A three-country comparison of psychotropic medication prevalence in youth

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The study aims to compare cross-national prevalence of psychotropic medication use in youth.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A population-based analysis of psychotropic medication use based on administrative claims data for the year 2000 was undertaken for insured enrollees from 3 countries in relation to age group (0–4, 5–9, 10–14, and 15–19), gender, drug subclass pattern and concomitant use. The data include insured youth aged 0–19 in the year 2000 from the Netherlands (n = 110,944), Germany (n = 356,520) and the United States (n = 127,157).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The annual prevalence of any psychotropic medication in youth was significantly greater in the US (6.7%) than in the Netherlands (2.9%) and in Germany (2.0%). Antidepressant and stimulant prevalence were 3 or more times greater in the US than in the Netherlands and Germany, while antipsychotic prevalence was 1.5–2.2 times greater. The atypical antipsychotic subclass represented only 5% of antipsychotic use in Germany, but 48% in the Netherlands and 66% in the US. The less commonly used drugs e.g. alpha agonists, lithium and antiparkinsonian agents generally followed the ranking of US>Dutch>German youth with very rare (less than 0.05%) use in Dutch and German youth. Though rarely used, anxiolytics were twice as common in Dutch as in US and German youth. Prescription hypnotics were half as common as anxiolytics in Dutch and US youth and were very uncommon in German youth. Concomitant drug use applied to 19.2% of US youth which was more than double the Dutch use and three times that of German youth.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Prominent differences in psychotropic medication treatment patterns exist between youth in the US and Western Europe and within Western Europe. Differences in policies regarding direct to consumer drug advertising, government regulatory restrictions, reimbursement policies, diagnostic classification systems, and cultural beliefs regarding the role of medication for emotional and behavioral treatment are likely to account for these differences.</p

A multi-national comparison of antipsychotic drug use in children and adolescents, 2005-2012

Over the last decades, an increase in antipsychotic (AP) prescribing and a shift from first-generation antipsychotics (FGA) to second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) among youth have been reported. However, most AP prescriptions for youth are off-label, and there are worrying long-term safety data in youth. The objective of this study was to assess multinational trends in AP use among children and adolescents. A repeated cross-sectional design was applied to cohorts from varied sources from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) for calendar years 2005/2006–2012. The annual prevalence of AP use was assessed, stratified by age group, sex and subclass (FGA/SGA). The prevalence of AP use increased from 0.78 to 1.03% in the Netherlands’ data, from 0.26 to 0.48% in the Danish cohort, from 0.23 to 0.32% in the German cohort, and from 0.1 to 0.14% in the UK cohort. In the US cohort, AP use decreased from 0.94 to 0.79%. In the US cohort, nearly all ATP dispensings were for SGA, while among the European cohorts the proportion of SGA dispensings grew to nearly 75% of all AP dispensings. With the exception of the Netherlands, AP use prevalence was highest in 15–19 year-olds. So, from 2005/6 to 2012, AP use prevalence increased in all youth cohorts from European countries and decreased in the US cohort. SGA were favoured in all countries’ cohorts

Controversies concerning the diagnosis and treatment of bipolar disorder in children

This commentary grows out of an interdisciplinary workshop focused on controversies surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of bipolar disorder (BP) in children. Although debate about the occurrence and frequency of BP in children is more than 50 years old, it increased in the mid 1990s when researchers adapted the DSM account of bipolar symptoms to diagnose children. We offer a brief history of the debate from the mid 90s through the present, ending with current efforts to distinguish between a small number of children whose behaviors closely fit DSM criteria for BP, and a significantly larger number of children who have been receiving a BP diagnosis but whose behaviors do not closely fit those criteria. We agree with one emerging approach, which gives part or all of that larger number of children a new diagnosis called Severe Mood Dysregulation or Temper Dysregulation Disorder with Dysphoria

Inhibition of the tyrosine phosphatase SHP-2 suppresses angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo

Endothelial cell survival is indispensable to maintain endothelial integrity and initiate new vessel formation. We investigated the role of SHP-2 in endothelial cell survival and angiogenesis in vitro as well as in vivo. SHP-2 function in cultured human umbilical vein and human dermal microvascular endothelial cells was inhibited by either silencing the protein expression with antisense-oligodesoxynucleotides or treatment with a pharmacological inhibitor (PtpI IV). SHP-2 inhibition impaired capillary-like structure formation (p < 0.01; n = 8) in vitro as well as new vessel growth ex vivo (p < 0.05; n = 10) and in vivo in the chicken chorioallantoic membrane (p < 0.01, n = 4). Additionally, SHP-2 knock-down abrogated fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF-2)-dependent endothelial proliferation measured by MTT reduction ( p ! 0.01; n = 12). The inhibitory effect of SHP-2 knock-down on vessel growth was mediated by increased endothelial apoptosis ( annexin V staining, p ! 0.05, n = 9), which was associated with reduced FGF-2-induced phosphorylation of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3-K), Akt and extracellular regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2) and involved diminished ERK1/2 phosphorylation after PI3-K inhibition (n=3). These results suggest that SHP-2 regulates endothelial cell survival through PI3-K-Akt and mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways thereby strongly affecting new vessel formation. Thus, SHP-2 exhibits a pivotal role in angiogenesis and may represent an interesting target for therapeutic approaches controlling vessel growth. Copyright (C) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel

Expression of Drug Targets in Patients Treated with Sorafenib, Carboplatin and Paclitaxel

Introduction: Sorafenib, a multitarget kinase inhibitor, targets members of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway and VEGFR kinases. Here we assessed the association between expression of sorafenib targets and biomarkers of taxane sensitivity and response to therapy in pre-treatment tumors from patients enrolled in ECOG 2603, a phase III comparing sorafenib, carboplatin and paclitaxel (SCP) to carboplatin, paclitaxel and placebo (CP). Methods: Using a method of automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) of in situ protein expression, we quantified expression of VEGF-R2, VEGF-R1, VEGF-R3, FGF-R1, PDGF-Rβ, c-Kit, B-Raf, C-Raf, MEK1, ERK1/2, STMN1, MAP2, EB1 and Bcl-2 in pretreatment specimens from 263 patients. Results: An association was found between high FGF-R1 and VEGF-R1 and increased progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in our combined cohort (SCP and CP arms). Expression of FGF-R1 and VEGF-R1 was higher in patients who responded to therapy ((CR+PR) vs. (SD+PD+ un-evaluable)). Conclusions: In light of the absence of treatment effect associated with sorafenib, the association found between FGF-R1 and VEGF-R1 expression and OS, PFS and response might reflect a predictive biomarker signature for carboplatin/paclitaxel-based therapy. Seeing that carboplatin and pacitaxel are now widely used for this disease, corroboration in another cohort might enable us to improve the therapeutic ratio of this regimen. © 2013 Jilaveanu et al

Facts, values, and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): an update on the controversies

The Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute, is holding a series of 5 workshops to examine the controversies surrounding the use of medication to treat emotional and behavioral disturbances in children. These workshops bring together clinicians, researchers, scholars, and advocates with diverse perspectives and from diverse fields. Our first commentary in CAPMH, which grew out of our first workshop, explained our method and explored the controversies in general. This commentary, which grows out of our second workshop, explains why informed people can disagree about ADHD diagnosis and treatment. Based on what workshop participants said and our understanding of the literature, we make 8 points. (1) The ADHD label is based on the interpretation of a heterogeneous set of symptoms that cause impairment. (2) Because symptoms and impairments are dimensional, there is an inevitable "zone of ambiguity," which reasonable people will interpret differently. (3) Many other variables, from different systems and tools of diagnosis to different parenting styles and expectations, also help explain why behaviors associated with ADHD can be interpreted differently. (4) Because people hold competing views about the proper goals of psychiatry and parenting, some people will be more, and others less, concerned about treating children in the zone of ambiguity. (5) To recognize that nature has written no bright line between impaired and unimpaired children, and that it is the responsibility of humans to choose who should receive a diagnosis, does not diminish the significance of ADHD. (6) Once ADHD is diagnosed, the facts surrounding the most effective treatment are complicated and incomplete; contrary to some popular wisdom, behavioral treatments, alone or in combination with low doses of medication, can be effective in the long-term reduction of core ADHD symptoms and at improving many aspects of overall functioning. (7) Especially when a child occupies the zone of ambiguity, different people will emphasize different values embedded in the pharmacological and behavioral approaches. (8) Truly informed decision-making requires that parents (and to the extent they are able, children) have some sense of the complicated and incomplete facts regarding the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD

Understanding the agreements and controversies surrounding childhood psychopharmacology

The number of children in the US taking prescription drugs for emotional and behavioral disturbances is growing dramatically. This growth in the use of psychotropic drugs in pediatric populations has given rise to multiple controversies, ranging from concerns over off-label use and long-term safety to debates about the societal value and cultural meaning of pharmacological treatment of childhood behavioral and emotional disorders. This commentary summarizes the authors' eight main findings from the first of five workshops that seek to understand and produce descriptions of these controversies. The workshop series is convened by The Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute located in Garrison, New York, U.S.A

Co-morbidity and patterns of care in stimulant-treated children with ADHD in the Netherlands

This study aimed at investigating the use of psychosocial interventions and psychotropic co-medication among stimulant-treated children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in relation to the presence of psychiatric co-morbidity. Stimulant users younger than 16 years were identified in 115 pharmacies and a questionnaire was sent to their stimulant prescribing physician. Of 773 questionnaires sent out, 556 were returned and were suitable for analysis (72%). The results are based on 510 questionnaires concerning stimulant-treated children for whom a diagnosis of ADHD was reported. Of the 510 children diagnosed with ADHD, 31% had also received one or more other psychiatric diagnoses, mainly pervasive developmental disorder or oppositional defiant disorder/conduct disorder. We found an association between the presence of co-morbidity and the use of psychosocial interventions for the child (P < 0.001) and the parents (P < 0.001). In the ADHD-only group, 26% did not receive any form of additional interventions, while psychosocial interventions varied from 8 to 18% in children with ADHD and psychiatric co-morbidity. The presence of diagnostic co-morbidity was also associated with the use of psychotropic co-medication (overall, P = 0.012) and antipsychotics (P < 0.001). Stimulant-treated youths with ADHD and psychiatric co-morbidity received more psychosocial interventions and psychotropic co-medication than children with ADHD-only. The type of psychosocial interventions and psychotropic co-medication received by the children and their parents, depended on the specific co-morbid psychiatric disorder being present

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

Observation and study of baryonic B decays: B -> D(*) p pbar, D(*) p pbar pi, and D(*) p pbar pi pi

We present a study of ten B-meson decays to a D(*), a proton-antiproton pair, and a system of up to two pions using BaBar's data set of 455x10^6 BBbar pairs. Four of the modes (B0bar -> D0 p anti-p, B0bar -> D*0 p anti-p, B0bar -> D+ p anti-p pi-, B0bar -> D*+ p anti-p pi-) are studied with improved statistics compared to previous measurements; six of the modes (B- -> D0 p anti-p pi-, B- -> D*0 p anti-p pi-, B0bar -> D0 p anti-p pi- pi+, B0bar -> D*0 p anti-p pi- pi+, B- -> D+ p anti-p pi- pi-, B- -> D*+ p anti-p pi- pi-) are first observations. The branching fractions for 3- and 5-body decays are suppressed compared to 4-body decays. Kinematic distributions for 3-body decays show non-overlapping threshold enhancements in m(p anti-p) and m(D(*)0 p) in the Dalitz plots. For 4-body decays, m(p pi-) mass projections show a narrow peak with mass and full width of (1497.4 +- 3.0 +- 0.9) MeV/c2, and (47 +- 12 +- 4) MeV/c2, respectively, where the first (second) errors are statistical (systematic). For 5-body decays, mass projections are similar to phase space expectations. All results are preliminary.Comment: 28 pages, 90 postscript figures, submitted to LP0