Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne
Departments of Medicine and Surgery, University of Melbourne and Department of Neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital
Neuropsychiatry Unit, Royal Melbourne Hospital
Royal Melbourne Hospital – Melbourne Health
St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne
Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
Correspondence: Sophia J. Adams, Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, The University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Level 2, John Cade Building, Melbourne, Australia. Email: Sophia.Adams{at}mh.org.au
S.J.A. was supported for 1 year by a UCB Pharma Neurosciences scholarship awarded by the Epilepsy Society of Australia in 2004.
|
|
|---|
Previous work has identified elevated prevalence rates for psychiatric disorders in individuals with medically refractory focal epilepsy, particularly temporal lobe epilepsy. Many studies were undertaken before the advent of video electroencephalogram monitoring (VEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Aims
To investigate which characteristics of the focal epilepsy syndromes are associated with the presence of depression or psychosis.
Method
Three hundred and nineteen individuals with focal epilepsy admitted for VEM were seen over an 11-year period. The lifetime history of depression and psychosis, epileptic site, laterality and type of lesion were determined by clinical assessment, VEM and MRI scan.
Results
There was a significant association between the prevalence of depressive symptoms and non-lesional focal epilepsy. There were no significant differences in prevalence of neuropsychiatric disorders between the groups with temporal lobe epilepsy and those with extratemporal lobe epilepsy.
Conclusions
These findings contrast with previous findings in smaller cohorts. The association between non-lesional focal epilepsy and depression may be due to the effects of a more diffuse epileptogenic area.
|
|
|---|
There is a lack of consistency in findings across studies reflecting methodological differences and changing diagnostic classifications within neurology and psychiatry. Studies differ in methods used for disease classification and case ascertainment. The majority of studies have been cross-sectional and retrospective. Sample sizes are generally less than 100 individuals. Only a few studies have accurate psychiatric diagnoses based on semi-structured patient interview.9,10 Many describe `psychopathology' in general11 or use rating scales. The subsequent heterogeneity of diagnostic categories hampers comparison.
It is generally accepted that individuals with focal epilepsy exhibit higher rates of psychopathology compared with those with generalised epilepsy, neurological control groups, people with chronic non-neurological disorders and the general population.6,12 Reported prevalence rates for mental illness in those with medically refractory focal epilepsy are 44–88%.4 Depression and psychosis constitute the two most investigated and clinically relevant psychiatric disorders in people with focal epilepsy. There is also more recent evidence that the relationships between depression, psychosis and seizures may be more complex than previously imagined. Depression has been associated with the development of later seizures.13 A family history of epilepsy has been associated with the development of both epilepsy and psychotic disorders.14
Owing to the lack of recent research, our view of the relationship between psychopathology and epilepsy is dependent on increasingly less comparable literature. This may in part account for the ongoing lack of consensus regarding specific associations between temporal lobe epilepsy and psychiatric disorders,15–17 psychosis18 or depression.19–21 Issues which remain unresolved include whether individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy are at greater risk of developing psychiatric disorders than those with other forms of focal epilepsy,11 and whether the focal laterality or the presence of a defined lesion influence psychopathology. It has been suggested that the issue will not be resolved until data from large series of well-categorised individuals can be collected and studied.7 The current study seeks to redress this historical dissociation by investigating a large series of participants with focal epilepsy who have well-defined epilepsy semiology using VEM, MRI and detailed assessment of the psychiatric history.
|
|
|---|
All individuals (n=482) admitted over the study period with a discharge diagnosis of focal epilepsy were reviewed by examination of their medical record, discharge letters and discussion with their treating epileptologists. Ethical approval for this retrospective audit of patient files was obtained from the human research and ethics committee of the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Fifty-four individuals were excluded because of insufficient evidence for focal epilepsy. Of the 428 individuals confirmed to have focal epilepsy, 319 had undergone a clinical neuropsychiatric assessment at the time of their epilepsy assessment. Information regarding individuals' demographic data, neuropsychiatric diagnoses, epilepsy classification, seizure laterality and MRI findings were collated.
Neurological assessment and classification of focal epilepsy type
All in-patient comprehensive epilepsy evaluations consisted of a thorough
clinical history, continuous VEM over 1–3 weeks for seizure location and
1.5 T MRI epilepsy protocol brain scans, which included whole brain coronally
acquired volumetric
seizures.22 Where
clinically indicated, single photon emission tomograhy (SPECT) and
fluorodexyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG–PET) studies were
also performed to clarify the epileptic focus. There were no changes in MRI
procedures and in the scanner used over the time of this study. A consensus
neurological diagnosis, informed by the International League Against Epilepsy
classification
system,23 was
determined at a weekly epilepsy clinical review meeting attended by three
epileptologists, the neuropsychiatrist (J.L.), a neuropsychologist, epilepsy
fellows, electroencephalogram (EEG) technicians and a neuroradiologist.
The focal epilepsies were divided into temporal lobe epilepsy and extratemporal lobe epilepsy. The group with temporal lobe epilepsy were further classified into the following three diagnostic subgroups: mesial temporal lobe epilepsy, who had mesial temporal sclerosis on MRI and an ipsilateral focus on VEM; non-lesional temporal lobe epilepsy, who had no imaging evidence of pathology but a clear temporal localisation on VEM; and lesional temporal lobe epilepsy when there was an epileptogenic lesion in the temporal lobe on MRI (other than mesial temporal sclerosis, i.e. `foreign tissue lesion') and an ipsilateral focus on VEM. The extratemporal lobe epilepsy group was divided into those with and without an epileptogenic lesion on MRI. The laterality of the epilepsy was determined by agreement between the inter-ictal, ictal EEG findings and any pathology seen on MRI and where available PET and/or SPECT.
Seven individuals with extratemporal lobe epilepsy were excluded because of missing MRI data. This left 312 participants in the study. Laterality could not be ascertained in eight people on the VEM and these were therefore excluded from the analysis of laterality.
Neuropsychiatric assessments
All people with focal epilepsy admitted for VEM were routinely referred for
neuropsychiatry assessments. However, because of time limitations and
neuropsychiatrist leave not all were assessed. The group assessed were more
likely to have temporal lobe epilepsy (
2=7.7,
P<0.05) than any other diagnosis but did not differ significantly
from those not assessed by age, gender, laterality of focal site or whether
they later had neurosurgery.
The aims of the assessment were to identify clinically relevant psychiatric morbidity which may impact upon treatment or confound the neurological presentation. They were undertaken at the time of neurological assessment by a senior neuropsychiatrist who interviewed the participants and sought corroborative history where appropriate. A minority were performed by other neuropsychiatrists directly under his supervision, including D.V. and S.J.A. The neuropsychiatric assessments, including a neuropsychiatric formulation and diagnoses informed by DSM–IV diagnostic criteria,24 were thorough and documented in detail at the time of assessment. The assessment was completed and documented prior to the clinical review meeting in which the epilepsy diagnosis was made.
All neuropsychiatric assessments were collated after the study period and reviewed by a second neuropsychiatrist using a standardised pro forma to record information. The review of these assessments focused on the identification of past or current history of depression and past or current history of psychosis, including post-ictal psychoses and interictal psychoses but excluding ictal psychoses which were temporally related to the occurrence of the seizure. Other minor psychiatric phenomena occurring peri-ictally were not included.
Eleven of the neuropsychiatric assessments were reviewed by a third clinician using the same criteria, with 88% concordance in these diagnoses. Ten neuropsychiatric assessments were re-examined 12 months after the original file review by the second neuropsychiatrist with a diagnostic concordance of 100%.
Statistical analyses
We undertook the following analyses to ascertain the relationship between
psychiatric diagnoses and epilepsy groups:
|
|
|---|
The basic demographic and clinical details for each of the epilepsy syndromes is given in Table 1. Non-mesial temporal sclerosis lesions were detected on the MRI in 100 (32.1%) participants where lesional epilepsy could be determined. The nature of these lesions were tumours, benign, malignant and dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumours (n=23), encephalomalacia (n=26), cavernomas (n=10), dysplasias and other developmental abnormalities (n=29) and others (n=12) including dermoid and epidermoid cysts and arteriovenous malformations.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
Table 1 Descriptive demographics of epilepsy groups
|
Prevalence of any psychiatric disorder
Fifty-eight per cent of participants were diagnosed as having a current or
past history of a psychiatric disorder, with some individuals meeting the
criteria for more than one disorder. The nature of the psychiatric disorder
was depression in 32.6%, psychosis in 7.2% and other psychiatric disorders in
36.1%. The other psychiatric disorders included anxiety in 6.9%, substance
misuse or dependence in 3.1%, somatoform disorders in 4.7%, personality
disorders in 13.8%, more than one psychiatric diagnosis in 4.7% and other
disorders in 2.8%. Individuals in this `other psychiatric disorders' group
were evenly spread between the epilepsy subgroups. Rates for depression,
psychosis and other psychiatric diagnoses did not differ significantly between
males and females.
There were no significant differences in the prevalence of any psychiatric
disorder between groups with temporal lobe epilepsy (57%) v.
extratemporal lobe epilepsy (62.1%) (
2=0.58, P=0.49).
People with non-lesional epilepsy (both temporal and extratemporal lobe
epilepsy groups) had a significantly higher prevalence of psychiatric
disorders (69.2%) than those with lesional epilepsy (mesial, temporal and
extratemporal lobe epilepsy groups) (52.9%) (
2=7.0,
P=0.008). When the individuals with lesions were subdivided into
those with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (50.4%) and non-mesial temporal
sclerosis lesions (temporal and extratemporal lobe epilepsy groups) (56%) and
the groups compared individually with the non-lesional group, both had a lower
prevalence of psychiatric disorders than those with non-lesional focal
epilepsy (temporal and extratemporal lobe epilepsy groups)(69.2%)
(
2= 7.7, P=0.021).
There was no statistical association between the prevalence of a
psychiatric diagnosis with the laterality of the seizure focus (right 56.3%,
left 61%, bilateral 54.5%) (
2=0.8, P=0.7). There were
no significant differences in the prevalence of any psychiatric disorder
between patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (57%) v. extratemporal
lobe epilepsy (62.1%) (
2=0.58, P=0.49). People with
non-lesional epilepsy (both temporal and extratemporal lobe epilepsy groups)
had a significantly higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders (69.2%) than
those with lesional epilepsy (mesial temporal sclerosis lobe epilepsy,
lesional temporal lobe epilepsy, and lesional extratemporal lobe epilepsy
groups; 52.9%) (
2=7.07, P=0.008).
Logistic regression analysis identified lesional v. non-lesional epilepsy as the only independent variable to be related statistically to the diagnosis of a psychiatric illness (P=0.006) (Table 2). A contrast comparing lesional focal epilepsy with non-lesional focal epilepsy was significant (P=0.002). The odds of any psychiatric diagnosis for those with non-lesional focal epilepsy were 2.4 times the odds for individuals with lesional focal epilepsy. There were no statistical differences according to whether the lesion was mesial temporal sclerosis or another lesion, or according to laterality of the seizure focus.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
Table 2 Logistic regression analysis for any psychiatric diagnosis and
depression
|
Prevalence of depressive symptoms
The results for past or current depressive symptoms were similar to the
results for any psychiatric diagnosis. There were no significant differences
in the prevalence of depression between individuals with temporal lobe
epilepsy (31.2%) and extratemporal lobe epilepsy (37.9%) (
2
=1.06, P=0.3), nor between those with right-sided (32.6%), left-sided
(33.1%) or bilateral (31.8%) laterality (
2=0.2,
P=0.99). Groups with non-lesional focal epilepsy exhibited a higher
prevalence of depression (41.6%) compared with those with a lesion on MRI
(mesial temporal lobe epilepsy, temporal and extratemporal lobe epilepsy
groups) (28.5%) (
2=5.17, P=0.03). There was no
significant difference in the rate of depression between individuals with
mesial temporal sclerosis (26.4%) and those with other types of focal lesions
in the temporal lobe (27.6%) (
2=0.026, P=0.86).
Logistic regression analysis confirmed a diagnosis of depression was best predicted by non-lesional epilepsy (P=0.04) when site of seizure onset, lesional epilepsy and laterality were included in the model (Table 2). This was confirmed by examining lesional epilepsy compared with non-lesional epilepsy (P=0.01). The odds of a diagnosis of depression for those with non-lesional focal epilepsy were nearly double the odds for those with lesional focal epilepsy (OR=1.96, 95% CI 1.16–3.31) A diagnosis of depression was not predicted by whether the focus was temporal or extratemporal (P=0.5). Furthermore, there was no statistical difference between rates of depression in those with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy compared with other lesions (P=0.6). A diagnosis of depression was not predicted by site of seizure onset or the laterality of focus.
To determine if depression was the most important factor in the association of non-lesional epilepsy with `any psychiatric diagnosis', the analyses were repeated with all individuals with depression excluded. This analysis did not show any association between the independent variables and no longer showed significant differences for non-lesional epilepsy. This indicates that the major contributor to the pattern of results from the first set of analyses (for `any psychiatric diagnosis') was a history of depressive symptoms.
Prevalence of psychosis
There were no significant relationships between any of the epilepsy
variables and a history of past or current psychotic symptoms. The analyses
comparing temporal lobe epilepsy with extratemporal lobe epilepsy, lesional
compared with non-lesional focal epilepsy, mesial temporal sclerosis compared
with other lesional and non-lesional focal epilepsy and the laterality of the
seizure focus revealed no associations on univariate
2
analysis. Logistic regression similarly showed no significant association for
any of the variables (Table
3).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
Table 3 Logistic regression analysis for psychosis and personality
disorders
|
|
|
|---|
First, the prevalence of psychiatric disorder does not differ between people with temporal lobe epilepsy and extratemporal lobe epilepsy. Furthermore, individuals with medial temporal lobe epilepsy did not exhibit higher rates of psychiatric diagnoses when compared with those with other temporal lobe epilepsy (i.e. non-lesional temporal lobe epilepsy) or extratemporal lobe epilepsy. This finding is in keeping with a number of studies over the years which have failed to confirm the commonly held view that there is a specific association between temporal lobe epilepsy and psychopathology15–17 but in contrast to commonly accepted clinical practise. Second, people with no identified lesion on MRI were more likely to have a current or lifetime history of depression. This finding was independent of whether the seizure focus was temporal or extratemporal. Third, psychiatric diagnoses were not related to whether the site of the epilepsy focus was right-sided, left-sided or bilateral.
Studies that have identified higher prevalence rates of psychopathology in temporal lobe epilepsy in general did not employ MRI and VEM for epilepsy diagnosis and had smaller numbers of participants than our study.25–27
We were not able to confirm the findings of Quiske et al who found significantly higher depression scores on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)28 in people with mesial temporal sclerosis compared with those with lesions in other temporal neocortical regions.29 Their paper excluded individuals with extratemporal lobe epilepsy and non-lesional focal epilepsy, comparing people with temporal lobe epilepsy and mesial temporal sclerosis with those with temporal lobe epilepsy and neocortical lesions. However, when we performed a similar analysis on our cohort, mesial temporal lobe epilepsy v. lesional temporal lobe epilepsy, we found no statistical differences in rates of psychiatric disorders. There are a number of differences in the studies which may account for this discrepancy. Our sample size was larger (i.e. 179 people, of whom 121 had mesial temporal lobe epilepsy and 58 had lesional temporal lobe epilepsy) than that of the previous study (i.e. 60 people, of whom 43 had mesial temporal sclerosis and 16 had neocortical temporal lesions), making the chance of a Type II error less likely. As our data were undertaken prospectively for clinical purposes we do not have BDI scores. Although clinical assessment is likely to be more accurate in this population than a BDI, they are not equivalent assessments. Also, owing to data collection limitations we have both mesial and neocortical `alien tissue' lesions within our lesional temporal lobe epilepsy group. This may obscure a true difference dependent on site within the temporal lobe rather than the nature of the pathology. In addition, the mesial temporal sclerosis group in the Quiske study had a significantly earlier seizure onset and longer duration of illness than their neocortical lesional group. If mesial temporal sclerosis and other focal epilepsies are progressive conditions,30 psychiatric progression may explain the increased incidence of depression in this particular mesial temporal sclerosis group. Unfortunately we were unable to test for such an association in our cohort, because of lack of availability of reliable data about epilepsy onset.
The association between depression and non-lesional epilepsy, regardless of whether the individual had temporal or extratemporal lobe epilepsy, is a novel finding that has not previously been reported. Psychosis rather than depression is usually associated with the presence or absence of lesions. It has been generally accepted from neuropathological studies that foreign tissue lesions may have higher rates of psychosis than mesial temporal sclerosis31 and that lesions of perinatal origin may be especially relevant.32 Although there is no study looking at the importance of lesional v. non-lesional epilepsy in depression, there are several compelling reasons to do so. First, such an approach classifies the participants according to the nature of the underlying epileptogenic pathology. Second, Roberts et al did not investigate a relationship between groups with and without lesions and depression.32 The failure of previous studies to investigate whether there is an association between having either lesional or non-lesional epilepsy and psychopathology is understandable given that the majority of studies have tried to understand psychopathology by investigating the site of the seizure focus. The results of this study suggest that the nature of the underlying pathological abnormality may be of greater significance than its localisation. We found no association between the focal site and the prevalence of psychiatric illness.
Although the current study identifies a relationship between the prevalence of depression and non-lesional focal epilepsy, the neurobiological basis of this finding remains speculative. The non-lesional group may represent individuals with subtle diffuse changes or lesions not detectable on MRI (owing to resolution limitations). Supportive of the proposition that these individuals have more diffuse pathology is the more widespread PET hypometabolism seen in those with temporal lobe epilepsy without an MRI lesion compared with those with mesial temporal sclerosis.33 Furthermore, the literature suggests that more extensive functional impairment is associated with the presence of psychiatric disorders. People with epilepsy and with depression34,35 and psychosis,36 compared with those without psychiatric comorbidity, have more extensive functional imaging changes in cerebral regions such as the frontal lobes. While focal lesions may result in the complete interruption of neuronal connections at the site of the lesion, diffuse pathology may result in more widespread disruption of frontolimbic pathways.32 If people with non-lesional epilepsy have more extensive functional impairment than those with lesional focal epilepsy, this may account for the increased rates of depression. If confirmed, this finding would have potential implications for the management and rehabilitation of these people.
We did not identify any significant associations between the epilepsy subgroups and the prevalence of psychosis, nor did we replicate the previously reported findings of increased rates of psychosis in those with lesions despite investigating similar numbers of participants.32 It must be acknowledged that small numbers in all studies make conclusions in this context difficult to establish.
Strengths
Strengths of the current study relate to the use of VEM and MRI to
ascertain focal epilepsy type, the large sample size across focal epilepsy
subtypes, the inclusion of individuals with extratemporal and non-lesional
focal epilepsy. The use of clinical neuropsychiatric assessments to identify
psychiatric morbidity may be considered a limitation of the study compared
with studies which use standardised diagnostic tools. However, clinical
neuropsychiatric assessments in our service are more thorough and more likely
to detect atypical symptoms that a standardised rating scale. Full
neuropsychiatric formulation is generally accepted to be the gold standard for
psychiatric diagnosis. Given that the aim of the study was to identify
clinically relevant psychiatric diagnoses in a large cohort of individuals
with focal epilepsy, the availability of clinical assessments by a single
experienced neuropsychiatrist over an 11-year period is unique in the
literature, with respect to the number of individuals assessed, the depth of a
clinical assessment and the continuity of assessment. Clinical interview by an
experienced clinician may be a more valid diagnostic tool in this population
given the atypical nature of psychiatric presentations and the recognised
deficiencies of DSM diagnostic
criteria.37
Limitations
There are several limitations in this study which are inherent in
retrospective studies of clinical populations. First, despite studying a large
cohort, the numbers in some individual subgroups, especially those with
psychosis, are relatively small. This limitation is not unique to our study.
Most studies investigating the psychoses of epilepsy have similar
numbers.6,18,32
Second, the retrospective design did not allow the standardised assessment of variables previously associated with psychiatric comorbidity such as the effects of antiepileptic medication, duration of illness, presence of febrile convulsions or frequency and clustering of seizures.
Third, there are inevitable elements of selection bias in our series. All
individuals were referred to a tertiary treating centre with medically
refractory focal epilepsy and can therefore only be seen as representative of
those with chronic illness. In addition, although all individual who were
admitted were referred, not all were seen by the neuropsychiatrist. While our
review of the medical files suggests that neuropsychiatrist leave was
responsible for non-assessments, the possibility remains that individuals
perceived by referrers to have psychiatric illness may have been
preferentially referred. In addition, participants admitted with temporal lobe
epilepsy for surgery may also have been preferentially referred. In order to
address this issue we undertook a sensitivity (or intention to treat) style
analysis including all individuals in the cohort and presuming those not seen
had no psychiatric diagnosis. Those with temporal lobe epilepsy and
extratemporal lobe epilepsy were then compared again for a psychiatric
diagnosis and again there was no significant difference found between rates
(
2=0.582, P=0.446). We conclude therefore that this
mild assessment imbalance has not artificially hidden a real difference
between these groups in rates of psychiatric illness. Importantly, the
neuropsychiatric assessment was undertaken prior to the epilepsy clinical
review meeting in which the participants' epilepsy syndromes were classified
and thus was formulated without knowledge of the formal focal epilepsy
diagnosis.
The use of VEM and MRI to identify focal epilepsy type in a large number of individuals has allowed us to re-evaluate many of the previously reported associations of psychiatric disorders and focal epilepsy. The study has failed to confirm associations between depression and male gender, left-sided laterality or mesial temporal sclerosis. We did not identify any associations between the prevalence of psychosis or personality disorders and focal epilepsy subtypes.
The study's novel finding was of increased rates of depression in non-lesional focal epilepsy, independent of the lobe of seizure focus. We hypothesise that this association is related to the presence of a more diffuse underlying epileptogenic pathogenic process in these individuals. Further clarification of these issues will have significant clinical implications for people with focal epilepsy and may potentially influence our understanding of the underlying neurobiology of major psychiatric illnesses such as psychosis and depression.
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Related articles in BJP:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||