Search

Background: While cannabis use is a well-established risk factor for psychosis, little is known about any association between reasons for first using cannabis (RFUC) and later patterns of use and risk of psychosis. Methods: We used data from 11 sites of the multicentre European Gene-Environment Interaction (EU-GEI) case–control study. 558 first-episode psychosis patients (FEPp) and 567 population controls who had used cannabis and reported their RFUC. We ran logistic regressions to examine whether RFUC were associated with first-episode psychosis (FEP) case–control status. Path analysis then examined the relationship between RFUC, subsequent patterns of cannabis use, and case–control status. Results: Controls (86.1%) and FEPp (75.63%) were most likely to report 'because of friends' as their most common RFUC. However, 20.1% of FEPp compared to 5.8% of controls reported: 'to feel better' as their RFUC (χ2 = 50.97; p < 0.001). RFUC 'to feel better' was associated with being a FEPp (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.03–2.95) while RFUC 'with friends' was associated with being a control (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37–0.83). The path model indicated an association between RFUC 'to feel better' with heavy cannabis use and with FEPp-control status. Conclusions: Both FEPp and controls usually started using cannabis with their friends, but more patients than controls had begun to use 'to feel better'. People who reported their reason for first using cannabis to 'feel better' were more likely to progress to heavy use and develop a psychotic disorder than those reporting 'because of friends'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Child maltreatment (CM) and migrant status are independently associated with psychosis. We examined prevalence of CM by migrant status and tested whether migrant status moderated the association between CM and first-episode psychosis (FEP). We further explored whether differences in CM exposure contributed to variations in the incidence rates of FEP by migrant status. Methods: We included FEP patients aged 18–64 years in 14 European sites and recruited controls representative of the local populations. Migrant status was operationalized according to generation (first/further) and region of origin (Western/non-Western countries). The reference population was composed by individuals of host country's ethnicity. CM was assessed with Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Prevalence ratios of CM were estimated using Poisson regression. We examined the moderation effect of migrant status on the odds of FEP by CM fitting adjusted logistic regressions with interaction terms. Finally, we calculated the population attributable fractions (PAFs) for CM by migrant status. Results: We examined 849 FEP cases and 1142 controls. CM prevalence was higher among migrants, their descendants and migrants of non-Western heritage. Migrant status, classified by generation (likelihood test ratio:χ2 = 11.3, p = 0.004) or by region of origin (likelihood test ratio:χ2 = 11.4, p = 0.003), attenuated the association between CM and FEP. PAFs for CM were higher among all migrant groups compared with the reference populations. Conclusions: The higher exposure to CM, despite a smaller effect on the odds of FEP, accounted for a greater proportion of incident FEP cases among migrants. Policies aimed at reducing CM should consider the increased vulnerability of specific subpopulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Schizophrenia (SZ), bipolar disorder (BD) and depression (D) run in families. This susceptibility is partly due to hundreds or thousands of common genetic variants, each conferring a fractional risk. The cumulative effects of the associated variants can be summarised as a polygenic risk score (PRS). Using data from the EUropean Network of national schizophrenia networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) first episode case–control study, we aimed to test whether PRSs for three major psychiatric disorders (SZ, BD, D) and for intelligent quotient (IQ) as a neurodevelopmental proxy, can discriminate affective psychosis (AP) from schizophrenia-spectrum disorder (SSD). Methods: Participants (842 cases, 1284 controls) from 16 European EU-GEI sites were successfully genotyped following standard quality control procedures. The sample was stratified based on genomic ancestry and analyses were done only on the subsample representing the European population (573 cases, 1005 controls). Using PRS for SZ, BD, D, and IQ built from the latest available summary statistics, we performed simple or multinomial logistic regression models adjusted for 10 principal components for the different clinical comparisons. Results: In case–control comparisons PRS-SZ, PRS-BD and PRS-D distributed differentially across psychotic subcategories. In case–case comparisons, both PRS-SZ [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–0.92] and PRS-D (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.06–1.61) differentiated AP from SSD; and within AP categories, only PRS-SZ differentiated BD from psychotic depression (OR = 2.14, 95% CI 1.23–3.74). Conclusions: Combining PRS for severe psychiatric disorders in prediction models for psychosis phenotypes can increase discriminative ability and improve our understanding of these phenotypes. Our results point towards the potential usefulness of PRSs in specific populations such as high-risk or early psychosis phases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Hypothesis It is argued that availability of diagnostic models will facilitate a more rapid identification of individuals who are at a higher risk of first episode psychosis (FEP). Therefore, we developed, evaluated, and validated a diagnostic risk estimation model to classify individual with FEP and controls across six countries. Study Design We used data from a large multi-center study encompassing 2627 phenotypically well-defined participants (aged 18–64 years) recruited from six countries spanning 17 research sites, as part of the European Network of National Schizophrenia Networks Studying Gene-Environment Interactions study. To build the diagnostic model and identify which of important factors for estimating an individual risk of FEP, we applied a binary logistic model with regularization by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator. The model was validated employing the internal-external cross-validation approach. The model performance was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration, sensitivity, and specificity. Study Results Having included preselected 22 predictor variables, the model was able to discriminate adults with FEP and controls with high accuracy across all six countries (rangesAUROC = 0.84–0.86). Specificity (range = 73.9–78.0%) and sensitivity (range = 75.6–79.3%) were equally good, cumulatively indicating an excellent model accuracy; though, calibration slope for the diagnostic model showed a presence of some overfitting when applied specifically to participants from France, the UK, and The Netherlands. Conclusions The new FEP model achieved a good discrimination and good calibration across six countries with different ethnic contributions supporting its robustness and good generalizability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psychosis rates are higher among some migrant groups. We hypothesized that psychosis in migrants is associated with cumulative social disadvantage during different phases of migration. Methods: We used data from the EUropean Network of National Schizophrenia Networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) case–control study. We defined a set of three indicators of social disadvantage for each phase: pre-migration, migration and post-migration. We examined whether social disadvantage in the pre- and post-migration phases, migration adversities, and mismatch between achievements and expectations differed between first-generation migrants with first-episode psychosis and healthy first-generation migrants, and tested whether this accounted for differences in odds of psychosis in multivariable logistic regression models. Results: In total, 249 cases and 219 controls were assessed. Pre-migration (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.06–2.44, p = 0.027) and post-migration social disadvantages (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.02–3.51, p = 0.044), along with expectations/achievements mismatch (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03–1.26, p = 0.014) were all significantly associated with psychosis. Migration adversities (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.672–2.06, p = 0.568) were not significantly related to the outcome. Finally, we found a dose–response effect between the number of adversities across all phases and odds of psychosis (⩾6: OR 14.09, 95% CI 2.06–96.47, p = 0.007). Conclusions: The cumulative effect of social disadvantages before, during and after migration was associated with increased odds of psychosis in migrants, independently of ethnicity or length of stay in the country of arrival. Public health initiatives that address the social disadvantages that many migrants face during the whole migration process and post-migration psychological support may reduce the excess of psychosis in migrants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence suggests the incidence of non-affective psychotic disorders (NAPDs) varies across persons and places, but data from the Global South is scarce. We aimed to estimate the treated incidence of NAPD in Chile, and variance by person, place and time. Methods: We used national register data from Chile including all people, 10–65 years, with the first episode of NAPD (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision: F20–F29) between 1 January 2005 and 29 August 2018. Denominators were estimated from Chilean National Census data. Our main outcome was treated incidence of NAPD and age group, sex, calendar year and regional-level population density, multidimensional poverty and latitude were exposures of interest. Results: We identified 32 358 NAPD cases [12 136 (39.5%) women; median age-at-first-contact: 24 years (interquartile range 18–39 years)] during 171.1 million person-years [crude incidence: 18.9 per 100 000 person-years; 95% confidence interval (CI) 18.7–19.1]. Multilevel Poisson regression identified a strong age–sex interaction in incidence, with rates peaking in men (57.6 per 100 000 person-years; 95% CI 56.0–59.2) and women (29.5 per 100 000 person-years; 95% CI 28.4–30.7) between 15 and 19 years old. Rates also decreased (non-linearly) over time for women, but not men. We observed a non-linear association with multidimensional poverty and latitude, with the highest rates in the poorest regions and those immediately south of Santiago; no association with regional population density was observed. Conclusion: Our findings inform the aetiology of NAPDs, replicating typical associations with age, sex and multidimensional poverty in a Global South context. The absence of association with population density suggests this risk may be context-dependent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ethnic minority groups in Western countries face an increased risk of psychotic disorders. Causes of this long-standing public health inequality remain poorly understood. We investigated whether social disadvantage, linguistic distance and discrimination contributed to these patterns. Methods: We used case–control data from the EUropean network of national schizophrenia networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) study, carried out in 16 centres in six countries. We recruited 1130 cases and 1497 population-based controls. Our main outcome measure was first-episode ICD-10 psychotic disorder (F20–F33), and exposures were ethnicity (white majority, black, mixed, Asian, North-African, white minority and other), generational status, social disadvantage, linguistic distance and discrimination. Age, sex, paternal age, cannabis use, childhood trauma and parental history of psychosis were included as a priori confounders. Exposures and confounders were added sequentially to multivariable logistic models, following multiple imputation for missing data. Results: Participants from any ethnic minority background had crude excess odds of psychosis [odds ratio (OR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69–2.43], which remained after adjustment for confounders (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.31–1.98). This was progressively attenuated following further adjustment for social disadvantage (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22–1.89) and linguistic distance (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.95–1.57), a pattern mirrored in several specific ethnic groups. Linguistic distance and social disadvantage had stronger effects for first- and later-generation groups, respectively. Conclusion: Social disadvantage and linguistic distance, two potential markers of sociocultural exclusion, were associated with increased odds of psychotic disorder, and adjusting for these led to equivocal risk between several ethnic minority groups and the white majority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychotic patients with a lifetime history of cannabis use generally show better cognitive functioning than other psychotic patients. Some authors suggest that cannabis-using patients may have been less cognitively impaired and less socially withdrawn in their premorbid life. Using a dataset comprising 948 patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP) and 1313 population controls across 6 countries, we examined the extent to which IQ and both early academic (Academic Factor [AF]) and social adjustment (Social Factor [SF]) are related to the lifetime frequency of cannabis use in both patients and controls. We expected a higher IQ and a better premorbid social adjustment in psychotic patients who had ever used cannabis compared to patients without any history of use. We did not expect such differences in controls. In both patients and controls, IQ was 3 points higher among occasional-users than in never-users (mean difference [Mdiff] = 2.9, 95% CI = [1.2, 4.7]). Both cases and control daily-users had lower AF compared to occasional (Mdiff = −0.3, 95% CI = [−0.5; −0.2]) and never-users (Mdiff = −0.4, 95% CI = [−0.6; −0.2]). Finally, patient occasional (Mdiff = 0.3, 95% CI = [0.1; 0.5]) and daily-users (Mdiff = 0.4, 95% CI = [0.2; 0.6]) had better SF than their never-using counterparts. This difference was not present in controls (F group*frequency(2, 2205) = 4.995, P =.007). Our findings suggest that the better premorbid social functioning of FEP with a history of cannabis use may have contributed to their likelihood to begin using cannabis, exposing them to its reported risk-increasing effects for Psychotic Disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]