Occurrence of Psychosis and Bipolar Disorder in Individuals With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treated With Stimulants
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may present with psychosis or bipolar disorder (BD) following treatment with stimulants. The extent to which this occurs is currently unclear. Objective: To meta-analytically quantify the occurrence of psychosis or BD after exposure to stimulants in individuals with ADHD and assess possible moderating factors. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid/PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Reviews were searched from inception until October 1, 2024, without language restrictions. Study Selection: Studies of any design with DSM or International Classification of Diseases-defined ADHD populations exposed to stimulants, where psychosis or BD outcomes were evaluated. Data Extraction and Synthesis: PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and MOOSE Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed, the protocol was registered, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane risk of bias-2 tool were used for quality appraisal. Random-effects meta-analysis, subgroup analyses, and meta-regressions were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the proportion of individuals developing psychotic symptoms, psychotic disorders, and BD, effect sizes are reported as percentages with 95% CIs. For the comparison between amphetamines and methylphenidate, effect sizes are presented as odds ratios with 95% CIs. Results: Sixteen studies (N = 391 043; mean [range] age, 12.6 [8.5-31.1] years; 288 199 [73.7%] male) were eligible. Among individuals with ADHD prescribed stimulants, 2.76% (95% CI, 0.73-9.88; k = 10; n = 237 035), 2.29% (95% CI, 1.52-3.40; k = 4; n = 91 437), and 3.72% (95% CI, 0.77-16.05; k = 4; n = 92 945) developed psychotic symptoms, a psychotic disorder, and BD, respectively. Heterogeneity across the studies was significant (I2 > 95%). Psychosis occurrence risk was significantly higher in individuals exposed to amphetamines than to methylphenidate (odds ratio [OR], 1.57, 95% CI, 1.15-2.16; k = 3, n = 231 325). Subgroup analyses showed significantly higher prevalence of psychotic symptoms in studies from North America and in those with longer follow-up periods. Increased psychosis occurrence was associated with a higher proportion of female participants, smaller sample sizes, and higher dose of stimulants. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found a nonnegligible occurrence of psychotic symptoms, psychotic disorders, or BD in individuals with ADHD treated with stimulants. Amphetamines were associated with higher occurrence compared to methylphenidate. The included studies cannot establish causality, highlighting the need for further research, including randomized clinical trials and mirror-image studies comparing individuals exposed and not exposed to stimulants. Nonetheless, clinicians should inform patients about the increased occurrence of psychosis or BD when discussing stimulant pharmacotherapy and systematically monitor for these conditions throughout treatment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,036 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,019 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».