No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Pharmacological Interventions for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents with Tourette Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the comparative efficacy of pharmacological interventions for children and adolescents with a dual diagnosis of persistent tic disorders or Tourette disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (TD + ADHD). Methods: We searched CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Sciences, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP up to September 2023 to identify double-blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing pharmacological interventions for children and adolescents with TD + ADHD. Outcomes were change in ADHD symptoms (primary) and tics (secondary) severity. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated and pooled in random-effects network meta-analysis. The Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework was adopted to determine certainty of evidence. Results: We included 8 RCTs involving 575 participants. Network meta-analyses demonstrated that α2 agonists (SMD, 95% confidence interval [CI] ADHD: -0.72 [-1.13 to -0.31]; TD: -0.70 [-0.96 to -0.45]) and stimulants + α2 agonists (ADHD: -0.84 [-1.54 to -0.13]; TD: -0.60 [-1.04 to -0.17]) were more efficacious than placebo for ADHD symptoms and tics severity. Stimulants alone were more efficacious than placebo for ADHD symptoms severity only, but they did not worsen tics (ADHD: -0.54 [-1.05 to -0.03]; TD: -0.22 [-0.49 to 0.05]). There were no significant differences between any pairs of medications that were found efficacious against placebo for ADHD symptoms or tics severity. Certainty in the evidence varied from low to very low. Conclusions: Stimulants are efficacious for ADHD symptoms severity and do not increase tics severity in TD + ADHD. α2 agonists are efficacious for both ADHD symptoms and tics severity in TD + ADHD. These findings should inform guidelines and help guide shared decision-making to choose a medication for children with TD + ADHD.
Clinical guidelines currently recommend practitioners titrate stimulant medications, i.e., methylphenidate (MPH) and amphetamines (AMP), to the dose that maximizes symptom control without eliciting intolerable adverse events (AEs) when treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in school-aged children/adolescents. However, robust evidence-base regarding the effects of doses and dosing strategies of stimulants on clinical outcomes in the treatment of children/adolescents with ADHD is currently lacking and stimulants are often underdosed in clinical practice. To address this gap and provide rigorous evidence-base in relation to the dose and dosing strategy of stimulants, we conducted the largest systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis examining change in ADHD symptoms (efficacy), and treatment discontinuations due to AEs (tolerability) and any reason (acceptability). We conducted one-stage random-effects dose–response meta-analyses examining MPH and AMP separately, stratifying trials based on fixed-dose and flexible-dose design. Daily doses of stimulants were converted to MPH- and AMP-equivalent doses by adjusting for different pharmacokinetics across formulations. We also conducted pairwise meta-analyses to provide indirect comparisons between flexible-dose versus fixed-dose trials. Our study included 65 RCTs involving 7 877 children/adolescents. Meta-analyses of fixed-dose trials for both MPH and AMP demonstrated increased efficacy and increased likelihood of discontinuation due to AEs with increasing doses of stimulants. The incremental benefits of stimulants in terms of efficacy decreased beyond 30 mg of MPH or 20 mg of AMP in fixed-dosed trials. In contrast, meta-analyses of flexible-dose trials for both MPH and AMP demonstrated increased efficacy and reduced likelihood of discontinuations for any reason with increasing stimulant doses. The incremental benefits of stimulants in terms of efficacy remained constant across the FDA-licensed dose range for MPH and AMP in flexible-dose trials. Our results suggest that flexible titration as needed, i.e., considering the presence of ADHD symptoms, and tolerated, i.e., considering the presence of dose-limiting AEs, to higher doses of stimulants is associated with both improved efficacy and acceptability because practitioners can increase/reduce doses based on control of ADHD symptoms/dose-limiting AEs. Although fixed-dose trials that are required by the FDA are valuable to characterize dose-dependency, they may underestimate the true potential benefit of trialing dose-increases of stimulants in clinical practice by not allowing dose adjustment based on response and tolerability. Additional research is required to investigate potential long-term effects of using high doses of stimulants in clinical practice.
In 2011, the European Society for the Study of Tourette Syndrome (ESSTS) published the first European guidelines for Tourette Syndrome (TS). We now present an update of the part on pharmacological treatment, based on a review of new literature with special attention to other evidence-based guidelines, meta-analyses, and randomized double-blinded studies. Moreover, our revision took into consideration results of a recent survey on treatment preferences conducted among ESSTS experts. The first preference should be given to psychoeducation and to behavioral approaches, as it strengthens the patients’ self-regulatory control and thus his/her autonomy. Because behavioral approaches are not effective, available, or feasible in all patients, in a substantial number of patients pharmacological treatment is indicated, alone or in combination with behavioral therapy. The largest amount of evidence supports the use of dopamine blocking agents, preferably aripiprazole because of a more favorable profile of adverse events than first- and second-generation antipsychotics. Other agents that can be considered include tiapride, risperidone, and especially in case of co-existing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), clonidine and guanfacine. This view is supported by the results of our survey on medication preference among members of ESSTS, in which aripiprazole was indicated as the drug of first choice both in children and adults. In treatment resistant cases, treatment with agents with either a limited evidence base or risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects might be considered, including pimozide, haloperidol, topiramate, cannabis-based agents, and botulinum toxin injections. Overall, treatment of TS should be individualized, and decisions based on the patient’s needs and preferences, presence of co-existing conditions, latest scientific findings as well as on the physician’s preferences, experience, and local regulatory requirements.
ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder presenting to child and adolescent mental health, paediatric, and primary care services. Timely and effective interventions to address core ADHD symptoms and co-occurring problems are a high priority for healthcare and society more widely. While much research has reported on the benefits and adverse effects of different interventions for ADHD, these individual research reports and the reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines summarizing their findings are sometimes inconsistent and difficult to interpret. We have summarized the current evidence and identified several methodological issues and gaps in the current evidence that we believe are important for clinicians to consider when evaluating the evidence and making treatment decisions. These include understanding potential impact of bias such as inadequate blinding and selection bias on study outcomes; the relative lack of high-quality data comparing different treatments and assessing long-term effectiveness, adverse effects and safety for both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; and the problems associated with observational studies, including those based on large national registries and comparing treatments with each other. We highlight key similarities across current international clinical guidelines and discuss the reasons for divergence where these occur. We discuss the integration of these different perspective into a framework for person/family-centered evidence-based practice approach to care that aims to achieve optimal outcomes that prioritize individual strengths and impairments, as well as the personal treatment targets of children and their families. Finally, we consider how access to care for this common and impairing disorder can be improved in different healthcare systems.
Top‐tier evidence on the safety/tolerability of 80 medications in children/adolescents with mental disorders has recently been reviewed in this journal. To guide clinical practice, such data must be combined with evidence on efficacy and acceptability. Besides medications, psychosocial interventions and brain stimulation techniques are treatment options for children/adolescents with mental disorders. For this umbrella review, we systematically searched network meta‐analyses (NMAs) and meta‐analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 48 medications, 20 psychosocial interventions, and four brain stimulation techniques in children/adolescents with 52 different mental disorders or groups of mental disorders, reporting on 20 different efficacy/acceptability outcomes. Co‐primary outcomes were disease‐specific symptom reduction and all‐cause discontinuation (“acceptability”). We included 14 NMAs and 90 MAs, reporting on 15 mental disorders or groups of mental disorders. Overall, 21 medications outperformed placebo regarding the co‐primary outcomes, and three psychosocial interventions did so (while seven outperformed waiting list/no treatment). Based on the meta‐analytic evidence, the most convincing efficacy profile emerged for amphetamines, methylphenidate and, to a smaller extent, behavioral therapy in attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder; aripiprazole, risperidone and several psychosocial interventions in autism; risperidone and behavioral interventions in disruptive behavior disorders; several antipsychotics in schizophrenia spectrum disorders; fluoxetine, the combination of fluoxetine and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and interpersonal therapy in depression; aripiprazole in mania; fluoxetine and group CBT in anxiety disorders; fluoxetine/selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, CBT, and behavioral therapy with exposure and response prevention in obsessive‐compulsive disorder; CBT in post‐traumatic stress disorder; imipramine and alarm behavioral intervention in enuresis; behavioral therapy in encopresis; and family therapy in anorexia nervosa. Results from this umbrella review of interventions for mental disorders in children/adolescents provide evidence‐based information for clinical decision making.
In this issue, Rodrigues et al. (2020) present a systematic review with meta‐analyses that reports the efficacy of five treatments for children with attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in the context of autism spectrum disorder – (a) methylphenidate; (b) atomoxetine; (c) guanfacine; (d) aripiprazole; and (e) risperidone. In this commentary, we highlight the contrast between the scarce evidence base of treatment for ADHD in the context of autism and other subpopulations, such as tic disorders and intellectual disability, and the extensive evidence base of treatment for ADHD in general. The commentary weighs about the conundrum clinicians face of whether to rely on the limited evidence base of treatment for ADHD in subpopulation, or to derive conclusions from the larger body of evidence of treatment for ADHD in general. The commentary also discusses potential avenues for future research to address this clinical problem.
Background
The evaluation of the credibility of results from a meta-analysis has become an important part of the evidence synthesis process. We present a methodological framework to evaluate confidence in the results from network meta-analyses, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA), when multiple interventions are compared.
Methodology
CINeMA considers 6 domains: (i) within-study bias, (ii) reporting bias, (iii) indirectness, (iv) imprecision, (v) heterogeneity, and (vi) incoherence. Key to judgments about within-study bias and indirectness is the percentage contribution matrix, which shows how much information each study contributes to the results from network meta-analysis. The contribution matrix can easily be computed using a freely available web application. In evaluating imprecision, heterogeneity, and incoherence, we consider the impact of these components of variability in forming clinical decisions.
Conclusions
Via 3 examples, we show that CINeMA improves transparency and avoids the selective use of evidence when forming judgments, thus limiting subjectivity in the process. CINeMA is easy to apply even in large and complicated networks.
Background
The benefits and safety of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remain controversial, and guidelines are inconsistent on which medications are preferred across different age groups. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of oral medications for ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults.
Methods
We did a literature search for published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing amphetamines (including lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with each other or placebo. We systematically contacted study authors and drug manufacturers for additional information. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in severity of ADHD core symptoms based on teachers' and clinicians' ratings) and tolerability (proportion of patients who dropped out of studies because of side-effects) at timepoints closest to 12 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and confidence of estimates with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for network meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014008976.
Findings
133 double-blind randomised controlled trials (81 in children and adolescents, 51 in adults, and one in both) were included. The analysis of efficacy closest to 12 weeks was based on 10 068 children and adolescents and 8131 adults; the analysis of tolerability was based on 11 018 children and adolescents and 5362 adults. The confidence of estimates varied from high or moderate (for some comparisons) to low or very low (for most indirect comparisons). For ADHD core symptoms rated by clinicians in children and adolescents closest to 12 weeks, all included drugs were superior to placebo (eg, SMD −1·02, 95% CI −1·19 to −0·85 for amphetamines, −0·78, −0·93 to −0·62 for methylphenidate, −0·56, −0·66 to −0·45 for atomoxetine). By contrast, for available comparisons based on teachers' ratings, only methylphenidate (SMD −0·82, 95% CI −1·16 to −0·48) and modafinil (−0·76, −1·15 to −0·37) were more efficacious than placebo. In adults (clinicians' ratings), amphetamines (SMD −0·79, 95% CI −0·99 to −0·58), methylphenidate (−0·49, −0·64 to −0·35), bupropion (−0·46, −0·85 to −0·07), and atomoxetine (−0·45, −0·58 to −0·32), but not modafinil (0·16, −0·28 to 0·59), were better than placebo. With respect to tolerability, amphetamines were inferior to placebo in both children and adolescents (odds ratio [OR] 2·30, 95% CI 1·36–3·89) and adults (3·26, 1·54–6·92); guanfacine was inferior to placebo in children and adolescents only (2·64, 1·20–5·81); and atomoxetine (2·33, 1·28–4·25), methylphenidate (2·39, 1·40–4·08), and modafinil (4·01, 1·42–11·33) were less well tolerated than placebo in adults only. In head-to-head comparisons, only differences in efficacy (clinicians' ratings) were found, favouring amphetamines over modafinil, atomoxetine, and methylphenidate in both children and adolescents (SMDs −0·46 to −0·24) and adults (−0·94 to −0·29). We did not find sufficient data for the 26-week and 52-week timepoints.
Interpretation
Our findings represent the most comprehensive available evidence base to inform patients, families, clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the choice of ADHD medications across age groups. Taking into account both efficacy and safety, evidence from this meta-analysis supports methylphenidate in children and adolescents, and amphetamines in adults, as preferred first-choice medications for the short-term treatment of ADHD. New research should be funded urgently to assess long-term effects of these drugs.
Funding
Stichting Eunethydis (European Network for Hyperkinetic Disorders), and the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
Objective:
To examine moderators and predictors of response to behavior therapy for tics in children and adults with Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders.
Methods:
Data from 2 10-week, multisite studies (1 in children and 1 in adults; total n = 248) comparing comprehensive behavioral intervention for tics (CBIT) to psychoeducation and supportive therapy (PST) were combined for moderator analyses. Participants (177 male, 71 female) had a mean age of 21.5 ± 13.9 years (range 9-69). Demographic and clinical characteristics, baseline tic-suppressing medication, and co-occurring psychiatric disorders were tested as potential moderators for CBIT vs PST or predictors of outcome regardless of treatment assignment. Main outcomes measures were the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale Total Tic score and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score assessed by masked evaluators.
Results:
The presence of tic medication significantly moderated response to CBIT vs PST (p = 0.01). Participants showed tic reduction after CBIT regardless of tic medication status, but only participants receiving tic medication showed reduction of tics after PST. Co-occurring psychiatric disorders, age, sex, family functioning, tic characteristics, and treatment expectancy did not moderate response. Across both treatments, greater tic severity (p = 0.005) and positive participant expectancy (p = 0.01) predicted greater tic improvement. Anxiety disorders (p = 0.042) and premonitory urge severity (p = 0.005) predicted lower tic reduction.
Conclusions:
Presence of co-occurring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or anxiety disorders did not moderate response to CBIT. Although participants on tic medication showed improvement after CBIT, the difference between CBIT and PST was greater for participants who were not on tic-suppressing medication.
Clinicaltrialsgov identifiers:
The child and adult CBIT studies are listed on clinical trials.gov (NCT00218777 and NCT00231985, respectively).
Classification of evidence:
This study provides Class I evidence that CBIT is effective in reducing tic severity across subgroups of patients with chronic tic disorders, although the difference between treatments was smaller for participants on tic-suppressing medications, suggesting reduced efficacy in this subgroup.
Background:
Network meta-analysis is used to compare three or more treatments for the same condition. Within a Bayesian framework, for each treatment the probability of being best, or, more general, the probability that it has a certain rank can be derived from the posterior distributions of all treatments. The treatments can then be ranked by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). For comparing treatments in a network meta-analysis, we propose a frequentist analogue to SUCRA which we call P-score that works without resampling.
Methods:
P-scores are based solely on the point estimates and standard errors of the frequentist network meta-analysis estimates under normality assumption and can easily be calculated as means of one-sided p-values. They measure the mean extent of certainty that a treatment is better than the competing treatments.
Results:
Using case studies of network meta-analysis in diabetes and depression, we demonstrate that the numerical values of SUCRA and P-Score are nearly identical.
Conclusions:
Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling. Like the SUCRA values, P-scores induce a ranking of all treatments that mostly follows that of the point estimates, but takes precision into account. However, neither SUCRA nor P-score offer a major advantage compared to looking at credible or confidence intervals.
The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses.
A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses.
This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.
Tourette syndrome (TS) is characterized by high rates of psychiatric comorbidity; however, few studies have fully characterized these comorbidities. Furthermore, most studies have included relatively few participants (<200), and none has examined the ages of highest risk for each TS-associated comorbidity or their etiologic relationship to TS.
To characterize the lifetime prevalence, clinical associations, ages of highest risk, and etiology of psychiatric comorbidity among individuals with TS.
Cross-sectional structured diagnostic interviews conducted between April 1, 1992, and December 31, 2008, of participants with TS (n = 1374) and TS-unaffected family members (n = 1142).
Lifetime prevalence of comorbid DSM-IV-TR disorders, their heritabilities, ages of maximal risk, and associations with symptom severity, age at onset, and parental psychiatric history.
The lifetime prevalence of any psychiatric comorbidity among individuals with TS was 85.7%; 57.7% of the population had 2 or more psychiatric disorders. The mean (SD) number of lifetime comorbid diagnoses was 2.1 (1.6); the mean number was 0.9 (1.3) when obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were excluded, and 72.1% of the individuals met the criteria for OCD or ADHD. Other disorders, including mood, anxiety, and disruptive behavior, each occurred in approximately 30% of the participants. The age of greatest risk for the onset of most comorbid psychiatric disorders was between 4 and 10 years, with the exception of eating and substance use disorders, which began in adolescence (interquartile range, 15-19 years for both). Tourette syndrome was associated with increased risk of anxiety (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9; P = .04) and decreased risk of substance use disorders (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9; P = .02) independent from comorbid OCD and ADHD; however, high rates of mood disorders among participants with TS (29.8%) may be accounted for by comorbid OCD (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.9-4.8; P < .001). Parental history of ADHD was associated with a higher burden of non-OCD, non-ADHD comorbid psychiatric disorders (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.32-2.61; P < .001). Genetic correlations between TS and mood (RhoG, 0.47), anxiety (RhoG, 0.35), and disruptive behavior disorders (RhoG, 0.48), may be accounted for by ADHD and, for mood disorders, by OCD.
This study is, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive of its kind. It confirms the belief that psychiatric comorbidities are common among individuals with TS, demonstrates that most comorbidities begin early in life, and indicates that certain comorbidities may be mediated by the presence of comorbid OCD or ADHD. In addition, genetic analyses suggest that some comorbidities may be more biologically related to OCD and/or ADHD rather than to TS.
Objectives
Estimation of between-study heterogeneity is problematic in small meta-analyses. Bayesian meta-analysis is beneficial because it allows incorporation of external evidence on heterogeneity. To facilitate this, we provide empirical evidence on the likely heterogeneity between studies in meta-analyses relating to specific research settings.
Study Design and Setting
Our analyses included 6,492 continuous-outcome meta-analyses within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We investigated the influence of meta-analysis settings on heterogeneity by modeling study data from all meta-analyses on the standardized mean difference scale. Meta-analysis setting was described according to outcome type, intervention comparison type, and medical area. Predictive distributions for between-study variance expected in future meta-analyses were obtained, which can be used directly as informative priors.
Results
Among outcome types, heterogeneity was found to be lowest in meta-analyses of obstetric outcomes. Among intervention comparison types, heterogeneity was lowest in meta-analyses comparing two pharmacologic interventions. Predictive distributions are reported for different settings. In two example meta-analyses, incorporating external evidence led to a more precise heterogeneity estimate.
Conclusion
Heterogeneity was influenced by meta-analysis characteristics. Informative priors for between-study variance were derived for each specific setting. Our analyses thus assist the incorporation of realistic prior information into meta-analyses including few studies.
Background
In network meta-analyses, several treatments can be compared by connecting evidence from clinical trials that have investigated two or more treatments. The resulting trial network allows estimating the relative effects of all pairs of treatments taking indirect evidence into account. For a valid analysis of the network, consistent information from different pathways is assumed. Consistency can be checked by contrasting effect estimates from direct comparisons with the evidence of the remaining network. Unfortunately, one deviating direct comparison may have side effects on the network estimates of others, thus producing hot spots of inconsistency.
Methods
We provide a tool, the net heat plot, to render transparent which direct comparisons drive each network estimate and to display hot spots of inconsistency: this permits singling out which of the suspicious direct comparisons are sufficient to explain the presence of inconsistency. We base our methods on fixed-effects models. For disclosure of potential drivers, the plot comprises the contribution of each direct estimate to network estimates resulting from regression diagnostics. In combination, we show heat colors corresponding to the change in agreement between direct and indirect estimate when relaxing the assumption of consistency for one direct comparison. A clustering procedure is applied to the heat matrix in order to find hot spots of inconsistency.
Results
The method is shown to work with several examples, which are constructed by perturbing the effect of single study designs, and with two published network meta-analyses. Once the possible sources of inconsistencies are identified, our method also reveals which network estimates they affect.
Conclusion
Our proposal is seen to be useful for identifying sources of inconsistencies in the network together with the interrelatedness of effect estimates. It opens the way for a further analysis based on subject matter considerations.
Chronic tic disorders (TD) are consistently found to have high rates of comorbidity with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The purpose of this study is to compare the severity of TD only to TD with comorbid OCD or ADHD based on severity of tics, measures of psychopathology and additional comorbid diagnoses. Baseline data from 158 youth with a chronic TD who participated in two longitudinal studies were examined. Fifty-three percent (N = 85) of the youth also met criteria for a diagnosis of OCD, 38.6 % (n = 61) met criteria for ADHD and 24.1 % (N = 38) met criteria for both. Measures of interest addressed severity of tics, symptoms of anxiety, depression, ADHD, psychosocial stress, global functioning and the presence of comorbid diagnoses. Youth with comorbid TD and OCD were characterized by more severe tics, increased levels of depressive and anxious symptoms, heightened psychosocial stress and poorer global functioning. Youth with comorbid TD and ADHD did not differ from those with TD alone on measures of tic severity, but experienced greater psychosocial stress and poorer global functioning. Subjects with comorbid TD and OCD had more internalizing disorders than those without OCD, while those with comorbid ADHD were more likely to meet criteria for oppositional defiant disorder. TD with OCD is a more severe subtype of TD than TD without OCD. TD with ADHD is associated with higher psychosocial stress and more externalizing behaviors. Further research is needed into the underlying relationships between these closely associated conditions.
Many meta-analyses contain only a small number of studies, which makes it difficult to estimate the extent of between-study heterogeneity. Bayesian meta-analysis allows incorporation of external evidence on heterogeneity, and offers advantages over conventional random-effects meta-analysis. To assist in this, we provide empirical evidence on the likely extent of heterogeneity in particular areas of health care.
Our analyses included 14 886 meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We classified each meta-analysis according to the type of outcome, type of intervention comparison and medical specialty. By modelling the study data from all meta-analyses simultaneously, using the log odds ratio scale, we investigated the impact of meta-analysis characteristics on the underlying between-study heterogeneity variance. Predictive distributions were obtained for the heterogeneity expected in future meta-analyses.
Between-study heterogeneity variances for meta-analyses in which the outcome was all-cause mortality were found to be on average 17% (95% CI 10-26) of variances for other outcomes. In meta-analyses comparing two active pharmacological interventions, heterogeneity was on average 75% (95% CI 58-95) of variances for non-pharmacological interventions. Meta-analysis size was found to have only a small effect on heterogeneity. Predictive distributions are presented for nine different settings, defined by type of outcome and type of intervention comparison. For example, for a planned meta-analysis comparing a pharmacological intervention against placebo or control with a subjectively measured outcome, the predictive distribution for heterogeneity is a log-normal (-2.13, 1.58(2)) distribution, which has a median value of 0.12. In an example of meta-analysis of six studies, incorporating external evidence led to a smaller heterogeneity estimate and a narrower confidence interval for the combined intervention effect.
Meta-analysis characteristics were strongly associated with the degree of between-study heterogeneity, and predictive distributions for heterogeneity differed substantially across settings. The informative priors provided will be very beneficial in future meta-analyses including few studies.
Children with Tourette syndrome generally experience improvement of tics by age 18 years, but psychosocial and comorbidity outcomes at this age are unclear.
To compare psychosocial outcomes and lifetime comorbidity rates in older adolescents with Tourette syndrome and controls. We hypothesised a priori that individuals with Tourette syndrome would have lower Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) scores.
A total of 65 individuals with Tourette syndrome, identified in childhood, and 65 matched community controls without tic or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms were assessed around 18 years of age regarding psychosocial functioning and lifetime psychiatric disorders.
Compared with controls, individuals with Tourette syndrome had substantially lower CGAS scores (P = 10(-8)) and higher rates of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depression, learning disorder and conduct disorder (P< or =0.01). In the participants with Tourette syndrome, poorer psychosocial outcomes were associated with greater ADHD, OCD and tic severity.
Clinically ascertained children with Tourette syndrome typically have impaired psychosocial functioning and high comorbidity rates in late adolescence.
The Conners Teacher Rating Scale (CTRS) is a commonly used research and clinical tool for assessing children's behavior in the classroom. The present study introduces the revised CTRS (CTRS-R) which improves on the original CTRS by (1) establishing normative data from a large, representative North American sample, (2) deriving a factor structure using advanced statistical techniques, and (3) updating the item content to reflect current conceptualizations of childhood disorders. Using confirmatory factor analysis, a six-factor structure was found which includes Hyperactivity-Impulsivity, Perfectionism, Inattention/Cognitive Problems, Social Problems, Oppositionality, and Anxious/Shy factors. The reliability of the scale, as measured by test-retest correlations and internal consistency, is generally satisfactory. Using all of the scale factors to discriminate between attention deficit hyperactivity disordered and normal children, 85 percent of children were correctly classified, supporting the validity of the scale and indicating excellent clinical utility. Similarities and differences between the original CTRS factor structure and the CTRS-R factor structure are discussed.
The Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS) is a popular research and clinical tool for obtaining parental reports of childhood behavior problems. The present study introduces a revised CPRS (CPRS-R) which has norms derived from a large, representative sample of North American children, uses confirmatory factor analysis to develop a definitive factor structure, and has an updated item content to reflect recent knowledge and developments concerning childhood behavior problems. Exploratory and confirmatory factor-analytic results revealed a seven-factor model including the following factors: Cognitive Problems, Oppositional, Hyperactivity-Impulsivity, Anxious-Shy, Perfectionism, Social Problems, and Psychosomatic. The psychometric properties of the revised scale appear adequate as demonstrated by good internal reliability coefficients, high test-retest reliability, and effective discriminatory power. Advantages of the CPRS-R include a corresponding factor structure with the Conners' Teacher Rating Scale-Revised and comprehensive symptom coverage for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and related disorders. Factor congruence with the original CPRS as well as similarities with other parent rating scales are discussed.
This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of guanfacine in treating children with tic disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Subjects from a specialty tic disorders clinic were randomly assigned to receive 8 weeks of treatment with guanfacine or placebo under double-blind conditions. Follow-up visits occurred every 2 weeks for safety monitoring and dose adjustment.
Thirty-four medication-free subjects (31 boys and three girls with a mean age of 10.4 years) with ADHD, combined type, and a tic disorder participated. After 8 weeks of treatment, guanfacine was associated with a mean improvement of 37% in the total score on the teacher-rated ADHD Rating Scale, compared to 8% improvement for placebo. Nine of 17 subjects who received guanfacine were blindly rated on the Clinical Global Improvement scale as either much improved or very much improved, compared with none of 17 subjects who received placebo. The mean score on the parent-rated hyperactivity index improved by 27% in the guanfacine group and 21% in the placebo group, not a significant difference. On the Continuous Performance Test, commission errors decreased by 22% and omission errors by 17% in the guanfacine group, compared with increases of 29% in commission errors and of 31% in omission errors in the placebo group. Tic severity decreased by 31% in the guanfacine group, compared to 0% in the placebo group. One guanfacine subject with sedation withdrew at week 4. Guanfacine was associated with insignificant decreases in blood pressure and pulse.
Guanfacine appears to be a safe and effective treatment for children with tic disorders and ADHD.
Objective:
To explore the efficacy and safety of clonidine adhesive patch in Tourette syndrome (TS) patients with comorbid attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Methods:
This study was conducted on a sample of children and adolescents with TS who had comorbid ADHD between May 2012 and March 2015. The patients were diagnosed according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, and were randomly assigned to four different dose groups: 1.0 mg/week, 1.5 mg/week, 2.0 mg/week and placebo group, and the symptom was evaluated by Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Rating Scale, Version IV (SNAP-IV) and Yale Global Tic Severity Scale scales every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was tic disorders (TD) effective rate at week 8.
Results:
One hundred and twenty-seven TS patients with comorbid ADHD in 2.0 mg/week (n=35), 1.5 mg/week (n=27), 1.0 mg/week (n=36) and placebo groups (n=29) were included in this subgroup analysis. The TD effective rate of the 2.0 mg, 1.5 mg, and 1.0 mg groups at week 8 were significantly better than that in placebo group (85.7%, 81.5%, and 86.1% vs. 20.7%, all p<0.0001). All groups demonstrated significant improvements in SNAP-IV total scale scores compared to baseline (p=0.0004), with treatment groups showing only a trend for better performance compared to placebo group at week 8, without statistical differences (22.1±15.41, 21.3±11.96, and 21.2±12.48 vs. 26.0±13.37, p=0.3385). A total of 9 adverse reactions occurred, all recovered spontaneously without additional medication.
Conclusion:
Clonidine adhesive patch could safely and effectively reduce the tic symptoms of TS patients with comorbid ADHD, and might be potentially helpful in the ADHD symptoms control.
Background:
Methylphenidate is the most frequently prescribed medication for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents in many countries. Although many randomised controlled trials support short-term efficacy, tolerability, and safety, data on long-term safety and tolerability are scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of methylphenidate over a 2-year period in relation to growth and development, psychiatric health, neurological health, and cardiovascular function in children and adolescents.
Methods:
We conducted a naturalistic, longitudinal, controlled study as part of the ADDUCE research programme in 27 European child and adolescent mental health centres in the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Hungary. Participants aged 6-17 years were recruited into three cohorts: medication-naive ADHD patients who intended to start methylphenidate treatment (methylphenidate group), medication-naive ADHD patients who did not intend to start any ADHD medication (no-methylphenidate group), and a control group without ADHD. Children with ADHD diagnosed by a qualified clinician according to the DSM-IV criteria and, in the control group, children who scored less than 1·5 on average on the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham IV rating scale for ADHD items, and whose hyperactivity score on the parent-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire was within the normal range (<6) were eligible for inclusion. Participants were excluded if they had previously taken any ADHD medications but remained eligible if they had previously taken or were currently taking other psychotropic drugs. The primary outcome was height velocity (height velocity SD score; estimated from at least two consecutive height measurements, and normalised with reference to the mean and SD of a population of the same age and sex).
Findings:
Between Feb 01, 2012, and Jan 31, 2016, 1410 participants were enrolled (756 in methylphenidate group, 391 in no-methylphenidate group, and 263 in control group). 1070 (76·3%) participants were male, 332 (23·7%) were female, and for eight gender was unknown. The average age for the cohort was 9·28 years (SD 2·78; IQR 7-11). 1312 (93·0%) of 1410 participants were White. The methylphenidate and no-methylphenidate groups differed in ADHD symptom severity and other characteristics. After controlling for the effects of these variables using propensity scores, there was little evidence of an effect on growth (24 months height velocity SD score difference -0·07 (95% CI -0·18 to 0·04; p=0·20) or increased risk of psychiatric or neurological adverse events in the methylphenidate group compared with the no-methylphenidate group. Pulse rate and systolic and diastolic blood pressure were higher in the methylphenidate group compared with the no-methylphenidate group after 24 months of treatment. No serious adverse events were reported during the study.
Interpretation:
Our results suggest that long-term treatment with methylphenidate for 2 years is safe. There was no evidence to support the hypothesis that methylphenidate treatment leads to reductions in growth. Methylphenidate-related pulse and blood pressure changes, although relatively small, require regular monitoring.
Funding:
EU Seventh Framework Programme.
Background:
In clinical practice guidelines there is no consensus about the medications that should be initially offered to children and young people with Tourette's syndrome. To provide a rigorous evidence base that could help guide decision making and guideline development, we aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of pharmacological interventions for Tourette's syndrome.
Methods:
For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov, for published and unpublished studies from database inception to Nov 19, 2021. We included double-blind randomised controlled trials of any medication administered as a monotherapy for at least 1 week against another medication or placebo in children and adolescents (aged ≥4 years and ≤18 years), adults (>18 years), or both, diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome according to standardised criteria. We excluded studies that exclusively recruited participants with comorbid attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder. The primary outcome was change in severity of tic symptoms (efficacy). Secondary outcomes were treatment discontinuations due to adverse events (tolerability) and for any reason (acceptability). Pharmacological interventions were examined considering medication categories and medications individually in separate analyses. Summary data were extracted and pooled with a random-effects network meta-analysis to calculate standardised mean differences for efficacy and odds ratios for tolerability and acceptability, with 95% CIs. The Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework was used to assess the certainty of evidence. The protocol was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022296975).
Findings:
Of the 12 088 records identified through the database search, 88 records representing 39 randomised controlled trials were included in the network meta-analysis; these 39 randomised controlled trials comprised 4578 participants (mean age 11·8 [SD 4·5] years; 3676 [80·8%] male participants) and evaluated 23 individual medications distributed across six medication categories. When considering medication categories, first-generation (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0·65 [95% CI -0·79 to -0·51]; low certainty of evidence) and second-generation (-0·71 [-0·88 to -0·54]; moderate certainty of evidence) antipsychotic drugs, as well as α-2 agonists (-0·21 [-0·39 to -0·03]; moderate certainty of evidence), were more efficacious than placebo. First-generation and second-generation antipsychotic drugs did not differ from each other (SMD 0·06 [95% CI -0·14 to 0·25]; low certainty of evidence). However, both first-generation (SMD 0·44 [95% CI 0·21 to 0·66]) and second-generation (0·49 [0·25 to 0·74]) antipsychotic drugs outperformed α-2 agonists, with moderate certainty of evidence. Similar findings were observed when individual medications were considered: aripiprazole (SMD -0·60 [95% CI -0·83 to -0·38]), haloperidol (-0·51 [-0·88 to -0·14]), olanzapine (-0·83 [-1·49 to -0·18]), pimozide (-0·48 [-0·84 to -0·12]), risperidone (-0·66 [-0·98 to -0·34]), and clonidine (-0·20 [-0·37 to -0·02]) all outperformed placebo, with moderate certainty of evidence. Antipsychotic medications did not differ from each other, but there was low to very low certainty of evidence for these comparisons. However, aripiprazole (SMD -0·40 [95% CI -0·69 to -0·12]) and risperidone (-0·46 [-0·82 to -0·11]) outperformed clonidine, with moderate certainty of evidence. Heterogeneity or inconsistency only emerged for a few comparisons. In terms of tolerability and acceptability, there were no relevant findings for any of the efficacious medication categories or individual medications against each other or placebo, but there was low to very low certainty of evidence associated with these comparisons.
Interpretation:
Our analyses show that antipsychotic drugs are the most efficacious intervention for Tourette's syndrome, while α-2 agonists are also more efficacious than placebo and could be chosen by those who elect not to take antipsychotic drugs. Shared decision making about the degree of tic-related severity and distress or impairment, the trade-offs of efficacy and safety between antipsychotic drugs and α-2 agonists, and other highly relevant individual factors that could not be addressed in the present analysis, should guide the choice of medication for children and young people with Tourette's syndrome.
Funding:
None.
A complete and comprehensive medical and psychiatric evaluation is necessary to delineate tic symptoms from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and to prioritize the most problematic symptoms for intervention. Stimulants are the recommended first-line pharmacotherapy to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in patients with tic disorders. Comprehensive behavioral intervention for tics is an effective behavioral therapy that is generally considered the first-line treatment of persistent tic disorders. α-Agonists can be added to stimulants if tics increase or be used as monotherapy to target attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and tics. Atomoxetine is also an excellent option to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and tics.
ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder presenting to child and adolescent mental health, paediatric, and primary care services. Timely and effective interventions to address core ADHD symptoms and co-occurring problems are a high priority for healthcare and society more widely. While much research has reported on the benefits and adverse effects of different interventions for ADHD, these individual research reports and the reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines summarizing their findings are sometimes inconsistent and difficult to interpret. We have summarized the current evidence and identified several methodological issues and gaps in the current evidence that we believe are important for clinicians to consider when evaluating the evidence and making treatment decisions. These include understanding potential impact of bias such as inadequate blinding and selection bias on study outcomes; the relative lack of high-quality data comparing different treatments and assessing long-term effectiveness, adverse effects and safety for both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; and the problems associated with observational studies, including those based on large national registries and comparing treatments with each other. We highlight key similarities across current international clinical guidelines and discuss the reasons for divergence where these occur. We discuss the integration of these different perspective into a framework for person/family-centered evidence-based practice approach to care that aims to achieve optimal outcomes that prioritize individual strengths and impairments, as well as the personal treatment targets of children and their families. Finally, we consider how access to care for this common and impairing disorder can be improved in different healthcare systems.
Amphetamines and methylphenidate and, less often, nonstimulants (atomoxetine, clonidine, and guanfacine) are used to treat ADHD. Inattentiveness and restlessness are improved more than quality-of-life measures in short-term trials.
Objective
Meta-analysis is of fundamental importance to obtain an unbiased assessment of the available evidence. In general, the use of meta-analysis has been increasing over the last three decades with mental health as a major research topic. It is then essential to well understand its methodology and interpret its results. In this publication, we describe how to perform a meta-analysis with the freely available statistical software environment R, using a working example taken from the field of mental health.
Methods
R package meta is used to conduct standard meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses for missing binary outcome data and potential selection bias are conducted with R package metasens. All essential R commands are provided and clearly described to conduct and report analyses.
Results
The working example considers a binary outcome: we show how to conduct a fixed effect and random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis, produce a forest and funnel plot and to test and adjust for funnel plot asymmetry. All these steps work similar for other outcome types.
Conclusions
R represents a powerful and flexible tool to conduct meta-analyses. This publication gives a brief glimpse into the topic and provides directions to more advanced meta-analysis methods available in R.
Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.
Objective:
To make recommendations on the assessment and management of tics in people with Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders.
Methods:
A multidisciplinary panel consisting of 9 physicians, 2 psychologists, and 2 patient representatives developed practice recommendations, integrating findings from a systematic review and following an Institute of Medicine-compliant process to ensure transparency and patient engagement. Recommendations were supported by structured rationales, integrating evidence from the systematic review, related evidence, principles of care, and inferences from evidence.
Results:
Forty-six recommendations were made regarding the assessment and management of tics in individuals with Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders. These include counseling recommendations on the natural history of tic disorders, psychoeducation for teachers and peers, assessment for comorbid disorders, and periodic reassessment of the need for ongoing therapy. Treatment options should be individualized, and the choice should be the result of a collaborative decision among patient, caregiver, and clinician, during which the benefits and harms of individual treatments as well as the presence of comorbid disorders are considered. Treatment options include watchful waiting, the Comprehensive Behavioral Intervention for Tics, and medication; recommendations are provided on how to offer and monitor these therapies. Recommendations on the assessment for and use of deep brain stimulation in adults with severe, treatment-refractory tics are provided as well as suggestions for future research.
Tourette syndrome (TS) is a neuropsychiatric disorder involving motor and phonic tics. Inhibitory control is a key issue in TS, and many disruptive or impulsive behaviors might arise from inhibitory deficits. However, conflicting findings regarding TS patients’ inhibitory performance in neuropsychological tasks have been reported throughout the literature. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate inhibitory control through neuropsychological tasks, and to analyze the factors modulating inhibitory deficits.
Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (GTS) is a childhood-onset neurodevelopmental disorder that is characterized by several motor and phonic tics. Tics usually develop before 10 years of age, exhibit a waxing and waning course and typically improve with increasing age. A prevalence of approximately 1% is estimated in children and adolescents. The condition can result in considerable social stigma and poor quality of life, especially when tics are severe (for example, with coprolalia (swearing tics) and self-injurious behaviours) or when GTS is accompanied by attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, obsessive–compulsive disorder or another neuropsychiatric disorder. The aetiology is complex and multifactorial. GTS is considered to be polygenic, involving multiple common risk variants combined with rare, inherited or de novo mutations. These as well as non-genetic factors (such as perinatal events and immunological factors) are likely to contribute to the heterogeneity of the clinical phenotype, the structural and functional brain anomalies and the neural circuitry involvement. Management usually includes psychoeducation and reassurance, behavioural methods, pharmacotherapy and, rarely, functional neurosurgery. Future research that integrates clinical and neurobiological data, including neuroimaging and genetics, is expected to reveal the pathogenesis of GTS at the neural circuit level, which may lead to targeted interventions.
Suggested methods for exploring the presence of small-study effects in a meta-analysis and the possibility of publication bias are associated with important limitations. When a meta-analysis comprises only a few studies, funnel plots are difficult to interpret, and regression-based approaches to test and account for small-study effects have low power. Assuming that the cause of funnel plot asymmetry is likely to affect an entire research field rather than only a particular comparison of interventions, we suggest that network meta-regression is employed to account for small-study effects in a set of related meta-analyses. We present several possible models for the direction and distribution of small-study effects and we describe the methods by re-analysing two published networks. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The ever increasing number of alternative treatment options and the plethora of clinical trials have put systematic reviews and meta-analysis under a new perspective by emphasizing the need to make inferences about competing treatments for the same condition. The statistical component in reviews that compare multiple interventions, network meta-analysis, is the next generation evidence synthesis toolkit which, when properly applied, can serve decision-making better than the established pairwise meta-analysis. The criticism and enthusiasm for network meta-analysis echo those that greeted the advent of simple meta-analysis. The main criticism is associated with the difficulty in evaluating the assumption underlying the statistical synthesis of direct and indirect evidence. In the present article, the assumption of the network meta-analysis are presented using various formulations, the statistical and nonstatistical methodological considerations are elucidated, and the progress achieved in this field is summarized. Throughout, focus is put on highlighting the analogy between the concerns and difficulties that the scientific community had some time ago when advancing from individual trials to their quantitative synthesis via meta-analysis and those currently expressed about the transition from head-to-head meta-analyses to network meta-analysis. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Background
Tourette syndrome (TS) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by motor and vocal tics--rapid, repetitive, stereotyped movements or vocalizations lasting at least one year in duration. The goal of this article was to review the long-term clinical course of tics and frequently co-occurring conditions in children with TS.
Methods
We conducted a traditional literature search to locate relevant articles regarding long-term outcome and prognosis in TS and tic disorders.
Results
Tics typically have an onset between the ages of 4 and 6 years and reach their worst-ever severity between the ages of 10 and 12 years. By age 10 years, most children are aware of nearly irresistible somatosensory urges that precede the tics. A momentary sense of relief typically follows the completion of a tic. Over the course of hours, tics occur in bouts, with a regular inter-tic interval. Tics increase during periods of psychosocial stress, emotional excitement and fatigue. Tics can become "complex" in nature and appear to be purposeful. Tics can be willfully suppressed for brief intervals and can be evoked by the mere mention of them. Tics typically diminish during periods of goal-directed behavior. Over the course of months, tics wax and wane. By early adulthood, roughly three-quarters of children with TS will have greatly diminished tic symptoms and more than one-third will be virtually tic free.
Conclusion
Although tics are the defining aspect of TS, they are often not the most enduring or impairing symptoms in children with TS. Indeed in TS tics rarely occur in isolation, and other coexisting conditions--such as behavioral disinhibition, hypersensitivity to a broad range of sensory stimuli, problems with visual motor integration, procedural learning difficulties, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, anxiety, and emotional instability--are often a greater source of impairment than the tics themselves. Measures used to enhance self-esteem, such as encouraging independence, strong friendships and the exploration of interests, are crucial to ensuring positive adulthood outcome.
BACKGROUND: Although susceptibility loci exist for Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (GTS), no causative gene has been identified, perhaps in part because of phenotypic heterogeneity. This study used latent class analyses (LCA) to identify GTS subphenotypes and assess characteristics and heritability of the classes.
METHODS: The study included 952 individuals from 222 GTS families recruited for genetic studies. LCA identified a best-fit model for combinations of the diagnoses of GTS, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), OC symptoms and behaviors (OCS/OCB), and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a random sample of one sibling from each family (n = 197), a replication sample randomly chosen from the remaining siblings (n = 203), and in the entire sample (all siblings and parents, N = 952). Heritabilities were assessed for all categoric diagnoses and LCA classes using a variance components approach.
RESULTS: In this large sample of GTS sib pairs and their parents, three GTS-affected groups were identified-GTS + OCS/OCB (Class III), GTS + OCD (Class IV), and GTS + OCD + ADHD (Class V)-in addition to a minimally affected class (I) and a small chronic tics + OCD class (II). A preponderance of males and younger age at onset was found in more comorbidly affected classes. Only the GTS + OCD + ADHD class was highly heritable.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that GTS classes may represent distinct entities, with both shared and unique etiologies. In particular, GTS + OCD + ADHD may represent a separate, heritable phenotype that can be used to further inform genetic studies.
BACKGROUND: Medication is an important element of therapeutic strategies for ADHD. While medications for ADHD are generally well-tolerated, there are common, although less severe, as well as rare but severe adverse events AEs during treatment with ADHD drugs. The aim of this review is to provide evidence- and expert-based guidance concerning the management of (AEs) with medications for ADHD.
METHODS: For ease of use by practitioners and clinicians, the article is organized in a simple question and answer format regarding the prevalence and management of the most common AEs. Answers were based on empirical evidence from studies (preferably meta-analyses or systematic reviews) retrieved in PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE and Web of Knowledge through 30 June 2012. When no empirical evidence was available, expert consensus of the members of the European ADHD Guidelines Group is provided. The evidence-level of the management recommendations was based on the SIGN grading system.
RESULTS: The review covers monitoring and management strategies of loss of appetite and growth delay, cardiovascular risks, sleep disturbance, tics, substance misuse/abuse, seizures, suicidal thoughts/behaviours and psychotic symptoms.
CONCLUSION: Most AEs during treatment with drugs for ADHD are manageable and most of the times it is not necessary to stop medication, so that patients with ADHD may continue to benefit from the effectiveness of pharmacological treatment.
Tourette Syndrome (TS) is a neuropsychiatric disorder involving multiple motor and phonic tics. Tics, which usually begin between the ages of 6 and 8, are sudden, rapid, stereotyped, and apparently purposeless movements or sounds that involve discrete muscle groups. Individuals with TS experience a variety of different sensory phenomena, including premonitory urges prior to tics and somatic hypersensitivity due to impaired sensorimotor gating. In addition to other conditions, stress, anxiety, fatigue, or other heightened emotional states tend to exacerbate tics, while relaxation, playing sports, and focused concentration on a specific task tend to alleviate tic symptoms. Ninety percent of children with TS also have comorbid conditions, such as Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), or an impulse control disorder. These disorders often cause more problems for the child both at home and at school than tics do alone. Proper diagnosis and treatment of TS involves appropriate evaluation and recognition, not only of tics, but also of these associated conditions.
The purpose of this manual is to describe two behavior questionnaires (the ADHD Rating Scale—IV: Home Version and the ADHD Rating Scale—IV: School Version) that are based on the diagnostic criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as described in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Information is presented about the development and standardization of these scales, collection of normative data, factor structure, psychometric properties (i.e., reliability and validity), as well as the interpretive uses of these scales in clinical and school settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Background:
The treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and Tourette syndrome (TS) has been problematic because methylphenidate (MPH)--the most commonly used drug to treat ADHD--has been reported to worsen tics and because clonidine (CLON)--the most commonly prescribed alternative--has unproven efficacy.
Methods:
The authors conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial in which 136 children with ADHD and a chronic tic disorder were randomly administered CLON alone, MPH alone, combined CLON + MPH, or placebo (2 x 2 factorial design). Each subject participated for 16 weeks (weeks 1-4 CLON/placebo dose titration, weeks 5-8 added MPH/placebo dose titration, weeks 9-16 maintenance therapy).
Results:
Thirty-seven children were administered MPH alone, 34 were administered CLON alone, 33 were administered CLON + MPH, and 32 were administered placebo. For our primary outcome measure of ADHD (Conners Abbreviated Symptom Questionnaire--Teacher), significant improvement occurred for subjects assigned to CLON (p < 0.002) and those assigned to MPH (p < 0.003). Compared with placebo, the greatest benefit occurred with combined CLON + MPH (p < 0.0001). CLON appeared to be most helpful for impulsivity and hyperactivity; MPH appeared to be most helpful for inattention. The proportion of individual subjects reporting a worsening of tics as an adverse effect was no higher in those treated with MPH (20%) than those being administered CLON alone (26%) or placebo (22%). Compared with placebo, measured tic severity lessened in all active treatment groups in the following order: CLON + MPH, CLON alone, MPH alone. Sedation was common with CLON treatment (28% reported moderate or severe sedation), but otherwise the drugs were tolerated well, including absence of any evident cardiac toxicity.
Conclusions:
Methylphenidate and clonidine (particularly in combination) are effective for ADHD in children with comorbid tics. Prior recommendations to avoid methylphenidate in these children because of concerns of worsening tics are unsupported by this trial.
Comments on Dr. J. Biederman's paper about the utility of desipramine in the treatment of various diseases in children (see record
1996-12305-001). It is reaffirmed that the deaths from desipramine are unlikely to have been due to mere chance. The side effects addressed so far are not life threatening; the life-threatening effects, such as, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, give clear warning against the use of the drug. It is concluded that desipramine is not clinically indicated in childhood depression, and has little value in the treatment of most nonpsychotic, nonbipolar adolescent depression. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Tourette syndrome (TS) is a neurodevelopmental disorder involving tics, which is frequently accompanied by comorbid obsessive compulsive (OCD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Individuals with TS often report poor quality of life (QoL) in comparison with the general population. This study investigated the clinical correlates of QoL in young people with TS using a self-report multidimensional QoL measure, and a range of clinical scales used to assess tic severity and the symptoms of anxiety, depression, OCD, ADHD and other emotional and behavioral symptoms. Symptoms of depression, OCD, and ADHD appeared to have a widespread negative impact on QoL, but poorer QoL was not associated with increased tic severity. Greater emotional and behavioral difficulties, including symptoms of OCD, were among the best predictors of poor QoL in young people with TS.
Tourette syndrome (TS) is a childhood-onset neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by multiple motor and vocal tics lasting at least a year in duration. Children with TS often experience comorbid conditions such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and attention-deficit disorder. The goal of this article was to review the long-term clinical course of tics and comorbid conditions in children with TS.
We conducted a traditional literature search to locate relevant articles regarding long-term outcome and prognosis in TS and tic disorders.
Tics typically have an onset between the ages of 4 and 6 years and reach their worst-ever severity between the ages of 10 and 12 years. On average, tic severity declines during adolescence. By early adulthood, roughly three-quarters of children with TS will have greatly diminished tic symptoms and over one-third will be tic free. Comorbid conditions, such as OCD and other anxiety and depressive disorders, are more common during the adolescence and early adulthood of individuals with TS than in the general population.
Although tics are the sine qua non of TS, they are often not the most enduring or impairing symptoms in children with TS. Measures used to enhance self-esteem, such as encouraging strong friendships and the exploration of interests, are crucial to ensuring positive adulthood outcome in TS.
The Food and Drug Administration currently requires the package inserts of most psychostimulant medications to list the presence of a tic disorder as a contraindication to their use. Approximately half of children with Tourette's syndrome experience comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We sought to determine the relative efficacy of different medications in treating ADHD and tic symptoms in children with both Tourette's syndrome and ADHD.
We conducted a PubMed search to identify all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials examining the efficacy of medications in the treatment of ADHD in the children with comorbid tics. We used a random effects meta-analysis with standardized mean difference as our primary outcome to estimate the effect size of pharmaceutical agents in the treatment of ADHD symptoms and tics.
Our meta-analysis included nine studies involving 477 subjects. We assessed the efficacy of six medications-dextroamphetamine, methylphenidate, alpha-2 agonists (clonidine and guanfacine), desipramine, atomoxetine, and deprenyl. Methylphenidate, alpha-2 agonists, desipramine, and atomoxetine demonstrated efficacy in improving ADHD symptoms in children with comorbid tics. Alpha-2 agonists and atomoxetine significantly improved comorbid tic symptoms. Although there was evidence that supratherapeutic doses of dextroamphetamine worsens tics, there was no evidence that methylphenidate worsened tic severity in the short term.
Methylphenidate seems to offer the greatest and most immediate improvement of ADHD symptoms and does not seem to worsen tic symptoms. Alpha-2 agonists offer the best combined improvement in both tic and ADHD symptoms. Atomoxetine and desipramine offer additional evidence-based treatments of ADHD in children with comorbid tics. Supratherapeutic doses of dextroamphetamine should be avoided.
Despite the overt nature of most motor and phonic tic phenomena, the development of valid and reliable scales to rate tic severity has been an elusive goal. The Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) is a new clinical rating instrument that was designed for use in studies of Tourette's syndrome and other tic disorders. The YGTSS provides an evaluation of the number, frequency, intensity, complexity, and interference of motor and phonic symptoms. Data from 105 subjects, aged 5 to 51 years, support the construct, convergent, and discriminant validity of the instrument. These results indicate that the YGTSS is a promising instrument for the assessment of tic severity in children, adolescents and adults.
Discusses the risks involved in the use of desipramine in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Desipramine is an adrenergic metabolite of imipramine, lacking the serotogenic properties of its parent. It is used to treat various disorders in children such as ADHD, child panic disorder and depression. In large doses, tricyclic antidepressents are cardiotoxic and neurotoxic, and cause fatal poisoning in children below the age of 17 yrs. Recent epidemiological research shows that desipramine is 2 to 4 times more poisonous than other tricyclic antidepressents. It is suggested that proper clinical testing should be carried out before the use of new noncardiotoxic drugs for the treatment of ADHD, depression, obsessive-compulsive and panic disorder. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Because psychostimulants can exacerbate preexisting motor/phonic tics in individuals with Tourette's syndrome (TS), a clinical trial was performed to examine the ability of clonidine and desipramine to modify attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) behaviors in children with TS + ADHD.
A double-blind, placebo-controlled protocol was used in which each subject served as his or her own control and received, in a randomly assigned fashion, 6-week medication cycles with clonidine (0.05 mg four times daily), desipramine (25 mg four times daily), and placebo.
Thirty-seven children with TS+ADHD between the ages 7 to 13 years and of normal intellect were recruited, and 34 (31 males, 3 females) completed the entire protocol. Outcome measures for ADHD included Parent and Teacher Child Behavior Checklists (CBCL), continuous performance tests, and neuropsychologic tests of executive function. Several markers for ADHD were shown to improve significantly (P < .05) after treatment with desipramine (parent linear analogue rating, parent CBCL "hyperactivity" subscale, and teacher CBCL subscales "nervous/overactive," "anxious," and "unpopular"). Improvement with desipramine was always superior to that noted with clonidine. Clinical improvement did not correlate with drug blood levels. On measures of tic severity, neither drug made tics worse. Desipramine showed a statistically significant improvement on a global linear analogue scale, but not on the Hopkins Motor/Vocal Tic Severity Scale, the Tourette Syndrome Severity Scale, or the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale. Clonidine did not significantly alter tic severity on any measure.
The results of this study suggest that desipramine may be a useful alternative for the treatment of symptoms of ADHD in children with TS.
We conducted a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study to assess the efficacy of deprenyl for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents with comorbid Tourette's syndrome (TS). Twenty-four subjects (21 boys, 3 girls; mean age 12 years) were enrolled at two sites (University of Rochester and Baylor College of Medicine). The design included two 8-week treatment periods separated by a 6-week washout period. The primary outcome measures for ADHD and tic severity were total scores on the DuPaul Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Scale (DADHS) and the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS). Fifteen subjects completed the study. The primary analysis revealed no statistically significant beneficial effect of deprenyl on the DADHS (mean improvement 1.3; 95% CI, -2.7 to 5.3; p = 0.50). Further post-hoc analyses revealed, however, that the effect of deprenyl in the first period was substantial (p = 0.02). There was a marginally statistically significant beneficial effect of deprenyl on the YGTSS total score (p = 0.06). Deprenyl may improve both ADHD and tics in children with TS and warrants further study.
To determine the effects of methylphenidate (MPH) and dextroamphetamine (DEX) on tic severity in boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) comorbid with Tourette's syndrome.
A 9-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover using a wide range of doses was completed by 20 subjects in three cohorts.
Relatively high doses of MPH and DEX in the first cohort produced significant increases in tic severity which were sustained on higher doses of DEX but which attenuated on MPH. Overall, 14 of 20 subjects continued stimulant treatment for 1 to 3 years, generally in combination with other psychotropics. Stimulant-associated adverse effects, including tic exacerbations, were reversible in all cases.
A substantial minority of comorbid subjects had consistent worsening of tics on stimulants, although the majority experienced improvement in ADHD symptoms with acceptable effects on tics. MPH was better tolerated than DEX.