MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W70708278 · doi:10.1177/070674370505001413

Re: Drug-Induced Psychosis with Levetiracetam

2005· letter· en· W70708278 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marco Mula, Michael Trimble

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLevetiracetamLamotriginePsychiatryPsychosisEpilepsyMedicinePsychologyTopiramatePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor: We read with much interest the letter by Dr Bayerlein and others (1) describing a patient who developed an acute psychotic episode during treatment with levetiracetam (LEV). In their report, the authors quoted one of our works on psychiatric adverse events (PAEs) related to LEV (2), stating that lamotrigine (LTG) cotherapy was a risk factor for the occurrence of PAEs. We wish to point out that, in our paper, we showed that this combination was a favourable one and that patients taking LTG were less likely to develop PAEs (OR 0.40; 95%CI, 0.17 to 0.92)-probably because of its antidepressant properties. A previous study showed the same findings with other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) such as topiramate (3). Regarding the case presented by the authors, we regret to note that forced normalization (FN) was not taken into account among the possible hypotheses. Although this is a well-described phenomenon (4) with an increasing literature investigating its biological basis (5), some psychiatrists do not consider its occurrence in patients with epilepsy. This particular case is typical of one where FN may play a role. The phenomenon has been described with several AEDs, suggesting that it is more likely to be related to the clinical phenotype of the patient than to be a characteristic of the drug. In his original report, Landolt suggested that a subgroup of subjects with idiopathic generalized epilepsy could be at risk (4), and Tellenbach described alternative psychosis in patients with myoclonic epilepsy (6) like the case presented by Dr Bayerlein. Interestingly, we noted the same association in a previous study investigating the role of FN in topiramate-associated psychopathology (7). Moreover, in the presented case, seizures improved remarkably, although they were not completely suppressed. This is enough to consider that the hypothesis is plausible, according to recently suggested guidelines (8). Alternative psychoses are characterized by rapid onset and highly flourished symptoms with a short duration (usually, 1 week) followed by an almost complete remission after seizure reoccurrence or AED dosage reduction. There is no relation to the duration of AED therapy; it is seen mainly with an increase in dosage or a change in the AED regime. Thus patients who have been taking the drug for a long time may develop FN with the same drug, owing to such changes. In conclusion, the patient described by Dr Beyerlein and colleagues has several features that may make FN a reasonable hypothesis. We hope that clinicians will be more interested in this phenomenon to lead to a correct diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy of psychosis in epilepsy and to identify patients who may be studied in further research into the pathophysiology of psychosis in general and the psychosis of epilepsy in particular. References 1. Bayerlein K, Frieling H, Beyer B, Kornhuber J, Bleich S. Drug-induced psychosis after long-term treatment with levetiracetam. Can J Psychiatry 2004;49:868. 2. MuIa M, Trimble MR, Yuen A, Liu RS, Sander JW. Psychiatric adverse events during levetiracetam therapy. Neurology 2003;61:704-6. 3. MuIa M, Trimble MR, Lhatoo SD, Sander JW. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0130.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→