Brief report: effects of propranolol in Tourette syndrome

Canadian guidelines for the evidence-based treatment of tic disorders: pharmacotherapy

This article seeks to provide the practising clinician with guidance on the pharmacological management of tic disorders in children and adults. We performed a systematic review of the literature on the treatment of tic disorders. A multi-institutional group of 14 experts in psychiatry, child psychiatry, neurology, pediatrics, and psychology engaged in a consensus meeting. The evidence was presented and discussed, and nominal group techniques were employed to arrive at consensus on recommendations. A strong recommendation is made when the benefits of treatment clearly outweigh the risks and burdens, and can apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation. With a weak recommendation, the benefits, risks, and burdens are more closely balanced, and the best action may differ depending on the circumstances. Based on these principles, weak recommendations were made for the use of pimozide, haloperidol, fluphenazine, metoclopramide (children only), risperidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, topiramate, baclofen (children only), botulinum toxin injections, tetrabenazine, and cannabinoids (adults only). Strong recommendations were made for the use of clonidine and guanfacine (children only). While the evidence supports the efficacy of many of the antipsychotics for the treatment of tics, the high rates of side effects associated with these medications resulted in only weak recommendations for these drugs. In situations where tics are not severe or disabling, the use of a medication with only a weak recommendation is not warranted. However, when tics are more distressing and interfering, the need for tic suppression to improve quality of life is stronger, and patients and clinicians may be more willing to accept the risks of pharmacotherapy.

An overview of the treatment of Tourette's disorder and tics

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review the efficacy of various treatments for Tourette's disorder (TD) and tics.

METHOD

This study is a historical review of the treatment modalities prior to the advent of neuroleptics. A review of double-blind and placebo-controlled clinical trials and open studies on the use of neuroleptics and selected reports was also carried out.

RESULTS

The literature review reveals that the treatment of TD and tics has evolved from an early history of marginally effective approaches to the advent of neuroleptics, which started a new era in TD and tic treatment, with a significantly broader range of effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Although progress has been made, the literature review nevertheless reveals a great deal of confusion as related to the clinical heterogeneity of TD and tics, differences in populations, medication-dose combinations, and outcomes. However, a role for a limited number of pharmacologic agents, combined with psychosocial approaches, has been identified. There is a need for studies in larger, diagnostically homogenous samples and for the use of more sophisticated methodology, to identify intelligible models that would allow the development of more effective treatment approaches.

Pindolol and methylphenidate in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Clinical efficacy and side-effects

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and side-effects of pindolol, a beta-blocker, in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Fifty-two ADHD children, 7-13 years old, participated in a prospective double-blind placebo-controlled comparison of pindolol and methylphenidate (MPH). Active treatment was pindolol and MPH: pindolol 20 mg b.i.d. or MPH 10 mg b.i.d. for 4 weeks. The outcome was assessed on the basis of the Abbreviated Conners Rating Scales (ACRS) completed by parents, teachers, and by a psychologist during psychological testing. Pindolol treatment was associated with a higher incidence of paraesthesias and with more intense nightmares and hallucinations than MPH or placebo treatment. These side-effects led to an interim change in design by ending pindolol treatment after 32 participants. Pindolol proved to be just as effective as MPH in decreasing hyperactivity and conduct problems at home, and hyperactivity problems at school. Pindolol, however, had less therapeutic effects than MPH during psychological testing, and failed to affect conduct problems in school. In sum, pindolol was modestly effective in the treatment of ADHD. Safety concerns on troubling side-effects clearly limit the use of it.