14.4.R1 Recommendation
Anti-psychotic medication
- Strength of recommendation:
- Conditional for intervention
- Level of evidence:
- Very low
How the strength and level of evidence are graded
What the strength of a recommendation means
The strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to which a guideline panel is confident that desirable effects of an intervention outweigh undesirable effects, or vice versa, across the range of patients for whom the recommendation is intended.
Strong for (↑↑) or against (↓↓) intervention
For patients: Most individuals in this situation would want the recommended course of action and only a small proportion would not.
For clinicians: Most individuals should receive the recommended course of action.
Conditional for (↑) or against (↓) intervention
For patients: The majority of individuals in this situation would want the suggested course of action, but many would not.
For clinicians: Recognize that different choices will be appropriate for different patients, and that you must help each patient arrive at a management decision consistent with her or his values and preferences.
Neither intervention nor comparison (—)
The panel did not recommend for or against the intervention.
Source: GRADE Handbook, section 6.1, Table 6.1 (GRADE uses “weak” and “conditional” interchangeably).
For the rating of the strength of the recommendation, in addition to evidence from studies in FRDA, evidence from like conditions, clinical experience and expert consensus are taken into account when published evidence is not available.
The level of evidence is based on published evidence from studies in FRDA. If there is no published evidence in FRDA, evidence from other like conditions or clinical expertise may have been used to make the recommendation – this is graded as ‘very low’ or in some cases ‘low’ level evidence. See the table below for an explanation of the symbols used to grade recommendations.
| Strength of recommendation | Symbol | Level of evidence | Symbol |
| Strong for intervention | ↑↑ | High | ⨁⨁⨁⨁ |
| Conditional for intervention | ↑ | Moderate | ⨁⨁⨁◯ |
| Neither intervention nor comparison | — | Low | ⨁⨁◯◯ |
| Conditional against intervention | ↓ | Very low | ⨁◯◯◯ |
| Strong against intervention | ↓↓ |
We conditionally recommend the use of antipsychotic medication in individuals with Friedreich ataxia with confirmed episodes of psychosis.
Question
Should antipsychotic medication versus none be used for psychosis in individuals with Friedreich ataxia?
Justification
Antipsychotics should work as well in individuals with Friedreich ataxia as in those without Friedreich ataxia. It is important for the primary healthcare provider to be alert to and consider psychosis in individuals with advanced Friedreich ataxia.
Subgroup consideration
This recommendation is for individuals with Friedreich ataxia and a confirmed diagnosis of psychosis. Individuals who have severe dysarthria require careful screening to ensure accurate diagnosis.
Evidence to recommendation table (PDF)
Part of 14.4 Management of psychosis in Friedreich ataxia
References (19)
1. Flood MK, Perlman SL. The mental status of patients with Friedreich's ataxia. J Neurosci Nurs. 1987;19(5):251-5.
2. Giordani B, Boivan M, Berent S, Gilman S, Junck L, Lehtinen S, et al. Cognitive and emotional function in Friedreich's ataxia (Abstract). J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1989;11(1):53-4.
3. Mantovan MC, Martinuzzi A, Squarzanti F, Bolla A, Silvestri I, Liessi G, et al. Exploring mental status in Friedreich's ataxia: a combined neuropsychological, behavioural and neuroimaging study. Eur J Neurol. 2006;13:827-35.
4. White M, Lalonde R, Botez-Marquard T. Neuropsychologic and neuropsychiatric characteristics of patients with Friedreich's ataxia. Acta Neurol Scand. 2000;102(4):222-6.
5. Ciancarelli I, Cofini V, Carolei A. Evaluation of neuropsychological functions in patients with Friedreich ataxia before and after cognitive therapy. Funct Neurol. 2010;25(2):81-5.
6. Sayah S, Rotge JY, Francisque H, Gargiulo M, Czernecki V, Justo D, et al. Personality and neuropsychological profiles in Friedreich ataxia. Cerebellum. 2018;17(2):204-12.
7. Corben LA, Delatycki MB, Bradshaw JL, Horne MK, Fahey MC, Churchyard AC, et al. Impairment in motor reprogramming in Friedreich ataxia reflecting possible cerebellar dysfunction. J Neurol. 2010;257(5):782-91.
8. Corben LA, Delatycki MB, Bradshaw JL, Churchyard AJ, Georgiou-Karistianis N. Utilisation of advance motor information is impaired in Friedreich ataxia. Cerebellum. 2011;10(4):793-803.
9. Corben LA, Akhlaghi H, Georgiou-Karistianis N, Bradshaw JL, Egan GF, Storey E, et al. Impaired inhibition of prepotent motor tendencies in Friedreich ataxia demonstrated by the Simon interference task. Brain Cogn. 2011;76(1):140-5.
10. Corben LA, Georgiou-Karistianis N, Bradshaw JL, Hocking DR, Churchyard AJ, Delatycki MB. The Fitts task reveals impairments in planning and online control of movement in Friedreich ataxia: reduced cerebellar-cortico connectivity? Neuroscience 2011;192(382-390).
11. White BV, Leib JR, Farmer JM, Biesecker BB. Exploration of transitional life events in individuals with Friedreich ataxia: implications for genetic counseling. Behav Brain Funct. 2010;6(65).
12. da Silva CB, Yasuda CL, D'Abreu A, Cendes F, Lopes-Cendes I, Franca MC, Jr. Neuroanatomical correlates of depression in Friedreich's ataxia: a voxel-based morphometry study. Cerebellum. 2013;12(3):429-36.
13. Nieto A, Hernandez-Torres A, Perez-Flores J, Monton F. Depressive symptoms in Friedreich ataxia. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2018;18(1):18-26.
14. Perez-Flores J, Hernandez-Torres A, Monton F, Nieto A. Health-related quality of life and depressive symptoms in Friedreich ataxia. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(2):413-20.
15. Reetz K, Dogan I, Hohenfeld C, Didszun C, Giunti P, Mariotti C, et al. Nonataxia symptoms in Friedreich Ataxia: Report from the Registry of the European Friedreich's Ataxia Consortium for Translational Studies (EFACTS). Neurology. 2018;91(10):e917-e30.
16. Chan YC. Aripiprazole treatment for psychosis associated with Friedreich's ataxia. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2005;27(5):372.
17. Ganos C, Schottle D, Zuhlke C, Munchau A. Psychosis complicating Friedreich ataxia. Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2015;2(1):84-5.
18. Salbenblatt MJ, Buzan RD, Dubovsky SL. Risperidone treatment for psychosis in end-stage Friedreich's ataxia. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(2):303.
19. Oruç S, Gulseren G, Kusbeci OY, Yaman M, Geçici O. Quetiapine treatment for psychosis in Friedreich's ataxia. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bulteni - Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2012;22:357-8.
Disclaimer, intended use and funding
Disclaimer
The Clinical Management Guidelines for Friedreich ataxia (‘Guidelines’) are protected by copyright owned by the authors who contributed to their development or said authors’ assignees.
These Guidelines are systematically developed evidence statements incorporating data from a comprehensive literature review of the most recent studies available (up to the Guidelines submission date) and reviewed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework © The Grade Working Group.
Guidelines users must seek out the most recent information that might supersede the diagnostic and treatment recommendations contained within these Guidelines and consider local variations in clinical settings, funding and resources that may impact on the implementation of the recommendations set out in these Guidelines.
The authors of these Guidelines disclaim all liability for the accuracy or completeness of the Guidelines, and disclaim all warranties, express or implied to their incorrect use.
Intended Use
These Guidelines are made available as general information only and do not constitute medical advice. These Guidelines are intended to assist qualified healthcare professionals make informed treatment decisions about the care of individuals with Friedreich ataxia. They are not intended as a sole source of guidance in managing issues related to Friedreich ataxia. Rather, they are designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making.
These Guidelines are not intended to replace clinical judgment and other approaches to diagnosing and managing problems associated with Friedreich ataxia which may be appropriate in specific circumstances. Ultimately, healthcare professionals must make their own treatment decisions on a case-by-case basis, after consultation with their patients, using their clinical judgment, knowledge and expertise.
Guidelines users must not edit or modify the Guidelines in any way – including removing any branding, acknowledgement, authorship or copyright notice.
Funding
The authors of this document gratefully acknowledge the support of the Friedreich Ataxia Research Alliance (FARA). The views and opinions expressed in the Guidelines are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of FARA.