Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the accuracies of a broad range of screening tools for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents, and to compare the diagnostic accuracy of tools between population-based and clinical/high-risk samples, and across reporters. METHOD:MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched up until February 20, 2020, with no language restrictions. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of a screening tool against a diagnosis of ADHD in children and adolescents <18 years of age were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analyses were undertaken to provide pooled estimates of the area under the curve (AUC), and sensitivity and specificity of groups of measures. RESULTS:A total of 75 studies published between 1985 and 2021 reporting on 41 screening tools that were grouped into 4 categories (Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment [ASEBA], DSM-IV symptom scales, SDQ, and Other Scales) were retained. The pooled AUC for studies using a combined ADHD symptoms score was 0.82 (95% CI = 0.78-0.86), although this varied considerably across reporters (0.67-0.92) and populations (CI = 0.60-0.95). None of the measures met minimal standards for acceptable sensitivity (0.8) and specificity (0.8). CONCLUSION:Most tools have excellent overall diagnostic accuracy as indicated by the AUC. However, a single measure completed by a single reporter is unlikely to have sufficient sensitivity and specificity for clinical use or population screening.

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.

OBJECTIVES:To summarise evidence on intrawork breaks and their associated effect on doctors' well-being and/or performance at work. DESIGN:Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement guidelines DATA SOURCES: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science (Core Collection) and PsychINFO were systematically searched on 6 June 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:No restrictions were placed on language, study design or date of publication. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS:Methodological quality was appraised using Cochrane's Risk of Bias (ROB-2), Cochrane's Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies (ROBINS-I), and the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists for cross-sectional, cohort and qualitative studies. Quantitative synthesis was not undertaken due to substantial heterogeneity of design and outcomes. Results are presented narratively. RESULTS:Database searches returned 10 557 results and searches of other sources returned two additional records. Thirty-two papers were included in the systematic review, comprised of 29 unique studies, participants and topics and 3 follow-up studies. A variety of well-being and performance outcome measures were used. Overall, findings indicate that intrawork breaks improved some measures of well-being and/or work performance. However, methodological quality was judged to be low with a high risk of bias in most included studies. DISCUSSION:Using existing evidence, it is not possible to conclude with confidence whether intrawork breaks improve well-being and/or work performance in doctors. There is much inconsistency regarding how breaks are defined, measured and the outcomes used to assess effectiveness. Future research should seek to: (a) define and standardise the measurement of breaks, (b) use valid, reliable outcome measures to evaluate their impact on well-being and performance and (c) minimise the risk of bias in studies where possible. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42020156924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=156924.

BACKGROUND:Children referred for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often present with a broader pattern of conduct problems including oppositionality and defiance. This combination can be extremely stressful to parents, lower parents' self-esteem and negatively impact family life. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that families receive support as soon as possible after their referral. However, as clinical services are overstretched, and traditional in-person parenting intervention programmes are expensive, families often must wait times a long time prior to receiving this vital input. To address this, we have created a digital parenting programme called STEPS. It is delivered as a mobile phone app providing a set of tools and resources that can be easily accessed at parents' convenience. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of STEPS in supporting parents of children with high levels of hyperactivity/impulsivity, inattention and conduct problems, who are waiting to be assessed by specialist children's clinical services. METHODS:Online Parent Training for The Initial Management of ADHD referrals (OPTIMA) is a two-arm superiority parallel randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot study. We aim to recruit 352 parents and their children, who have been accepted onto a waitlist in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services or similar child health services. Parents who consent will be randomised 1:1 to either the STEPS or wait-as-usual (WAU) group. The trial will be conducted remotely (online and telephone) with measures taken at baseline and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary objective is to evaluate whether STEPS reduces the severity of children's oppositional and defiant behaviour, as rated by parents, measured at 3 months post-randomisation compared to WAU. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Digital solutions, such as mobile phone apps, have potential for delivering psychological support for parents of children with clinical-level needs in a timely and inexpensive manner. This trial will provide data on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STEPS app, which could support the implementation of this scalable parenting intervention programme into standard clinical care and, ultimately, improve the outcomes for families of children referred to specialist child and adolescent health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ISRCTN 16523503. Prospectively registered on 18 November 2021. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16523503.

The British Association for Psychopharmacology course on child and adolescent psychopharmacology has been run for more than 20 years and is currently a very popular course, attracting around 140 delegates/year from across the United Kingdom and abroad. As Faculty of recent sessions of the course, we have selected the most common questions we have been asked in recent years and provided evidence-based and/or expert-informed answers. We have included 27 questions and answers related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depressive disorders, autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, epilepsy (in differential diagnosis or comorbid with mental health conditions), obsessive-compulsive disorder, personality disorders, psychotic spectrum disorders, and tics/Tourette syndrome in children and young people. We hope that this article will be helpful for prescribers in their daily clinical practice and we look forward to further, high-level evidence informing the answers to these and other questions in child and adolescent psychopharmacology.

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of stimulant and non-stimulant medications on autonomic functioning in people with ADHD (PROSPERO: CRD42020212439). We searched (9th August 2021) PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library, for randomised and non-randomised studies reporting indices of autonomic activity, (electrodermal, pupillometry and cardiac), pre- and post-medication exposure in people meeting DSM/ICD criteria for ADHD. In the narrative syntheses, we included 5 electrodermal studies, 1 pupillometry study and 57 studies investigating heart rate and blood pressure. In the meta-analyses, 29 studies were included on blood pressure and 32 on heart rate. Administration of stimulants, and to a lesser degree, non-stimulants increased heart rate and blood pressure in people with ADHD. Similarly, an upregulation of arousal, reflected in increased electrodermal activity and pupil diameter was observed following stimulant use. Yet, the methodological diversity of studies presented in this review reinforces the need for more standardised and rigorous research to fully understand the relationship between arousal, medication, and behaviour in ADHD.

IMPORTANCE:Use of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications has increased substantially over the past decades, but there are concerns regarding their cardiovascular safety. OBJECTIVE:To provide an updated synthesis of evidence on whether ADHD medications are associated with the risk of a broad range of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science up to May 1, 2022. STUDY SELECTION:Observational studies investigating the association between ADHD medications (including stimulants and nonstimulants) and risk of CVD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality using the Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) checklist. Data were pooled using random-effects models. This study is reported according to the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The outcome was any type of cardiovascular event, including hypertension, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, venous thromboembolism, tachyarrhythmias, and cardiac arrest. RESULTS:Nineteen studies (with 3 931 532 participants including children, adolescents, and adults; 60.9% male), of which 14 were cohort studies, from 6 countries or regions were included in the meta-analysis. Median follow-up time ranged from 0.25 to 9.5 years (median, 1.5 years). Pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) did not show a statistically significant association between ADHD medication use and any CVD among children and adolescents (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.91-1.53), young or middle-aged adults (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.43-2.48), or older adults (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.62-4.05). No significant associations for stimulants (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.83) or nonstimulants (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.25-5.97) were observed. For specific cardiovascular outcomes, no statistically significant association was found in relation to cardiac arrest or arrhythmias (RR, 1.60; 95% CI, 0.94-2.72), cerebrovascular diseases (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.72-1.15), or myocardial infarction (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.68-1.65). There was no associations with any CVD in female patients (RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.43-8.24) and in those with preexisting CVD (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80-2.16). Heterogeneity between studies was high and significant except for the analysis on cerebrovascular diseases. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:This meta-analysis suggests no statistically significant association between ADHD medications and the risk of CVD across age groups, although a modest risk increase could not be ruled out, especially for the risk of cardiac arrest or tachyarrhythmias. Further investigation is warranted for the cardiovascular risk in female patients and patients with preexisting CVD as well as long-term risks associated with ADHD medication use.

In a double-blind randomised controlled trial by Asherson et al., involving prisoners with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the rates of response to osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-methylphenidate) and placebo were very similar (~50%). I critically discuss this trial against other international literature, highlighting the key issues in the field in terms of clinical practice and research.

OBJECTIVE:People with mood disorders have increased risk of comorbid medical diseases versus the general population. It is paramount to identify interventions to improve physical health in this population. METHODS:Umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions for physical health outcomes/intolerability-related discontinuation in mood disorders (any age). RESULTS:Ninety-seven meta-analyses were included. Among youths, against placebo, in depression, antidepressants/antipsychotics had higher discontinuation rates; in bipolar depression, olanzapine+fluoxetine worsened total cholesterol (TC)/triglycerides/weight gain (WG) (large ES). In adults with bipolar disorder, olanzapine worsened HbA1c/TC/WG (moderate/large ES); asenapine increased fasting glucose (small ES); quetiapine/cariprazine/risperidone induced WG (small/moderate ES). In bipolar depression, lurasidone was metabolically neutral. In depression, psychological interventions improved physical health-related quality of life (PHQoL) (small ES), fasting glucose/HbA1c (medium/large ES); SSRIs improved fasting glucose/HbA1c, readmission for coronary disease, pain (small ES); quetiapine/aripiprazole/olanzapine induced WG (small to large ES). Exercise improved cardiorespiratory fitness (moderate ES). In the elderly, fluoxetine yielded more detrimental cardiovascular effects than sertraline/escitalopram (large ES); antidepressants were neutral on exercise tolerance and PHQoL. In mixed age groups, in bipolar disorder aripiprazole was metabolically neutral; in depression, SSRIs lowered blood pressure versus placebo and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (small ES); brexpiprazole augmentation caused WG and was less tolerated (small ES); exercise improved PHQoL (moderate ES). CONCLUSIONS:Some interventions (psychological therapies, exercise and SSRIs) improve certain physical health outcomes in mood disorders, few are neutral, but various pharmacological interventions are associated with negative effects. Evidence from this umbrella review has limitations, should consider evidence from other disorders and should be integrated with recent evidence from individual RCTs, and observational evidence. Effective treatments with either beneficial or physically neutral profiles should be prioritized.