Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with binge eating (BE), food addiction (FA), and obesity/higher BMI in individuals without alcohol use disorder (AUD). ADHD is highly prevalent in patients with AUD, but it is unknown whether the presence of comorbid AUD might change the nature of the association between ADHD, BE, FA and BMI (food and alcohol may either compete for the same brain neurocircuitry or share vulnerability risk factors). Here, we filled this gap by testing the association between ADHD and FA/BE in adult patients hospitalized for AUD, with the strength of simultaneously assessing childhood and adult ADHD. We also investigated the association between ADHD and BMI, and the other factors associated with BMI (FA/BE, AUD severity). METHODS:We included 149 AUD inpatients between November 2018 and April 2019. We assessed both childhood and adulthood ADHD (Wender Utah Render Scale and Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale), FA (modified Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0), BE (Binge Eating Scale), and BMI and AUD (clinical assessment). RESULTS:In multivariable analyses adjusted for age, adult ADHD was associated with higher BE scores (p = .048), but not significant BE (9% vs. 7%; p = .70). ADHD was also associated with FA diagnosis and the number or FA symptoms, with larger effect size for adult (ORs: 9.45[95%CI: 2.82-31.74] and 1.38[1.13-1.69], respectively) than childhood ADHD (ORs: 4.45[1.37-14.46] and 1.40[1.13-1.75], respectively). In multivariable analysis, BMI was associated with both significant BE (p < .001) and FA diagnosis (p = .014), but not adult ADHD nor AUD severity. CONCLUSION:In patients hospitalized for AUD, self-reported adult ADHD was associated with FA and BE, but not BMI. Our results set the groundwork for longitudinal research on the link between ADHD, FA, BE, and BMI in AUD inpatients.

This editorial perspective focuses on the challenges of research on child and adolescent mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Common limitations of published/ongoing studies are (i) being conducted in one or few countries, (ii) the survey being available in one or few languages, (iii) targeting selected samples (e.g., clinical populations and health workers) rather than the general population, (iv) only recruiting/reporting on non-representative samples, (v) focusing often on a restricted set of mental health outcomes, missing the broader picture of mental and physical health, quality of life and functioning, (vi) failing to use a longitudinal design and (vii) collecting only parental ratings or self-rated questionnaires from children and adolescents, but not both. We discuss how the Collaborative Outcomes Study on Health and Functioning during Infection Times (COH-FIT) was designed to address some of these challenges, also highlighting its limitations.

There is, in the content of the Journal, an embarrassment of riches, and picking a "best" seems to demand a certain qualification: is the "best" the most interesting, most surprising, most educational, most important, most provocative, most enjoyable? How to choose? We are hardly unbiased and can admit to a special affection for the ones that we and the authors worked hardest on, hammering version after version into shape. Acknowledging these biases, here are the 2021 articles that we think deserve your attention or at least a second read.

The nature and magnitude of placebo and nocebo responses to ADHD medications and the extent to which response to active medications and placebo are inter-correlated is unclear. To assess the magnitude of placebo and nocebo responses to ADHD and their association with active treatment response. We searched literature until June 26, 2019, for published/unpublished double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of ADHD medication. Authors were contacted for additional data. We assessed placebo effects on efficacy and nocebo effects on tolerability using random effects meta-analysis. We assessed the association of study design and patient features with placebo/nocebo response. We analysed 128 RCTs (10,578 children/adolescents and 9175 adults) and found significant and heterogenous placebo effects for all efficacy outcomes, with no publication bias. The placebo effect was greatest for clinician compared with other raters. We found nocebo effects on tolerability outcomes. Efficacy outcomes from most raters showed significant positive correlations between the baseline to endpoint placebo effects and the baseline to endpoint drug effects. Placebo and nocebo effects did not differ among drugs. Baseline severity and type of rating scale influenced the findings. Shared non-specific factors influence response to both placebo and active medication. Although ADHD medications are superior to placebo, and placebo treatment in clinical practice is not feasible, clinicians should attempt to incorporate factors associated with placebo effects into clinical care. Future studies should explore how such effects influence response to medication treatment. Upon publication, data will be available in Mendeley Data: PROSPERO (CRD42019130292).

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent neurodevelopmental condition associated with impaired function and increased risk of poor outcomes in children, young people and adults with the condition. Currently approved pharmacological treatments for ADHD include a range of stimulant (methylphenidate, amphetamine) and nonstimulant (atomoxetine, guanfacine, clonidine) medications. All have been shown to be effective in treating the symptoms of ADHD and improving other functional outcomes including quality of life, academic performance, rates of accidents and injuries, and do not appear to be associated with significant adverse outcomes or side effects. In this chapter, we review medications for ADHD by summarising the mechanisms of action of each of the two main classes of compounds (stimulants and nonstimulants), the formulations of the most commonly prescribed medications within each class, their efficacy in treating ADHD symptoms and other outcomes, and other factors that influence treatment decisions including side effects and tolerability, comorbidities and medical history. We conclude with a summary of the treatment decisions made by clinicians and suggest some next steps for research. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms of action of these medications and how exactly they improve symptoms, and to examine their effects on commonly occurring comorbidities.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have unhealthy eating habits, associated with overweight/obesity. We explored whether they present with different food-related benefit/risk perceptions, compared to those without ADHD. METHODS:One hundred five university students with (n = 36) and without (n = 69) ADHD, aged 22-30, participated in the study. They rated the level of frequency and likelihood of food consumption, as well as the perceived attractiveness, convenience, and risk of 32 healthy and unhealthy food items. RESULTS:The findings revealed significantly lower healthy/unhealthy food frequency consumption ratios for the ADHD group compared with the non-ADHD one but no differences in the ratios of estimated likelihood of food consumption and perceptions (attractiveness, convenience, and risk). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study demonstrated a discrepancy between the eating behavior (more unhealthy eating patterns in adults with ADHD compared with controls) and their food-related perceptions (same perceptions regarding the benefit and risk of foods in both groups).

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a complex and heterogeneous neurodevelopmental condition for which curative treatments are lacking. Whilst pharmacological treatments are generally effective and safe, there is considerable inter-individual variability among patients regarding treatment response, required dose, and tolerability. Many of the non-pharmacological treatments, which are preferred to drug-treatment by some patients, either lack efficacy for core symptoms or are associated with small effect sizes. No evidence-based decision tools are currently available to allocate pharmacological or psychosocial treatments based on the patient's clinical, environmental, cognitive, genetic, or biological characteristics. We systematically reviewed potential biomarkers that may help in diagnosing ADHD and/or stratifying ADHD into more homogeneous subgroups and/or predict clinical course, treatment response, and long-term outcome across the lifespan. Most work involved exploratory studies with cognitive, actigraphic and EEG diagnostic markers to predict ADHD, along with relatively few studies exploring markers to subtype ADHD and predict response to treatment. There is a critical need for multisite prospective carefully designed experimentally controlled or observational studies to identify biomarkers that index inter-individual variability and/or predict treatment response.

Last year, we wrote to you of our dedication and vision for this journal "to be antiracist at every level," outlining the following 6 initiatives "to reshape the Journal to pursue this vision:" (1) Issuing a Call for Papers "on racism and its impacts on child development and children's mental health;" (2) updating our Guide for Authors "to emphasize that we will evaluate articles submitted to the Journal on whether their study designs and discussions consider and address human diversity in the context of their research questions and hypotheses; (3) assembling a special collection of "Journal articles on bias, bigotry, racism, and mental health disparities;" (4) accelerating "our efforts to make our editorial board inclusive and representative of our community of scientists and practitioners as well as the communities we all serve;" (5) engaging in "continuing education and dialogue as an Editorial Board that will include antiracism training;" and (6) critically examining "our editorial and peer review process to ensure it is antiracist.¹ In this Editors' Note, we write to update you on our progress.

ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder presenting to child and adolescent mental health, paediatric, and primary care services. Timely and effective interventions to address core ADHD symptoms and co-occurring problems are a high priority for healthcare and society more widely. While much research has reported on the benefits and adverse effects of different interventions for ADHD, these individual research reports and the reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines summarizing their findings are sometimes inconsistent and difficult to interpret. We have summarized the current evidence and identified several methodological issues and gaps in the current evidence that we believe are important for clinicians to consider when evaluating the evidence and making treatment decisions. These include understanding potential impact of bias such as inadequate blinding and selection bias on study outcomes; the relative lack of high-quality data comparing different treatments and assessing long-term effectiveness, adverse effects and safety for both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; and the problems associated with observational studies, including those based on large national registries and comparing treatments with each other. We highlight key similarities across current international clinical guidelines and discuss the reasons for divergence where these occur. We discuss the integration of these different perspective into a framework for person/family-centered evidence-based practice approach to care that aims to achieve optimal outcomes that prioritize individual strengths and impairments, as well as the personal treatment targets of children and their families. Finally, we consider how access to care for this common and impairing disorder can be improved in different healthcare systems.