Skip to main content

Cycloserine-induced psychosis in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review of case reports



To describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of cycloserine (CS)-induced psychosis in adults diagnosed with drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB).

Materials and methods

A systematic review of case reports was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines. Subsequently, information was extracted concerning sociodemographic variables, clinical characteristics of psychosis, treatment, and clinical outcomes, as well as the quality of the articles using a standardized tool (Joanna Briggs Institute—JBI—Case Reports Tool).


Of 3416 articles, 20 reports from seven countries were included, encompassing 22 patients (68.18% male participants, mean age: 31.45 ± 10.88 years). Delusions (68.2%, primarily persecutory) were the most frequent psychotic symptom. The median duration of the psychotic episode was 13 days (interquartile range: 35). Other frequently appearing symptoms in CS-induced psychosis were aggressiveness (68.2%), insomnia (59.1%), hallucinations (54.5%), incoherent/disorganized speech (45.5%), and irritability (45.5%). After antipsychotic treatment (81.81% of the reported cases were treated with at least one antipsychotic), 95.5% presented improvement, while 4.54% died by suicide. Finally, after the quality assessment of studies using the JBI tool, 85% of the articles showed a low risk of bias.


CS-induced psychosis is a rare presentation, generally of short duration, that includes delusions (mostly persecutory) as its main psychotic symptom and shows mostly a symptom improvement after medical treatment.

Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022359551 (Date of registration: 22/09/2022)


Tuberculosis (TB) is an infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis, currently having one of the highest mortality rates [1,2,3] and causing the death of approximately 1.3 million people worldwide [4,5,6]. In the last decades, a growing issue concerning this infectious disease is the increasing number of cases resistant to first-line antibiotics (i.e., rifampicin and isoniazid), which also represents higher costs for health services and a higher burden of disease [7, 8]. As a solution to the treatment of TB-resistant patients, evidence-based guidelines and world medical societies contemplated different treatment options, including extended-spectrum antibiotics with robust effectiveness, such as cycloserine (d-4-amino-3-isoxazolidine) [9,10,11]. The latter competitively inhibits two essential enzymes for the synthesis of the cell wall of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, exerting its antibiotic effect [12, 13]. However, the therapy with cycloserine (CS) also correlates with the appearance of psychotic symptoms, since CS can penetrate the brain–blood barrier, inhibits GABA-transferase, and interacts with N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors in the central nervous system [14,15,16]. Although CS may induce psychosis during treatment, its appearance is considered a non-frequent condition among drug-resistant (DR) TB patients [17,18,19]. For instance, a longitudinal study reported that in a group of 144 patients with multidrug-resistant (MDR-TB) treated with CS, four patients (8%) developed psychosis [12].

Moreover, a pharmacological safety and surveillance study estimated that the global combined prevalence of adverse drug reactions due to CS was 9%, and 5.7% for psychiatric disorders [17]. In addition, of the 445 safety reports of cases reported since 1970 attributed to CS, 75% were attributed to neuropsychiatric conditions, and of these, 14% related to psychosis [17], considered in this study also a not very frequent condition. Since the appearance of induced psychosis during a CS treatment is very low, most published studies concerning cycloserine-induced psychosis are restricted to case reports. Although case reports are unsuitable for inferring causality and cannot be extrapolated, they often provide essential aspects missing in population studies, especially in rare conditions [20], such as cycloserine-induced psychosis. In this sense, conducting a systematic review of case reports would help summarize clinical and therapeutical aspects of CS-induced psychosis in MDR-TB over time [20,21,22,23]. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to perform a systematic review to describe the main clinical characteristics, comorbidities, therapy, and clinical outcomes of the cases reported in the literature on cycloserine-induced psychosis in DR-TB adult patients.

Materials and methods

Study selection criteria

First, we included studies that met the following inclusion criteria: (1) case reports of patients over 18 years; (2) patients with the diagnosis of DR-TB (MDR-TB or extreme drug-resistant TB-XDR-TB-); (3) patients with DR-TB, which have developed psychosis due to the administration of CS; (4) case report articles, case series and letters to the editor describing TB patients with CS-induced psychosis including at least the following criteria: socioeconomic data, clinical presentation and description of the psychosis, course of the illness, psychosis treatment, and clinical outcomes of the psychosis treatment.

In addition, we excluded studies if the reported participants were under 18 years, did not have TB, or were not in treatment with CS. Furthermore, we excluded studies with patients with a previous history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders or bipolar disorder, with illegal substance misuse during CS treatment, and with a current disease that could explain the induced psychosis (e.g., cerebral tumor or stroke) during the CS treatment. Studies that were not case report articles, case series articles, or manuscripts describing TB patients with CS-induced psychosis were excluded. Finally, articles that were not available as full-text were also excluded.

Search strategies

First, a systematic literature search was conducted between 07/23/2022 and 08/24/2022 in different scientific literature databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, United States of America), EBSCO (EBSCO Industries Incorporate, United States of America), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, United States of America), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Library, United States of America), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online, Brazil), and Google Scholar (Google Incorporate, United States of America). In each case, the literature search was carried out by combining different Boolean operators (e.g., “psychosis”, “tuberculosis”), having the word “cycloserine” in the operator. More details concerning the systematic literature search, combination of Booleans, and the Boolean formulae are described in Additional file 1.

Finally, between 10/03/2022 and 10/05/2022, the search for articles was conducted again in the databases mentioned above using the same search strategy. We found 21 additional articles (3437 articles, Additional file 1); however, the additional articles were not relevant publications to this systematic review or they not fulfill the inclusion criteria, not affecting the results that we found, concluding the search on 10/05/2022.

Selection process

Posteriorly, the literature search results were extracted as .csv, .ris, or .txt files, depending mainly on the search platform and database used. In the case of the search platform Google Scholar, we used the free access software Publish or Perish [24, 25] to extract the results of the systematic literature search in the formats mentioned above. After extraction, all obtained data files were imported into the free access software Zotero v.6.09 (Corporation for Digital Scholarship, United States of America) to remove duplicated articles or records.

Afterward, we exported the remaining data without duplicates in the web application [26], where the authors ACS, SVQ, and LUE independently selected all case reports, case series, and correspondence using the title or abstract related to cycloserine-induced psychosis. Disagreements in the articles’ selection were resolved by consensus among all the authors. Later, each author performed a screening of the articles to exclude all those articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Likewise, the disagreements concerning inclusion and exclusion criteria were resolved under the consensus modality. Neither the year of publication of the articles nor their language was an exclusion criterion. In case of possible language issues, we used a free access translator (Google Translate, Google Inc., United States of America) to obtain the main information of the manuscript.

Quality of studies

The evaluation of the risk of bias and the quality assessment was carried out using The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tool for use in Systematic Reviews [27], which was designed to evaluate the methodological quality and the risk of bias in case report studies [28,29,30,31].

The remaining articles were randomly assigned to three authors (ACS, SVQ, and LUE). During the quality assessment, each author could not reveal to the other colleagues the title or content of randomly assigned articles to make the quality assessment procedure as blind as possible. Authors were also asked not to ask for help or support from other authors while reading and assessing the quality of the assigned case reports.

If the articles did not meet the criteria for a low risk of bias described in the JBI tool, the article was sent to a second reviewer for evaluation before exclusion. In this case, the second reviewer received the article without any previous assessment or judgment of the first one to avoid bias at the moment of the second quality assessment. Finally, a third reviewer determined the article’s inclusion or exclusion in case of discrepancies between the first and the second evaluators. For this purpose, we established a structure for the quality assessment in the following order (first–second–third reviewer): ACS–SVQ–LUE, LUE–ACS–SVQ, SVQ–LUE–ACS.

Naranjo adverse reaction probability scale

A frequent limitation of case reports is to establish causality in adverse drug reactions, and this is due to different factors, such as the subjectivity of the case report and specific characteristics of the patient. One way to deal with these limitations and standardize the information presented is through the Naranjo algorithm (Naranjo Adverse Reaction Probability Scale) [32]. This tool is widely used in case reports and consists of 10 criteria with which a score is assigned that determines one of the four categories: doubtful (0 points), possible (1 to 4 points), probable (5 to 8 points), and definite (≥ 9 points) [33].

If the included case report article did not report the scores following the Naranjo algorithm, we used the information described in the case reports to estimate the category corresponding to the Naranjo algorithm, as also recommended in other studies [34].

Data extraction

Concerning the data extraction, three authors (ACS, SVQ, LUE) independently carried out this process using a template programmed for the study in Microsoft Excel. Again, all included articles were randomly assigned among these three authors, collecting and registering information concerning (1) the year of publication, (2) patients’ sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., sex, age, and country), (3) clinical characteristics of the CS-induced psychosis, (4) treatment used against the psychotic episode (e.g., antipsychotic treatment, CS treatment discontinuation, CS dose reduction or maintenance), and (4) clinical outcomes of the CS-induced psychosis.

Statistical analysis

Since this systematic review sought mainly to describe the characteristics of CS-induced psychosis in the literature, we applied descriptive statistics to present the most frequent symptoms of CS-induced psychosis and the sociodemographic characteristics and treatment used. For this purpose, we presented the quantitative data using the appropriate measures of central tendency (mean with standard deviation and median with interquartile range). Qualitative data, mostly dichotomous, were expressed using percentages and frequencies. If needed, data were presented in tables and graphs for better readability. Concerning data analysis, SPSS software (International Business Machines Corporation, New York, United States of America), version 26.0, was used for the descriptive data.


General characteristics of the included reports and patients

Figure 1 shows the flow diagram according to the PRISMA protocol for the studies included in this systematic review of case reports. Initially, 3416 articles were identified; 1837 duplicates were eliminated, and 1579 publications remained. Subsequently, 1531 articles were removed after reviewing the titles and abstracts because of irrelevance to the study objective. Of the remaining 48 articles, 24 could not be retrieved and were excluded, and 3 articles were excluded, since the reported patients were underage. Finally, 21 articles were assessed with the JBI tool after the screening. One article [35] was excluded from the quality assessment process due to the low quality of information presented and the high risk of bias.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of systematic search for case reports concerning CS-induced psychosis and tuberculosis. Flow diagram sample extracted from: Page et al. [63]

A total of 20 articles [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55] met the inclusion criteria and survived the quality process, encompassing 22 patients from eight different countries (Table 1) and most patients from India (10 patients, 45.45% of the cases included). One of the articles was published in Spanish [53] and another in Japanese [37], while the rest were published in English.

Table 1 Included case report studies and their characteristics

Of the 22 patients included in the case reports, 15 (68.18%) were male, and 7 (31.82%) were female patients. In addition, the mean age (standard deviation) among the participants was 31.45 (10.88) years.

Regarding past medical history, 15 (68.18%) had no medical conditions. However, 2 (9.09%) patients had diabetes mellitus as comorbidity, 1 (4.54%) had hypothyroidism, 1 (4.54%) had an episode of meningeal tuberculosis in the past, and 1 (4.54%) had suicide attempts during TB therapy. In this patient’s case, the study authors reported no relevant psychiatric history. Of the included studies, one patient had a family history of psychiatric disorders (major depression and bipolar disorder), and one patient had a family history of alcoholism; however, there were no reports of medical comorbidities for both patients. Finally, 19 (86.36%) reported having no illegal drug, alcohol, or nicotine dependency. However, 3 (13.64%) participants reported having used alcohol regularly in the past, and one (4.54%) patient reported the last use of cannabis and cocaine 9 weeks before admission. No reported patient consumed concomitantly illegal drugs or alcohol during the treatment with CS.

Clinical characteristics of DR-TB patients and CS-induced psychosis

Concerning the type of DR-TB patients, 21 of 22 patients (95.45%) had multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), and one patient (4.54%) had renal tuberculosis (Table 1). Moreover, there were no patients with extreme drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB). Concerning the CS therapy, the mean dose (standard deviation) of CS given as treatment was 631.58 (174.17) mg/die, and the mean duration of CS treatment (standard deviation) until the onset of psychotic symptoms was 169.09 (239.52) days. Within the antitubercular treatment, the reported patients included in this systematic review received mostly drugs, such as pyrazinamide (14 patients, 63.6%), levofloxacin (12 patients, 54.5%), ethionamide (12 patients, 54.5%), kanamycin (11 patients, 50%) and pyridoxine (10 patients, 45.5%) (Table 1).

Table 1 also mentions the details of the clinical presentations of the patients in the included case reports with MDR-TB and cycloserine-induced psychosis. Regarding the duration of psychosis, the median duration of psychosis during treatment with cycloserine was 13 days (39–4 days; interquartile range: 35). The most common symptoms reported in patients with MDR-TB and cycloserine-induced psychosis were delusions (15 patients; 68.2%), followed by aggressiveness (15 patients; 68.2%), insomnia/decreased sleep (13 patients; 59.1%), hallucinations (12 patients; 54.5%), irritability (10 patients; 45.5%) and incoherent or disorganized speech (10 patients; 45.5%). Concerning the aggression observed in the case reports, 14 of 22 reported patients presented aggressive behavior, mostly against other persons, while one of the 22 included patients presented self-aggression (Table 2). In this last case, the patient died as a result of suicide due to exsanguination as a cause of self-injury cuts in the peripheral vessels.

Table 2 Main characteristics of psychiatric symptoms in patients with cycloserine-associated psychosis

In the case of the registry of the type of hallucinations, there are records of 12 (54.5%) patients reported in the included clinical cases. Of these, two (9.1%) of the patients presented visual hallucinations, one (4.54%) presented auditory hallucinations, five (22.7%) a combination of both, and in four cases (18.2%), the hallucination type was not specified (Table 2).

Concerning the type of delusions, 7 of 9 patients (77.8%) reported persecutory delusions, one of 9 patients (11.11%) reported delusions of grandeur and 1 of 9 patients (11.11%) reported jealous delusions. Finally, 6 patients reported two delusional symptoms (Table 2). Of them, four of 6 patients (66.67%) reference and persecutory delusions, and two of 6 patients (33.33%) had persecutory and delusions of grandeur (Table 2).

Clinical treatment of MDR-TB patients with CS-induced psychosis

Treatment of cycloserine-induced psychosis varied between reported patients. Of the 22 patients reported, only 4 (18.2%) did not receive antipsychotic treatment. Of the remaining 18 (81.8%) patients reported, the majority (10 patients; 45.5%) received monotherapy with one antipsychotic (2 participants received risperidone, four olanzapine, two haloperidol, 1 received quetiapine, and 1 received chlorpromazine). Of the patients who received a combination of 2 antipsychotics (4 patients, 18.2%), two received a combination with olanzapine and haloperidol, 1 received chlorpromazine and haloperidol, and one patient received olanzapine and quetiapine. Finally, four patients (18.2%) received a combination of three antipsychotics: 2 of them received chlorpromazine + risperidone + haloperidol, 1 of them received haloperidol + promethazine + olanzapine, and 1 of them received haloperidol + chlorpromazine + olanzapine.

Of the adjuvant treatments to antipsychotic therapy, six (27.2%) patients received benzodiazepines (lorazepam, nitrazepam, and clonazepam), 3 (13.6%) patients received anticholinergic agents (benzhexol), and 1 (4.54%) received valproic acid.

Parallel to psychopharmacological therapy, 11 (50%) of the reported patients stopped receiving CS, while 2 (9.19%) continued CS treatment, and 2 (9.19%) reported patients the dose of CS was reduced (Table 1). In addition, two reported patients (9.19%) had their cycloserine dose wholly suspended for a defined period (Table 1). Finally, in 3 (13.6%) reported cases, the antitubercular therapy (including CS) was withheld (Table 1).

Finally, 20 of the 22 reported patients (90.9%) presented a clinical improvement of psychotic symptoms with the reported therapeutic strategies. On the other hand, only one patient reported partial symptom improvement with low-grade labile mood and psychosis (Table 1). Finally, in the case of one patient, suicide was committed by exsanguination by cutting himself in different regions of the body and did not present an improvement in psychotic symptoms despite treatment (Table 1).

Quality assessment of case reports: CS-induced psychosis in DR-TB patients

In general, the quality of the case reports was good, showing that the vast majority of the articles had a low risk of bias (Additional file 2). In this sense, it was determined that 17 (85%) of the reports presented a very low risk, while 3 (15%) presented a low risk. A total of 3 (15%) studies did not report the number of doses of cycloserine used in patients with MDR-TB. On the other hand, in the case of the record of symptoms, of the reported cases that described the presence of hallucinations, 4 (20%) studies did not specify what type of hallucinations they were (e.g., visual or auditory). Finally, only one study described the use of cycloserine for treating MDR-TB after using other antibiotics. At the same time, the rest of the reported cases indicate a concomitant use of cycloserine with other antibiotics. The quality assessment of the individual studies is in detail in Additional file 2.

In the case of the probability of the reaction to an adverse event, in this case, psychosis induced by cycloserine, a total of 6 articles used the Naranjo algorithm in patients who use cycloserine. In case this algorithm had not been described in the case reports, the score was established according to the information presented in the article. Of the reported articles, 18 showed a “probable” Naranjo index for cycloserine-induced psychosis (5–8 points), while the rest scored as “possible” (1–4 points).


The following systematic review of case reports identified 20 articles (years of publication between 1965 and 2022) concerning CS-induced psychosis in DR-TB patients (mean age: 31.45 years), whose majority did not present comorbidities. Furthermore, the median duration of the CS-induced psychosis was 13 days, and the most prevalent psychotic symptom among the patients was delusions (mostly persecutory). Concerning the antipsychotic treatment against CS-induced psychosis, it was found that most received at least one antipsychotic, and parallelly CS treatment was stopped. Of the reports included in this review, 20 of 22 patients showed a clinical improvement. However, only one reported patient (treatment: risperidone and clonazepam) committed suicide by inflicting himself on multiple cuts and, therefore, dying of exsanguination. Finally, most of the included case reports showed a very low risk of bias at the time of evaluation; also, the Naranjo index showed psychosis as a “probable” adverse reaction of CS in most of the reports.

Regarding the sociodemographic data, there are similarities between our findings and previous studies with CS-induced psychosis. For example, a retrospective study reported that younger ages represented a risk factor for CS-induced psychosis [56]. In another observational study, a mean age of 35.7 years was reported in a sample of 144 patients, as well as a predominance of males in the sample, similar to the sample characteristics of our study [12].

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of case reports which describes the psychopathology of CS-induced psychosis in reported DR-TB patients. Our results showed that delusions of persecution are the most frequent psychotic symptoms among the reported cases. Other studies with experimental designs, for instance that used CS as adjuvant treatment for 8 weeks in schizophrenic patients, also demonstrated a frequency increase in delusions, grandiosity, and hostility [57]. Finally, similar results are reported in an experimental study that found an exacerbation of psychotic symptoms through CS in a small group of patients with schizophrenia (hallucinations, an acute persecutory delusion, psychomotor agitation, thought disorganization, and catatonic symptoms) or caused a confusional psychosis (mainly including an obnubilation of consciousness and formal thought disorders with speech acceleration, that occur especially in intoxications) with circadian disorders [58].

Currently, some studies support the role of CS as a partial agonist of NMDA receptors binding to glycine sites [57, 59]. However, at high doses, CS can act as NMDA receptor (NMDAR) antagonists [60, 61], generating or worsening psychotic symptoms, as reported, for instance, in patients with schizophrenia [57, 62]. In addition, the dose-dependent NMDA antagonism could also explain the induced psychosis of the reported patients with DR-TB, receiving CS doses between 250 and 1000 mg. However, an observational study found that CS concentrations and the area under the curve were not associated with the appearance of psychotic symptoms in patients with MDR-TB [12], remaining unclear the pharmacological mechanisms of CS psychosis induction in patients with DR-TB.

Regarding the treatment of CS-induced psychosis, most reported patients presented an improvement with the administration of antipsychotic agents and the discontinuation of CS. This characteristic varies according to the literature reports, since a retrospective study shows the improvement of psychosis in most patients by reducing or temporarily suspending the CS dose [56]. However, the results of both studies agree that a reduction in CS exposure and the administration of antipsychotics reduces the frequency of the appearance of psychotic symptoms produced by CS.

Finally, the Naranjo adverse reaction scale showed that the induction of psychosis due to CS is probable (5 to 8 points). Some case reports presented values on the Naranjo scale (6 articles); however, the remaining reports did not mention a score in the Naranjo algorithm, which the authors of this study finally calculated. Naranjo’s tool may have some disadvantages, among which is the variability of the numerical score due to the evaluator’s opinion. In addition, the lack of information described in the article to qualify certain criteria could make it difficult to assess the probability of an adverse reaction in the case, for example, of external evaluators who were not involved in the treatment of the patient. This difficulty in reproducibility has been analyzed in other studies by comparing the score assigned by the same authors of the case report and that obtained by evaluators only with the information provided by the article [34]. In this case, it is observed that despite variation in the numerical score, this did not influence a significant change in the assigned category [34].

The main strength of the present study includes a description, through a systematic search, of psychotic symptoms in patients who use CS due to DR-TB, since psychosis due to CS is less frequent (between 8 and 14%) [12, 17].

However, it is important to mention that this study has limitations that must be considered. First, the small sample size of this systematic review. Second, some reports presented incomplete data (e.g., the characterization of hallucinations or the dose of CS). In addition, five articles did not present auxiliary tests (routine laboratories, diagnostic imaging, electrophysiology, etc.). Regarding the study’s methodology, this systematic review of case reports is based on non-systematized clinical information, which influenced the presentation of the details and the quality of the articles included, being a limitation of the study. Likewise, this study is not appropriate to determine the causality of the psychotic event due to the non-randomized and anecdotal methodology of the clinical cases. Finally, the accessibility of some articles was very restricted, despite contacting the corresponding authors on multiple occasions, in such a way that in these cases, only the abstract of the case report or the title of the report was available.


In light of our results, we conclude that the most frequent psychotic symptom of CS-induced psychosis was persecutory delusions. In addition, CS-induced psychosis is of short duration that shows mostly a symptom improvement after medical treatment, involving the CS withhold/suspension and antipsychotic treatment. Future studies should clarify possible associations between psychotic symptoms and CS serum concentrations and observe the risk factors associated with the development of psychosis due to CS in patients with DR-TB.

In clinical practice, it is important for practitioners to be aware of the potential adverse effect of cycloserine (psychosis) and conduct thorough patient evaluations during admission and follow-up rounds. If there are symptoms that suggest acute psychotic disorders, it is advisable to consult with a hospital psychiatrist, such as a liaison psychiatry service. In cases where a patient may be developing psychosis, coordination with a hospital psychiatrist is crucial to explore possible organic causes of psychosis and conduct a comprehensive third-party medical history to assess if there were similar psychotic symptoms in the past. The diagnosis of a cycloserine adverse effect should be considered if the induced psychosis is causally related and other causes are ruled out. Unfortunatelly, there are no biomarkers to indicate drug-induced psychosis, so close clinical examination and follow-up of the patient is essential in such cases.

Availability of data and materials

The data are available from the corresponding author on strictly grounded reasonable requests.



Alanine aminotransferase


Age of participant


Aspartate aminotransferase


Antitubercular treatment


Brief psychiatric rating scale


Blood urea nitrogen


Complete blood count


Cerebral computed tomography


Cranial magnetic resonance imaging


Creatinine phosphokinase






Computed tomography


Diabetes mellitus




Drug-resistant tuberculosis






Erythrocyte sedimentation rate




Gamma-aminobutyric acid


Hamilton depression scale/Hamilton anxiety scale






Human immunodeficiency virus


Joanna Briggs Institute




Lactate dehydrogenase


Lumbar puncture




Major depressive disorder


Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis


Magnetic resonance imaging






NMDA receptor


Neuroleptic malignant syndrome


Para-amino salicylic acid


Past medical history


Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses










Thyroid-stimulating hormone


Extreme drug-resistant tuberculosis


Young Mania Rating Scale


  1. World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dhamnetiya D, Patel P, Jha RP, Shri N, Singh M, Bhattacharyya K. Trends in incidence and mortality of tuberculosis in India over past three decades: a joinpoint and age–period–cohort analysis. BMC Pulm Med. 2021;21(1):375.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Avoi R, Liaw YC. Tuberculosis death epidemiology and its associated risk factors in Sabah, Malaysia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(18):9740.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Chakaya J, Khan M, Ntoumi F, Aklillu E, Fatima R, Mwaba P, et al. Global tuberculosis report 2020—reflections on the global TB burden, treatment and prevention efforts. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;113(Suppl 1):S7-12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Fukunaga R, Glaziou P, Harris JB, Date A, Floyd K, Kasaeva T. Epidemiology of tuberculosis and progress toward meeting global targets—worldwide, 2019. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70(12):427–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. MacNeil A, Glaziou P, Sismanidis C, Date A, Maloney S, Floyd K. Global epidemiology of tuberculosis and progress toward meeting global targets—worldwide, 2018. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(11):281–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee-Rodriguez C, Wada PY, Hung YY, Skarbinski J. Association of mortality and years of potential life lost with active tuberculosis in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(9): e2014481.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Oh P, Pascopella L, Barry PM, Flood JM. A systematic synthesis of direct costs to treat and manage tuberculosis disease applied to California, 2015. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):434.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. World Health Organization. WHO consolidated guidelines on drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment. World Health Organization; 2019. p. 99. Accessed 6 Nov 2022.

  10. Li Y, Wang F, Wu L, Zhu M, He G, Chen X, et al. Cycloserine for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a retrospective cohort study in China. Infect Drug Resist. 2019;12:721–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Deshpande D, Alffenaar JWC, Köser CU, Dheda K, Chapagain ML, Simbar N, et al. d-Cycloserine pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, susceptibility, and dosing implications in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a faustian deal. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67(suppl_3):S308–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Court R, Centner CM, Chirehwa M, Wiesner L, Denti P, de Vries N, et al. Neuropsychiatric toxicity and cycloserine concentrations during treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;105:688–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Li X, Meng X, Duan H, Wang L, Wang S, Zhang Y, et al. Original and efficient synthesis of d-cycloserine. Arch Pharm (Weinheim). 2010;343(8):473–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rouaud E, Billard JM. d-Cycloserine facilitates synaptic plasticity but impairs glutamatergic neurotransmission in rat hippocampal slices. Br J Pharmacol. 2003;140(6):1051–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Takiguchi K, Uezato A, Itasaka M, Atsuta H, Narushima K, Yamamoto N, et al. Association of schizophrenia onset age and white matter integrity with treatment effect of d-cycloserine: a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind crossover study. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):249.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Lench AM, Robson E, Jones RSG. Differential effects of d-cycloserine and ACBC at NMDA receptors in the rat entorhinal cortex are related to efficacy at the co-agonist binding site. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(7): e0133548.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Hwang TJ, Wares DF, Jafarov A, Jakubowiak W, Nunn P, Keshavjee S. Safety of cycloserine and terizidone for the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013;17(10):1257–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Prasad R, Singh A, Srivastava R, Hosmane GB, Kushwaha RAS, Jain A. Frequency of adverse events observed with second-line drugs among patients treated for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Indian J Tuberc. 2016;63(2):106–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Supriyanto I, Liung S, Suprihatini S, Ismanto SH. Psychiatric disorders in patients with multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in Sardjito Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. J Res Clin Med. 2017;5(3):91–6.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Smith CM, Gilbert EB, Riordan PA, Helmke N, von Isenburg M, Kincaid BR, et al. COVID-19-associated psychosis: a systematic review of case reports. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2021;73:84–100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Singhai K, Kuppili PP, Nebhinani N. Atypical neuroleptic malignant syndrome: a systematic review of case reports. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2019;60:12–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Carroll AJ, Goergen J, Wafford QE, Flaherty JD, Grady KL, Feingold KL. Psychiatric conditions in patients presenting with Takotsubo syndrome: a systematic review and synthesis of case studies. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2020;65:54–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Abdel-Wahab N, Lopez-Olivo MA, Pinto-Patarroyo GP, Suarez-Almazor ME. Systematic review of case reports of antiphospholipid syndrome following infection. Lupus. 2016;25(14):1520–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Harzing A-W. Publish or perish. 2007. Accessed 6 Nov 2022.

  25. de Schryver GM. Bibliometrics in lexicography. Int J Lexicogr. 2009;22(4):423–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetc R, et al. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI; 2020.

  28. Vardell E, Malloy M. Joanna Briggs institute: an evidence-based practice database. Med Ref Serv Q. 2013;32(4):434–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hannes K, Lockwood C. Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(7):1632–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ma LL, Wang YY, Yang ZH, Huang D, Weng H, Zeng XT. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? Mil Med Res. 2020;7(1):7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JSW, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid-Based Med. 2015;8(1):2–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts EA, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30(2):239–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Adverse drug reaction probability scale (Naranjo) in drug induced liver injury. In: LiverTox: clinical and research information on drug-induced liver injury. Bethesda: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2012. Accessed 6 Nov 2022.

  34. Liang R, Borgundvaag B, McIntyre M, Thwaites C, Ragan K, Wyllie A. Evaluation of the reproducibility of the Naranjo adverse drug reaction probability scale score in published case reports. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34(11):1159–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yadav S, Rawal G. Adverse drug reactions due to cycloserine on the central nervous system in the multidrug-resistant tuberculosis cases: a case series. PAMJ Clin Med. 2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dunga JA, Alasia DD, Alkali NH, Adamu Y, Vakai I, Musa JJ. Cycloserine induced psychosis among patient’s on second line treatment for drug resistant tuberculosis in Bauchi and Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Niger Health J. 2015;15(3):118–24.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fujita J, Sunada K, Hayashi H, Hayashihara K, Saito T. A case of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis showing psychiatric adverse effect by cycloserine. Kekkaku. 2008;83(1):21–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sarkar S, Sood M. A patient of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis on category IV treatment regimen presenting with psychosis. Natl Med J India. 2011;24(4):244–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Behera C, Krishna K, Singh HR. Antitubercular drug-induced violent suicide of a hospitalised patient. Case Rep. 2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Holla SN. Cycloserine induced late onset psychosis and ethambutol induced peripheral neuropathy associated with MDR-TB treatment in an Indian patient—a rare case report. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Bakhla A, Gore P, Srivastava S. Cycloserine induced mania. Ind Psychiatry J. 2013;22(1):69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Tandon V, Rani N, Roshi, Gupta R, Arora M, Khajuria V, et al. Cycloserine induced psychosis with hepatic dysfunction. Indian J Pharmacol. 2015;47(2):230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Aborlo KN. Cycloserine induced-psychosis in a 22-year old male pharmacy student: a case report. Am J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2016;4(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sharma B, Handa R, Nagpal K, Prakash S, Gupta PK, Agrawal R. Cycloserine-induced psychosis in a young female with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2014;36(4):451.e3-451.e4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mahajan SS, Tandon VR, Sarin R, Khursheed A, Mahajan A, Gupta R. Insomnia and psychosis induced by cycloserine. JK Sci. 2017;19(4):243–4.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Shekhar S, Das N, Prasad S. Late occurrence of antitubercular-treatment-induced psychosis—a case report. Indian J Psychol Med. 2022;44(2):194–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Çakmak S, Bal U, Gelegen V, KarataşKarakuş G, Tamam LUT. Mania associated with cycloserine. Cukurova Med J. 2016;41(1):79–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sawant N, Kate N, Bhatankar S, Kulkarni P. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome in cycloserine-induced psychosis. Indian J Pharmacol. 2015;47(3):328.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Intini E, Kishore G, Richeldi L, Udwadia ZF. Neuropsychiatric reactions induced by cycloserine in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: what an Indian female patient tells us. BMJ Case Rep. 2019;12(12): e230993.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Jain M, Lewis C, Moriarty M, Hussain S. Neuropsychiatric toxicity of cycloserine in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patient with reversible MRI changes. In: B50. Tuberculosis: case reports; 2016.

  51. Otu A, Offor J, Ekpor I, Olarenwaju O. New-onset psychosis in a multi-drug resistant tuberculosis patient on cycloserine in Calabar, Nigeria: a case report. Trop J Pharm Res. 2014;13(2):303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Okpataku CI. Persistent psychosis occurring in a patient receiving cycloserine for the treatment of multidrug resistant tuberculosis. Psychiatry. 2015;11(5):51.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Arias-Gutiérrez M, Cabrejos-Novoa C, Núñez-Moscoso P, Valera-Guerrero V, Cruzado L. Psicosis inducida por fármacos antituberculosos: un caso asociado a cicloserina. Rev Neuro-Psiquiatr. 2014;77(3):179–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bankier RG. Psychosis associated with cycloserine. Can Med Assoc J. 1965;93(1):35–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Wazir NSM, Keat TC. Psychosis during multidrug resistant tuberculosis treatment: a case report. Malays J Psychiatry. 2020;29(1):73–7.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Vega P, Sweetland A, Acha J, Castillo H, Guerra D, Smith Fawzi MC, et al. Psychiatric issues in the management of patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2004;8(6):749–59.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. van Berckel BN, Evenblij CN, van Loon BJ, Maas MF, van der Geld MA, Wynne HJ, et al. d-Cycloserine increases positive symptoms in chronic schizophrenic patients when administered in addition to antipsychotics: a double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study. Neuropsychopharmacol. 1999;21(2):203–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Cascella NG, Macciardi F, Cavallini C, Smeraldi E. d-Cycloserine adjuvant therapy to conventional neuroleptic treatment in schizophrenia: an open-label study. J Neural Transm Gen Sect. 1994;95(2):105–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hood WF, Compton RP, Monahan JB. d-Cycloserine: a ligand for the N-methyl-d-aspartate coupled glycine receptor has partial agonist characteristics. Neurosci Lett. 1989;98(1):91–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lanthorn TH. d-Cycloserine: agonist turned antagonist. Amino Acids. 1994;6(3):247–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Goff DC. d-Cycloserine: an evolving role in learning and neuroplasticity in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2012;38(5):936–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Goff DC, Tsai G, Levitt J, Amico E, Manoach D, Schoenfeld DA, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of d-cycloserine added to conventional neuroleptics in patients with schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56(1):21–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.


This study was part of the medical doctor (M.D.) thesis of ACS, LUE, and SVQ. This study was not supported financially by any institution. The authors of this study were not hired by any organization that may gain or lose financially through this publication. Finally, the authors did not receive any compensation (monetary, shares, etc.) from companies, consultation fees or other forms of remuneration from any organizations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



ACS, LUE, and SVQ: shared first author. ACS, LUE, and SVQ: helped to develop the idea of the study and wrote the introduction and methods; helped with the results and the discussion; performed the literature search for the introduction and discussion and carried out the systematic search using and Publish or Perish; involved in selecting case reports, quality control, data extraction, and data analysis. MAF: co-author. Corrected the manuscript, helped with the data analysis, and helped with the paper’s discussion, proofreading, and paper mentoring. BPP: this is the corresponding author and the senior author. BPP is responsible for everything concerning the submission process for all paper authors. BPP developed the idea of the study. In addition, BPP wrote the results, discussion, and conclusions. Corrected the manuscript and did the data analysis and the literature search. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Alonso Cotrina-Santome: Bachelor in medical and surgical sciences. Member of the Mental Health Research Work Group of the Peruvian University Cayetano Heredia (Lima, Peru).

Lizbeth Ulloa-Esquivel: Bachelor in medical and surgical sciences. Member of the Mental Health Research Work Group of the Peruvian University Cayetano Heredia (Lima, Peru).

Shirley Vásquez-Quispe: Bachelor in medical and surgical sciences. Member of the Mental Health Research Work Group of the Peruvian University Cayetano Heredia (Lima, Peru).

Martín Arevalo-Flores: M.D., Peruvian University Cayetano Heredia. Member of the Mental Health Research Work Group of the Peruvian University Cayetano Heredia (Lima, Peru).

Bruno Pedraz-Petrozzi: M.D., Ph.D., Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany. Member of the Mental Health Research Work Group of the Peruvian University Cayetano Heredia (Lima, Peru).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruno Pedraz-Petrozzi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the human ethics committee of the Peruvian University Cayetano Heredia. The code of this project in the ethics committee is SIDISI 208894. The study is conceived as secondary data analysis and systematic research. Therefore, no human or animal beings were harmed or assessed in this study. No informed consent was required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

The systematic literature search, combination of Booleans, and the Boolean formulae are described.

Additional file 2.

The quality assessment of the individual studies is in detail.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cotrina-Santome, A., Ulloa-Esquivel, L., Vásquez-Quispe, S. et al. Cycloserine-induced psychosis in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review of case reports. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg 59, 37 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: