Association between stroke and psychosis across four nationally representative psychiatric epidemiological studies

Introduction

Stroke and active psychosis are independently considered to cause some of the highest levels of disability among health conditions, meaning their combination is likely to result in severely debilitating outcomes for affected individuals. To add to the complexity, initial evidence suggests that the most common treatment for psychosis in stroke-affected individuals (antipsychotics) may increase mortality in this patient group (Su et al., 2021).

Despite the clear need for better evidence to inform care for affected patients, the first systematic review, and indeed the first review, dedicated to stroke and psychosis was only published in 2018 and focused specifically on poststroke psychosis (Stangeland et al., 2018). However, it is important to note that the association between stroke and psychosis extends beyond cases of poststroke psychosis and also includes those who have a preceding history of psychosis and are later affected by stroke. Indeed, people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are at an increased risk of stroke and recurrent stroke (Fleetwood et al., 2021). The main treatment for psychosis, antipsychotic medication, raises the risk of stroke with evidence for the causal role of metabolic syndrome and cardiac arrhythmias (Nielsen et al., 2021). Studies on predictors of cardiovascular events more generally in patients with schizophrenia also highlight the role of shared risk factors that may raise the risk of both conditions independently (Osborn et al., 2015).

One difficulty in estimating the level of association between stroke and psychosis is that, as far as we are aware, all existing estimates have been drawn from clinical studies rather than population studies, meaning it is not clear to what extent estimates might be affected by selection biases, particularly referral bias. For example, all studies used to estimate prevalence of delusions and hallucinations in stroke patients included in the meta-analysis reported by Stangeland et al. (2018) were drawn from hospitalised stroke patients, potentially oversampling patients with the highest levels of disability. Indeed, hospitalisation referral biases have been evidenced for both stroke (Appelros et al., 2003) and psychosis (Sipos et al., 2001).

These limitations are particularly important when trying to estimate the association between stroke and psychosis in low- and middle-income countries where specialised stroke care may be less available. Indeed, low- and middle-income countries proportionally show the highest levels of stroke incidence and poor outcome (Feigin et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2019), raising the possibility of whether stroke and psychosis might be a more frequent combination in developing countries.

Consequently, in this study, we identified epidemiological studies that recorded both stroke and psychosis from four countries and aimed to estimate the joint prevalence of stroke and psychosis and their statistical association. These included two high-income countries – the United Kingdom and the United States – and two middle-income countries – Chile and Colombia. Each of these countries have completed nationally representative psychiatric epidemiology studies that included structured assessments of psychotic disorders and / or psychotic symptoms, as well as measures of the participants’ health, including stroke status. We subsequently combined all national datasets into a single dataset to conduct an individual participant-level meta-analysis to estimate the overall prevalence and association between stroke and psychosis across all four countries.

Methods

Results

Descriptive statistics for each national survey and the combined dataset are reported in Table 1. The demographic profile was broadly similar across national surveys.

Discussion

We report the joint prevalences of stroke and probable psychosis across four nationally representative epidemiological studies, and subsequently the association between stroke and probable psychosis after adjustment for potential confounders. We subsequently calculated overall estimates from a combined countries dataset using individual participant level meta-analysis. We found that the prevalence of probable psychosis in people with stroke ranged from 1.05% (Chile) to 13.92% (Colombia) with the prevalence from the combined countries dataset estimated at 3.81%. Conversely, the prevalence of stroke in people with probable psychosis ranged from 2.18% (Colombia) to 16.67% (US) with the combined countries prevalence estimated at 3.15%. However, the larger estimates were accompanied by wide confidence intervals and are less likely to be accurate estimates of true population prevalence. Estimates for the adjusted association between stroke and probable psychosis ranged from an odds ratio of 1.11 (95% CI 0.15 - 8.26) in the UK to an odds ratio of 6.22 in the US (95% CIs 2.52 - 15.35) with the association from the combined dataset estimated at 3.32 (95% CIs 2.05 - 5.38). We also examined the association between stroke and paranoia, hallucinated voices, and thought passivity delusion, and although we found significant variation in the reliability and strength of association across countries, all three psychotic symptoms were associated with stroke in the unadjusted and adjusted analyses in the combined countries dataset.

This evidence suggests a relatively high co-prevalence of stroke and psychosis with approximately 1 in 26 people with stroke having probable psychosis and 1 in 32 of people with probable psychosis having stroke across the combined countries dataset. This is despite the fact that psychosis has often been described as a “rare” complication of stroke in the literature and has mostly been reported as single case studies or case series. The estimate here is broadly in line with previous estimates of single psychotic symptoms in patients with stroke with meta-analytic estimates (admittedly from a small number of studies) suggesting a delusion prevalence of 4.67% and hallucination prevalence of 5.05% (Stangeland et al., 2018).

We also note that the majority of research in this area has focused on poststroke psychosis that likely contributes only a proportion of the co-prevalence of stroke and psychosis. As psychosis, and treatment for psychosis, is a risk factor for later stroke (Li et al., 2014; Marto et al., 2021), stroke in patients with a preceding history of psychosis is also likely to be an important contributory factor to co-prevalence. We also note here that initial studies report that patients with psychosis who later experience stroke have worse outcomes and are less likely to receive equitable care (Kisely et al., 2009) including timely invasive interventions (Nielsen et al., 2021). Taken together, this evidence suggests that stroke and psychosis may be highly disabling, but is under-recognised and likely under-served by existing services.

It is important to note that significant international variability was found in the estimates of association – either through calculating prevalence or odds ratios – between stroke and psychosis. Given the variability of measures used to measure psychotic symptoms within countries, one key question is the extent to which these estimates are being affected by characteristics of the measures, versus the extent to which the prevalence of psychotic symptoms and their association with stroke varies between countries.

We note two standout prevalence figures. A prevalence of probable psychosis in stroke of 13.92% in Colombia and a prevalence of stroke in probable psychosis of 16.67% in the US. Both of these figures have wide confidence intervals and the accompanying alternative prevalences (stroke in probable psychosis in Colombia, and probable psychosis in stroke in the US) are within the more typical ranges internationally. This suggests they may be less accurate estimates of the true prevalence. However, it remains challenging to separate measurement error from population-specific risk factors that contribute to these larger figures given the cross-sectional nature of the data.

For example, the estimated rate of probable psychosis in the total population is markedly higher in Colombia, which also has the highest estimated rate of probable psychosis in stroke. We note here that several factors may be important in influencing this outcome. The Colombia National Mental Health Survey used the WHO Self Reporting Questionnaire 24 (Harding et al., 1980) which although was deployed in an interview format, solely relied on participant answers without any judgment from the trained interviewers regarding the likelihood of the answer representing a symptom. Although self-report questionnaires for psychotic symptoms show broad agreement with interview measures they may over-report milder symptoms. We also note that, of the four countries included in this analysis, Colombia has the highest rate, and an internationally high rate, of violence and victimisation as well as experience of a long-running armed conflict. This likely contributes both to the over-rating of the paranoia item in terms of it measuring genuine threat rather than the exaggerated perception of threat, as well as likely increasing the rate of genuine paranoia as psychopathology, due to the fact that violent victimisation is associated with a higher risk of subsequent psychosis.

The high prevalence, wide-confidence-interval estimate of stroke in probable psychosis prevalence in the US, likely reflects the fact that it has the highest prevalence of stroke among countries along with the lowest prevalence of psychosis reported here. There is some evidence that stroke prevalence may be slightly over-estimated in this study: 2.9% US stroke prevalence reported here vs 2.6% reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for non-institutionalised US adults in 2005 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007). It is possible psychosis prevalence was slightly under-estimated. The Global Burden of Disease study reported higher rates of schizophrenia in the US compared to the three other countries reported here (Charlson et al., 2018), despite it having the lowest rate of psychosis estimated in this study.

One potential way to interpret this data is to compare the extent to which the prevalence of probable psychosis used in this study compares to the prevalence of psychosis phenotypes. Here, our probable psychosis category as applied to the UK, US and Chile surveys are more likely to be measuring a narrow psychosis phenotype more akin to psychotic disorder, whereas in Colombia, it is more likely to be measuring a broader psychosis phenotype of psychotic experiences (van Os et al., 2009). However, it is also worth noting that in a recent systematic review of poststroke psychosis, delusional disorder, typically involving a single isolated delusion, was the most commonly reported psychosis in post-stroke cases – albeit from a relatively poor quality evidence base (Stangeland et al., 2018). The probable psychosis criteria used in this study would have excluded these cases, indicating that this may have underestimated the full prevalence of psychosis.

An additional factor is the extent to which stroke, psychosis, and their possible combination may be under-reported in community epidemiological studies due to a case ascertainment bias – in that those with more severe difficulties are less likely or less able to participate. Aked et al. (2020) compared stroke ascertainment between a community epidemiological study and a clinical register and reported that the community study was more likely to detect milder strokes but was equally likely to detect more severe cases. Nevertheless, the data used in the present study was from psychiatric epidemiology studies that require active participation in an extensive interview. Given this, it is likely that this may have led to an under-representation of more severe stroke or communication-impairing strokes in the dataset, and potentially, cases with more severe disability caused by a combination of stroke and psychosis.

We also note here that stroke was measured in all surveys by an interview item asking whether the person had been diagnosed with stroke by a doctor. Self-reported stroke has been found to have a consistently high negative predictive value but a variable positive predictive value (22–87%) with the misreporting of transient ischaemic attacks for stroke likely to be a major contributor to false positive reporting (Woodfield et al., 2015). However, the measure used in this study was not self-reported stroke per se, but self-report of doctor-diagnosed stroke. As far as we are aware, the only study we know that has examined the accuracy of this specific method of reporting stroke was Walker et al. (1998) where self-report of doctor-diagnosed stroke had a positive predictive value of 0.89 with the majority of false positive being reports of transient ischaemic attacks. Hence, the measure included in this study is most likely to represent both stroke proper and transient ischaemic attack. In addition, this measure is likely to be affected by the number of doctors available to diagnose stroke. This may underestimate prevalence in lower income countries where healthcare may be less accessible or inaccessible, or more likely to be carried out by non-physician healthcare professionals, particularly in remote or rural areas. The lack of detail beyond the presence of absence of stroke also means it is not possible to make inferences regarding the relationship between stroke type, severity, location, recurrence and psychosis. Accordingly, studies using formal diagnosis and additional data on stroke characteristics are needed to ensure the highest accuracy of estimates and associations.

We also note that the differing availability of mental health services could affect the prevalence of psychotic symptoms because although each study measured psychotic symptoms by interviewing the participant directly, effective available treatment could reduce the presence of symptoms.

There are additional limitations that should be noted. Some potentially useful covariates could not be included because they were not measured in all datasets. One is the extent to which the findings provide a guide to future stroke and psychosis prevalence given the improving stroke survival rates in high-income countries, largely due to improvement in acute stroke care (Joundi et al., 2021). Given the high rates of stroke risk factors in individuals with pre-existing psychosis, we suggest this will increase the rates of post-psychosis stroke due to better survival rates, and it is possible that this may increase the rates of post-stroke psychosis, although the relationship between stroke severity and psychosis risk is still poorly understood. We also note the increasing incidence of stroke in the young globally (Boot et al., 2020), potentially changing the risk profile of stroke, and comorbid stroke and psychosis.

Due to the fact that this study uses cross-sectional data, the extent to which the association between stroke and psychosis consisted of poststroke psychosis, versus people with psychosis who later experienced stroke, was impossible to determine. Longitudinal studies will be needed to address these key questions, and we note here that longitudinal studies examining to what extent psychosis occurs post-stroke and to what extent stroke occurs post-psychosis, but crucially, measured within the same cohort, are likely to be important in addressing these key issues. This information is clearly important in developing both preventative healthcare and understanding how specific services (specifically psychiatry and neurology) should prioritise treatment and referral, given that the order of which psychosis or stroke occurs is likely to determine which service a patient has first contact with.

We also suggest that involvement of more integrated psychological medicine services in stroke services including both psychiatry and psychology is likely to be important, as is prioritising management of stroke risk factors in patients with psychosis (Cooper et al., 2016). In addition, psychiatrists should be aware of the signs and symptoms of stroke, including apparently ‘silent stroke’, and be aware of timely referral pathways to specialist stroke services in their area.

In conclusion, we report the first study on the association of stroke and psychosis in the general population that examines the co-prevalence and association within four countries: the US, UK, Colombia and Chile. We note that the conditions co-occur more frequently than has previously been assumed and there remains a marked lack of research in this area. This is a particular priority given the potentially high need of these patient groups and the potential avoidance of stroke if risk factors are appropriately managed. Future research needs to involve standardised diagnostic assessments and longitudinal studies to determine the extent to which stroke and psychosis appear in specific causal sequences.