Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is developmental disorder characterized by inattention and/or hyperactivity/impulsivity. Psychostimulants, including methylphenidate (MPH), are recommended as a first-line pharmacological intervention, whereas neurofeedback (NF) has been proposed as a nonpharmacological option. The comparative effects of MPH and NF need further exploration. We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and/or tolerability of MPH and NF in children/adolescents and adults with ADHD. METHOD AND ANALYSIS/UNASSIGNED:We will include published as well as unpublished data. Two investigators will independently search PubMed, OVID, ERIC, Web of Science, ClinialTrials.gov, and a set of Chinese databases, including CNKI, CQVIP, and WanFang for head-to-head RCTs comparing MPH and NF. Experts will be contacted for unpublished data. The primary outcome will be the efficacy on ADHD core symptoms, measured by the change in the severity of ADHD symptoms, from baseline to endpoint and, if available, at follow-up (at any available time point). Secondary outcomes will be: dropouts for any reasons; efficacy on neuropsychological measures (working memory, inattention, and inhibition). We will conduct subgroup analyses to assess the impact of the following variables: age; type of NF; language of publication; comorbidities. Additionally, we will carry out meta-regression analyses to investigate the effect of sponsorship, year of publication, duration of intervention, and age of participants. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to test the robustness of the findings. Risk of bias of individual studies will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Analyses will be performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION/UNASSIGNED:No ethical issues are foreseen. Results from this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant national and international conferences. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER/UNASSIGNED:PROSPERO CRD42018090256.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:There may be shared neuropsychological dysfunctions in ADHD and obesity. This study tested a neuropsychological model of ADHD (reward/executive dysfunctioning) in individuals with obesity. Furthermore, the association between co-morbid binge eating and reward/executive dysfunction was explored. METHODS:Reward/executive dysfunctioning was assessed using both neuropsychological measures and questionnaires in individuals (aged 17-68) with obesity (N = 39; mean BMI = 39.70) and normal weight (N = 25; mean BMI = 22.94). RESULTS:No significant differences emerged between individuals with and without obesity on the outcome measures. However, individuals with obesity and binge eating showed significantly more self-reported delay discounting and inattention than those individuals with obesity but without binge eating. When controlling for inattention, this difference in delay discounting was no longer significant. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Not obesity alone but obesity with binge eating was specifically associated with a mechanism often reported in ADHD, namely delay discounting. However, this effect may be more driven by inattention.

BACKGROUND:The efficacy of meditation-based therapies for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) across the lifespan remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE:To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of meditation-based therapies for ADHD core symptoms and associated neuropsychological dysfunctions in children/adolescents or adults with ADHD. METHODS:statistics. Publication (small studies) bias was assessed with funnel plots and the Egger's test. Studies were evaluated with the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis. FINDINGS/RESULTS:81.81%). No significant effects were found on neuropsychological measures of inattention and inhibition in children/adolescents. In adults, significant effects were detected on working memory and inhibition, although these results were based on a small number of studies (n=3). 57% and 43% of the studies in children/adolescents were rated at overall unclear and high risk of bias, respectively. In adults, 33% and 67% of the studies were deemed at overall unclear and high risk of bias, respectively. No evidence of publication bias was found. CONCLUSIONS:Despite statistically significant effects on ADHD combined core symptoms, due to paucity of RCTs, heterogeneity across studies and lack of studies at low risk of bias, there is insufficient methodologically sound evidence to support meditation-based therapies for ADHD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER/BACKGROUND:PROSPERO 2018 [CRD42018096156].

Sleep alterations associated with adulthood ADHD are poorly understood. Here, we conducted the first meta-analysis of sleep studies in adults with ADHD. Based on a pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO-CRD42017065407), we searched Pubmed, Ovid and Web of Knowledge databases through August 3rd, 2017, with no language or publication type restrictions, and contacted study authors for unpublished data/information. From a pool of 8812 references, we retained 13 studies. Random-effects models were performed and study quality was rated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Compared to adults without ADHD, those with ADHD significantly differed in seven out of nine subjective parameters (Standardized Mean Difference, SMD, ranging from 0.56 to 1.55) and two out of five actigraphic parameters [SMD (95% CI): sleep onset latency: 0.80 (0.46-1.14); sleep efficiency: -0.68 (-1.03, -0.34)]. No significant differences were detected for polysomnographic parameters. We conclude that, whereas subjectively reported sleep problems are significantly associated with ADHD in adults and should be systematically screened during the clinical interview, additional research is needed to understand if they are underpinned by objective sleep alterations.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder, characterized by age inappropriate and impairing levels of inattention and/or hyperactivity/impulsivity. Pharmacotherapy is an important part of the ADHD multimodal treatment. The extent to which ADHD is pharmacologically over or under treated worldwide is controversial. We aimed to estimate the pooled worldwide rate of ADHD pharmacological treatment in individuals with and without the disorder. METHOD AND ANALYSIS/UNASSIGNED:We will include published or unpublished studies reporting the rates of ADHD pharmacological treatment in participants with and without ADHD of any age group. Population-based, cohort, or follow-up studies, as well as data from insurance health system and third-party reimbursements will be eligible. Searches will be performed in a large number of electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus. The primary outcome will be the prevalence of ADHD pharmacological treatment in individuals with ADHD and without ADHD. Two independent reviewers will perform the screening, and data extraction process. Study quality/bias will be assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale by 2 independent reviewers. To test the robustness of the findings, we will perform a series of sensitivity and meta-regression analysis. Analyses will be performed with R and STATA software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION/UNASSIGNED:No IRB approval will be necessary. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. REGISTRATION AND STATUS/UNASSIGNED:PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018085233.

Poisoning, a subtype of physical injury, is an important hazard in children and youth. Individuals with ADHD may be at higher risk of poisoning. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify this risk. Furthermore, since physical injuries, likely share causal mechanisms with those of poisoning, we compared the relative risk of poisoning and injuries pooling studies reporting both. As per our pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO ID CRD42017079911), we searched 114 databases through November 2017. From a pool of 826 potentially relevant references, screened independently by two researchers, nine studies (84,756 individuals with and 1,398,946 without the disorder) were retained. We pooled hazard and odds ratios using Robust Variance Estimation, a meta-analytic method aimed to deal with non-independence of outcomes. We found that ADHD is associated with a significantly higher risk of poisoning (Relative Risk = 3.14, 95% Confidence Interval = 2.23 to 4.42). Results also indicated that the relative risk of poisoning is significantly higher than that of physical injuries when comparing individuals with and without ADHD (Beta coefficient = 0.686, 95% Confidence Interval = 0.166 to 1.206). These findings should inform clinical guidelines and public health programs aimed to reduce physical risks in children/adolescents with ADHD.

OBJECTIVE:Impulsive choices can lead to suboptimal decision making, a tendency which is especially marked in individuals with ADHD. We compared two different paradigms assessing impulsive choice: the simple choice paradigm (SCP) and the temporal discounting paradigm (TDP). METHOD/METHODS:Random effects meta-analyses on 37 group comparisons (22 SCP; 15 TDP) consisting of 3.763 participants (53% ADHD). RESULTS:Small-to-medium effect sizes emerged for both paradigms, confirming that participants with ADHD choose small immediate over large delayed rewards more frequently than controls. Moderation analyses show that offering real rewards in the SCP almost doubled the odds ratio for participants with ADHD. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We suggest that a stronger than normal aversion toward delay interacts with a demotivating effect of hypothetical rewards, both factors promoting impulsive choice in participants with ADHD. Furthermore, we suggest the SCP as the paradigm of choice due to its larger ecological validity, contextual sensitivity, and reliability.

BACKGROUND:Sleep disturbances, in particular insomnia, represent a common problem in children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs). Currently, there are no approved medications for insomnia in children by the US Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency and therefore they are prescribed off-label. We critically reviewed pediatric literature on drugs as well as nonpharmacological (behavioral) interventions used for sleep disturbances in children with NDDs. METHODS:, and Embase), and Web of Knowledge databases were searched through February 12, 2017, with no language restrictions. Two authors independently and blindly performed the screening. RESULTS:Good sleep practices and behavioral interventions, supported by moderate-to-low level evidence, are the first recommended treatments for pediatric insomnia but they are often challenging to implement. Antihistamine agents, such as hydroxyzine or diphenhydramine, are the most widely prescribed sedatives in the pediatric practice but evidence supporting their use is still limited. An increasing body of evidence supports melatonin as the safest choice for children with NDDs. Benzodiazepines are not recommended in children and should only be used for transient insomnia, especially if daytime anxiety is present. Only few studies have been carried out in children's and adolescents' zolpidem, zaleplon, and eszopiclone, with contrasting results. Limited evidence supports the use of alpha-agonists such as clonidine to improve sleep onset latency, especially in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder subjects. Tricyclic antidepressants, used in adults with insomnia, are not recommended in children because of their safety profile. Trazodone and mirtazapine hold promise but require further studies. CONCLUSIONS:Here, we provided a tentative guide for the use of drugs for insomnia in children with NDDs. Well-controlled studies employing both objective polysomnography and subjective sleep measures are needed to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of the currently prescribed pediatric sleep medicines in children with NDDs.

Rigorously conducted meta-analyses provide evidence synthesis that has the potential to inform daily clinical decision making and development of clinical guidelines. In the past decade, there has been an increasing number of studies on pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments for childhood and adolescent psychiatric disorders. Given this large body of research, busy clinicians might tend to rely on meta-analyses, rather than individual trials, to keep abreast of the evidence base supporting intervention strategies in child and adolescent psychiatry. Many meta-analyses focused on treatments for child and adolescent mental health problems have primarily addressed the question: Is treatment X more efficacious/effective (or safer) than the control condition? This is clearly an important starting point for clinicians when discussing with their patients and families the benefits and risks of treatment X, but clinicians need to know more. For instance, they might look for the evidence base to answer the following questions: Is treatment X the most efficacious and effective (or safest) option for my patient? When will treatment X likely start working? If the dose or intensity of the treatment does not seem to be effective, is it worthwhile to increase it? And if so, how?