Psychotropic medications induced parkinsonism and akathisia in people attending follow-up treatment at Jimma Medical Center, Psychiatry Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the magnitude and factors associated with psychotropic drug-induced parkinsonism and akathisia among mentally ill patients.
METHODS: A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted with a total of 410 participants attending a follow-up treatment service at Jimma Medical Center, a psychiatry clinic from April to June 2019. Participants were recruited using a systematic random sampling method. Drug-induced parkinsonism and akathisia were assessed using the Extra-pyramidal Symptom Rating Scale. Substance use was assessed using the World Health Organization Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test. Data entry was done using EpiData version 3.1, and analysis done by the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 22. Statistically, the significant association was declared by adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value less than or equal to 0.05.
RESULTS: The mean age of the respondents was 33.3 years (SD ± 8.55). Most of the participants 223 (54.4%) had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The prevalence of drug-induced parkinsonism was 14.4% (95% CI: 11.0 to 18.0) and it was 12.4% (95% CI: 9.3 to 15.4) for drug-induced akathisia. The result of the final model found out drug-induced parkinsonism was significantly associated with female sex, age, type of antipsychotics, physical illness, and anti-cholinergic medication use. Similarly, female sex, chlorpromazine equivalent doses of 200 to 600 mg, combined treatment of sodium valproate with antipsychotic, and severe khat/Catha edulis use risk level was significantly associated with akathisia.
CONCLUSION: One of seven patients developed drug-induced parkinsonism and akathisia. Careful patient assessment for drug-induced movement disorders, selection of drugs with minimal side effects, screening patients for physical illness, and psycho-education on substance use should be given top priority.

Introduction

Drug-induced movement disorders (DIMD) are neurological motor disturbances that most frequently associated with drugs that block dopamine (D2) receptors [1]. Drug-induced movement disorders can be caused by different kinds of agents, and almost all kinds of movement disorders can happen as a result of a medication side effect. Responsible psychotropic drugs include antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and anti-convulsant [2]. Psychotropic medication-induced movement disorders (PMIMD) often expose patients to stigma and can impair a patient’s ability to complete activities of daily living [3]. Side effects are common, and the severity ranges from tremor to life-saving syndromes [4]. Drug-induced parkinsonism (DIP) and akathisia (DIA) usually develop over days to weeks or months following the ingestion of responsible drugs. DIP is characterized by akinetic rigidity, bradykinesia, and postural instability. The classic feature of DIP is symmetrically distributed syndrome and high-amplitude chin and jaw tremor [5]. DIA is defined as a subjective complaint of restlessness, often accompanied by observed excessive movements like fidgety movements of the legs, rocking from foot to foot, pacing, inability to sit or stand still that develops within a few weeks of starting or raising the dosage of a medication (such as a narcoleptic) [6].

The magnitude of DIMD according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM- IV) criteria was 61.6% [7]. Studies conducted in Europe reported a prevalence which ranges from 22% to 31.7% [8, 9]. A cross-sectional study done in Poland reported the magnitude of DIP and DIA to be 22.9% and 24.5% respectively, [10]. The magnitude was even much higher in Africa in which case prevalence of DIP ranges from 18.8% to 66.7% [11]. According to a prospective study done in a Nigerian hospital, the prevalence rate of DIP was 27.2% and 14.6% for DIA [12], and a study done in Ethiopia reported a higher magnitude (DIP 46.4% and DIA 28.6%) [13].

The magnitude of DIP and DIA varies with the duration of treatment, type of medication, sex, age, and dosage of medication. In 50–75% of cases and 90% of cases develop DIP after a month of treatment and three-month treatment, respectively, [14]. Similarly, the incidence is reported to increase with age, and the highest incidence is reported in the age range of 60–80 years [15]. Another study reported that older people were about five times more likely to develop DIP [16]. Regarding sex as a risk factor, studies report conflicting evidence. According to a prospective study done in Nigeria, the risk/ratio of developing AIPD with male to female ratio of 2:1 [12]. Similar studies reported a positive association between female sex and DIP [14, 17, 18]; however, other studies did not find a difference in gender and DIP [13, 19].

Overall, antipsychotic-associated movement disorders have several impacts on patients. It can exert a negative impact on patients’ quality of life, medication adherence, and social wellbeing of the patient [20]. The intolerability of these side effects often leads to a relapse of psychiatric symptoms following drug non-adherence, which in turn results in joblessness and poor progression of illness and increased suicidal risk [21]. Determining the magnitude and identifying factors associated with a drug-induced movement disorder has paramount importance in preventing negative physical, emotional, and social consequences related to psychotropic medication-induced movement disorder. Despite the magnificent effect of the problem, there are limited studies in this area. Thus, this study aimed to assess the prevalence and factors associated with drug-induced Parkinsonism and akathisia in a patient with mental illness taking psychotropic medication at Jimma Medical Center (JMC), psychiatry follow-up clinic, Southwest, Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

A hospital-based cross-sectional study design was employed at JMC from April to June 2019. JMC is one of the specialized medical centers and is located 352 km southwest of Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia. The center renders various medical services at the outpatient department (OPD) and in-patient department (IPD) setup for approximately 15 million populations in Southwest Ethiopia. The psychiatric clinic of JMC was established in 1996. Currently, there are more than one thousand psychiatric patients attending follow-up treatments, and about fifty patients visit psychiatric clinics daily.

Population

All patients diagnosed with mental illness and attending follow-up treatment with psychotropic medication at the outpatient department of the JMC psychiatric clinic were a source population. Study participants were randomly selected from mental ill patients who were taking psychotropic medications. Accordingly, Four hundred twenty adult persons (age 18 and above) who were diagnosed with mental illness according to the diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM-IV or DSM-5) were included in the study. Mentally ill patients who were unable to give the required information, who had a history of primary movement disorders, and who had medically established brain lesions were excluded from the study.

Sample size and sampling techniques

The minimum number of the sample size required for this study was determined by using the formula to estimate a single population proportion. The minimum sample size determination formula used is: , where n denotes the minimum sample size, Z α/2 is the reliability coefficient of the standard error at a 5% level of significance = 1.96, p is the proportion of mentally ill patients who were taking psychotropic medication and developed drug-induced parkinsonism = 46.4% [13], and 10% non-response rate used. Hence, the minimum sample size obtained is 420. Accordingly, study participants were recruited using a systematic random sampling technique. A sampling fraction was determined by dividing the average number of patients attending follow-up treatment at the clinic by the calculated minimum sample size required. A sample fraction of two was used, and every two study participants were approached, and the first study participant included in the study was determined by the lottery method. Patient medical record numbers were used as a code to avoid repeated involvement of a case in the study.

Data collection procedure and instrument

Data were collected through face-to-face interviews using semi-structured and pre-tested questionnaires. The questionnaire was primarily prepared in English and translated into Afaan Oromo and Amharic. Re-translation of the questionnaire back to English was done by another person who was fluent in English language and new for the original version. The extrapyramidal symptom rating scale (ESRS) was used to assess the presence of drug-induced movement disorders [22]. The Extra Pyramidal Symptom Rating Scale was developed to assess four types of drug-induced movement disorders: drug-induced akathisia, drug-induced parkinsonism, drug-induced dystonia, and drug-induced tardive dyskinesia. The tool has four subscales and four Clinical Global Impression Scales (CGI-S).

Patients subjective reports were obtained through face-to-face interviews and it was scored on a 4-point scale (0 = absent; 1 = mild; 2 = moderate; 4 = severe). The data collectors considered verbal reports with frequency and duration of symptoms, several days the symptoms present, and the intensity of symptoms over the last 7 days. For Parkinsonism and akathisia examination, the presence and/or absence of tremor, bradykinesia, gait and posture, postural stability, rigidity, and expressive automatic movement and akathisia were evaluated by trained data collectors. Tremor and rigidity (items 1 and 5) were scored on a 7-point item scale (0 = none and 6 = severe). The tremor was rated for each part of the body (right and left upper and lower limbs, head, tongue, jaw, and lips) separately, and for rigidity, the rating was done for the right and left upper and lower limbs separately. The total score ranges from 0–96 (16 items), and two factors: hypokinesia (0–42) and hyperkinesia (0–49). The score for akathisia (0–6) is based on the sum score of subjective akathisia (item 6) and objective finding (item 7).

Compared to the Simpson-Angus scale, which does not focus on rating tremors on the part of the body affected, and the akathisia item of Simpson-Angus, which has been added in some version of the scale, focuses on objective evidence only, ESRS has well-established validity [23]. The tool demonstrated high inter-rater reliability (range of mean item correlation coefficients 0.80 to 0.97) [22].

CGIS was developed to provide a brief assessment of the clinician’s view of the patient’s functioning and severity of symptoms [24]. The tool provides a clinically determined measure of symptom severity, behavior, and the impact of the symptoms on the patient's ability to function. The tool comprises one-item measures evaluating the severity of psychopathology and allows the subjective evaluation of symptoms by applying an 8 point rating (0 = absent; 1 = borderline; 2 = very mild; 3 = mild; 4 = moderate; 5 = moderate to severe; 6 = marked; 7 = severe; 8 = extremely severe). Substance use was assessed using the World Health Organization Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening test (WHO ASSIST) version 3.1. It has 8-items and is culturally neutral and usable across a variety of cultures to assess the use of the psychoactive substance. The total item score ranges from 0 to 31 for tobacco and 0–39 for alcohol and khat (Catha edulis). Total scores for khat, tobacco, and cannabis were categorized as low (score 0–3), moderate (score 4–26), and high (score ≥ 27) [25]. Furthermore, the study participants’ socio-demographic such as age, sex, ethnicity, religion, marital status, educational status, occupational status, and income assessed using a structured questionnaire. Medication-related factors like the type of medication, dosage, frequency, and duration of medication; and clinical-related factors such as type of diagnosis, presence of comorbid psychiatric and/or physical illness (specifically diabetes mellitus and hypertension) were assessed from the patient’s medical record review. For data collection, four Bachelor of Science (BSc) Psychiatric nurses were recruited to conduct face-to-face interviews. Two days of training on data collection tools, patients’ objective evaluation, and ethical issues were given to data collectors and supervisors. The pretest was conducted on 20 patients attending follow-up treatment at Shenan Gibe General Hospital, located 5 kilometers (km) from JMC to Southwest.

Data processing and analysis

The data were edited, cleaned, coded, and entered into the Epi-data 3.1 version and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22. Binary logistic regression was used for comparison of the subjects with and without DIP and DIA. Factors which found to have a p-value’s of less than 0.25 were a candidate for multivariable logistic regression analysis, and a p-value ≤ 0.05 was used to declare a statistically significant association. The strength of the association was presented by odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to check model fitness. Multi-collinearity was checked using a variance inflation factor (VIF). Finally, results are presented in the form of figure and tables using frequency and summary statistics such as mean and percentage.

Ethical consideration

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Research Ethical Review Board (IRB) of Jimma University, Institute of Health, and the research was performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from each study participant. Study participants were informed of the right to refuse or discontinue participation at any time they wanted, and the chance was given to ask any thing about the study. The filled questionnaires were kept securely locked. Participants who were found to have movement disorders were linked to psychiatrists for consultation.

Results

Socio-demographic description of participants

The response rate of the study was 97.3% (n = 410). The mean age of the respondents was 33.3 years (SD ± 8.55). About two-thirds 263 (64.1%) of the study participants were male. More than half of the study participants were single and resided in urban areas ().

Clinical and medication-related characteristics of the participants

Most of the study participants 223 (54.4%) had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Three-fifths of the study participants 246 (60.0%) had received treatment for 1–5 years with a mean length of 4.8 years (SD = 3.9). Regarding the type of psychotropic medications, 240 (58.5%) patients were receiving typical antipsychotic medications, and 187 (45.6%) patients received anticholinergic drugs in combination with antipsychotic medications. The mean daily chlorpromazine equivalent dose was 425mg (SD = 245). Among patients who had drug-induced parkinsonism and akathisia, 32 (54.2%) and 27 (52.9%) used typical antipsychotics, respectively ().

Substance use-risk

Among the study participants, 164 (39.9%) had used substances at least once in their lifetime, and 99 (24.1%) used substances in the last three months before the study period. One-fifth 70 (17.1%) and one-tenth 32 (7.8%) of the study participants met moderate and severe-risk levels of khat use, respectively. Regarding tobacco, 118 (28.9%) and 100 (24.4%) study participants met moderate and severe-risk levels of tobacco use, respectively, ().

Magnitude of drug-induced parkinsonism and akathisia

The prevalence of DIP was 14.4% (95% CI: 11.0 to 18.0) and it was 12.4% (95% CI: 9.3 to 15.4) for DIA. The most commonly reported subjective items were restlessness 52 (12.7%) and tremor of the hand 70 (17.1%). On examination, the most prevalent signs of Parkinsonism were tremor 80 (19.5%) and gait and posture disturbance 56 (13.7%), ().

Multivariate regression analysis

During bi-variable logistic regression analysis of drug-induced parkinsonism in relation to each explanatory variable: sex, age, duration of treatment, type of antipsychotics, dose of antipsychotics, physical illness, and medication for movement disorders were the variables that fulfilled the minimum requirement (in this study, 0.25 level of significance) and entered into multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results of multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that drug-induced Parkinsonism was significantly associated with sex, age, type of antipsychotics, physical illness, and anti-cholinergic medication use. The odds of developing drug-induced parkinsonism among female patients were 2.3 times higher than among male patients. Patients aged ≥ 45 years were 4.3 times more likely to develop antipsychotic-induced parkinsonism compared to those patients aged 15–29 years. Patients who had physical illness were four times more likely to develop drug-induced parkinsonism compared to those who had no physical illness. Participants taking anti-cholinergic medications were 88% more likely to develop drug-induced parkinsonism compared to their counterparts. Those patients who received typical antipsychotics were 2.92 times and those taking both typical and atypical were 1.4 times more likely to develop DIP as compared to those patients who were taking atypical antipsychotic medications ().

Similarly, in the final model, being female, chlorpromazine equivalent doses of 200–600 mg, adjuvant use of sodium valproate, and severe khat use risk level were significantly associated with drug-induced akathisia. Females were approximately four times more likely to develop DIA as compared to male patients. Participants who were treated with chlorpromazine equivalent doses of 200–600 mg were 1.36 times more likely to develop drug-induced akathisia than those treated with less than 200 mg doses. Patients receiving sodium valproate in combination with antipsychotics were 1.88 times more likely to develop akathisia than those receiving only antipsychotics. Furthermore, severe risk level of khat use disorder was also significantly associated with drug-induced akathisia ().

Discussion

Prevalence of drug induce parkinsonism and akathisia

The prevalence of drug-induced parkinsonism and akathisia in this study found 14.4% (95% CI: 11.0 to 18.0) and 12.4% (95% CI: 9.3 to 15.4), respectively. The magnitude of DIP was lower than studies done in California 30% [26], the Netherlands 56.2% [27], the United Kingdom 26% [28], Poland 22.99% [10], Estonia 23.2% [29], Nigeria 27.2% [12], and Ethiopia 46.4% [13]. This could be a variation in the study population, the difference in assessment tools, and variation in the type of psychotropic medication. In a study conducted in Estonia, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Poland, the study was conducted only on Schizophrenia patients who were taking antipsychotic medication. DIMD is associated with a more vulnerable dopamine system [30] and the motor symptoms mostly occur after the introduction of dopamine receptor-blocking antipsychotics. Thus, patients with schizophrenia are at increased risk of developing extra-pyramidal symptoms specifically, parkinsonism [27]. Furthermore, the relatively lower magnitude of DIP in the current study might be due to the late introduction of second-generation antipsychotics. In this study most of the study participants used first-generation antipsychotics, which carry a higher risk of side effects. However, the contrary finding is reported in France [31] and Saudi Arabia [32]. Regarding DIA, the magnitude found in this study is higher than the study done in the Netherlands 4.6% [27], California 7% [26], the United Kingdom 1.3% [28], and France 1.2% [31]. The discrepancy may be due to the difference in tools used and the relatively high daily dosage and type of psychotropic medication used.

Factors associated with DIP and DIA

During the analysis of drug-induced parkinsonism, female patients were significantly associated with DIP (AOR = 2.3, p = 0.035) and DIA (AOR = 3.9, p = 0.003) compared to male patients. This might be due to striatal dopaminergic and cholinergic systems being under regulatory control by estrogen. In females, the balance between these two neurotransmitter systems in the striatum may be shifted towards higher cholinergic activity, a condition that favors the development of movement disorders in females. This was supported by other studies done by other studies [12, 32]. In the case of DIP, patients aged range between 30 to 44 years were 1.51 times and ≥ 45 years 2.9 times (AOR = 2.9, p = 0.011) more likely to develop DIP as compared to those patients aged range 15–29 years. This was supported by a study done in India and the Netherlands [10, 32]. In normal aging, evidence indicates that dopamine displays a special vulnerability. It is indicated that there is a decrease of 4.7% dopamine neurons per decade in the nigrostriatal pathway in normal human brain [33], which further increases the risk of DIP as age increases. A study done by Margaret et al. [34] reported that conventional antipsychotic-induced extrapyramidal side effects increased three to four times as age increased [35].

Patients taking typical antipsychotics were about three times (AOR = 2.92, p = 0.003) more likely to develop drug-induced parkinsonism. This was supported by a study done in Saudi Arabia [32] and Nigeria [12]. Binding of first-generation antipsychotics (FGA) on dopamine 2 (D2) receptors is related to higher acute extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) [36] than second-generation antipsychotics (SGA), which loosely binds and dissociates rapidly to D2 receptors [37]. However, another study did not find a statistically significant difference between patients taking FGA and SGA in terms of emergent parkinsonism, akathisia, or tardive dyskinesia at either follow-up point [38]. Those who were treated with chlorpromazine equivalent doses of 200 to 600 mg were 1.36 times (AOR = 1.36, p = 0.008) more likely to develop drug-induced akathisia than those treated with less than 200 mg doses. The same finding was reported in Ethiopia [13]. Patients taking sodium valproate were 1.88 times more likely to develop akathisia than those taking antipsychotics only; however study done by Weng J et al. did not find out any statistically significant difference in extra-pyramidal symptoms between the two groups of patients [39].

The association between substance use risk level and DIP/DIA was assessed in this study. Accordingly, it is only severe khat (Catha edulis) use risk level and DIA, which is significantly associated. Participants with severe khat use risk level were found to be three times (AOR = 3.1, p = 0.03) more likely to develop DIA than those with no/mild risk level. A study done in Ethiopia reported a positive association between khat use and DIA [13]. This association might be due to patients who were with severe risk levels may develop more withdrawal symptoms that mimic the symptoms of akathisia. Furthermore, khat is assumed to have similar actions as amphetamine, which increases striatal dopamine release in the acute phase. Furthermore, in this study, patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder were about five times (AOR = 4.76, p = .014) more likely to develop DIP compared to patients with schizophrenia. This might be due to most patients with major depressive disorder in the current study were taking typical antipsychotics together with antidepressants, which carries a higher risk of DIP. However, no statistically significant association was identified between DIA and the type of psychiatric diagnosis. Patients with comorbid physical illness were four times (AOR = 4.01, p = 0.002) more likely to develop drug-induced Parkinsonism, and use of anti-cholinergic medication was 88% (AOR = 0.12, p = 0.004) protective for DIP as compared to those who did not take anti-cholinergic medications.

Conclusions

One every seven patients developed DIP and DIA. Sex, age, and comorbid physical illnesses were found to be associated with drug-induced Parkinsonism. The dose of mediation, khat use, major depressive disorder, and sodium valproate were positively associated with Akathisia. Physical illness was associated with Parkinsonism. Thus, careful assessment of patients for DIP/DIA, selection of drugs with minimal side effects, screening patients for physical illness, and psycho-education on substance use should be given top priority.

26 May 2020

PONE-D-20-06567

Psychotropic Medications Induced Parkinsonism and Akathisia in People Attending Follow-up Treatment at Jimma Medical Center Psychiatry Clinic

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Girma,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please, be aware that submitting a reviewed paper does not guarantee acceptance.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 09 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vincenzo De Luca

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

a) The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

b) A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

c) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"Financial expense for data collection was covered by Jimma University and the authors did not

receive any financial support for the publication of the article."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"No authors received no specific funding for this work."

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting article discussing an understudied phenomenon in a specific population. I believe the article will be suitable for publication in Plos One once the authors provide some clarifications. A careful revision of the manuscript for typos and unclear wording is also warranted.

1. My biggest concern is related to why the authors did not include statistical analyses on the correlation of DIP/DIA with specific disorders and/or severity of symptoms of such disorders. I believe this is an obvious point of discussion, and more importantly a clinical indication. It would greatly strengthen the analysis and the discussion which feels somewhat limited to epidemiological findings in the sample (e.g. 55% were schizophrenia, etc.). Some of that data seems to be present in the tables, however it is not made clear enough.

2. Another interrogation is the concept of use of substances here, which is not properly separated from the DSM definition of substance use disorder (SUD). The sample suggests that some used substances in the past and others were constant users. However, given the sample, I think SUDs should be addressed.

3. What are the columns yes/no in the tables?

4. Some precisions on the “physical illness” are needed. Are we including neurological lesions, etc.? This is too vague.

5. I don’t understand the sentence describing the 4.7% decrease of dopaminergic neurons with aging. This should be made more clear.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Jun 2020

Dear Editor,

We would like to say thank you for assigning reviewer and returning the crucial comments and recommendations. We found the points raised by the reviewer are very interesting to make this article scientifically sound. We addressed all the comments of the editor and reviewer, and we wrote clarifications here under for mutual understanding.

Editorial comments: the following points are addressed.

1. Ethical statement: As per the editor comment and journal requirement, ethical statement is included in the method section (P #10, line 180-

187) of the revised manuscript. Accordingly, ethical statement is deleted from the other section.

2. Funding section: Thank you for your critical observation and apology for inconsistency in this regard. The funding information that appears in

the acknowledgment section is corrected and it is not stated in any part of the revised manuscript. I kindly request to update the funding

statement in the online submission form as “Financial expense for data collection was covered by Jimma University. The authors have not

received financial support for the publication of the article.”

3. Language usage, spelling, grammar, and journal formatting style: As per the recommendation of the reviewer, extensive language revision is

made in the current document. In the current revised document through formatting of the entire manuscript is done. A copy of document

showing changes (language usage, spelling, grammar, and formatting style) is indicated by track changes and attached as ‘Revised

Manuscript with Track Changes.

Reviewers’ comments and authors response

1. ‘Why authors did not include statistical analysis on the correlation of DIP/DIA with specific disorders and/or severity of symptoms of such disorders…..’

Response: Thank you for the concern and we found this comment very important in lens of clinical implication. The researchers included type of psychiatry diagnosis in the final model of DIA, as there was independent association between the two (P #20, table 3). The binary regression between type of psychiatry diagnosis and DIP, found out no statistical significant association between the two. Thus the explanatory variable was removed during multivariable regression analysis and not presented in the table. The discussion point is supplemented in line with the finding and it is added in the last paragraph of discussion section in the revised manuscript (P #15, line 294-97 )

2. ‘The concept of use of substance is not properly separated from the DSM definition of substance use disorder and thus the issue of SUD should be addressed’

Response: Thank you for the comment; we appreciate the critical observation of the reviewer. The researchers used WHO ASSIST screening tool which allows identification of risk level of substance use. We did not engage structured clinical interview with DSM to identify substance use disorder. Thus, the current manuscript is revised to address the risk level rather than focusing simply on substance use; which is the point of concern of the reviewer. In line with the comment of the reviewer we integrate operation definition of each risk level in method section (P # 9, line 157-59), result section is modified in P # 11, line 201-06) and the discussion is revised in P # 14-15, line 286-93). We hope that this increase the scientific sound of the result.

3. ‘What are the columns yes/no in the tables?’

Response: Thank you once again; we thought that the vague formatting of the tables leads to this question. We formatted the final table (P #19-20) to clearly indicated for what yes/no stands

4. ‘Some precision on the “physical illness” are needed. Are we including neurological lesions, etc’

Response: Sure, it is nice point. In this study we only focused on presence of chronic non-communicable disease specifically diabetic and/or hypertension. This is clarified in data collection procedure and instrument sub-section of method part of the document (P #9, line 164). Furthermore, patient who had any primary movement disorder and brain lesion was excluded from the study and it is stated in population sub-section of methods and materials (P #6, line 105-06)

5. ‘I don’t understand the sentence describing the 4.7% decrease of dopaminergic neuron with aging. This should be made more clear.’

Response: Sorry for the clarity problem of the statement. The statement is corrected for easy understandability (PP # 14, line 268-70).

Thank you in advance!

Shimelis Girma

Corresponding author

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jun 2020

Psychotropic medications induced parkinsonism and akathisia in people attending follow-up treatment at Jimma Medical Center, Psychiatry Clinic

PONE-D-20-06567R1

Dear Dr. Girma,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vincenzo De Luca

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have answered all my comments. However, I suggest the authors carefully review the manuscript before submission as some sentences are still hard to understand.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

23 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-06567R1

Psychotropic medications induced parkinsonism and akathisia in people attending follow-up treatment at Jimma Medical Center, Psychiatry Clinic

Dear Dr. Girma:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Vincenzo De Luca

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristic distributions of mental ill patients attending follow-up treatment at JMC, 2019.

Variables	Categories	Frequency(N = 410)	Percent (%)
Age(year)	15–29 years	145	35.4
	30–44 years	201	49.0
	> 45years	64	15.6
Sex	Male	263	64.1
	Female	147	35.9
Marital status	Married	168	41
	Single	213	52
	Divorced	28	6.8
	Widowed	1	0.2
Religion	Muslim	222	54.1
	Orthodox	120	29.3
	Protestant	67	16.3
	Others	1	0.2
Ethnicity	Oromo	237	57.8
	Amhara	107	26.1
	Tigre	12	2.9
	Dawuro	39	9.5
	Others	15	3.6
Residence	Rural	204	49.8
	Urban	206	50.2
Educational status	No formal education	90	22.0
	1–4 grade	126	30.7
	5–8 grade	109	26.6
	9–12 grade	52	12.7
	College and above	33	8.0
Occupational status	With job	192	46.8
	Jobless	218	53.2

Other religion = Catholic and Wakefata; other ethnicity = Silte, Wolayta, and Yeme.

Table 2

Clinical, medication-related, and substance use risk levels of patients with mental illness attending follow-up treatment at JMC, 2019.

Characteristics	Frequency	Percent
Diagnosis of patients
Schizophrenia	223	54.4
Major depressive disorder	99	24.1
Bipolar I disorder	74	18.0
Other schizophrenia spectrum disorder	14	3.4
Duration of treatment
< 1 years	37	9.0
1–5 years	246	60.2
5 years	127	31.0
Physical illness
Yes	38	9.3
No	372	90.7
Types of antipsychotics
Typical	240	58.5
Atypical	95	23.2
Both	75	18.3
Anticholinergic medications use
Yes	187	45.6
No	223	54.4
Khat use risk level
No/mild	308	75.1
Moderate	70	17.1
High	32	7.8
Tobacco use risk level
No/mild	192	46.7
Moderate	118	28.9
High	100	24.4

Physical illness = diabetic mellitus and/or hypertension.

Table 3

Factors associated with drug-induced parkinsonism among patients taking antipsychotics and attending follow-up treatment at JMC, 2019.

Explanatory variables	Drug-induced parkinsonism		COR (95% CI)	AOR (95% CI)	p-value
	Yes	No
Age
15–29	15	130	1	1
30–44	22	179	1.52 (0.87, 2.65)	1.51 (1.17, 3.12)	0.004*
≥ 45	22	42	2.46 (1.34, 4.52)	2.9 (2.5, 8.4)	0.011*
Sex
Male	38	225	1	1
Female	21	126	3.42 (2.2, 5.4)	2.3 (1.06, 5.07)	0.035*
Duration of treatment
< 1 year	10	27	1	1
1–5 years	23	222	1.52 (0.87, 2.65)	1.55 (0.17, 3.12)	0.482
≥ 5years	26	102	2.41 (1.52, 5.57)	2.8 (0.78, 4.61)	0.079
Type of antipsychotics
Typical	32	208	3.49 (1.96, 4.2)	2.92 (1.34, 4.71)	0.003*
Atypical	18	77	1	1
Both	11	64	1.15 (1.12, 2.48)	1.42 (1.24, 3.14)	0.013*
Recent Anti-cholinergic use
Yes	48	139	0.15 (0.08, 0.29)	0.12 (0.05, 0.29)	0.004*
No	11	212	1	1
Co-morbid physical illness
Yes	24	14	2.12 (1.28, 3.50)	4 (2.2, 8.2)	0.002*
No	35	337	1	1
Type of psychiatry diagnosis
Schizophrenia	15	208	1	1
Major depression	7	92	2.97 (1.3,2.46)	4.76 (2.65,7.22)	0.014*
Bipolar I disorder	29	45	3.11 (1.05,7.2)	2.3 (0.071, 3.4)	0.063
Other schizophrenia spectrum disorders	2	12	1.2 (0.30, 7.16)	1.7 (0.23, 6.34)	0.925

1 = reference group; co-morbid physical illness = diabetic mellitus and/or hypertension

*p < 0.05.

Table 4

Factors associated with drug-induced akathisia among patients taking antipsychotics and attending follow-up treatment at JMC, 2019.

Explanatory variables	Drug-induced akathisia		COR (95% CI)	AOR (95% CI)	P-value
	Yes	No
Sex
Male	25	237	1	1
Female	25	122	1.9 (1.53, 3.37)	3.9 (2.6, 9.5)	0.003*
Type of psychiatry diagnosis
Schizophrenia	15	208	1	1
Major depression	7	92	2.97 (1.3,2.46)	4.76 (2.65,7.22)	0.014*
Bipolar I disorder	29	45	3.11 (1.05,7.2)	2.3 (0.071, 3.4)	0.063
Other schizophrenia spectrum disorders	2	12	1.2 (0.30, 7.16)	1.7 (0.23, 6.34)	0.925
Chlorpromazine equivalent dose
< 200mg	6	137	1	1
200-600mg	45	218	1.19(0.08, 1.48)	1.36(1.17,3.7)	0.008*
>600mg	1	3	2.2(0.6, 4.9)	3.19(0.13, 9.06)
Other psychotropic medications than antipsychotics
Sodium valproate	15	212	2.14(0.4,11.4)	1.88(1.3, 11.8)	0.023*
Amitriptyline	7		3.06(1.1,8.4)	1.26(0.09, 2.88)
Sodium and Carbamazepine	10	14	7.3(3.28,12.5)	1.9(1.3, 4.8)	0.010*
Not taking other medications	17	337	1	1
Recent Anti-cholinergic use
Yes	41	146	1.7 (0.08, 3.3)	2.1(1.09, 4.9)*	0.009*
No	10	213	1	1
Khat use risk level
No/mild	24	284	1	1
Moderate	17	53	3.49 (1.89, 6.43)	1.89 (0.7, 3.78)	0.312
High	17	15	4.98 (2.7, 8.79)	3.1 (2.11, 6.67)	0.03*

1 = reference group

*p < 0.05.