Search

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.

01 augustus 2023, Item does not contain fulltext, 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.

The COVID-19 pandemic led ADHD services to modify the clinical practice to reduce in-person contact as much as possible to minimise viral spread. This had far-reaching effects on day-to-day clinical practice as remote assessments were widely adopted. Despite the attenuation of the acute threat from COVID, many clinical services are retaining some remote practices. The lack of clear evidence-based guidance about the most appropriate way to conduct remote assessments meant that these changes were typically implemented in a localised, ad hoc, and un-coordinated way. Here, the European ADHD Guidelines Group (EAGG) discusses the strengths and weaknesses of remote assessment methods of children and adolescents with ADHD in a narrative review based on available data and expert opinions to highlight key recommendations for future studies and clinical practice. We conclude that going forward, despite remote working in clinical services functioning adequately during the pandemic, all required components of ADHD assessment should still be completed following national/international guidelines; however, the process may need adaptation. Social restrictions, including changes in education provision, can either mask or exacerbate features associated with ADHD and therefore assessment should carefully chart symptom profile and impairment prior to, as well as during an ongoing pandemic. While remote assessments are valuable in allowing clinical services to continue despite restrictions and may have benefits for routine care in the post-pandemic world, particular attention must be paid to those who may be at high risk but not be able to use/access remote technologies and prioritize these groups for conventional face-to-face assessments.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Methylphenidate (MPH) is an efficacious treatment for ADHD but concerns have been raised about potential adverse effects of extended treatment on growth. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature, up to December 2018, conducting a meta-analysis of association of long-term (> six months) MPH exposure with height, weight and timing of puberty. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (ADHD n = 4868) were included in the meta-analysis. MPH was associated with consistent statistically significant pre-post difference for both height (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI 0.16-0.38, p < 0.0001) and weight (SMD = 0.33, 95% CI 0.22-0.44, p < 0.0001) Z scores, with prominent impact on weight during the first 12 months and on height within the first 24-30 months. No significant effects of dose, formulation, age and drug-naïve condition as clinical moderators were found. Data on timing of puberty are currently limited. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with MPH can result in reduction in height and weight. However, effect sizes are small with possible minimal clinical impact. Long-term prospective studies may help to clarify the underlying biological drivers and specific mediators and moderators.

BACKGROUND: Methylphenidate (MPH) is an efficacious treatment for ADHD but concerns have been raised about potential adverse effects of extended treatment on growth. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature, up to December 2018, conducting a meta-analysis of association of long-term (> six months) MPH exposure with height, weight and timing of puberty. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (ADHD n = 4868) were included in the meta-analysis. MPH was associated with consistent statistically significant pre-post difference for both height (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI 0.16-0.38, p < 0.0001) and weight (SMD = 0.33, 95% CI 0.22-0.44, p < 0.0001) Z scores, with prominent impact on weight during the first 12 months and on height within the first 24-30 months. No significant effects of dose, formulation, age and drug-naïve condition as clinical moderators were found. Data on timing of puberty are currently limited. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with MPH can result in reduction in height and weight. However, effect sizes are small with possible minimal clinical impact. Long-term prospective studies may help to clarify the underlying biological drivers and specific mediators and moderators.

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.

Contains fulltext : 220663.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Digital health interventions (DHIs) have frequently been highlighted as one way to respond to increasing levels of mental health problems in children and young people. Whilst many are developed to address existing mental health problems, there is also potential for DHIs to address prevention and early intervention. However, there are currently limitations in the design and reporting of the development, evaluation and implementation of preventive DHIs that can limit their adoption into real-world practice. This scoping review aimed to examine existing evidence-based DHI interventions and review how well the research literature described factors that researchers need to include in their study designs and reports to support real-world implementation. A search was conducted for relevant publications published from 2013 onwards. Twenty-one different interventions were identified from 30 publications, which took a universal (n = 12), selective (n = 3) and indicative (n = 15) approach to preventing poor mental health. Most interventions targeted adolescents, with only two studies including children aged ≤10 years. There was limited reporting of user co-design involvement in intervention development. Barriers and facilitators to implementation varied across the delivery settings, and only a minority reported financial costs involved in delivering the intervention. This review found that while there are continued attempts to design and evaluate DHIs for children and young people, there are several points of concern. More research is needed with younger children and those from poorer and underserved backgrounds. Co-design processes with children and young people should be recognised and reported as a necessary component within DHI research as they are an important factor in the design and development of interventions, and underpin successful adoption and implementation. Reporting the type and level of human support provided as part of the intervention is also important in ena

Contains fulltext : 202907.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE:: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common and highly heritable neurodevelopmental disorder with a complex pathophysiology. Intracranial volume (ICV) and volumes of the nucleus accumbens, amygdala, caudate nucleus, hippocampus, and putamen are smaller in people with ADHD compared with healthy individuals. The authors investigated the overlap between common genetic variation associated with ADHD risk and these brain volume measures to identify underlying biological processes contributing to the disorder. METHODS:: The authors combined genome-wide association results from the largest available studies of ADHD (N=55,374) and brain volumes (N=11,221-24,704), using a set of complementary methods to investigate overlap at the level of global common variant genetic architecture and at the single variant level. RESULTS:: Analyses revealed a significant negative genetic correlation between ADHD and ICV (rg=-0.22). Meta-analysis of single variants revealed two significant loci of interest associated with both ADHD risk and ICV; four additional loci were identified for ADHD and volumes of the amygdala, caudate nucleus, and putamen. Exploratory gene-based and gene-set analyses in the ADHD-ICV meta-analytic data showed association with variation in neurite outgrowth-related genes. CONCLUSIONS:: This is the first genome-wide study to show significant genetic overlap between brain volume measures and ADHD, both on the global and the single variant level. Variants linked to smaller ICV were associated with increased ADHD risk. These findings can help us develop new hypotheses about biological mechanisms by which brain structure alterations may be involved in ADHD disease etiology.

Contains fulltext : 215280.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), Methylphenidate (MPH), the most common medication for children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in many countries, is often prescribed for long periods of time. Any long-term psychotropic treatment in childhood raises concerns about possible adverse neurological and psychiatric outcomes. We aimed to map current evidence regarding neurological and psychiatric outcomes, adverse or beneficial, of long-term MPH (> 1year) treatment in ADHD. We coded studies using a "traffic light" system: Green: safe/favours MPH; Amber: warrants caution; Red: not safe/not well-tolerated. Un-categorisable study findings were coded as "Unclear". Although some evidence suggests an elevated risk of psychosis and tics, case reports describe remission on discontinuation. Several studies suggest that long-term MPH may reduce depression and suicide in ADHD. Evidence suggests caution in specific groups including pre-school children, those with tics, and adolescents at risk for substance misuse. We identified a need for more studies that make use of large longitudinal databases, focus on specific neuropsychiatric outcomes, and compare outcomes from long-term MPH treatment with outcomes following shorter or no pharmacological intervention.