Baseline values from the electrocardiograms of children and adolescents with ADHD

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An important issue in pediatric pharmacology is the determination of whether medications affect cardiac rhythm parameters, in particular the QT interval, which is a surrogate marker for the risk of adverse cardiac events and sudden death. To evaluate changes while on medication, it is useful to have a comparison of age appropriate values while off medication. The present meta-analysis provides baseline ECG values (i.e., off medication) from approximately 6000 children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Subjects were aged 6–18 years and participated in global trials within the atomoxetine registration program. Patients were administered a 12-lead ECG at study screening and cardiac rhythm parameters were recorded. Baseline QT intervals were corrected for heart rate using 3 different methods: Bazett's, Fridericia's, and a population data-derived formula.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ECG data were obtained from 5289 North American and 641 non-North American children and adolescents. Means and percentiles are presented for each ECG measure and QTc interval based on pubertal status as defined by age and sex. Prior treatment history with stimulants and racial origin (Caucasian) were each associated with significantly longer mean QTc values.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Baseline ECG and QTc data from almost 6000 children and adolescents presenting with ADHD are provided to contribute to the knowledge base regarding mean values for pediatric cardiac parameters. Consistent with other studies of QT interval in children and adolescents, Bazett correction formula appears to overestimate the prevalence of prolonged QTc in the pediatric population.</p

Duloxetine compared with fluoxetine and venlafaxine: use of meta-regression analysis for indirect comparisons

BACKGROUND: Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited. A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with venlafaxine, the other antidepressant in the same therapeutic class with a significant market share, has been undertaken. In the absence of relevant data to assess the place that duloxetine should occupy in the therapeutic arsenal, indirect comparisons are the most rigorous way to go. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of duloxetine, fluoxetine and venlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and performed indirect comparisons through meta-regressions. METHODS: The bibliography of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and the CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase databases were interrogated using advanced search strategies based on a combination of text and index terms. The search focused on randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials involving adult patients treated for acute phase Major Depressive Disorder. All outcomes were derived to take account for varying placebo responses throughout studies. Primary outcome was treatment efficacy as measured by Hedge's g effect size. Secondary outcomes were response and dropout rates as measured by log odds ratios. Meta-regressions were run to indirectly compare the drugs. Sensitivity analysis, assessing the influence of individual studies over the results, and the influence of patients' characteristics were run. RESULTS: 22 studies involving fluoxetine, 9 involving duloxetine and 8 involving venlafaxine were selected. Using indirect comparison methodology, estimated effect sizes for efficacy compared with duloxetine were 0.11 [-0.14;0.36] for fluoxetine and 0.22 [0.06;0.38] for venlafaxine. Response log odds ratios were -0.21 [-0.44;0.03], 0.70 [0.26;1.14]. Dropout log odds ratios were -0.02 [-0.33;0.29], 0.21 [-0.13;0.55]. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were consistent. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine was not statistically different in either tolerability or efficacy when compared with duloxetine. Venlafaxine was significantly superior to duloxetine in all analyses except dropout rate. In the absence of relevant data from head-to-head comparison trials, results suggest that venlafaxine is superior compared with duloxetine and that duloxetine does not differentiate from fluoxetine

Atomoxetine for the treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children with ADHD and dyslexia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objective of this study was to assess the effects of atomoxetine on treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), on reading performance, and on neurocognitive function in youth with ADHD and dyslexia (ADHD+D).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients with ADHD (n = 20) or ADHD+D (n = 36), aged 10-16 years, received open-label atomoxetine for 16 weeks. Data from the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHDRS-IV), Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (K-TEA), Working Memory Test Battery for Children (WMTB-C), and Life Participation Scale for ADHD-Child Version (LPS-C) were assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Atomoxetine demonstrated significant improvement for both groups on the ADHDRS-IV, LPS-C, and K-TEA reading comprehension standard and composite scores. K-TEA spelling subtest improvement was significant for the ADHD group, whereas the ADHD+D group showed significant reading decoding improvements. Substantial K-TEA reading and spelling subtest age equivalence gains (in months) were achieved for both groups. The WMTB-C central executive score change was significantly greater for the ADHD group. Conversely, the ADHD+D group showed significant phonological loop score enhancement by visit over the ADHD group. Atomoxetine was well tolerated, and commonly reported adverse events were similar to those previously reported.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Atomoxetine reduced ADHD symptoms and improved reading scores in both groups. Conversely, different patterns and magnitude of improvement in working memory component scores existed between ADHD and ADHD+D patients. Though limited by small sample size, group differences in relation to the comparable changes in improvement in ADHD symptoms could suggest that brain systems related to the therapeutic benefit of atomoxetine in reducing ADHD symptoms may be different in individuals with ADHD+D and ADHD without dyslexia.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Clinical Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00191048</p

A proposal for a coordinated effort for the determination of brainwide neuroanatomical connectivity in model organisms at a mesoscopic scale

In this era of complete genomes, our knowledge of neuroanatomical circuitry remains surprisingly sparse. Such knowledge is however critical both for basic and clinical research into brain function. Here we advocate for a concerted effort to fill this gap, through systematic, experimental mapping of neural circuits at a mesoscopic scale of resolution suitable for comprehensive, brain-wide coverage, using injections of tracers or viral vectors. We detail the scientific and medical rationale and briefly review existing knowledge and experimental techniques. We define a set of desiderata, including brain-wide coverage; validated and extensible experimental techniques suitable for standardization and automation; centralized, open access data repository; compatibility with existing resources, and tractability with current informatics technology. We discuss a hypothetical but tractable plan for mouse, additional efforts for the macaque, and technique development for human. We estimate that the mouse connectivity project could be completed within five years with a comparatively modest budget.Comment: 41 page

How Experiences Become Data: The Process of Eliciting Adverse Event, Medical History and Concomitant Medication Reports in Antimalarial and Antiretroviral Interaction Trials.

Accurately characterizing a drug's safety profile is essential. Trial harm and tolerability assessments rely, in part, on participants' reports of medical histories, adverse events (AEs), and concomitant medications. Optimal methods for questioning participants are unclear, but different methods giving different results can undermine meta-analyses. This study compared methods for eliciting such data and explored reasons for dissimilar participant responses. Participants from open-label antimalarial and antiretroviral interaction trials in two distinct sites (South Africa, n = 18 [all HIV positive]; Tanzania, n = 80 [86% HIV positive]) were asked about ill health and treatment use by sequential use of (1) general enquiries without reference to particular conditions, body systems or treatments, (2) checklists of potential health issues and treatments, (3) in-depth interviews. Participants' experiences of illness and treatment and their reporting behaviour were explored qualitatively, as were trial clinicians' experiences with obtaining participant reports. Outcomes were the number and nature of data by questioning method, themes from qualitative analyses and a theoretical interpretation of participants' experiences. There was an overall cumulative increase in the number of reports from general enquiry through checklists to in-depth interview; in South Africa, an additional 12 medical histories, 21 AEs and 27 medications; in Tanzania an additional 260 medical histories, 1 AE and 11 medications. Checklists and interviews facilitated recognition of health issues and treatments, and consideration of what to report. Information was sometimes not reported because participants forgot, it was considered irrelevant or insignificant, or they feared reporting. Some medicine names were not known and answers to questions were considered inferior to blood tests for detecting ill health. South African inpatient volunteers exhibited a "trial citizenship", working to achieve researchers' goals, while Tanzanian outpatients sometimes deferred responsibility for identifying items to report to trial clinicians. Questioning methods and trial contexts influence the detection of adverse events, medical histories and concomitant medications. There should be further methodological work to investigate these influences and find appropriate questioning methods

Regulation of the IGFBP-5 and MMP-13 genes by the microRNAs miR-140 and miR-27a in human osteoarthritic chondrocytes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>MMP-13 and IGFBP-5 are important factors involved in osteoarthritis (OA). We investigated whether two highly predicted microRNAs (miRNAs), miR-140 and miR-27a, regulate these two genes in human OA chondrocytes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Gene expression was determined by real-time PCR. The effect of each miRNA on IGFBP-5 and MMP-13 expression/production was evaluated by transiently transfecting their precursors (pre-miRNAs) and inhibitors (anti-miRNAs) into human OA chondrocytes. Modulation of IGFBP-5, miR-140 and miR-27a expression was determined upon treatment of OA chondrocytes with cytokines and growth factors.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>IGFBP-5 was expressed in human chondrocytes with its level significantly lower (p < 0.04) in OA. Five computational algorithms identified miR-140 and miR-27a as possible regulators of MMP-13 and IGFBP-5 expression. Data showed that both miRNAs were expressed in chondrocytes. There was a significant reduction (77%, p < 0.01) in miR-140 expression in OA compared to the normal chondrocytes, whereas miR-27a expression was only slightly decreased (23%). Transfection with pre-miR-140 significantly decreased (p = 0.0002) and with anti-miR-140 significantly increased (p = 0.05) IGFBP-5 expression at 24 hours, while pre-miR-27a did not affect either MMP-13 or IGFBP-5. Treatment with anti-miR-27a, but not with anti-miR-140, significantly increased the expression of both MMP-13 (p < 0.05) and IGFBP-5 (p < 0.01) after 72 hours of incubation. MMP-13 and IGFBP-5 protein production followed the same pattern as their expression profile. These data suggest that IGFBP-5 is a direct target of miR-140, whereas miR-27a down-regulates, likely indirectly, both MMP-13 and IGFBP-5.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study is the first to show the regulation of these miRNAs in human OA chondrocytes. Their effect on two genes involved in OA pathophysiology adds another level of complexity to gene regulation, which could open up novel avenues in OA therapeutic strategies.</p

Current issues around the pharmacotherapy of ADHD in children and adults

Background New drugs and new formulations enter the growing market for ADHD medication. The growing awareness of possible persistence of ADHD impairment beyond childhood and adolescence resulting in increased pharmacotherapy of ADHD in adults, is also a good reason for making an inventory of the what is generally known about pharmacotherapy in ADHD. Aim To discuss current issues in the possible pharmacotherapy treatment of ADHD in children, adolescents and adults with respect to the position of pharmacotherapy in ADHD treatment guidelines, the pharmacoepidemiological trends, and current concerns about the drugs used. Methods A search of the literature with an emphasis on the position of pharmacotherapy in ADHD treatment guidelines, the pharmacoepidemiological trends, and current concerns about the drugs used in pharmacotherapy. Results According to the guidelines, the treatment of ADHD in children consists of psychosocial interventions in combination with pharmacotherapy when needed. Stimulants are the first-choice drugs in the pharmacological treatment of ADHD in children despite a number of well known and frequently reported side effects like sleep disorders and loss of appetite. With regard to the treatment of adults, stimulant treatment was recommended as the first-choice pharmacotherapy in the single guideline available. Both in children and adults, there appears to be an additional though limited role for the nonadrenergic drug atomoxetine. The increase of ADHD medication use, in children, adolescents and in adults, can not only be interpreted as a sign of overdiagnosis of ADHD. Despite the frequent use of stimulants, there is still a lack of clarity on the effects of long-term use on growth and nutritional status of children. Cardiovascular effects of both stimulants and atomoxetine are rare but can be severe. The literature suggests that atomoxetine may be associated with suicidal ideation in children. Conclusion Although pharmacotherapy is increasing common in the treatment of ADHD in both children and adults, there are still a lot of questions about side effects and how best to counter them. This suggests an important role for close monitoring of children and adults treated with stimulants or atomoxetine

Evidence for the additions of clustered interacting nodes during the evolution of protein interaction networks from network motifs

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>High-throughput screens have revealed large-scale protein interaction networks defining most cellular functions. How the proteins were added to the protein interaction network during its growth is a basic and important issue. Network motifs represent the simplest building blocks of cellular machines and are of biological significance.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Here we study the evolution of protein interaction networks from the perspective of network motifs. We find that in current protein interaction networks, proteins of the same age class tend to form motifs and such co-origins of motif constituents are affected by their topologies and biological functions. Further, we find that the proteins within motifs whose constituents are of the same age class tend to be densely interconnected, co-evolve and share the same biological functions, and these motifs tend to be within protein complexes.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our findings provide novel evidence for the hypothesis of the additions of clustered interacting nodes and point out network motifs, especially the motifs with the dense topology and specific function may play important roles during this process. Our results suggest functional constraints may be the underlying driving force for such additions of clustered interacting nodes.</p