What do general practitioners know about ADHD? Attitudes and knowledge among first-contact gatekeepers: systematic narrative review

Background: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common childhood disorder with international prevalence estimates of 5 % in childhood, yet significant evidence exists that far fewer children receive ADHD services. In many countries, ADHD is assessed and diagnosed in specialist mental health or neuro-developmental paediatric clinics, to which referral by General (Family) Practitioners (GPs) is required. In such ‘gatekeeper’ settings, where GPs act as a filter to diagnosis and treatment, GPs may either not recognise potential ADHD cases, or may be reluctant to refer. This study systematically reviews the literature regarding GPs’ views of ADHD in such settings. Methods: A search of nine major databases was conducted, with wide search parameters; 3776 records were initially retrieved. Studies were included if they were from settings where GPs are typically gatekeepers to ADHD services; if they addressed GPs’ ADHD attitudes and knowledge; if methods were clearly described; and if results for GPs were reported separately from those of other health professionals. Results: Few studies specifically addressed GP attitudes to ADHD. Only 11 papers (10 studies), spanning 2000–2010, met inclusion criteria, predominantly from the UK, Europe and Australia. As studies varied methodologically, findings are reported as a thematic narrative, under the following themes: Recognition rate; ADHD controversy (medicalisation, stigma, labelling); Causes of ADHD; GPs and ADHD diagnosis; GPs and ADHD treatment; GP ADHD training and sources of information; and Age, sex differences in knowledge and attitudes. Conclusions: Across times and settings, GPs practising in first-contact gatekeeper settings had mixed and often unhelpful attitudes regarding the validity of ADHD as a construct, the role of medication and how parenting contributed to presentation. A paucity of training was identified, alongside a reluctance of GPs to become involved in shared care practice. If access to services is to be improved for possible ADHD cases, there needs to be a focused and collaborative approach to training

Characterization of psychotic experiences in adolescence using the Specific Psychotic Experiences Questionnaire (SPEQ): findings from a study of 5000 16-year-old twins

We aimed to characterize multiple psychotic experiences, each assessed on a spectrum of severity (ie, quantitatively), in a general population sample of adolescents. Over five thousand 16-year-old twins and their parents completed the newly devised Specific Psychotic Experiences Questionnaire (SPEQ); a subsample repeated it approximately 9 months later. SPEQ was investigated in terms of factor structure, intersubscale correlations, frequency of endorsement and reported distress, reliability and validity, associations with traits of anxiety, depression and personality, and sex differences. Principal component analysis revealed a 6-component solution: paranoia, hallucinations, cognitive disorganization, grandiosity, anhedonia, and parent-rated negative symptoms. These components formed the basis of 6 subscales. Correlations between different experiences were low to moderate. All SPEQ subscales, except Grandiosity, correlated significantly with traits of anxiety, depression, and neuroticism. Scales showed good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity. Girls endorsed more paranoia, hallucinations, and cognitive disorganization; boys reported more grandiosity and anhedonia and had more parent-rated negative symptoms. As in adults at high risk for psychosis and with psychotic disorders, psychotic experiences in adolescents are characterized by multiple components. The study of psychotic experiences as distinct dimensional quantitative traits is likely to prove an important strategy for future research, and the SPEQ is a self- and parent-report questionnaire battery that embodies this approach

Efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate throughout the day in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder:results from a randomized, controlled trial

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is a long-acting, prodrug stimulant therapy for patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This randomized placebo-controlled trial of an optimized daily dose of LDX (30, 50 or 70 mg) was conducted in children and adolescents (aged 6–17 years) with ADHD. To evaluate the efficacy of LDX throughout the day, symptoms and behaviors of ADHD were evaluated using an abbreviated version of the Conners’ Parent Rating Scale-Revised (CPRS-R) at 1000, 1400 and 1800 hours following early morning dosing (0700 hours). Osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) was included as a reference treatment, but the study was not designed to support a statistical comparison between LDX and OROS-MPH. The full analysis set comprised 317 patients (LDX, n = 104; placebo, n = 106; OROS-MPH, n = 107). At baseline, CPRS-R total scores were similar across treatment groups. At endpoint, differences (active treatment − placebo) in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline CPRS-R total scores were statistically significant (P < 0.001) throughout the day for LDX (effect sizes: 1000 hours, 1.42; 1400 hours, 1.41; 1800 hours, 1.30) and OROS-MPH (effect sizes: 1000 hours, 1.04; 1400 hours, 0.98; 1800 hours, 0.92). Differences in LS mean change from baseline to endpoint were statistically significant (P < 0.001) for both active treatments in all four subscales of the CPRS-R (ADHD index, oppositional, hyperactivity and cognitive). In conclusion, improvements relative to placebo in ADHD-related symptoms and behaviors in children and adolescents receiving a single morning dose of LDX or OROS-MPH were maintained throughout the day and were ongoing at the last measurement in the evening (1800 hours)

Treatment response and remission in a double-blind, randomized, head-to-head study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Objectives A secondary objective of this head-to-head study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and ato-moxetine (ATX) was to assess treatment response rates in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactiv-ity disorder (ADHD) and an inadequate response to methylphenidate (MPH). The primary efficacy and safety outcomes of the study, SPD489-317 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01106430), have been published previously. Methods In this 9-week, double-blind, active-controlled study, patients aged 6–17 years with a previous inadequate response to MPH were randomized (1:1) to dose-optimized LDX (30, 50 or 70 mg/day) or ATX (patients \70 kg: 0.5–1.2 mg/kg/day, not to exceed 1.4 mg/kg/day; patients C70 kg: 40, 80 or 100 mg/day). Treatment response was a secondary efficacy outcome and was predefined as a reduction from baseline in ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score of at least 25, 30 or 50 %. Sustained response was predefined as a reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score (C25, C30 or C50 %) or a Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)–Improvement (CGI–I) score of 1 or 2 throughout weeks 4–9. CGI– Severity (CGI–S) scores were also assessed, as an indicator of remission. Results A total of 267 patients were enrolled (LDX, n = 133; ATX, n = 134) and 200 completed the study (LDX, n = 99; ATX, n = 101). By week 9, significantly (p \ 0.01) greater proportions of patients receiving LDX than ATX met the response criteria of a reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score of at least 25 % (90.5 vs. 76.7 %), 30 % (88.1 vs. 73.7 %) or 50 % (73.0 vs. 50.4 %). Sustained response rates were also signifi-cantly (p \ 0.05) higher among LDX-treated patient

The Brazilian policy of withholding treatment for ADHD is probably increasing health and social costs

Objective: To estimate the economic consequences of the current Brazilian government policy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment and how much the country would save if treatment with immediate-release methylphenidate (MPH-IR), as suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO), was offered to patients with ADHD. Method: Based on conservative previous analyses, we assumed that 257,662 patients aged 5 to 19 years are not receiving ADHD treatment in Brazil. We estimated the direct costs and savings of treating and not treating ADHD on the basis of the following data: a) spending on ADHD patients directly attributable to grade retention and emergency department visits; and b) savings due to impact of ADHD treatment on these outcomes. Results: Considering outcomes for which data on the impact of MPH-IR treatment are available, Brazil is probably wasting approximately R$1.841 billion/year on the direct consequences of not treating ADHD in this age range alone. On the other hand, treating ADHD in accordance with WHO recommendations would save approximately R$ 1.163 billion/year. Conclusions: By increasing investments on MPH-IR treatment for ADHD to around R$ 377 million/year, the country would save approximately 3.1 times more than is currently spent on the consequences of not treating ADHD in patients aged 5 to 19 years

Performance deficits of NK1 receptor knockout mice in the 5 choice serial reaction time task: effects of d Amphetamine, stress and time of day.

Background The neurochemical status and hyperactivity of mice lacking functional substance P-preferring NK1 receptors (NK1R-/-) resemble abnormalities in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Here we tested whether NK1R-/- mice express other core features of ADHD (impulsivity and inattentiveness) and, if so, whether they are diminished by d-amphetamine, as in ADHD. Prompted by evidence that circadian rhythms are disrupted in ADHD, we also compared the performance of mice that were trained and tested in the morning or afternoon. Methods and Results The 5-Choice Serial Reaction-Time Task (5-CSRTT) was used to evaluate the cognitive performance of NK1R-/- mice and their wildtypes. After training, animals were tested using a long (LITI) and a variable (VITI) inter-trial interval: these tests were carried out with, and without, d-amphetamine pretreatment (0.3 or 1 mg/kg i.p.). NK1R-/- mice expressed greater omissions (inattentiveness), perseveration and premature responses (impulsivity) in the 5-CSRTT. In NK1R-/- mice, perseveration in the LITI was increased by injection-stress but reduced by d-amphetamine. Omissions by NK1R-/- mice in the VITI were unaffected by d-amphetamine, but premature responses were exacerbated by this psychostimulant. Omissions in the VITI were higher, overall, in the morning than the afternoon but, in the LITI, premature responses of NK1R-/- mice were higher in the afternoon than the morning. Conclusion In addition to locomotor hyperactivity, NK1R-/- mice express inattentiveness, perseveration and impulsivity in the 5-CSRTT, thereby matching core criteria for a model of ADHD. Because d-amphetamine reduced perseveration in NK1R-/- mice, this action does not require functional NK1R. However, the lack of any improvement of omissions and premature responses in NK1R-/- mice given d-amphetamine suggests that beneficial effects of this psychostimulant in other rodent models, and ADHD patients, need functional NK1R. Finally, our results reveal experimental variables (stimulus parameters, stress and time of day) that could influence translational studies

Psychometric analysis of the new ADHD DSM-V derived symptoms

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Following the agreements on the reformulating and revising of ADHD diagnostic criteria, recently, the proposed revision for ADHD added 4 new symptoms to the hyperactivity and Impulsivity aspect in DSM-V. This study investigates the psychometric properties of the proposed ADHD diagnostic criteria.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>ADHD diagnosis was made according to DSM-IV. The parents completed the screening test of ADHD checklist of Child Symptom Inventory-4 and the 4 items describing the new proposed symptoms in DSM-V.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The confirmatory factor analysis of the ADHD DSM-V derived items supports the loading of two factors including inattentiveness and hyperactivity/impulsivity. There is a sufficient reliability for the items. However, confirmatory factor analysis showed that the three-factor model is better fitted than the two-factor one. Moreover, the results of the exploratory analysis raised some concerns about the factor loading of the four new items.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The current results support the two-factor model of the DSM-V ADHD diagnostic criteria including inattentiveness and hyperactivity/impulsivity. However, the four new items can be considered as a third factor.</p

Assessment of daily profiles of ADHD and ODD symptoms, and symptomatology related to ADHD medication, by parent and teacher ratings

DAYAS is a new two-part rating scale that assesses: (1) ADHD and ODD symptoms (externalising symptom ratings) and (2) symptomatology potentially related to ADHD medication (potentially medication-related symptoms) in real-world settings at different time periods throughout a normal school day. Data from a proof-of-concept study and two observational trials (Medikinet® retard [methylphenidate] and the Equasym XL® [methylphenidate] OBSEER study) evaluated: (1) validity of weekly externalising symptom ratings using DAYAS, in place of daily ratings; (2) reliability and internal consistency of DAYAS ratings for externalising symptoms and potentially medication-related symptoms; and (3) convergent and divergent validity of the externalising symptom ratings with existing validated scales. From the proof-of-concept study, daily scores by period of day and during the whole day correlated strongly with equivalent weekly scores (r = 0.83–0.92). Internal consistency of externalising symptom rating scales calculated from pooled data were acceptable or good by period of day (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.68–0.90) and very high for whole day scores (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88–0.95). Internal consistency of the rating scale for potentially medication-related symptoms was also good for both teacher and parent ratings. From OBSEER data, correlations between FBB-ADHD total symptom scores and ratings on both parent and teacher versions of DAYAS were high (r = 0.73 and r = 0.84, respectively). Correlations between DAYAS and SDQ were highest for the SDQ subscales hyperactivity and conduct problems and substantially lower for pro-social behaviour, peers and emotional problems. The DAYAS rating scale had good internal consistency, and DAYAS scores correlated well with existing validated scales and the SDQ subscales hyperactivity and conduct problems. Weekly DAYAS scores (whole day and by period of day) could be considered a suitable replacement for daily assessment scores