Exploring genetic risk for catatonia in a genome wide association study and polygenic risk score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Catatonia is an under-recognized disorder characterized by psychomotor (increased, decreased, or abnormal) changes, affective symptoms, and disturbance of volition, which may arise in the setting of decompensated psychiatric or non-psychiatric medical disorders. Genetic studies of catatonia are limited, and to the best of our knowledge no prior genome wide association studies of catatonia have been performed to date. METHODS: First we performed a genome wide association study of catatonia regardless of etiology (psychiatric or non-psychiatric). Secondarily we evaluated whether there was an elevated genetic risk profile for predisposing psychiatric disorders (schizophrenia spectrum disorder, bipolar affective disorder, etc.) in patients with catatonia. We used a matched case control design and applied polygenic risk scores to evaluate for a shared polygenetic contribution to catatonia from common psychiatric phenotypes that show a high prevalence of catatonia in their decompensated states. RESULTS: Anxiety, bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorder and cross disorder polygenic risk scores were significantly associated with catatonia case status in both unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models for the European Ancestry set even after correcting for multiple comparisons. Depression, Alzheimer's, Autism Spectrum Disorder and Obsessive Disorder polygenic risk scores were not significantly associated with catatonia status in participants of European Ancestry. In the African Ancestry set, no psychiatric polygenic risk scores were significantly associated with catatonia status in either the unadjusted or adjusted regression models. CONCLUSIONS: Even after controlling for relevant covariates, anxiety, bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorder and cross disorders were significantly associated with catatonia status suggesting that there might be a shared genetic risk for those disorders amongst patients with catatonia.

Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98.

BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fifth edition (DSM-5) provides new criteria for delirium diagnosis. We examined delirium diagnosis using these new criteria compared with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fourth edition (DSM-IV) in a large dataset of patients assessed for delirium and related presentations. METHODS: Patient data (n = 768) from six prospectively collected cohorts, clinically assessed using DSM-IV and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98), were pooled. Post hoc application of DRS-R98 item scores were used to rate DSM-5 criteria. 'Strict' and 'relaxed' DSM-5 criteria to ascertain delirium were compared to rates determined by DSM-IV. RESULTS: Using DSM-IV by clinical assessment, delirium was found in 510/768 patients (66%). Strict DSM-5 criteria categorized 158 as delirious including 155 (30%) with DSM-IV delirium, whereas relaxed DSM-5 criteria identified 466 as delirious, including 455 (89%) diagnosed by DSM-IV (P <0.001). The concordance between the different diagnostic methods was: 53% (ĸ = 0.22) between DSM-IV and the strict DSM-5, 91% (ĸ = 0.82) between the DSM-IV and relaxed DSM-5 criteria and 60% (ĸ = 0.29) between the strict versus relaxed DSM-5 criteria. Only 155 cases were identified as delirium by all three approaches. The 55 (11%) patients with DSM-IV delirium who were not rated as delirious by relaxed criteria had lower mean DRS-R98 total scores than those rated as delirious (13.7 ± 3.9 versus 23.7 ± 6.0; P <0.001). Conversely, mean DRS-R98 score (21.1 ± 6.4) for the 70% not rated as delirious by strict DSM-5 criteria was consistent with suggested cutoff scores for full syndromal delirium. Only 11 cases met DSM-5 criteria that were not deemed to have DSM-IV delirium. CONCLUSIONS: The concordance between DSM-IV and the new DSM-5 delirium criteria varies considerably depending on the interpretation of criteria. Overly-strict adherence for some new text details in DSM-5 criteria would reduce the number of delirium cases diagnosed; however, a more 'relaxed' approach renders DSM-5 criteria comparable to DSM-IV with minimal impact on their actual application and is thus recommended.