Working toward a neurobiological account of ADHD: commentary on Gail Tripp and Jeff Wickens, dopamine transfer deficit

Are computational models of any use to psychiatry?

Mathematically rigorous descriptions of key hypotheses and theories are becoming more common in neuroscience and are beginning to be applied to psychiatry. In this article two fictional characters, Dr. Strong and Mr. Micawber, debate the use of such computational models (CMs) in psychiatry. We present four fundamental challenges to the use of CMs in psychiatry: (a) the applicability of mathematical approaches to core concepts in psychiatry such as subjective experiences, conflict and suffering; (b) whether psychiatry is mature enough to allow informative modelling; (c) whether theoretical techniques are powerful enough to approach psychiatric problems; and (d) the issue of communicating clinical concepts to theoreticians and vice versa. We argue that CMs have yet to influence psychiatric practice, but that they help psychiatric research in two fundamental ways: (a) to build better theories integrating psychiatry with neuroscience; and (b) to enforce explicit, global and efficient testing of hypotheses through more powerful analytical methods. CMs allow the complexity of a hypothesis to be rigorously weighed against the complexity of the data. The paper concludes with a discussion of the path ahead. It points to stumbling blocks, like the poor communication between theoretical and medical communities. But it also identifies areas in which the contributions of CMs will likely be pivotal, like an understanding of social influences in psychiatry, and of the co-morbidity structure of psychiatric diseases.

Identifying the neurobiology of altered reinforcement sensitivity in ADHD: a review and research agenda

ADHD is associated with altered reinforcement sensitivity, despite a number of inconsistent findings. This review focuses on the overlap and differences between seven neurobiologically valid models and lists 15 predictions assessing reinforcement sensitivity in ADHD. When comparing the models it becomes clear that there are great differences in the level of explanation. For example, some models try to explain a single core deficit in terms lower-level reinforcement systems, such as the dopamine transfer to reward back in time. Other models explain multiple deficits, by describing higher-level systems, such as impaired bottom-up prefrontal activation. When reviewing the available experimental evidence in support of the predictions, most experimental studies have been focusing on behavioral changes in the face of reward and response cost over no-reward, and on delay discounting. There is currently a lack in studies that focus on explaining underlying cognitive or neural mechanisms of altered reinforcement sensitivity in ADHD. Additionally, there is a lack in studies that try to understand what subgroup of children with ADHD shows alterations in reinforcement sensitivity. The scarcity in studies testing the neurobiological predictions is explained partly by a lack in knowledge how to test some of these predictions in humans. Nevertheless, we believe that these predictions can serve as a useful guide to the systematic evaluation of altered reinforcement sensitivity in ADHD.

Beyond polemics: science and ethics of ADHD

What is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)? Why are so many children being diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed medication? Are stimulant drugs an effective and safe treatment strategy? This article explores the current state of scientific research into ADHD and the key social and ethical concerns that are emerging from the sharp rise in the number of diagnoses and the use of stimulant drug treatments in children. Collaborations among scientists, social scientists and ethicists are likely to be the most promising route to understanding what ADHD is and what stimulant drugs do.

Neuropsychologische Diagnostik bei Kindern mit ADHS

Aktuelle Modelle zur Ätiopathogenese der Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit-/Hyperaktivitätsstörung (ADHS) postulieren vor allem Defizite in den exekutiven Funktionen sowie motivationale Störungen als zentrale neuropsychologische Komponenten bei den betroffenen Patienten. Um die kognitiven und exekutiven Defizite der ADHS zu erfassen, finden derzeitig vor allem im englischen Sprachraum Testverfahren Anwendung, die auf der PASS-Theorie basieren. Durch die Erfassung der dynamischen kognitiven Prozesse Planungsfähigkeit und Aufmerksamkeit sowie sequenzielle und simultane Informationsverarbeitung zeigt sich die PASS-Theorie sensibel bezüglich der spezifischen kognitiven Probleme und exekutiven Defizite von Kindern mit Störungen der Aufmerksamkeit oder Hyperaktivität. Die Übersicht setzt sich ausführlich mit den neuropsychologischen Grundlagen der ADHS auseinander und stellt entsprechende diagnostische Verfahren vor. Die Rolle aktueller, auf der PASS-Theorie basierender Testverfahren für den diagnostischen Prozess und daraus resultierende Implikationen für den klinischen Alltag werden diskutiert.

No Relation between Therapeutic Response to Methylphenidate and its Cardiovascular Side Effects in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the relation between therapeutic response to methylphenidate (MPH) and its associated short term cardiovascular side effects (Systolic Blood Pressure-SBP, Diastolic Blood Pressure-DBP and Heart Rate-HR changes) in children with ADHD, based on the hypothesis that these parameters share common underlying mechanisms.

Method

A double-blind placebo-controlled crossover clinical trial of children 6 to 12 years old diagnosed with ADHD was done. The children were given one week of 0.5 mg/kg MPH and one week of placebo (divided into two equal doses, given twice every day). On the morning of the third day of each week, Blood Pressure (BP) and HR were recorded immediately before (at time 0) and after (at time 10 and 45 minutes) administration of MPH. Children were grouped into 4 categories according to their therapeutic response (large, moderate, mild or no response) to MPH. A mixed model analysis of variance was performed to determine whether response groups were different with regard to cardiovascular side effects.

Results

All variables were comparable among the four groups 10 min after treatment with MPH and with placebo. Small but significant (p < 0.001) increases were seen in SBP (3.65 mm of Hg) and DBP (3.99 mm of Hg) 45 minutes after administration of MPH. A small but significant decrease in HR (3.3 beats per minute) was observed 45 min after administration of placebo. No significant differences in SBP, DBP and HR were found between response groups.

Conclusions

MPH causes a small but significant change in BP at 45 minutes after administration. No changes in HR were observed with MPH at 45 minutes. Responders to MPH treatment do not differ from non-responders in occurrence of BP and HR changes, at least within 45 minutes after administration and with the MPH dosage used in the study.