Methylphenidate Treatment in Pediatric Patients With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Comorbid Trichotillomania: A Preliminary Report

A case of trichotillomania and bulimia nervosa in a patient with adult-onset attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

Key Clinical Message

Identifying any potential comorbidity such as bulimia nervosa (BN) and ADHD in trichotillomania patients is essential for a thorough treatment plan. Combining a multidisciplinary approach was found to be feasible and effective in the treatment.

Abstract

Trichotillomania is frequently considered an isolated disorder; nevertheless, emerging evidence suggests that other psychiatric conditions, including obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), eating disorders, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), are often found to coexist. Several studies showed that eating disorders, such as bulimia nervosa, were found in chronic hair-pullers, while OCD was considered a factor in predicting the prevalence of eating disorders, as well as the severity of trichotillomania in the populations. While the relationship between trichotillomania and OCD has been quite well-documented, the evidence of its association with bulimia nervosa and ADHD remains limited. Here, we report a case of trichotillomania with comorbid bulimia nervosa, major depressive disorder, and ADHD.

Comorbid trichotillomania and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults

BACKGROUND

Individuals with trichotillomania (TTM), a disorder characterized by repetitive pulling out of one's own hair, often have co-occurring ADHD, but little is known about this comorbidity. Additionally, there have been intimations in the literature that treatment of ADHD with stimulants may worsen TTM symptoms. This study aims to examine clinical aspects of individuals with TTM and co-occurring ADHD.

METHODS

308 adults with a current diagnosis of TTM were assessed for ADHD using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview 7.0.2 and Adult ADHD Self Report Scale. Participants also completed clinical measures related to TTM severity, impulsivity, quality of life, and psychosocial dysfunction. A series of analyses of variance were used to calculate differences in scale scores among subjects with and without co-occurring ADHD.

RESULTS

Of the 308 participants, 47 (15.3%) met the clinical threshold for ADHD. Participants with ADHD reported significantly higher scores in all first and second factor traits of impulsivity, including attentional impulsiveness (p < .0001), motor impulsiveness (p < .0001), and non-planning impulsiveness (p < .0001). Interestingly, participants with ADHD did not report significant differences in TTM severity, perceived quality of life, or functional impairment, regardless of medication status.

DISCUSSION

The data suggest that ADHD is common in adults with TTM, and the comorbidity is associated with heightened impulsivity. The co-occurrence of ADHD does not affect individuals' quality of life, symptom severity, or functionality. Taking stimulant medications for ADHD also did not appear to affect TTM severity, despite past case reports suggesting these medications may lead to onset or worsening of TTM.

Pharmacotherapy for trichotillomania

BACKGROUND

Trichotillomania (TTM; hair-pulling disorder) is a prevalent and disabling disorder characterised by recurrent hair-pulling. Here we update a previous Cochrane Review on the effects of medication for TTM.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of medication for trichotillomania (TTM) in adults, children and adolescents compared with placebo or other medication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, eleven other bibliographic databases, trial registries and grey literature sources (to 26 November 2020). We checked reference lists and contacted subject experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of medication versus placebo or other medication for TTM in adults, children and adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies were included. We identified 10 studies in adults (286 participants) with a mean sample size of 29 participants per trial; one study in children and adolescents (39 participants); and, one study in adults and adolescents (22 participants: 18 adults and 4 adolescents). All studies were single-centre, outpatient trials. Eleven studies compared medication and placebo (334 participants); one study compared two medications (13 participants). Studies were 5 to 13 weeks duration. We undertook meta-analysis only for opioid antagonists as other comparisons contained a single study, or reported insufficient data. Antioxidants versus placebo in adults There was little to no difference in treatment response between antioxidant (35.7%) and placebo groups (28.6%) after six weeks, based on a single trial of silymarin (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 5.99; 36 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (18 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antioxidants versus placebo in adolescents There was little to no difference in treatment response between antioxidant (50%) and placebo groups (25%) after six weeks, based on a single trial of silymarin (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.28 to 14.20; 8 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (8 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antipsychotics versus placebo in adults There may be greater treatment response in the antipsychotic group (85%) compared to the placebo group (17%) after 12 weeks, based on a single trial of olanzapine (RR 5.08, 95% CI 1.4 to 18.37; 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (25 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cell signal transducers versus placebo in adults There was little to no difference in treatment response between cell signal transducer (42.1%) and placebo groups (31.6%) after 10 weeks, based on a single trial of inositol (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.11; 38 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (38 participants; low-certainty evidence). Glutamate modulators versus placebo in adults There is probably greater treatment response in the glutamate modulator group (56%) compared to the placebo group (16%) after 12 weeks, based on a single trial of N-acetylcysteine (RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.34 to 9.17; 50 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (50 participants; low-certainty evidence). Glutamate modulators versus placebo in children and adolescents There was little to no difference in treatment response between the glutamate modulator (25%) and placebo groups (21.1%) in children and adolescents, based on a single trial of N-acetylcysteine (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.77; 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in dropouts due to adverse events between glutamate modulator (5%) and placebo (0%) groups, based on a single trial (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.12 to 66.11; 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). Opioid antagonists versus placebo in adults There may be little to no difference in treatment response between opioid antagonist (37.5%) and placebo groups (25%) after six to eight weeks, based on two studies of naltrexone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.25 to 18.17; 2 studies, 68 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available regarding dropouts due to adverse events. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus placebo in adults There were no data available for treatment response to SSRIs. There was little to no difference in dropouts due to adverse events in the SSRI group (5.1%) compared to the placebo group (0%) after 6 to 12 weeks, based on two trials of fluoxetine (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.62; 2 studies, 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) with predominantly serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) actions versus placebo in adults There may be greater treatment response in the TCAs with predominantly SRI actions group (40%) compared to the placebo group (0%) after nine weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain, based on a single trial of clomipramine (RR 5.73, 95% CI 0.36 to 90.83; 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be increased dropouts due to adverse events in the TCAs with predominantly SRI actions group (30%) compared to the placebo group (0%), but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 4.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 73.81; 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). TCAs with predominantly SRI actions versus other TCAs in adults There may be greater treatment response in the TCAs with predominantly SRI actions group compared to the other TCAs group after five weeks, based on a single trial comparing clomipramine to desipramine (mean difference (MD) -4.00, 95% CI -6.13 to -1.87; 26 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (26 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence from meta-analysis to confirm or refute the efficacy of any agent or class of medication for the treatment of TTM in adults, children or adolescents. Preliminary evidence suggests there may be beneficial treatment effects for N-acetylcysteine, clomipramine and olanzapine in adults based on four trials, albeit with relatively small sample sizes.

Association of Alopecia Areata With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Stimulant Medication: A Case-Control Study

Background: Both psychiatric disorders and diverse medications used to treat them have been associated with alopecia. The objective of our study was to investigate the existence of an association between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) stimulant medication (ASM) and various types of alopecia.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective case-control medical record review of patients between the ages of 6 and 18 years seen in dermatology clinics during a 10-year period. Cases included patients diagnosed with alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), or alopecia universalis (AU). We matched 3 controls on age and sex to each case. We reviewed patients’ medical records for the following medications: lisdexamfetamine, amphetamine/dextroamphetamine, dexmethylphenidate, and methylphenidate. We examined the association between medications used to treat ADHD and diagnoses of AA, AT, and/or AU by calculating a series of odds ratios and 95% CIs.

Results: We identified 124 cases (110 with AA, 11 with AT, and 3 with AU) and 372 controls. We found a strong association between AU and ASM use (P<0.0071). No relationship between ASM use and other types of hair loss was found.

Conclusion: Although the sample size of cases with AU was small, we found a significant association between AU and ASM. While further study is needed, practitioners may consider close monitoring of patients with AA who use ASM for the development of worsening disease and discontinue the medication if the patient experiences an increase in hair loss that appears to be progressing to AU.

Reversible Alopecia Secondary to OROS Methylphenidate

INTRODUCTION

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has a prevalence of 1-4% of the Spanish school population. Its treatment consists of giving amphetamine derivatives and, recently, non-stimulant drugs, without finding any differences in efficacy in the studies performed.

CLINICAL CASE

A 7-year-old girl was referred from neurology due to learning delay and behaviour disorders. Diagnosed as likely ADHD, treatment was started with immediate release methylphenidate, and later with an osmotic release oral system (OROS) methylphenidate. When alopecia areata appeared, this treatment was withdrawn. After the re-introduction of modified release methylphenidate 30:70, symptom control was achieved without the appearance of alopecia.

DISCUSSION

There is a published history of two cases of alopecia areata with OROS methylphenidate that resolved after increasing the dose of the drug without clearly knowing the reason for this event. There is no consensus on the priority use of the immediate release formula or the OROS methylphenidate.

Cessation of Skin Picking Symptoms With Methylphenidate Treatment in a Child With Comorbid Skin Picking and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Skin picking disorder includes behaviors such as picking, scratching, and squeezing of the normal skin in an impulsive, repetitive manner despite the fact that no dermatological condition is detected. Skin picking disorder may also be comorbid in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and vice versa. There is a great deal of data regarding the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate (MPH) treatment of ADHD. In this article, we report the cessation of skin picking behaviors in a 10-year-old girl diagnosed as having skin picking disorder and ADHD after modified-release MPH treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first case report that shows the cessation of skin picking behavior after MPH treatment in a child with ADHD.

Autism and trichotillomania in an adolescent boy

An adolescent with autism spectrum disorder and improperly treated attention deficit hyperactivity disorder presented with recurrent hair pulling. Treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and stimulant improved these conditions.

Methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents - assessment of adverse events in non-randomised studies

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Fourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.Primary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.In the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).Secondary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).With non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.Given the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.

Review of available studies of the neurobiology and pharmacotherapeutic management of trichotillomania

Trichotillomania (TTM) is a psychiatric disorder characterized by an irresistible urge to pull out one's hair. Currently there are no FDA approved treatments for TTM, which makes it difficult for clinicians to select an appropriate therapeutic plan. The clinical studies that have been performed do not provide sufficient or consistent evidence regarding which drug classes should be administered. Unfortunately, most of the available data consist of case reports and clinical trials with limited sample size. This review provides an overview of currently available clinical literature that targets TTM. A summary of clinical trials as well as case reports is provided. The most common rating scales used for clinical assessment are also reviewed. The etiology of TTM remains unclear. Studies that examine various neuroanatomical, neurobiologic, as well as genetic factors associated with TTM are thoroughly discussed in this review. It is evident that clear understanding of TTM is crucial to provide better recognition, assessment, and treatment to patients of this disorder. Finally, despite research efforts for establishing pharmacological options for treatment, it is clear that new targets are warranted in order to ensure a clinically supported effective pharmacological approach to treat TTM.