61-0·80] and 0·55 [0·47-0·65], respectively). Population attributable risk was higher for ethnicity (9·7%) and deprivation (11·7%) than for any established modifiable risk factor in this population. Interpretation: Ethnicity and area-level deprivation are independently associated with dementia risk in East London. This effect may not be attributable to the effect of known risk factors. Funding: Barts Charity (MGU0366).

Neurology and neuropsychiatry of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the early literature reveals frequent CNS manifestations and key emerging narratives.

There is accumulating evidence of the neurological and neuropsychiatric features of infection with SARS-CoV-2. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to describe the characteristics of the early literature and estimate point prevalences for neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations.We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL up to 18 July 2020 for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series. Studies reporting prevalences of neurological or neuropsychiatric symptoms were synthesised into meta-analyses to estimate pooled prevalence.13 292 records were screened by at least two authors to identify 215 included studies, of which there were 37 cohort studies, 15 case-control studies, 80 cross-sectional studies and 83 case series from 30 countries. 147 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The symptoms with the highest prevalence were anosmia (43.1% (95% CI 35.2% to 51.3%), n=15 975, 63 studies), weakness (40.0% (95% CI 27.9% to 53.5%), n=221, 3 studies), fatigue (37.8% (95% CI 31.6% to 44.4%), n=21 101, 67 studies), dysgeusia (37.2% (95% CI 29.8% to 45.3%), n=13 686, 52 studies), myalgia (25.1% (95% CI 19.8% to 31.3%), n=66 268, 76 studies), depression (23.0% (95% CI 11.8% to 40.2%), n=43 128, 10 studies), headache (20.7% (95% CI 16.1% to 26.1%), n=64 613, 84 studies), anxiety (15.9% (5.6% to 37.7%), n=42 566, 9 studies) and altered mental status (8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 14.8%), n=49 326, 19 studies). Heterogeneity for most clinical manifestations was high.Neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms of COVID-19 in the pandemic's early phase are varied and common. The neurological and psychiatric academic communities should develop systems to facilitate high-quality methodologies, including more rapid examination of the longitudinal course of neuropsychiatric complications of newly emerging diseases and their relationship to neuroimaging and inflammatory biomarkers.

The psychiatric phenotypes of 1q21 distal deletion and duplication.

Copy number variants are amongst the most highly penetrant risk factors for psychopathology and neurodevelopmental deficits, but little information about the detailed clinical phenotype associated with particular variants is available. We present the largest study of the microdeletion and -duplication at the distal 1q21 locus, which has been associated with schizophrenia and intellectual disability, in order to investigate the range of psychiatric phenotypes. Clinical and cognitive data from 68 deletion and 55 duplication carriers were analysed with logistic regression analysis to compare frequencies of mental disorders between carrier groups and controls, and linear mixed models to compare quantitative phenotypes. Both children and adults with copy number variants at 1q21 had high frequencies of psychopathology. In the children, neurodevelopmental disorders were most prominent (56% for deletion, 68% for duplication carriers). Adults had increased prevalence of mood (35% for deletion [OR = 6.6 (95% CI: 1.4-40.1)], 55% for duplication carriers [8.3 (1.4-55.5)]) and anxiety disorders (24% [1.8 (0.4-8.4)] and 55% [10.0 (1.9-71.2)]). The adult group, which included mainly genetically affected parents of probands, had an IQ in the normal range. These results confirm high prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders associated with CNVs at 1q21 but also reveal high prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders in a high-functioning adult group with these CNVs. Because carriers of neurodevelopmental CNVs who show relevant psychopathology but no major cognitive impairment are not currently routinely receiving clinical genetic services widening of genetic testing in psychiatry may be considered.

Clinical evaluation of patients with a neuropsychiatric risk copy number variant.

Several copy number variants (CNVs) have been identified to confer high risk for a range of neuropsychiatric conditions. Because of advances in genetic testing within clinical settings, patients are increasingly receiving diagnoses of copy number variant genomic disorders. However, clinical guidelines surrounding assessment and management are limited. This review synthesises recent research and makes preliminary recommendations regarding the clinical evaluation of patients with neuropsychiatric risk CNVs. We recommend multi-system assessment beyond the initial referral reason, recognition of the potential need for co-ordinated multidisciplinary care, and that interventions take account of relevant multimorbidity. The frequently complex needs of patients with CNVs across the life-course pose challenges for many health care systems and may be best provided for by the establishment of specialist clinics.

COVID-19 and psychosis risk: Real or delusional concern?

Historical epidemiological perspectives from past pandemics and recent neurobiological evidence link infections and psychoses, leading to concerns that COVID-19 will present a significant risk for the development of psychosis. But are these concerns justified, or mere sensationalism? In this article we review the historical associations between viral infection and the immune system more broadly in the development of psychosis, before critically evaluating the current evidence pertaining to SARS-CoV-2 and risk of psychosis as an acute or post-infectious manifestation of COVID-19. We review the 42 cases of psychosis reported in infected patients to date, and discuss the potential implications of in utero infection on subsequent neurodevelopment and psychiatric risk. Finally, in the context of the wider neurological and psychiatric manifestations of COVID-19 and our current understanding of the aetiology of psychotic disorders, we evaluate possible neurobiological and psychosocial mechanisms as well as the numerous challenges in ascribing a causal pathogenic role to the infection.