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

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.