Parental rating of sleep in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Objective: Sleep problems have often been associated with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Parents of those with ADHD and children with ADHD report sleep difficulties more frequently than healthy children and their parents. The primary objective of this paper is to describe sleep patterns and problems of 5 to 11-year-old children suffering from ADHD as described by parental reports and sleep questionnaires. Method: The study included 321 children aged 5–11 years (average age 8.4 years); 45 were diagnosed with ADHD, 64 had other psychiatric diagnoses, and 212 were healthy. One hundred and ninety-six of the test subjects were boys and 125 were girls. A semi-structured interview (Kiddie-SADS-PL) was used to DSM-IV diagnose ADHD and comorbidity in the clinical group. Sleep difficulties were rated using a structured sleep questionnaire (Children Sleep Behaviour Scale). Results: Children diagnosed with ADHD had a significantly increased occurrence of sleep problems. Difficulties relating to bedtime and unsettled sleep were significantly more frequent in the ADHD group than in the other groups. Children with ADHD showed prolonged sleep onset latency, but no difference was shown regarding numbers of awakenings per night and total sleep time per night. Comorbid oppositional defiant disorder appeared not to have an added effect on problematic behaviour around bedtime. Conclusion: Parents of children with ADHD report that their children do not sleep properly more often than other parents. The ADHD group report problems with bedtime resistance, problems with sleep onset latency, unsettled sleep and nightmares more often than the control groups. It may therefore be relevant for clinicians to initiate a closer examination of those cases reporting sleep difficulties

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Methods In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Results Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. Conclusions No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences