Search

Objective To review all literature on the nonmedical use (NMU) and diversion of prescription stimulants to better understand the characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of NMU and to review risk-reduction strategies. Method We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS from inception to May 2018 for studies containing empirical data about NMU and diversion of prescription stimulants. Additional references identified by the authors were also assessed for inclusion. Results A total of 111 studies met inclusion criteria. NMU and diversion of stimulants are highly prevalent; self-reported rates among population samples range from 2.1% to 58.7% and from 0.7% to 80.0%, respectively. A variety of terms are used to describe NMU, and most studies have examined college students. Although most NMU is oral, non-oral NMU also occurs. The majority of NMU is associated with no, or minor, medical effects; however, adverse medical outcomes, including death, occur in some individuals, particularly when administered by non-oral routes. Although academic and occupational performance enhancement are the most commonly cited motivations, there is little evidence that academic performance is improved by NMU in individuals without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Conclusion NMU of stimulants is a significant public health problem, especially in college students, but variations in the terms used to describe NMU and inconsistencies in the available data limit a better understanding of this problem. Further research is needed to develop methods to detect NMU, identify individuals at greatest risk, study routes of administration, and devise educational and other interventions to help reduce occurrence of NMU. Colleges should consider including NMU in academic integrity policies.

Primary care clinicians have a vital role to play in the diagnosis and management of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This includes screening for MDD as well as identifying other possible psychiatric disorders including bipolar disorder and/or other comorbidities. Once MDD is confirmed, partnering with patients in the shared decision-making process while considering different treatment options and best management of MDD over the course of their illness is recommended. Vortioxetine has been approved for the treatment of adults with MDD since 2013, and subsequent US label updates indicate that vortioxetine may be particularly beneficial for specific populations of patients with MDD, including those with treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction and patients experiencing certain cognitive symptoms. Given these recent label updates, this prescribing guide for vortioxetine aims to provide clear and practical guidance for primary care clinicians on the safe and effective use of vortioxetine for the treatment of MDD, including how to identify appropriate patients for treatment.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of AR19 in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosed by DSM-5 criteria in adults from 18 through 55 years of age. AR19 is a pellets-in-capsule, immediate-release amphetamine sulfate investigational formulation with physical and chemical barriers designed to resist manipulation to deter snorting, smoking, and intravenous injection. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose, forced titration, multicenter trial investigated the safety and efficacy of AR19 from September 2018 to April 2019. Study participants were randomized and titrated to 20 mg or 40 mg AR19 daily or placebo. Study medication was dosed once in the morning and again 4 to 6 hours later for a period of 5 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the total score on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS). Results: Participants (N = 320) were randomized and received at least 1 dose of study medication. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups. The least squares mean treatment differences versus placebo (97.5% CI) were -7.2 (-11.3 to -3.1) for the AR19 20-mg group and -7.3 (-11.4 to -3.2) for the AR19 40-mg group (each P

Depressive episodes and symptoms of bipolar I disorder are commonly misdiagnosed as major depressive disorder (MDD) in primary care. The novel and pragmatic Rapid Mood Screener (RMS) was developed to screen for manic symptoms and bipolar I disorder features (e.g. age of depression onset) to address this unmet clinical need. A targeted literature search was conducted to select concepts thought to differentiate bipolar I from MDD and screener tool items were drafted. Items were tested and refined in cognitive debriefing interviews with individuals with self-reported bipolar I or MDD (n = 12). An observational study was conducted to evaluate predictive validity. Participants with clinical interview-confirmed bipolar I or MDD diagnoses (n = 139) completed a draft 10-item screening tool and other questionnaires. Data were analyzed to identify the smallest possible subset of items with optimized sensitivity and specificity. Adults with confirmed bipolar I (n = 67) or MDD (n = 72) participated in the observational study. Ten draft screening tool items were reduced to 6 final RMS items based on the item-level analysis. When 4 or more items of the RMS were endorsed (“yes”), sensitivity was 0.88 and specificity was 0.80; positive and negative predictive values were 0.80 and 0.88, respectively. These properties were an improvement over the Mood Disorder Questionnaire in the same analysis sample while using 60% fewer items. The pragmatic 6-item RMS differentiates bipolar I disorder from MDD in patients with depressive symptoms, providing real-world guidance to primary care practitioners on whether a more comprehensive assessment for bipolar I disorder is warranted.

IntroductionApproximately 70% of patients with bipolar disorder (BPD) are initially misdiagnosed, resulting in significantly delayed diagnosis of 7–10 years on average. Misdiagnosis and diagnostic delay adversely affect health outcomes and lead to the use of inappropriate treatments. As depressive episodes and symptoms are the predominant symptom presentation in BPD, misdiagnosis as major depressive disorder (MDD) is common. Self-rated screening instruments for BPD exist but their length and reliance on past manic symptoms are barriers to implementation, especially in primary care settings where many of these patients initially present. We developed a brief, pragmatic bipolar I disorder (BPD-I) screening tool that not only screens for manic symptoms but also includes risk factors for BPD-I (eg, age of depression onset) to help clinicians reduce the misdiagnosis of BPD-I as MDD.MethodsExisting questionnaires and risk factors were identified through a targeted literature search; a multidisciplinary panel of experts participated in 2 modified Delphi panels to select concepts thought to differentiate BPD-I from MDD. Individuals with self-reported BPD-I or MDD participated in cognitive debriefing interviews (N=12) to test and refine item wording. A multisite, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted to evaluate the screening tool’s predictive validity. Participants with clinical interview-confirmed diagnoses of BPD-I or MDD completed a draft 10-item screening tool and additional questionnaires/questions. Different combinations of item sets with various item permutations (eg, number of depressive episodes, age of onset) were simultaneously tested. The final combination of items and thresholds was selected based on multiple considerations including clinical validity, optimization of sensitivity and specificity, and pragmatism.ResultsA total of 160 clinical interviews were conducted; 139 patients had clinical interview-confirmed BPD-I (n=67) or MDD (n=72). The screening tool was reduced from 10 to 6 items based on item-level analysis. When 4 items or more were endorsed (yes) in this analysis sample, the sensitivity of this tool for identifying patients with BPD-I was 0.88 and specificity was 0.80; positive and negative predictive values were 0.80 and 0.88, respectively. These properties represent an improvement over the Mood Disorder Questionnaire, while using >50% fewer items.ConclusionThis new 6-item BPD-I screening tool serves to differentiate BPD-I from MDD in patients with depressive symptoms. Use of this tool can provide real-world guidance to primary care practitioners on whether more comprehensive assessment for BPD-I is warranted. Use of a brief and valid tool provides an opportunity to reduce misdiagnosis, improve treatment selection, and enhance health outcomes in busy clinical practices.FundingAbbVie Inc.

Binge eating disorder (BED), now recognized as a distinct eating disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, is the most prevalent eating disorder. Although nearly half of individuals with BED are obese, BED also occurs in nonobese individuals. Despite the relatively high percentage of weight loss treatment-seeking individuals meeting BED criteria, primary care physicians may not be familiar with or have ever diagnosed BED. Many providers may also have difficulty distinguishing BED as a contributory factor in obesity. This review differentiates BED from other causes of obesity by describing how obese individuals with BED differ from obese individuals without BED and from nonobese individuals with BED in areas including psychopathology, behavior, genetics, physiology, quality of life and productivity. The ways in which health-care providers can identify individuals who may have BED are also highlighted so the proper course of treatment is pursued. Overall, obese individuals with BED demonstrate a number of key characteristics that differentiate them from obese individuals without eating disorders, including increased impulsivity in response to food stimuli with loss of control over eating, resulting in the consumption of more calories. They also experience significant guilt and other negative emotions following a meal. In addition, individuals with BED patients have more psychiatric comorbidity, display more psychopathology, exhibit longer binge durations, consume more meals as snacks during the day and have less dietary restraint compared with individuals with BED who are not obese. However, the differences between individuals with BED who are obese versus not obese are not as prominent. Taken together, the evidence appears to support the conclusion that BED is a unique and treatable neurobehavioral disorder associated with distinct behavioral and psychological profiles and distinct medical and functional outcomes, and that it is not merely a subtype of obesity.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was originally defined in children but is now recognized to persist into adulthood for some patients. Despite this recognition, adult ADHD remains underdiagnosed. This narrative review describes the negative impact of ADHD across multiple functional domains, diagnostic guidelines for adult ADHD and its clinical features, the importance of screening tools and clinical interviews to help evaluate adults for ADHD, and adult ADHD treatment options. Diagnostic guidelines for ADHD now incorporate adult-specific symptoms and behavioral manifestations, which may aid in diagnosing adult ADHD. However, diagnosis of ADHD is complicated by symptom overlap between ADHD and psychiatric disorders that might be comorbid with ADHD. Screening tools, such as the Adult ADHD Self-Report Screening Scale for DSM-5, can identify adults requiring evaluation for ADHD. However, clinical interviews and longitudinal family histories provide critical information that diagnoses ADHD and differentiates ADHD from psychiatric comorbidities. Various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments are available for adults diagnosed with ADHD. First-line pharmacologic treatment of ADHD usually consists of treatment with a psychostimulant, and a variety of short-acting and long-acting formulations are available for use in adults. When developing a treatment plan for adults with ADHD, it is important to recognize that the demands of adult life, both at work and at home, necessitate symptom control throughout the entire day and into the evening and indicate that a long-acting medication formulation is often preferable. Furthermore, there are important safety concerns, including the potential for drug dependence and serious cardiovascular events, which must be considered before prescribing stimulants.​.

Although attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a chronic disorder, treatment declines dramatically in adolescence and into early adulthood. This premature termination of care is likely compounded by the difficulty many patients have switching from a pediatric to an adult provider.To review, from the adult primary care provider perspective, the barriers to continuity of care and their implications for patients with ADHD who transition from pediatric to adult health care.Literature review.Relevant articles were identified by searches of the PubMed and EMBASE databases and by reviewing the reference lists of articles obtained from these searches.Health care transition for adolescents and young adults with ADHD remains a crucial area of research. The current literature reveals a number of barriers to the continuity of care, including disparities and inadequacies in ADHD education in primary care and internal medicine residencies, prohibitive prescribing practices with respect to stimulants, inadequate clinic staffing, lack of support in the college health care system, inadequate health insurance coverage, and failure to conduct transitional planning. Without improved continuity of care and adherence to medication, adolescents and young adults with ADHD are at greater risk of academic, social, and vocational difficulties, as well as behavioral problems, including substance abuse, unsafe driving, and criminal activity.If we are to adequately address the health care needs of adolescents and young adults with ADHD, we need to educate primary care providers and support additional research.

Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) frequently report one or more pain symptoms. To explore the relationship between improvement in pain symptoms and MDD treatment outcomes, we conducted a secondary analysis of an approximately 12-week, open label trial of duloxetine in MDD. The primary objective was to test the hypothesis that a greater reduction in pain was associated with a higher probability of MDD remission.Adults with DSM-IV MDD were enrolled in the study if they had a Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD-17) total score of 15 or more and a Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) score of 4 or more. The duloxetine dose of patients could be titrated on the basis of the degree of response within the range from 60 to 120 mg given QD, with 90 mg QD as an intermediate dose. Remission of major depressive disorder was defined as a HAMD-17 total score ofor = 7. Core emotional symptoms of depression were determined by the HAMD-17 Maier subscale. Pain was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) of overall pain severity over the last week (0 = no pain, 100 = pain as severe as I can imagine). For the primary analysis, mean change in VAS overall pain score over time was compared between remitters and non-remitters at endpoint using a mixed model repeated measures approach.Two hundred forty nine patients were included in the analysis. A greater reduction in pain was associated with a significantly higher probability of remission of MDD, after accounting for changes in the core emotional symptoms. Greater pain reduction was associated with significant improvement in MDD core emotional symptoms. A greater improvement in pain was also associated with improvements in patient and clinician-rated global assessments.The effective treatment of pain symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder was associated with higher remission rates. The results underscore the importance of effectively treating painful symptoms associated with depression.

Follow the case of Mr K, a 28-year-old patient who becomes intentionally nonadherent to his antidepressant due to adverse effects. Mr K's symptoms at follow-up suggest that the clinician should consider alternative diagnoses besides major depressive disorder. Reassessment may require additional screening tools and collateral information from patients' family members or friends. Regardless of diagnosis, medication adherence is important. By changing the way that questions are phrased and spending a few extra minutes explaining instructions for successful treatment, clinicians may be able to improve adherence.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is frequently misdiagnosed or undiagnosed in adults. Owing to the relatively recent recognition of adult ADHD as a valid mental disorder and its overlapping symptomatology with other conditions, primary care physicians often fail to screen for ADHD in patients who present with inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. A substantial proportion of adults with ADHD also have psychiatric comorbidities. Physicians need to recognize the ways in which ADHD symptoms are expressed in adults and distinguish them from symptoms of other disorders, including mood, anxiety, and substance abuse disorders.

Background Recognition and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults in psychiatry and primary care have faced many obstacles. Methods Review by 50 psychiatrists and 50 primary care practitioners (PCPs) of 537 and 317 medical records, respectively, of adults diagnosed as having ADHD. Information on other psychiatric disorders, time of onset of ADHD, source of referral, use of referrals for diagnosis, ADHD treatment, and use of drug holidays was recorded. Results Forty-five percent of the patient records reviewed by psychiatrists and 65% reviewed by PCPs indicated previous diagnoses of ADHD. Only 25% of the adults with ADHD had been first diagnosed as having the disorder in childhood or adolescence. A diagnosis of ADHD was the initial cause for referral in 80% of psychiatric patients and 60% of PCP patients. Most patients with previously diagnosed and undiagnosed ADHD were self-referred. Among patients who had not received a prior diagnosis, 56% complained about ADHD symptoms to other health professionals without being diagnosed; PCPs were the least aggressive in diagnosing ADHD. In psychiatric and PCP settings, there was a statistical difference in the use of pharmacotherapy (91% vs 78%, respectively) and the proportion of patients taking drug holidays (24% vs 17%, respectively); most drug holidays were initiated by the patient (57%). Stimulants were the treatment of choice for adult ADHD (84% treated with stimulants). Conclusion Data contained within this medical record review suggest that adult ADHD is a substantial source of morbidity in both psychiatric and PCP settings.