Methylphenidate in the treatment of children and adolescents with bipolar disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Efficacy and safety of established and off-label ADHD drug therapies for cognitive impairment or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in bipolar disorder: A systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force

BACKGROUND

Abnormalities in dopamine and norepinephrine signaling are implicated in cognitive impairments in bipolar disorder (BD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force therefore aimed to investigate the possible benefits on cognition and/or ADHD symptoms and safety of established and off-label ADHD therapies in BD.

METHODS

We included studies of ADHD medications in BD patients, which involved cognitive and/or safety measures. We followed the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO from inception until June 2023. Two authors reviewed the studies independently using the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for Randomized trials.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were identified (N = 2136), investigating armodafinil (k = 4, N = 1581), methylphenidate (k = 4, N = 84), bupropion (k = 4, n = 249), clonidine (k = 1, n = 70), lisdexamphetamine (k = 1, n = 25), mixed amphetamine salts (k = 1, n = 30), or modafinil (k = 2, n = 97). Three studies investigated cognition, four ADHD symptoms, and 10 the safety. Three studies found treatment-related ADHD symptom reduction: two involved methylphenidate and one amphetamine salts. One study found a trend towards pro-cognitive effects of modafinil on some cognitive domains. No increased risk of (hypo)mania was observed. Five studies had low risk of bias, eleven a moderate risk, and one a serious risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Methylphenidate or mixed amphetamine salts may improve ADHD symptoms in BD. However, there is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness on cognition. The medications produced no increased mania risk when used alongside mood stabilizers. Further robust studies are needed to assess cognition in BD patients receiving psychostimulant treatment alongside mood stabilizers.

Prescribed psychostimulants and other pro-cognitive medications in bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of recurrence of manic symptoms

OBJECTIVES

Clinicians are often hesitant to prescribe psychostimulants in bipolar disorder (BD) due to concerns of inducing (hypo)mania, despite limited published evidence on associations between prescribed psychostimulant use and recurrence of mood episodes in BD. The current systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the emergence of (hypo)manic symptoms in patients with BD receiving prescribed psychostimulants or other pro-cognitive medications in euthymic or depressive states.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO from inception to April 5, 2023 and search of Clinicaltrials.gov and Clinicaltrialsregister.eu for unpublished data. References of included studies were hand-searched. Randomized trials and prospective longitudinal studies that evaluated psychostimulants and non-stimulant medications recommended for the treatment of ADHD by the Canadian ADHD practice guidelines were included. The review was reported in line with PRISMA guidelines and was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42022358588).

RESULTS

After screening 414 unique records, we included 27 studies, of which five reported data that was quantitatively synthesized (n = 1653). The use of psychostimulants in BD was not associated with increased scores on the Young Mania Rating Scale in patients who were in a euthymic or depressed state (SMD IV -0.17; 95% CI, -0.40 to 0.06) compared to placebo. There was a high degree of study-level heterogeneity (I2 = 80%). A qualitative synthesis of studies revealed a limited risk of medication-induced manic symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides preliminary evidence to suggest psychostimulants and non-stimulant ADHD medications have a limited risk of precipitating (hypo)mania symptoms. More extensive studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of these medications are warranted.

Stimulant Treatment and Potential Adverse Outcomes in Pediatric Populations With Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

To explore outcomes of stimulant treatment for ADHD in pediatric populations with particular attention to bipolar disorder (BPD).

METHOD

We conducted a literature search of PubMed articles published prior to August 25, 2022 that focused on BPD, mania, and psychosis prior to, or as result of, stimulant treatment. We excluded studies: (1) unrelated to stimulants, (2) general stimulant research, (3) articles older than 40 years, (4) study protocols, or (5) case reports.

RESULTS

A total of 11 articles met all inclusion/exclusion criteria. Some reports found stimulant treatment safe and well-tolerated in children with comorbid BPD and ADHD. Others found evidence of treatment-emergent mania (TEM), discontinuation, and other adverse events with stimulant treatment.

CONCLUSION

Poor outcomes associated with stimulant treatment in pediatric populations with BPD necessitate work to identify patients at risk of serious stimulant-related adverse events. Our results were limited by automated search filters and a pediatric, primarily male sample.

A systematic review of pharmacotherapy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents with bipolar disorders

INTRODUCTION

The data suggests that in children and adolescents, bipolar disorder (BD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may be strongly correlated. Even though drugs for ADHD and BD are largely accepted, there is relatively little research on the management of comorbidity in children and adolescents, particularly in terms of safety. We provide a synthesis of these findings because one hasn't been made yet.

AREAS COVERED

As a primary outcome, we wanted to determine whether stimulant or non-stimulant treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD and comorbid BD was effective. As a secondary outcome, we wanted to determine tolerability, especially the risk of mood switch.

EXPERT OPINION

The findings of this systematic review suggest that methylphenidate, when used with a mood stabilizer, may be safe and not significantly increase the risk of a manic switch or psychotic symptoms when used to treat ADHD that co-occurs with a BD. In situations where stimulants are ineffective or have low tolerance, atomoxetine also seems to be a good alternative, and also in cases of co-morbid anxiety, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorders, ICT disorders, and substance use disorders. Additional research with a higher level of evidence is necessary to corroborate these preliminary findings.

Psychopharmacological treatment of disruptive behavior in youths: systematic review and network meta-analysis

To conduct a systematic review of the comparative efficacy of various psychotropic medications for the treatment of disruptive behavior (DBs) in youths. To this aim, we systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of various psychotropic medications targeting symptoms of DBs and applied network meta-analysis to investigate their relative efficacy. Fifty-five RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. To predict and interpret relative treatment efficacy, we compared the efficacy of various psychotropic medications prescribed for DB symptoms based on their mechanism of action. Network meta-analysis revealed that for reducing DBs, second-generation antipsychotics, stimulants, and non-stimulant ADHD medications were more efficacious than placebo, and second-generation antipsychotics were the most efficacious. The dopaminergic modulation of top-down inhibitory process by these medications is discussed in this review. This study offers information on the relative efficacy of various psychotropic medications for the treatment of DB, and insight into a potential neurobiological underpinning for those symptoms. It also illustrates the potential utility of these neurobiological mechanisms as a target for future treatment studies.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children and adolescents with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention and they are hyperactive and impulsive. Methylphenidate is the psychostimulant most often prescribed, but the evidence on benefits and harms is uncertain. This is an update of our comprehensive systematic review on benefits and harms published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to March 2022. In addition, we checked reference lists and requested published and unpublished data from manufacturers of methylphenidate.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. The search was not limited by publication year or language, but trial inclusion required that 75% or more of participants had a normal intellectual quotient (IQ > 70). We assessed two primary outcomes, ADHD symptoms and serious adverse events, and three secondary outcomes, adverse events considered non-serious, general behaviour, and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment for each trial. Six review authors including two review authors from the original publication participated in the update in 2022. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Data from parallel-group trials and first-period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses. We undertook separate analyses using end-of-last period data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA) to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 212 trials (16,302 participants randomised); 55 parallel-group trials (8104 participants randomised), and 156 cross-over trials (8033 participants randomised) as well as one trial with a parallel phase (114 participants randomised) and a cross-over phase (165 participants randomised). The mean age of participants was 9.8 years ranging from 3 to 18 years (two trials from 3 to 21 years). The male-female ratio was 3:1. Most trials were carried out in high-income countries, and 86/212 included trials (41%) were funded or partly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Methylphenidate treatment duration ranged from 1 to 425 days, with a mean duration of 28.8 days. Trials compared methylphenidate with placebo (200 trials) and with no intervention (12 trials). Only 165/212 trials included usable data on one or more outcomes from 14,271 participants. Of the 212 trials, we assessed 191 at high risk of bias and 21 at low risk of bias. If, however, deblinding of methylphenidate due to typical adverse events is considered, then all 212 trials were at high risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.61; I² = 38%; 21 trials; 1728 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -10.58 (95% CI -12.58 to -8.72) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points). The minimal clinically relevant difference is considered to be a change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS. Methylphenidate may not affect serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.67; I² = 0%; 26 trials, 3673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.31 to 2.68).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

methylphenidate may cause more adverse events considered non-serious versus placebo or no intervention (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; I² = 72%; 35 trials 5342 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.22 (CI 1.08 to 1.43). Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated general behaviour versus placebo (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.33; I² = 68%; 7 trials 792 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but may not affect quality of life (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.83; I² = 81%; 4 trials, 608 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The majority of our conclusions from the 2015 version of this review still apply. Our updated meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate versus placebo or no-intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour in children and adolescents with ADHD. There may be no effects on serious adverse events and quality of life. Methylphenidate may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events considered non-serious, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite. However, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is very low and therefore the true magnitude of effects remain unclear. Due to the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the blinding of participants and outcome assessors is particularly challenging. To accommodate this challenge, an active placebo should be sought and utilised. It may be difficult to find such a drug, but identifying a substance that could mimic the easily recognised adverse effects of methylphenidate would avert the unblinding that detrimentally affects current randomised trials. Future systematic reviews should investigate the subgroups of patients with ADHD that may benefit most and least from methylphenidate. This could be done with individual participant data to investigate predictors and modifiers like age, comorbidity, and ADHD subtypes.

Risk of Mania After Methylphenidate in Patients With Bipolar Disorder

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are common comorbidities. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is commonly treated with stimulants (eg, methylphenidate), which, however, have been suggested to cause treatment-emergent mania in patients with bipolar disorder. Here, we assessed the risk of mania, depressive episodes, and psychiatric admissions after initiation of methylphenidate treatment in patients with bipolar disorder.

METHODS

Using Danish health registries, we identified all individuals registered with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2018, who were treated with methylphenidate. We applied a 1-year mirror-image model to compare the occurrence of mania, depression, and psychiatric admissions in the period leading up to and after methylphenidate treatment initiation. We furthermore assessed the trend in these outcomes from 4 years before to 1 year after initiation of methylphenidate treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 1043 patients with bipolar disorder initiated treatment with methylphenidate. The number of manic episodes decreased by 48% after methylphenidate treatment initiation (P = 0.01), both among patients using mood stabilizers (-50%) and among patients not using mood stabilizers (-45%). The number of manic episodes, however, peaked approximately 6 months before methylphenidate. The results were similar for the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of methylphenidate treatment was not associated with an increased risk of mania in patients with bipolar disorder. A decrease in mania, depressive episodes, and psychiatric admissions was observed after methylphenidate. However, these decreases seemed to be driven by regression to the mean after clinical deterioration preceding methylphenidate treatment, rather than by the methylphenidate treatment itself.

Updates in Pharmacologic Strategies for Emotional Dysregulation in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Emotional dysregulation (ED) manifesting as irritability or aggression produces appreciable impairment in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and a main reason why they present for treatment. Central nervous system (CNS) stimulants seem to be a safe and tolerable treatment of most youth with these presentations. Optimization of CNS stimulants dose in combination with psychosocial interventions led to reductions in ED. Randomized controlled trials support that addition of risperidone further reduces aggression when these treatments are not sufficient. There is evidence for the efficacy of divalproex, molindone and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor improve these outcomes when used as adjunct to CNS stimulants.

Can pediatric bipolar disorder be successfully treated when comorbid with conduct disorder? A secondary analysis of clinical trials of risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole

BACKGROUND

Pediatric bipolar disorder (BP) is frequently comorbid with conduct disorder (CD) and its presence adds to the morbidity of BP. While there are no known pharmacological treatments for CD, pediatric BP is responsive to treatment with medications initially indicated for the treatment of psychosis, several of which have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the treatment of pediatric mania.

AIMS

The main aim of this secondary analysis was to examine whether pediatric BP comorbid with CD responds similarly to treatment with such selected medications. Considering the well-documented morbidity of CD, this finding could have important clinical and public health significance.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of six prospective 8-week open-label trials of selected medications (risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole) using identical methodology in youth with BP with and without comorbid CD. Results: Of 165 youths with BP, 54% (N = 89) met criteria for comorbid CD. The antimanic effects observed did not significantly differ between BP youths with and without comorbid CD, as measured either by a reduction in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) ⩾ 30% or Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Improvement ⩽ 2 (p = 0.23), or by the more stringent definition of a reduction in YMRS ⩾ 50% (p = 0.61).

CONCLUSION

Pediatric BP can be effectively treated with the abovementioned medications in the context of comorbid CD. Based on previous research showing that remission of BP is associated with remission of CD, if confirmed, these findings raise the possibility that antimanic treatment of youth with BP comorbid with CD could have secondary benefits in mitigating the morbidity associated with CD. This is a pilot scale finding, the results of which are promising and should be confirmed by larger and long-term follow-up studies.

Mixed Amphetamine Salts Without a Mood Stabilizer for Treating Comorbid Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Bipolar Disorder: Two Case Reports

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and bipolar disorder (BD) are often comorbid in patients and can have significant overlap in symptoms. Because of this common comorbidity and often overlapping symptoms, accurate diagnoses can be difficult. The standard treatment for these comorbid disorders is a mood stabilizer with the possibility of adding a psychostimulant. However, research suggesting treatment for comorbid disorders with a psychostimulant without a mood stabilizer is lacking. Here, we present two cases where mixed amphetamine salts, which are traditionally avoided in those with BD, were effectively used without a mood stabilizer to treat comorbid BD and ADHD in both patients. The outcome of this case series serves to motivate future investigations which are needed to validate treatment with a psychostimulant without a mood stabilizer for the treatment of comorbid BD and ADHD.

Irritability, Anger, and Aggression in the Context of Pediatric Bipolar Disorder

Irritability, anger, and aggression, although not specific for pediatric bipolar disorder (BD), can be a common finding and an important source of distress and impairment in these patients. Over the past 2 decades the diagnostic significance of irritability in pediatric BD has been highly debated. Beyond the debate of its diagnostic significance, the clinical importance of irritability, anger, and aggression in youth with BD has been well established. In this review, the authors discuss evaluation and management strategies of irritability, anger, and aggression in youth with BD.

Lifetime evolution of ADHD treatment

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), has been traditionally considered a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting children and adolescents characterized by inattention, hyperactivity, disruptive behavior, and impulsivity. Although still debated, it is evident that ADHD is also present in adulthood, but this diagnosis is rarely carried out, mainly for the frequent comorbidity with other psychiatric and/or substance abuse disorders. Given the need to shed more light on the pharmacological treatment of ADHD, we performed a naturalistic review to review and comment on the available literature of ADHD treatment across the lifespan. Indeed, stimulants are endowed of a prompt efficacy and safety, whilst non-stimulants, although requiring some weeks to be fully effective, are useful when a substance abuse history is detected. In any case, the pharmacological management of ADHD appears to be still largely influenced by the individual experience of the clinicians. Further longitudinal studies with a careful and detailed characterization of participants across different phases of the lifespan are also required to provide relevant confirmations (or denials) regarding pharmacological treatments amongst the different age groups.

ADHD with Comorbid Bipolar Disorders: A Systematic Review of Neurobiological, Clinical and Pharmacological Aspects Across the Lifespan

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity (ADHD) disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by inattention, hyperactivity, disruptive behaviour, and impulsivity. Despite considered typical of children for a long time, the persistence of ADHD symptoms in adulthood gained increasing interest during the last decades. Indeed, its diagnosis, albeit controversial, is rarely carried out even because ADHD is often comorbid with several other psychiatric diosrders, in particular with bipolar disorders (BDs), a condition that complicates the clinical picture, assessment and treatment.

AIMS

The aim of this paper was to systematically review the scientific literature on the neurobiological, clinical features and current pharmacological management of ADHD comorbid with BDs across the entire lifespan, with a major focus on the adulthood.

DISCUSSION

The pharmacology of ADHD-BD in adults is still empirical and influenced by the individual experience of the clinicians. Stimulants are endowed of a prompt efficacy and safety, whilst non-stimulants are useful when a substance abuse history is detected, although they require some weeks in order to be fully effective. In any case, an in-depth diagnostic and clinical evaluation of the single individual is mandatory.

CONCLUSION

The comorbidity of ADHD with BD is still a controversial matter, as it is the notion of adult ADHD as a distinct nosological category. Indeed, some findings highlighted the presence of common neurobiological mechanisms and overlapping clinical features, although disagreement does exist. In any case, while expecting to disentangle this crucial question, a correct management of this comorbidity is essential, which requires the co-administration of mood stabilizers. Further controlled clinical studies in large samples of adult ADHD-BD patients appear extremely urgent in order to better define possible therapeutic guidelines, as well as alternative approaches for this potentially invalidating condition.

Predictors of psychosocial outcome of bipolar disorder: data from the Stanley Foundation Bipolar Network

BACKGROUND

Impairments in psychosocial functioning have been demonstrated in 30-60% of adults with bipolar disorder (BD). However, the majority of studies investigating the effect of comorbid mental health disorders and age at onset outcomes in BD have focused on traditional outcome measures such as mood symptoms, mortality and treatment response. Therefore, this project aimed to investigate the impact of comorbid mental health disorders and age at onset on longitudinal psychosocial outcome in participants with BD.

METHOD

Mixed effects modelling was conducted using data from the Stanley Foundation Bipolar Network. Baseline factors were entered into a model, with Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score as the longitudinal outcome measure. Relative model fits were calculated using Akaike's Information Criterion.

RESULTS

No individual comorbidities predicted lower GAF scores, however an interaction effect was demonstrated between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and any anxiety disorder (t = 2.180, p = 0.030). Participants with BD I vs BD II (t = 2.023, p = 0.044) and those in the lowest vs. highest income class (t = 2.266, p = 0.024) predicted lower GAF scores. Age at onset (t = 1.672, p = 0.095) did not significantly predict GAF scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to demonstrate the negative psychosocial effects of comorbid anxiety disorders and ADHD in BD. This study adds to the growing database suggesting that comorbid mental health disorders are a significant factor hindering psychosocial recovery.

Current and emerging pharmacotherapy for the treatment of adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

Introduction: ADHD is characterized by a developmentally inappropriate level of inattentiveness, impulsivity and/or hyperactivity. In adults, the disorder is frequently accompanied by Emotional Dysregulation (ED), associated to a variety of related psychiatric comorbidities, complicating its recognition and treatment management. Areas covered: This paper reviews randomized active comparator-controlled or placebo-controlled trials evaluating the use of pharmacotherapy in adults with ADHD and ED, other neurodevelopmental disorders, Bipolar Disorder (BD) and Anxiety Disorders (ADs). When controlled data are unavailable, the authors have included open-label and observational studies. Expert opinion: ED in adult patients with ADHD is a very common and impairing problem that can be treated with stimulants or atomoxetine. ADHD studies in adults with other neurodevelopment disorders are scarce; stimulants seem to be the most effective and safe drugs in treating ADHD symptoms, without worsening the core features of other neurodevelopmental disorders. In patients with ADHD and comorbid BD, the treatment of BD alone may result in residual symptoms of ADHD. Patients should be treated hierarchically: BD should be treated first, while ADHD should be treated combining ADHD medications and mood stabilizers after mood stabilization. The available evidence for treating patients with ADHD and comorbid ADs in adults supports the idea of an anti-anxiety/ADHD-specific treatment association.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) previously published treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder in 2005, along with international commentaries and subsequent updates in 2007, 2009, and 2013. The last two updates were published in collaboration with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD). These 2018 CANMAT and ISBD Bipolar Treatment Guidelines represent the significant advances in the field since the last full edition was published in 2005, including updates to diagnosis and management as well as new research into pharmacological and psychological treatments. These advances have been translated into clear and easy to use recommendations for first, second, and third- line treatments, with consideration given to levels of evidence for efficacy, clinical support based on experience, and consensus ratings of safety, tolerability, and treatment-emergent switch risk. New to these guidelines, hierarchical rankings were created for first and second- line treatments recommended for acute mania, acute depression, and maintenance treatment in bipolar I disorder. Created by considering the impact of each treatment across all phases of illness, this hierarchy will further assist clinicians in making evidence-based treatment decisions. Lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, asenapine, aripiprazole, paliperidone, risperidone, and cariprazine alone or in combination are recommended as first-line treatments for acute mania. First-line options for bipolar I depression include quetiapine, lurasidone plus lithium or divalproex, lithium, lamotrigine, lurasidone, or adjunctive lamotrigine. While medications that have been shown to be effective for the acute phase should generally be continued for the maintenance phase in bipolar I disorder, there are some exceptions (such as with antidepressants); and available data suggest that lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, lamotrigine, asenapine, and aripiprazole monotherapy or combination treatments should be considered first-line for those initiating or switching treatment during the maintenance phase. In addition to addressing issues in bipolar I disorder, these guidelines also provide an overview of, and recommendations for, clinical management of bipolar II disorder, as well as advice on specific populations, such as women at various stages of the reproductive cycle, children and adolescents, and older adults. There are also discussions on the impact of specific psychiatric and medical comorbidities such as substance use, anxiety, and metabolic disorders. Finally, an overview of issues related to safety and monitoring is provided. The CANMAT and ISBD groups hope that these guidelines become a valuable tool for practitioners across the globe.

The International Society for Bipolar Disorders Task Force report on pediatric bipolar disorder: Knowledge to date and directions for future research

OBJECTIVES

Over the past two decades, there has been tremendous growth in research regarding bipolar disorder (BD) among children and adolescents (ie, pediatric BD [PBD]). The primary purpose of this article is to distill the extant literature, dispel myths or exaggerated assertions in the field, and disseminate clinically relevant findings.

METHODS

An international group of experts completed a selective review of the literature, emphasizing areas of consensus, identifying limitations and gaps in the literature, and highlighting future directions to mitigate these gaps.

RESULTS

Substantial, and increasingly international, research has accumulated regarding the phenomenology, differential diagnosis, course, treatment, and neurobiology of PBD. Prior division around the role of irritability and of screening tools in diagnosis has largely abated. Gold-standard pharmacologic trials inform treatment of manic/mixed episodes, whereas fewer data address bipolar depression and maintenance/continuation treatment. Adjunctive psychosocial treatment provides a forum for psychoeducation and targets primarily depressive symptoms. Numerous neurocognitive and neuroimaging studies, and increasing peripheral biomarker studies, largely converge with prior findings from adults with BD.

CONCLUSIONS

As data have accumulated and controversy has dissipated, the field has moved past existential questions about PBD toward defining and pursuing pressing clinical and scientific priorities that remain. The overall body of evidence supports the position that perceptions about marked international (US vs elsewhere) and developmental (pediatric vs adult) differences have been overstated, although additional research on these topics is warranted. Traction toward improved outcomes will be supported by continued emphasis on pathophysiology and novel therapeutics.

Dopaminergic agents in the treatment of bipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically examine the effects of dopaminergic agents (modafinil, armodafinil, pramipexole, methylphenidate, and amphetamines) on bipolar depression outcomes.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of treatment with dopaminergic agents in bipolar depression. In a secondary analysis, findings from both randomized controlled trials and high-quality observational studies were pooled by means of meta-analytic procedures to explore dopaminergic treatment-related new mania.

RESULTS

Nine studies (1716 patients) were included in our meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Treatment with dopaminergic agents for bipolar depression was associated with an increase in both response (1671 individuals, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.50) and remission rates (1671 individuals, RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14, 1.71). There was no evidence of an increased risk of mood switch associated with this treatment (1646 individuals, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.49, 1.89). Our secondary analysis (1231 individuals) yielded a cumulative incidence of mood switch of 3% (95% CI 1.0, 5.0) during a mean follow-up period of 7.5 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary findings suggest that dopaminergic agents may represent a useful alternative for the treatment of bipolar depression, with no evidence for a related increase in the risk of mood destabilization during short-term follow-up.

The Risk of Treatment-Emergent Mania With Methylphenidate in Bipolar Disorder

OBJECTIVE

The authors sought to determine the risk of treatment-emergent mania associated with methylphenidate, used in monotherapy or with a concomitant mood-stabilizing medication, in patients with bipolar disorder.

METHOD

Using linked Swedish national registries, the authors identified 2,307 adults with bipolar disorder who initiated therapy with methylphenidate between 2006 and 2014. The cohort was divided into two groups: those with and those without concomitant mood-stabilizing treatment. To adjust for individual-specific confounders, including disorder severity, genetic makeup, and early environmental factors, Cox regression analyses were used, conditioning on individual to compare the rate of mania (defined as hospitalization for mania or a new dispensation of stabilizing medication) 0-3 months and 3-6 months after medication start following nontreated periods.

RESULTS

Patients on methylphenidate monotherapy displayed an increased rate of manic episodes within 3 months of medication initiation (hazard ratio=6.7, 95% CI=2.0-22.4), with similar results for the subsequent 3 months. By contrast, for patients taking mood stabilizers, the risk of mania was lower after starting methylphenidate (hazard ratio=0.6, 95% CI=0.4-0.9). Comparable results were observed when only hospitalizations for mania were counted.

CONCLUSIONS

No evidence was found for a positive association between methylphenidate and treatment-emergent mania among patients with bipolar disorder who were concomitantly receiving a mood-stabilizing medication. This is clinically important given that up to 20% of people with bipolar disorder suffer from comorbid ADHD. Given the markedly increased hazard ratio of mania following methylphenidate initiation in bipolar patients not taking mood stabilizers, careful assessment to rule out bipolar disorder is indicated before initiating monotherapy with psychostimulants.

Use of Stimulants in Bipolar Disorder

Several international guidelines indicate stimulants, including methylphenidate (MPH), amphetamines and derivatives, modafinil, and armodafinil among the second-third-line choices for bipolar depression. Efficacy of stimulants has been also reported for the management of residual depressive symptoms such as fatigue and sleepiness and for the management of affective, cognitive, and behavioral symptoms in children and adult bipolar patients with comorbid ADHD. Few case reports show positive results with MPH in the treatment of resistant mania. Finally, MPH might be an option in some bipolar forms observed in psychiatric presentations of frontotemporal dementia and traumatic brain injury. In spite of these preliminary observations, the use of stimulants in bipolar patients is still controversial. Potential of misuse and abuse and mood destabilization with induction of (hypo)manic switches, mixed states, and rapid cycling are the concerns most frequently reported. Our aims are to summarize available literature on this topic and discuss practical management implications.

Bipolar Disorder Among Children and Adolescents

Although for years it was felt to be almost nonexistent, very-early-onset bipolar disorder (before age 12) has become an important member of the mood disorder spectrum of youths. Whether there is a separate subtype characterized by severe irritability or whether the problem of emotionally explosive children is better explained by other conditions is still being resolved. The diagnosis of bipolar I disorder requires an episode of mania, and understanding those manic symptoms is the source of differences in interpretation.

The use of stimulants and atomoxetine in adults with comorbid ADHD and bipolar disorder

INTRODUCTION

Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) persists into adulthood in about 50% of the affected children, with high rates of comorbidity with bipolar disorder (BD). Stimulants and atomoxetine (ATX) are effective treatments for ADHD, but their use in adults with comorbid BD (ADHD-BD) has not been extensively studied and may be problematic.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of the paper is to summarize the available literature regarding the use of these medications in ADHD-BD adult patients. Results of randomized-controlled and open-label trials, case reports, and case series are reviewed. We also reviewed data relative to some specific issues of this comorbidity in adults, especially substance use disorder, malingering, and stimulants misuse.

EXPERT OPINION

ADHD-BD may be associated with more severe symptoms, course, and worst outcome of both conditions. The frequent coexistence with alcohol and substance abuse may further complicate treatment management. Stimulants are the most effective medications for ADHD, but their use may be contraindicated in the presence of a comorbid drug abuse or in patients that simulate or exaggerate ADHD symptoms in order to obtain stimulants for diversion or abuse. ATX may be effective in the treatment of ADHD symptoms in BD patients, with a modestly increased risk of (hypo)manic switches and destabilization of the mood disorder when utilized in association with mood stabilizers. In the majority of the cases, a hierarchical approach is desirable, with mood stabilization preceding the treatment of ADHD symptoms. Although systematic trials on the use of stimulants and ATX in ADHD-BD comorbidity in adulthood are necessary, both treatments should be considered possible options to be carefully evaluated once the patient has been stabilized.

Methylphenidate for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: Cochrane systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials

STUDY QUESTION

Is methylphenidate beneficial or harmful for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents?

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched up to February 2015 for parallel and crossover randomised clinical trials comparing methylphenidate with placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents with ADHD. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) were conducted. Quality was assessed using GRADE. Teachers, parents, and observers rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour.

STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS

The analyses included 38 parallel group trials (n=5111, median treatment duration 49 days) and 147 crossover trials (n=7134, 14 days). The average age across all studies was 9.7 years. The analysis suggested a beneficial effect of methylphenidate on teacher rated symptoms in 19 parallel group trials (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, n=1698), corresponding to a mean difference of -9.6 points on the ADHD rating scale. There was no evidence that methylphenidate was associated with an increase in serious adverse events (risk ratio 0.98, nine trials, n=1532; TSA adjusted intervention effect RR 0.91). Methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk of non-serious adverse events (1.29, 21 trials, n=3132; TSA adjusted RR 1.29). Teacher rated general behaviour seemed to improve with methylphenidate (SMD -0.87, five trials, n=668) A change of 7 points on the child health questionnaire (CHQ) has been deemed a minimal clinically relevant difference. The change reported in a meta-analysis of three trials corresponds to a mean difference of 8.0 points on the CHQ (range 0-100 points), which suggests that methylphenidate may improve parent reported quality of life (SMD 0.61, three trials, n=514). 96.8% of trials were considered high risk of bias trials according to the Cochrane guidelines. All outcomes were assessed very low quality according to GRADE.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

The results suggest that among children and adolescents with a diagnosis of ADHD, methylphenidate may improve teacher reported symptoms of ADHD and general behaviour and parent reported quality of life. However, given the risk of bias in the included studies, and the very low quality of outcomes, the magnitude of the effects is uncertain. Methylphenidate is associated with an increased risk of non-serious but not serious adverse events.

FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING

Region Zealand Research Foundation and Copenhagen Trial Unit. Competing interests are given in the full paper on bmj.com. Full data are available in the version of this review published in The Cochrane Library.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention, they are hyperactive and impulsive.Methylphenidate is the drug most often prescribed to treat children and adolescents with ADHD but, despite its widespread use, this is the first comprehensive systematic review of its benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2015 we searched six databases (CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citations Index), and two trials registers. We checked for additional trials in the reference lists of relevant reviews and included trials. We contacted the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture methylphenidate to request published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. At least 75% of participants needed to have an intellectual quotient of at least 70 (i.e. normal intellectual functioning). Outcomes assessed included ADHD symptoms, serious adverse events, non-serious adverse events, general behaviour and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seventeen review authors participated in data extraction and risk of bias assessment, and two review authors independently performed all tasks. We used standard methodological procedures expected within Cochrane. Data from parallel-group trials and first period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses; separate analyses were undertaken using post-cross-over data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for high risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, heterogeneity and publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

The studies.We included 38 parallel-group trials (5111 participants randomised) and 147 cross-over trials (7134 participants randomised). Participants included individuals of both sexes, at a boys-to-girls ratio of 5:1, and participants' ages ranged from 3 to 18 years across most studies (in two studies ages ranged from 3 to 21 years). The average age across all studies was 9.7 years. Most participants were from high-income countries.The duration of methylphenidate treatment ranged from 1 to 425 days, with an average duration of 75 days. Methylphenidate was compared to placebo (175 trials) or no intervention (10 trials). Risk of Bias.All 185 trials were assessed to be at high risk of bias. Primary outcomes. Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.90 to -0.64; 19 trials, 1698 participants; very low-quality evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -9.6 points (95% CI -13.75 to -6.38) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points; DuPaul 1991a). A change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS is considered clinically to represent the minimal relevant difference. There was no evidence that methylphenidate was associated with an increase in serious (e.g. life threatening) adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.22; 9 trials, 1532 participants; very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.02 to 33.2).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Among those prescribed methylphenidate, 526 per 1000 (range 448 to 615) experienced non-serious adverse events, compared with 408 per 1000 in the control group. This equates to a 29% increase in the overall risk of any non-serious adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51; 21 trials, 3132 participants; very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.29 (CI 1.06 to 1.56). The most common non-serious adverse events were sleep problems and decreased appetite. Children in the methylphenidate group were at 60% greater risk for trouble sleeping/sleep problems (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.23; 13 trials, 2416 participants), and 266% greater risk for decreased appetite (RR 3.66, 95% CI 2.56 to 5.23; 16 trials, 2962 participants) than children in the control group.Teacher-rated general behaviour seemed to improve with methylphenidate (SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.71; 5 trials, 668 participants; very low-quality evidence).A change of seven points on the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ; range 0 to 100 points; Landgraf 1998) has been deemed a minimal clinically relevant difference. The change reported in a meta-analysis of three trials corresponds to a MD of 8.0 points (95% CI 5.49 to 10.46) on the CHQ, which suggests that methylphenidate may improve parent-reported quality of life (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80; 3 trials, 514 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate may improve teacher-reported ADHD symptoms, teacher-reported general behaviour, and parent-reported quality of life among children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. However, the low quality of the underpinning evidence means that we cannot be certain of the magnitude of the effects. Within the short follow-up periods typical of the included trials, there is some evidence that methylphenidate is associated with increased risk of non-serious adverse events, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite, but no evidence that it increases risk of serious adverse events.Better designed trials are needed to assess the benefits of methylphenidate. Given the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the particular difficulties for blinding of participants and outcome assessors point to the advantage of large, 'nocebo tablet' controlled trials. These use a placebo-like substance that causes adverse events in the control arm that are comparable to those associated with methylphenidate. However, for ethical reasons, such trials should first be conducted with adults, who can give their informed consent.Future trials should publish depersonalised individual participant data and report all outcomes, including adverse events. This will enable researchers conducting systematic reviews to assess differences between intervention effects according to age, sex, comorbidity, type of ADHD and dose. Finally, the findings highlight the urgent need for large RCTs of non-pharmacological treatments.

Comorbidity in pediatric bipolar disorder: prevalence, clinical impact, etiology and treatment

BACKGROUND

Research on pediatric bipolar disorder (PBD) is providing a plethora of empirical findings regarding its comorbidity. We addressed this question through a systematic review concerning the prevalence, clinical impact, etiology and treatment of main comorbid disorders involved.

METHOD

A comprehensive database search was performed from 1990 to August 2014. Overall, 167 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Bipolar youth tend to suffer from comorbid disorders, with highest weighted mean prevalence rate arising from anxiety disorders (54%), followed by attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (48%), disruptive behavior disorders (31%), and substance use disorders (SUD) (31%). Furthermore, evidence indicates that ADHD and anxiety disorders negatively affect the symptomatology, neurocognitive profile, clinical course and the global functioning of PBD. Likewise, several theories have been posited to explain comorbidity rates in PBD, specifically common risk factors, one disorder being a risk factor for the other and nosological artefacts. Lastly, randomized controlled trials highlight a stronger therapeutic response to stimulants and atomoxetine (vs. placebo) as adjunctive interventions for comorbid ADHD symptoms. In addition, research focused on the treatment of other comorbid disorders postulates some benefits from mood stabilizers and/or SGA.

LIMITATIONS

Epidemiologic follow-up studies are needed to avoid the risk of nosological artefacts. Likewise, more research is needed on pervasive developmental disorders and anxiety disorders, especially regarding their etiology and treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychiatric comorbidity is highly prevalent and is associated with a deleterious clinical effect on pediatric bipolarity. Different etiological pathways may explain the presence of these comorbid disorders among bipolar youth. Standardized treatments are providing ongoing data regarding their effectiveness for these comorbidities among bipolar youth.

Hyperactivity and sensation seeking as autoregulatory attempts to stabilize brain arousal in ADHD and mania?

Hypoarousal as indicated by skin conductance and electroencephalography (EEG) has been discussed as a pathogenetic factor in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The aim of this paper was to review these arousal-related pathogenetic concepts and to present the more recently proposed vigilance regulation model of affective disorders and ADHD. The latter builds on methodological advances in classifying short EEG segments into vigilance stages (Vigilance Algorithm Leipzig, VIGALL), indicating different states of global brain function ("brain arousal"). VIGALL allows the objective assessment of vigilance regulation under defined conditions, e.g. how fast vigilance declines to lower vigilance stages associated with drowsiness during 15-20-min EEG recordings under resting conditions with eyes closed. According to the vigilance regulation model, the hyperactivity and sensation seeking observed in overtired children, ADHD and mania may be interpreted as an autoregulatory attempt to create a stimulating environment in order to stabilize vigilance. The unstable regulation of vigilance observed in both mania and ADHD may thus explain the attention deficits, which become especially prominent in monotonous sustained attention tasks. Among the arguments supporting the vigilance regulation model are the facts that destabilizing vigilance (e.g., via sleep deprivation) can trigger or exacerbate symptoms of ADHD or mania, whereas stabilizing vigilance (e.g., via psychostimulants, reducing sleep deficits) alleviates these symptoms. The potential antimanic effects of methylphenidate are presently being studied in an international randomized controlled trial. We propose vigilance regulation as a converging biomarker, which could be useful for identifying treatment responders to psychostimulants and forming pathophysiologically more homogeneous ADHD subgroups for research purposes.

The comorbidity of ADHD and bipolar disorder: any less confusion?

The clinical confusion surrounding childhood ADHD and bipolar disorder centers on overlaps between severe ADHD with mood lability and mania/hypomania. Perplexity has been exacerbated by the removal of mood symptoms from the diagnostic criteria for ADHD and a lack of stringent criteria for a manic/hypomanic episode. This review summarizes current knowledge of the relationship between ADHD and bipolar disorder, the rates with which ADHD and bipolar disorder coexist in youth of differing ages, their presence in community, clinical, and high risk samples, and their longitudinal course. Treatment studies are reviewed, highlighting findings in comorbid cases, which support the efficacy of stimulants and other agents for ADHD without worsening mood symptoms, and efficacy of second generation antipsychotics for bipolar disorder. In conclusion, a lack of clarity regarding the diagnostic boundaries between childhood ADHD and bipolar disorder remains, however, treatments targeting symptoms of each disorder when comorbid, provide some efficacy.

Post-acute effectiveness of lithium in pediatric bipolar I disorder

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the long-term effectiveness of lithium for the treatment of pediatric bipolar disorder within the context of combination mood stabilizer therapy for refractory mania and pharmacological treatment of comorbid psychiatric conditions.

METHODS

Outpatients, ages 7-17 years, meeting American Psychiatric Association, diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV) diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder I (BP-I) (manic or mixed) who demonstrated at least a partial response to 8 weeks of open-label treatment with lithium (phase I) were eligible to receive open-label lithium for an additional 16 weeks (phase II). Up to two adjunctive medications could be prescribed to patients experiencing residual symptoms of mania or comorbid psychiatric conditions, following a standardized algorithm.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients received continued open-label long-term treatment with lithium for a mean of 14.9 (3.0) weeks during phase II. The mean weight-adjusted total daily dose at end of phase II was 27.8 (6.7) mg/kg/day, with an average lithium concentration of 1.0 (0.3) mEq/L. Twenty-five of the 41 patients (60.9%) were prescribed adjunctive psychotropic medications for residual symptoms. The most frequent indications for adjunctive medications were refractory mania (n=13; 31.7%) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (n=15; 36.6%). At the end of this phase 28 (68.3%) patients met a priori criteria for response (≥50% reduction from phase I baseline in young mania rating scale [YMRS] summary score and a clinical global impressions-improvement [CGI-I] score of 1 or 2), with 22 (53.7%) considered to be in remission (YMRS summary score≤12 and CGI-severity score of 1 or 2). These data suggest that patients who initially responded to lithium maintained mood stabilization during continuation treatment, but partial responders did not experience further improvement during Phase II, despite the opportunity to receive adjunctive medications. The most commonly reported (≥20%) adverse events associated with lithium treatment were vomiting, headache, abdominal pain, and tremor.

CONCLUSIONS

Lithium may be a safe and effective longer-term treatment for patients with pediatric bipolar disorder who respond to acute treatment with lithium. Partial responders to acute lithium did not appear to experience substantial symptom improvement during the continuation phase, despite the possibility that adjunctive medications could be prescribed.

Use of adjunctive stimulants in adult bipolar depression

Bipolar depression represents a high priority research field, due to its pervasiveness, and high economic and personal (suicidality, impaired function, quality of life) costs, and the limited evidence base to inform therapeutics. Mood stabilizers and second-generation antipsychotics for bipolar depression are commonly only partially effective, and their side-effects may overlap with depressive symptoms such as hypersomnia, daytime drowsiness, fatigue, psychomotor retardation, and weight gain. Moreover, the use of antidepressants in bipolar depression is controversial due to concerns regarding the risks of inefficacy or switching to mood elevation. Stimulants and related compounds such as modafinil and armodafinil have on occasion been used as adjuncts in bipolar depressed patients with encouraging results, but their use is limited by the paucity of systematic evidence of efficacy and safety. The present review aims to provide an updated perspective on the use of stimulants and stimulant-like medications in adult bipolar depression, considering not only recent randomized controlled trials, but also open naturalistic studies, in order to clarify the strengths and limitations of using these agents.

A framework to avoid irrational polypharmacy in psychiatry

Many patients with psychiatric disorders do not obtain remission from available pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments. Recent studies have demonstrated that there is a role for the rational use of 'combination therapy' when treating patients with serious and treatment-resistant mental illnesses. When prescribing multiple medications, it is easy, however, to fall into irrational polypharmacy. We present a framework that clinicians can use to avoid the pitfall of irrational polypharmacy. When using combination therapy, clinicians should consider: (a) pharmadynamic redundancy; (b) pharmacodynamic interactions; (c) pharmacokinetic interactions; and (d) avoid inadequate dosing of medications. Clinicians should also (e) regularly reassess the need for and benefit of continued combination therapy.

The vigilance regulation model of affective disorders and ADHD

According to the recently proposed vigilance model of affective disorders (vigilance in the sense of "brain arousal"), manic behaviour is partly interpreted as an autoregulatory attempt to stabilise vigilance by creating a stimulating environment, and the sensation avoidance and withdrawal in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is seen as an autoregulatory reaction to tonically increased vigilance. Indeed, using a newly developed EEG-based algorithm, hyperstable vigilance was found in MDD, and the contrary, with rapid drops to sleep stages, in mania. Furthermore, destabilising vigilance (e.g. by sleep deprivation) triggers (hypo)mania and improves depression, whereas stabilising vigilance, e.g. by prolonged sleep, improves mania. ADHD and mania have common symptoms, and the unstable vigilance might be a common pathophysiology. There is even evidence that psychostimulants might ameliorate both ADHD and mania. Hyperactivity of the noradrenergic system could explain both the high vigilance level in MDD and, as recently argued, anhedonia and behavioural inhibition. Interestingly, antidepressants and electroconvulsions decrease the firing rate of neurons in the noradrenergic locus coeruleus, whereas many antimanic drugs have opposite effects.

Pharmacologic treatment of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents

This review focuses mainly on published articles regarding the treatment of school-aged children and adolescents with pediatric bipolar disorder. In light of systematic reviews, large randomized controlled trial data are emphasized wherever possible. This review addresses the treatment of acute manic/mixed episodes, including combination treatment, the preliminary literature regarding bipolar depression among youth, treatment in the face of comorbid conditions, and maintenance treatment. Suggestions regarding future directions are offered. A clinical vignette describing a teen with bipolar disorder is presented and bipolar medications, dosing, efficacy, side effects, contraindications, and succinct comments on each medication are summarized.

Interventions for Youth at High Risk for Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia

Increasing evidence from retrospective and prospective studies is beginning to validate criteria to identify individuals at high risk for developing bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. In parallel, intervention trials are evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches for the treatment of subthreshold and possibly prodromal presentations in these high-risk populations with the ultimate objective of mitigating illness progression. This article reviews current evidence for candidate interventions for high-risk individuals to guide future research in this rapidly emerging field. A clinical vignette describing antidepressant-induced manic symptoms in an adolescent with a family history of bipolar disorder is provided.

Substance-use disorders in adolescents and adults with ADHD: focus on treatment

A high prevalence of comorbidity of ADHD and substance-use disorders (SUDs) has been shown in the literature. In this article, the literature for the treatment of adolescents and adults with co-occurring ADHD and SUD is examined. Findings from pharmacotherapy suggest mild improvement in ADHD without demonstrable changes in SUD unless the addiction was stabilized prior to treating the ADHD. No unique adverse effects, worsening of SUD, misuse or diversion of stimulants are reported in the included studies. Treating ADHD pharmacologically in individuals with ADHD plus SUD only has a modest impact on ADHD and SUD that is not observed in controlled trials. Limited data in adults with ADHD and brief abstinence of their SUD showed improvements in both ADHD and SUD with treatment. Further studies of cognitive behavioral therapy, sequencing of therapies and longer term treatment outcomes for groups with ADHD and active SUD are necessary.

Antidepressants and psychostimulants in pediatric populations: is there an association with mania?

This article reviews the literature that examines whether exposure to psychostimulants or antidepressants precipitates or exacerbates manic symptoms, or decreases the age at onset of mania in pediatric populations. A PubMed search using relevant key words identified studies targeting five distinct clinical groups: (i) youth without a diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BD) at the time of exposure to psychostimulants; (ii) youth with a diagnosis of BD at the time of exposure to psychostimulants; (iii) youth without a diagnosis of BD at the time of exposure to antidepressants; (iv) youth with a diagnosis of BD at the time of exposure to antidepressants; and (v) youth who develop BD after exposure to these medications. In patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the risk for mania was found to be relatively low with the use of psychostimulants. For patients with BD and ADHD, effective mood stabilization is important prior to adding a stimulant. For children with depression and/or anxiety, the risk of antidepressant-induced mania (AIM) was generally low (<2%), but the risk of general 'activation' secondary to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) may be greater (2-10%). However, rates of AIM in specialty clinics appear to be much higher. SSRIs may be particularly problematic in specific populations, such as those with some symptoms of mania or a family history of BD, but the precise risk is unknown. There is no clear evidence that stimulants or SSRIs accelerate the natural course of BD development in overall samples, but in individual cases prescribers should proceed cautiously when using these agents in youth already at risk for developing BD, such as those with ADHD and mood dysregulation, a history of prior AIM, a history of psychosis, or a family history of BD.

Pharmacologic treatments for pediatric bipolar disorder: a review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A growing body of literature has documented pediatric bipolar disorder to be a severely impairing form of psychopathology. However, concerns remain as to the inadequacy of the extant literature on its pharmacotherapy. Furthermore, treatment studies have not been systematically reviewed for treatment effects on core and associated symptoms. Thus, a systematic evaluation and synthesis of the available literature on the efficacy of antimanic pharmacotherapy for pediatric bipolar disorder on symptoms of mania, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was undertaken.

METHOD

A systematic search was conducted through PubMed from 1989 through 2010 for open-label and randomized controlled trials published in English on the pharmacotherapy of pediatric mania.

RESULTS

There have been 46 open-label (n = 29) and randomized (n = 17) clinical trials of antimanic agents in pediatric bipolar disorder encompassing 2,666 subjects that evaluated a range of therapeutic agents, including traditional mood stabilizers, other anticonvulsants, second-generation antipsychotics, and naturopathic compounds. This literature has documented that the available armamentarium has different levels of efficacy in the treatment of pediatric mania. Because all psychotropic classes are associated with important adverse effects, a careful risk-benefit analysis is warranted when initiating pharmacologic treatment with any of these compounds. In the limited data available, the effects of antimanic agents on depression and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder have been, in general, modest. Few studies have evaluated the effects of antimanic agents in children younger than 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial body of scientific literature has evaluated the safety and efficacy of various medicines and drug classes in the treatment of mania in pediatric bipolar disorder. More work is needed to assess the safety and efficacy of psychotropic drugs in children younger than 10 years, to further evaluate the efficacy of naturopathic compounds, and to further evaluate the effects of antimanic treatments for the management of depression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Psychopharmacology of pediatric bipolar disorders in children and adolescents

Pediatric bipolar disorder (PBD) is a chronic and disabling illness often leading to serious disruption in the lives of children and adolescents with this condition. Until recently, methodologically stringent data to guide pharmacologic interventions in the youth were scarce. However, clinical trials conducted recently have expanded the existing evidence base, and new data are emerging rapidly. Recent studies have examined the use of lithium, anticonvulsants, and atypical antipsychotics for acute and long-term treatment of PBD. Despite these new advances, further placebo-controlled trials investigating the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic treatment strategies for young people with bipolar disorder are still needed.

Database analysis of children and adolescents with bipolar disorder consuming a micronutrient formula

BACKGROUND

Eleven previous reports have shown potential benefit of a 36-ingredient micronutrient formula (known as EMPowerplus) for the treatment of psychiatric symptoms. The current study asked whether children (7-18 years) with pediatric bipolar disorder (PBD) benefited from this same micronutrient formula; the impact of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) on their response was also evaluated.

METHODS

Data were available from an existing database for 120 children whose parents reported a diagnosis of PBD; 79% were taking psychiatric medications that are used to treat mood disorders; 24% were also reported as ADHD. Using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF), data were analyzed from 3 to 6 months of micronutrient use.

RESULTS

At LOCF, mean symptom severity of bipolar symptoms was 46% lower than baseline (effect size (ES) = 0.78) (p < 0.001). In terms of responder status, 46% experienced >50% improvement at LOCF, with 38% still taking psychiatric medication (52% drop from baseline) but at much lower levels (74% reduction in number of medications being used from baseline). The results were similar for those with both ADHD and PBD: a 43% decline in PBD symptoms (ES = 0.72) and 40% in ADHD symptoms (ES = 0.62). An alternative sample of children with just ADHD symptoms (n = 41) showed a 47% reduction in symptoms from baseline to LOCF (ES = 1.04). The duration of reductions in symptom severity suggests that benefits were not attributable to placebo/expectancy effects. Similar findings were found for younger and older children and for both sexes.

CONCLUSIONS

The data are limited by the open label nature of the study, the lack of a control group, and the inherent self-selection bias. While these data cannot establish efficacy, the results are consistent with a growing body of research suggesting that micronutrients appear to have therapeutic benefit for children with PBD with or without ADHD in the absence of significant side effects and may allow for a reduction in psychiatric medications while improving symptoms. The consistent reporting of positive changes across multiple sites and countries are substantial enough to warrant a call for randomized clinical trials using micronutrients.

Atomoxetine acts as an NMDA receptor blocker in clinically relevant concentrations

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is increasing evidence that not only the monoaminergic but also the glutamatergic system is involved in the pathophysiology of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Hyperactivity of glutamate metabolism might be causally related to a hypoactive state in the dopaminergic system. Atomoxetine, a selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, is the first non-stimulant approved for the treatment of this disorder. Here we have evaluated the effects of atomoxetine on glutamate receptors in vitro.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

The whole-cell configuration of the patch-clamp technique was used to analyse the effect of atomoxetine on N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors in cultured rodent cortical and hippocampal neurons as well as on NMDA receptors heterologously expressed in human TsA cells.

KEY RESULTS

Atomoxetine blocked NMDA-induced membrane currents. Half-maximal inhibition emerged at about 3 microM which is in the range of clinically relevant concentrations found in plasma of patients treated with this drug. The inhibition was voltage-dependent, indicating an open-channel blocking mechanism. Furthermore, the inhibitory potency of atomoxetine did not vary when measured on NMDA receptors from different brain regions or with different subunit compositions.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The effective NMDA receptor antagonism by atomoxetine at low micromolar concentrations may be relevant to its clinical effects in the treatment of ADHD. Our data provide further evidence that altered glutamatergic transmission might play a role in ADHD pathophysiology.

Plasma methylphenidate concentrations in youths treated with high-dose osmotic release oral system formulation

BACKGROUND

Children and adolescents are being treated increasingly for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with a variety of stimulants in higher than Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved doses and in combination with other medications.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine methylphenidate (MPH) concentrations in children and adolescents treated with high-dose, extended-release osmotic release oral system (OROS) MPH plus concomitant medications, and to examine MPH concentrations with respect to the safety and tolerability of treatment.

METHODS

Plasma MPH concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry 4-5 hours after administration of medication in a sample of youths diagnosed with ADHD. These youths were treated naturalistically with higher than FDA-approved doses of OROS MPH in addition to their concomitant medications. Markers of safety and tolerability (e.g., measures of blood pressure and heart rate) were also examined.

RESULTS

Among the 17 patients (with a mean age of 16.2 +/- 2 years and a mean number of concurrent medications of 2.23 +/- 0.94), the mean plasma MPH concentration was 28 +/- 9.1 ng/mL, despite a mean daily dose of OROS MPH of 169 +/- 5 mg (3.0 +/- 0.8 mg/kg per day). No patient had a plasma MPH level >or=50 ng/mL or clinical signs of stimulant toxicity. No correlation was found between plasma MPH concentrations and OROS MPH dose or changes in vital signs.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose OROS MPH, used in combination with other medications, was not associated with either unusually elevated plasma MPH concentrations or with clinically meaningful changes in vital signs. Study limitations include a single time-point sampling of MPH concentrations, a small sample size, and a lack of outcome measures to address treatment effectiveness.