Search

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the incidence of EEG abnormalities (EEG-ab) in children diagnosed with ADHD, investigate the risk of epileptic seizures (SZ) and maintenance on methylphenidate (MPH) over a three-year period. Methods: A total of 517 ADHD children aged 6–14 years were included. Baseline assessments included the identification of EEG-ab, ADHD inattentive subtype (ADHD-I), comorbid epilepsy, the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and the use of MPH. At the 3-year follow-up, assessments included the presence of EEG-ab, maintenance on MPH, AED usage, SZ risk in cases with EEG-epileptiform abnormalities (EEG-epi-ab), compared with control ADHD cases without EEG-epi-ab matched for age and gender. Results: EEG-ab were identified in 273 (52.8%) cases. No statistically significant differences were observed between the EEG-ab and EEG-non-ab groups in terms of age, gender, ADHD-I type or initial use of MPH. EEG non-epileptiform abnormalities (EEG-non-epi-ab) were found in 234 out of 478 (49%) cases without EEG-epi-ab. Notably, EEG-non-epi-ab occurred more frequently in the group of 39 cases with EEG-epi-ab (30/39 (76.9%) vs. 9/39, (21.3%), a subset selected for 3-year follow-up. At 3-year-follow-up no statistically significant difference was found in maintenance on MPH in ADHD cases with and without EEG-epi-ab. Nobody of ADHD cases without comorbid epilepsy or with comorbid epilepsy with achieved SZ freedom developed new SZ. Only 3 children with drug resistant epilepsy experienced SZs, without increase in SZ frequency. The disappearance rate of EEG-epi-ab was higher than that EEG-non-epi-ab (71.8% vs. 33.3%). Conclusions: Children with and without EEG-ab exhibited similar patterns of MPH use (initial use, positive response, and maintenance on MPH). The presence of comorbid epilepsy and EEG-ab, with or without EEG-epi-ab, was not associated with an increased risk of SZ despite the use of MPH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Conduct disorders (CD) are among the most frequent psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents, with an estimated worldwide prevalence in the community of 2–4%. Evidence-based psychological outpatient treatment leads to significant improvement in about two-thirds of cases. However, there seems to be considerable variation in rates of CD diagnoses and implementation of evidence-based interventions between nations. The aim of this study was to compare administrative prevalence and treatment patterns for CD in children and adolescents seen in health care systems across four Western countries (Denmark, Germany, Norway, and the USA). Methods: Cross-sectional observational study using healthcare data to identify children and adolescents (aged 0–19 years) with an ICD-10 code for CD within the calendar year 2018. Within each country's study population, the prevalence of CD, psychiatric comorbidity, psychopharmacological treatment, and psychiatric hospitalisation was calculated. Results: The prevalence of diagnosed CD differed 31-fold between countries: 0.1% (Denmark), 0.3% (Norway), 1.1% (USA) and 3.1% (Germany), with a male/female ratio of 2.0–2.5:1. The rate of psychiatric comorbidity ranged from 69.7 to 86.1%, with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder being most common. Between 4.0% (Germany) and 12.2% (USA) of youths with a CD diagnosis were prescribed antipsychotic medication, and 1.2% (Norway) to 12.5% (Germany) underwent psychiatric hospitalisation. Conclusion: Recognition and characteristics of youths diagnosed with CD varied greatly by country. In some countries, the administrative prevalence of diagnosed CD was markedly lower than the average estimated worldwide prevalence. This variation might reflect country-specific differences in CD prevalence, referral thresholds for mental health care, diagnostic tradition, and international variation in service organisation, CD recognition, and availability of treatment offers for youths with CD. The rather high rates of antipsychotic prescription and hospitalisation in some countries are remarkable, due to the lack of evidence for these therapeutic approaches. These findings stress the need of prioritising evidence-based treatment options in CD. Future research should focus on possible reasons for inter-country variation in recognition and management of CD, and also address possible differences in patient-level outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is recommended for attention-deficit/hyperactivity-disorder (ADHD) in adolescents. However, all CBTs are not created equal, and the guidelines do not specify which CBT interventions are the most effective for this patient group. This study examines the efficacy of a group CBT without parent involvement as follow-up treatment compared to no additional CBT in adolescents with persistent and impairing ADHD symptoms after a short psychoeducational intervention and medical treatment. Methods: The authors conducted a two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial in two child and adolescent mental health outpatient clinics in Norway. One hundred patients aged 14–18 years with a diagnosis of ADHD (66%) or subthreshold ADHD (34%) were randomized to either a 12-week group CBT program (N = 50) or a non-CBT control condition (N = 50). Assessments were made at admission to the clinic, two weeks before and two weeks after treatment. The primary outcomes were parent-, teacher- and self-ratings of ADHD symptoms (ADHD Rating Scale-IV), and the secondary outcomes were ratings of ADHD symptom severity, executive function, functional impairment, and emotional problems. Evaluators blinded to group allocation rated ADHD symptom severity with the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Severity (CGI-S) at baseline and post-treatment. Results: Analyses using mixed-effects models showed no difference between the treatment arms from baseline to post treatment in primary and secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Contrary to our hypothesis, we found no incremental treatment effect on the part of a group CBT as follow-up to psychoeducation and pharmacological treatment on ADHD symptoms and accompanying impairments. Limitations with the CBT was the large number and low dosage of treatment components, causing restricted time for practice. Unlike evidence-based, individualized targeted CBTs with parent involvement, a group CBT directed solely at the adolescents with no parent involvement does not appear effective for treating ADHD. Trial registration: NCT02937142, 18/10/2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is estimated that up to a third of patients on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Treatment by ADHD medication, including a centrally acting stimulant (CAS) or atomoxetine is one of the essential approaches. This study evaluates the use of dispensed ADHD medications in the Norwegian OAT population in the period from 2015 to 2017. Types and doses of ADHD medications, co-dispensations of other potentially addictive drugs like benzodiazepines, z-hypnotics, gabapentinoids, and non-OAT opioids, as well as direct-acting antivirals (DAA) against hepatitis C infection, are investigated. Methods: Information about all dispensed ADHD medication, OAT opioids, and the defined potentially addictive drugs were recorded from the Norwegian Prescription Database. Dispensation rates, the types, and the doses of dispensed ADHD medications were estimated by summarizing the number of dispensations, and the dispensed doses. Logistic regression analyses were employed to assess the associations between ADHD medication, and OAT opioid use, and dispensations of other potentially addictive drugs and DAAs against hepatitis C infection. Results: A total of 9235 OAT patients were included. The proportion of patients who were dispensed ADHD medication increased from 3.5 to 4.6% throughout the study period. The three most dispensed CAS were short- and intermediate-acting methylphenidate (55%), lisdexamphetamine (24%), and dexamphetamine (17%) in 2017. Buprenorphine, rather than methadone, as OAT opioid (adjusted odds ratio: 1.6, CI: 1.2–2.1) was associated with being dispensed ADHD medication. Among patients who received CAS and OAT opioids each calendar year, the dispensed doses of methylphenidate increased from 63 mg/day in 2015 to 76 mg/day in 2017 (p = 0.01). Sixty percent of patients receiving ADHD medications were also dispensed other addictive drugs concomitantly in 2017. Similar results were found in 2015 and 2016. Conclusion: Co-prescription of ADHD medications was low among patients on OAT in Norway, considering a high prevalence of ADHD in this patient group. On the other hand, concurrent dispensations of multiple addictive drugs were common in this population. Understanding the underlying reasons for such prescribing is essential, and research on how to optimize ADHD medication of patients with ADHD receiving OAT is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over-stimulation of dopamine signaling is thought to underlie the pathophysiology of a list of mental disorders, such as psychosis, mania and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. These disorders are frequently associated with cognitive deficits in attention or learning and memory, suggesting that persistent activation of dopamine signaling may change neural plasticity to induce cognitive or emotional malfunction. Methods: Dopamine transporter knockdown (DAT-KD) mice were used to mimic a hyper-dopamine state. Novel object recognition (NOR) task was performed to assess the recognition memory. To test the role of dopamine D3 receptor (D3R) on NOR, DAT-KD mice were treated with either a D3R antagonist, FAUC365 or by deletion of D3R. Total or phospho-GSK3 and –ERK1/2 signals in various brain regions were measured by Western blot analyses. To examine the impact of GSK3 signal on NOR, wild-type mice were systemically treated with GSK3 inhibitor SB216763 or, micro-injected with lentiviral shRNA of GSK3β or GSK3α in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). Results: We confirmed our previous findings that DAT-KD mice displayed a deficit in NOR memory, which could be prevented by deletion of D3R or exposure to FAUC365. In WT mice, p-GSK3α and p-GSK3β were significantly decreased in the mPFC after exposure to novel objects; however, the DAT-KD mice exhibited no such change in mPFC p-GSK3α/β levels. DAT-KD mice treated with FAUC365 or with D3R deletion exhibited restored novelty-induced GSK3 dephosphorylation in the mPFC. Moreover, inhibition of GSK3 in WT mice diminished NOR performance and impaired recognition memory. Lentiviral shRNA knockdown of GSK3β, but not GSK3α, in the mPFC of WT mice also impaired NOR. Conclusion: These findings suggest that D3R acts via GSK3β signaling in the mPFC to play a functional role in NOR memory. In addition, treatment with D3R antagonists may be a reasonable approach for ameliorating cognitive impairments or episodic memory deficits in bipolar disorder patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A randomized and controlled clinical study was performed to evaluate the use of neurofeedback (NF) to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. Methods: The ADHD population was selected from an outpatient clinic for Child and Adolescent Mental Health in Norway. Ninety-one of the 275 children and adolescents ranging in age from 6 to 18 years (10.5 years) participated in 30 sessions of an intensive NF program. The reinforcement contingency was based on the subjects' production of cortical beta1 activity (15-18 Hz). The ADHD participants were randomized into three groups, with 30 in the NF group, 31 controls in a group that was given methylphenidate, and 30 in a group that received NF and methylphenidate. ADHD core symptoms were reported by parents using the parent form of the Clinician's Manual for Assessment by Russell A. Barkley. Results: Ninety-one children and adolescents were effectively randomized by age, sex, intelligence and distribution of ADHD core symptoms. The parents reported significant effects of the treatments, but no significant differences between the treatment groups were observed. Conclusions: NF was as effective as methylphenidate at treating the attentional and hyperactivity symptoms of ADHD, based on parental reports. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials NCT01252446 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]