Search

Objective: This article will review the use of the CBCL to diagnose youth with psychopathological disorders focusing on: ADHD, Mood Disorders, Autism Spectrum disorders, and Disruptive Disorders., Method: Using a narrative review approach, we investigate the usefulness of the CBCL as a screening tool to detect childhood onset psychopathology across different diagnostic syndromes., Results: The available literature supports the use of the CBCL for ADHD screening and as a measure of ADHD severity. While some studies support a specific profile linked with childhood bipolar disorder, replication studies for this profile found mixed results. The CBCL was also found to be useful in screening for patients presenting with Autism Spectrum Disorders, Conduct Disorder, and Childhood Bipolar Disorder all of which presents with more severely impaired scores., Conclusion: The CBCL holds promise as a screening tool for childhood psychopathology., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Pascal Chavannes has no conflicts of interest to declare. Martin Gignac: advisory board for Takeda, Elvium, and Janssen.

We assessed the association between the use of medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the risk of all-cause mortality and unintentional injuries leading to emergency department (ED) or hospital admission in individuals aged ≤24 years with ADHD. We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study between 2000 and 2021 using Quebec health administrative data. Individuals were followed from the first ADHD diagnosis or ADHD medication claim until turning 25, death, or study end. Exposure was defined as mutually exclusive episodes of ADHD medication use and/or coverage under the public provincial drug plan (PDP): 1) covered and not treated with ADHD medication; 2) covered and treated with ADHD medication; and 3) not covered under the PDP. The risk of all-cause mortality and unintentional injuries associated with exposure episodes was estimated using multivariable survival analyses. The cohort included n = 217 192 individuals aged 1-24 years with a male to female ratio of close to 2:1. Compared to non-medication use, episodes of ADHD medication use, overall, were associated with reduced all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.76) and unintentional injury leading to ED (0.75, 0.74-0.77) or hospitalisation (0.71, 0.68-0.75). Episodes of stimulants were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and reduced risk of unintentional injuries, while episodes with non-stimulants and with both stimulants and non-stimulants concomitantly were associated with reduced risk of unintentional injuries, but not of all-cause mortality. Although residual confounding cannot be excluded, stimulants may have a protective effect in terms of risk of all-cause mortality and both stimulants and non-stimulants for ADHD may reduce the risk of unintentional injuries. The findings of the current study should inform clinical decision making on the choice of starting a pharmacological treatment for ADHD, when a balance needs to be struck between expected benefits and possible risks., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of ADHD, and related comorbidities, mortality, and type of health service use among children and young adults, using different case definitions., Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study between 2000 and 2018, using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System (QICDSS) database. All residents aged less than 25 years eligible for health insurance coverage were included. We compared outcomes of three indicators (morbidity, services use and mortality) according two different algorithms of ADHD definitions, to the general population., Results: The cumulative prevalence of ADHD has risen steadily over the past decade, reaching 12.6% in 2017-2018. People with ADHD have a higher prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities, make greater use of medical, mental health services, and are hospitalized more often. The comparison of prevalence between the two algorithms and the general population for the three indicators showed that the cohort having one claim was very close to that with two or more, and statistically significant higher to that of people without ADHD., Conclusion: This finding support that a single claim algorithm for ADHD can be used for case definition. More research is needed on the impact of potentially effective treatments in improving consequences of ADHD., (© 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Misconceptions about ADHD stigmatize affected people, reduce credibility of providers, and prevent/delay treatment. To challenge misconceptions, we curated findings with strong evidence base., Methods: We reviewed studies with more than 2000 participants or meta-analyses from five or more studies or 2000 or more participants. We excluded meta-analyses that did not assess publication bias, except for meta-analyses of prevalence. For network meta-analyses we required comparison adjusted funnel plots. We excluded treatment studies with waiting-list or treatment as usual controls. From this literature, we extracted evidence-based assertions about the disorder., Results: We generated 208 empirically supported statements about ADHD. The status of the included statements as empirically supported is approved by 80 authors from 27 countries and 6 continents. The contents of the manuscript are endorsed by 366 people who have read this document and agree with its contents., Conclusions: Many findings in ADHD are supported by meta-analysis. These allow for firm statements about the nature, course, outcome causes, and treatments for disorders that are useful for reducing misconceptions and stigma., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

There has been considerably less research on the management of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among the inmates of correctional facilities than in the general community. While the successful identification and management of ADHD in the adult correctional setting offer potential benefits to the individuals themselves, to institutional staff, and to wider society, their implementation represents significant challenges. These include high prevalence rates, the low level of ADHD recognition, the high incidence of comorbid psychiatric disorders, and the high risk of abuse and diversion of prescribed medications. Here, the authors provide an overview of current recommendations for the identification and management of adults with ADHD in correctional settings and discuss possible strategies for their further development., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

We examined the prevalence and clinical characteristics of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in a sample of clinically referred adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Subjects were consecutively referred adults with a DSM-III R/IV diagnosis of ADHD with or without ODD. Nearly half of subjects (43%) had a history of ODD. Subjects with a childhood history of ODD had increased risk for bipolar disorder, multiple anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders relative to the ADHD subjects without ODD. We concluded, as in children with ODD, adults with a childhood history of ODD have high rates of psychiatric comorbidity and more impaired psychosocial functioning than those without this condition. A better understanding of the course, phenomenology, and clinical significance of ODD in adults is needed to better understand therapeutic approaches for this disorder.

Objective: To evaluate the short-term tolerability of an extended-release preparation of the stimulant medication mixed amphetamine salts (MAS XR) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) whose hypertension has been successfully treated with antihypertensive medications., Method: An 8-week, 2-phase, open-label study design was implemented. All adults had ADHD (DSM-IV diagnosis) and essential hypertension and were required to be normotensive (blood pressure < 135/85 mm Hg, treated) for at least 4 weeks at entry into the study. MAS XR was given for a 6-week period, titrated once each week to a target maximum dose of 60 mg/day given once daily in the morning (phase 1), and then discontinued for 2 weeks at the end of the study (phase 2). At baseline, subjects underwent a comprehensive clinical assessment, medical history, vital signs assessment, and electrocardiogram (ECG). Rating scales were used throughout the study to assess response to treatment, and blood pressure was measured manually at each study visit. The primary outcome was the effect of MAS XR on blood pressure and the development of hypertension., Results: Thirteen subjects receiving antihypertensive therapy were entered and placed on MAS XR treatment and completed the trial. There were no serious adverse events. No sustained elevated blood pressure (> 140/90 mm Hg at 2 consecutive visits) was observed in the subjects treated with MAS XR. Similar rates of single episodes of hypertension were observed in phases 1 and 2. Similarly, there was no group mean increase in systolic or diastolic blood pressure or pulse during treatment with MAS XR. No clinically significant changes in the ECG were observed. During the 6-week medication phase, significant improvement was found on rating scales assessing ADHD symptoms and severity that reversed with discontinuation of MAS XR., Conclusion: The results of this open study suggest that adults with ADHD and controlled hypertension can be safely treated with MAS XR.

Objective: Little is known about the risks and characteristics of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients who misuse or divert their stimulant medications. As part of a 10-year longitudinal study of youths with ADHD, the authors evaluated medication diversion or misuse at the last follow-up period., Method: Structured psychiatric interviews for diagnosis and a self-report questionnaire regarding medication use in medicated subjects with ADHD compared with controls without ADHD receiving psychotropics for non-ADHD treatment were employed., Results: Of 98 subjects receiving psychotropic medications (mean age of 20.8 +/- 5 years), 55 (56%) were ADHD subjects and 43 (44%) were controls receiving medications for other purposes. The authors found that 11% of the ADHD group reported selling their medications compared with no subjects in the control group (z = 0.00, p <.05). An additional 22% of the ADHD group reported misusing their medications compared with 5% of the control subjects (z = 1.7 p =.09) and that those with conduct or substance use disorders accounted for the misuse and diversion. A minority of subjects reported escalating their doses and concomitant use with alcohol and drugs., Conclusions: The data indicate that the majority of ADHD individuals, particularly those without conduct or substance use disorders, use their medications appropriately. The authors' findings also highlight the need to monitor medication use in ADHD individuals with conduct and/or substance use disorders and to carefully select agents with a low likelihood of diversion or misuse in this group.

Objective: Adolescents and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance use disorders (SUD) are increasingly recognized in clinical practice. The role of pharmacological treatment for ADHD in these comorbid individuals remains unclear., Methods: A systematic review of the medical literature was conducted through PubMed, supplemented with data from scientific presentations, to evaluate the role of medication treatment of ADHD in substance abusing individuals with ADHD. Meta-analysis was used to evaluate the effects of medication therapy on ADHD and SUD outcomes in general, while specifically addressing trial design, trial duration, retention, class of medication, age group, concurrent psychotherapy, and outcome in both SUD and ADHD domains., Results: Four studies in adolescents and five studies in adults with ADHD plus SUD were identified (two controlled and seven open studies; n = 222 subjects). The standard mean difference (SMD) indicated statistically significant improvements in ADHD and SUD that were not maintained when evaluating controlled studies only. Albeit limited by power, trial duration, retention rate, and age group did not influence outcome. No worsening of SUD or drug-drug interactions were observed in any of the studies. The results could not be accounted for by any single study or by publication bias., Conclusion: Treating ADHD pharmacologically in individuals with ADHD plus SUD has a moderate impact on ADHD and SUD that is not observed in controlled trials and does not result in worsening of SUD or adverse interactions specific to SUD. Further controlled trials evaluating the effect of novel combinations of psychotherapy and ADHD pharmacotherapy on SUD relapse in these groups are warranted.

BackgroundMisconceptions about ADHD stigmatize affected people, reduce credibility of providers, and prevent/delay treatment. To challenge misconceptions, we curated findings with strong evidence base.MethodsWe reviewed studies with more than 2000 participants or meta-analyses from five or more studies or 2000 or more participants. We excluded meta-analyses that did not assess publication bias, except for meta-analyses of prevalence. For network meta-analyses we required comparison adjusted funnel plots. We excluded treatment studies with waiting-list or treatment as usual controls. From this literature, we extracted evidence-based assertions about the disorder.ResultsWe generated 208 empirically supported statements about ADHD. The status of the included statements as empirically supported is approved by 80 authors from 27 countries and 6 continents. The contents of the manuscript are endorsed by 366 people who have read this document and agree with its contents.ConclusionsMany findings in ADHD are supported by meta-analysis. These allow for firm statements about the nature, course, outcome causes, and treatments for disorders that are useful for reducing misconceptions and stigma.