Biomarkers for Psychosis: Are We There Yet? Umbrella Review of 1478 Biomarkers

Abstract

Abstract Background and Hypothesis This umbrella review aims to comprehensively synthesize the evidence of association between peripheral, electrophysiological, neuroimaging, neuropathological, and other biomarkers and diagnosis of psychotic disorders. Study Design We selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies on diagnostic biomarkers for psychotic disorders, published until February 1, 2018. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Evidence of association between biomarkers and psychotic disorders was classified as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or non-significant, using a standardized classification. Quality analyses used the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Study Results The umbrella review included 110 meta-analyses or systematic reviews corresponding to 3892 individual studies, 1478 biomarkers, and 392 210 participants. No factor showed a convincing level of evidence. Highly suggestive evidence was observed for transglutaminase autoantibodies levels (odds ratio [OR] = 7.32; 95% CI: 3.36, 15.94), mismatch negativity in auditory event-related potentials (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.96), P300 component latency (SMD = −0.6; 95% CI: −0.83, −0.38), ventricle-brain ratio (SMD = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.71), and minor physical anomalies (SMD = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.64, 1.34). Suggestive evidence was observed for folate, malondialdehyde, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, homocysteine, P50 sensory gating (P50 S2/S1 ratio), frontal N-acetyl-aspartate, and high-frequency heart rate variability. Among the remaining biomarkers, weak evidence was found for 626 and a non-significant association for 833 factors. Conclusions While several biomarkers present highly suggestive or suggestive evidence of association with psychotic disorders, methodological biases, and underpowered studies call for future higher-quality research.