Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Clinical guidelines remain unclear on which medications for gambling disorder are to be preferred in terms of efficacy and tolerability. We aimed to compare pharmacological treatments for gambling disorder in terms of efficacy and tolerability, using network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS:Based on our pre-registered protocol [CRD42022329520], a structured search was conducted across broad range of databases, for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medications for gambling disorder. Data were independently extracted by two researchers. We used standardized mean differences (SMD) using Hedges' g to measure the efficacy outcomes, and for the effect for tolerability we used dropout rate due to medication side effects, expressed as odds ratio (OR). Confidence in the network estimates was assessed using the CINeMA framework. We followed the PRISMA-NMA guidelines for this work. Outcomes were gambling symptom severity and quality of life (for efficacy), and tolerability. FINDINGS/RESULTS:We included 22 RCTs in the systematic review and 16 RCTs (n = 977 participants) in the NMA. Compared with placebo, moderate confidence evidence indicated that nalmefene [Standardized Mean Difference (SMD): -0.86; 95 % confidence interval (CI: -1.32,-0.41)] reduced gambling severity, followed by naltrexone (SMD: -0.42; 95 %CI: (-0.85,0.01)). Naltrexone (SMD: -0.50; 95 %CI: (-0.85,-0.14)) and nalmefene (SMD: -0.36; 95 %CI: (-0.72,-0.01) were also more beneficial than placebo in terms of quality of life. Olanzapine and topiramate were not more efficacious than placebo. Nalmefene [Odds Ratio (OR): 7.55; 95 %CI: (2.24-25.41)] and naltrexone (OR: 7.82; 95 %CI: (1.26-48.70)) had significantly higher dropout due to side effects (lower tolerability) compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Based on NMA, nalmefene and naltrexone currently have the most supportive evidence for the pharmacological treatment of gambling disorder. Further clinical trials of novel compounds, and analysis of individual participant data are needed, to strengthen the evidence base, and help tailor treatments at the individual patient level.

OBJECTIVE:Sleep problems are highly prevalent and impairing in adolescents with ADHD. However, their relation with co-occurring mental health problems is still unclear. This study assessed whether adolescents with ADHD, with and without self-reported sleep problems, differ from each other in co-occurring mental health problems, and whether they differ from adolescents without ADHD. Furthermore, we examined whether the adolescents with ADHD and self-reported sleep problems do indeed have more disturbed sleep than the other two groups and lastly, whether these sleep differences are moderated by co-occurring mental health problems. METHOD/METHODS:Three groups of adolescents (13-17 years): 1) with ADHD and comorbid self-reported sleep problems (N = 56), 2) with ADHD but without self-reported sleep problems (N = 25), and 3) without ADHD (N = 56) were assessed. Group comparisons were done for symptoms of co-occurring mental health problems, self- and parent-reported sleep problems, and objective and subjective sleep parameters. Exploratively, moderating effects of co-occurring mental health problems on sleep differences between groups are examined. RESULTS:Compared to those without self-reported sleep problems, adolescents with ADHD and comorbid self-reported sleep problems experienced significantly more co-occurring symptoms of mental health problems, especially depression. They also scored higher on all sleep problems, and had a longer sleep onset latency and lower sleep efficiency based on subjective and objective sleep measures. Depression and anxiety moderated objectively measured sleep differences. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Co-occurring mental health problems, especially depressive symptoms, are more prevalent in adolescents with ADHD and sleep problems and partially moderate the relation with sleep. This indicates that when adolescents with ADHD present with sleep problems in clinical practice, it is essential to also assess symptoms and other mental health problems and vice-versa.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:ADHD has been linked to an increased risk of completed suicide. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between ADHD medication use and completed suicide. METHODS:This nested case-control study included individuals aged 12-49 in Quebec, Canada, diagnosed with ADHD and/or dispensed ADHD medication. Suicide cases (n = 472) between 2000 and 2021 were matched with 5 controls each (n = 2360) on date of birth, sex, and continuous public drug insurance coverage for at least 365 days before suicide death (index date). Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the association between ADHD medication use and completed suicide. The association between specific ADHD medication types and completed suicide was also assessed. RESULTS:After controlling for potential confounders, no significant association was found between ADHD medication use and completed suicide in the overall sample, in individuals aged 12-24 and 25 to 49 years, and those with a prior ADHD physician diagnosis. No significant differences were found when comparing the use of non-stimulants only (aOR 1.27; 95 % CI: 0.62, 2.63), stimulants and non-stimulants (aOR 1.01; 95 % CI: 0.33, 3.08), and ADHD consultation without medication (aOR 0.94; 95 % CI: 0.69, 1.28) against stimulant-only use. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Both stimulants and non-stimulants were not associated with the risk of completed suicide. These findings can inform clinical decision-making.

There is a growing literature exploring the placebo response within specific mental disorders, but no overarching quantitative synthesis of this research has analyzed evidence across mental disorders. We carried out an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biological treatments (pharmacotherapy or neurostimulation) for mental disorders. We explored whether placebo effect size differs across distinct disorders, and the correlates of increased placebo effects. Based on a pre-registered protocol, we searched Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and Web of Knowledge up to 23.10.2022 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses reporting placebo effect sizes in psychopharmacological or neurostimulation RCTs. Twenty meta-analyses, summarising 1,691 RCTs involving 261,730 patients, were included. Placebo effect size varied, and was large in alcohol use disorder (g = 0.90, 95% CI [0.70, 1.09]), depression (g = 1.10, 95% CI [1.06, 1.15]), restless legs syndrome (g = 1.41, 95% CI [1.25, 1.56]), and generalized anxiety disorder (d = 1.85, 95% CI [1.61, 2.09]). Placebo effect size was small-to-medium in obsessive-compulsive disorder (d = 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.41]), primary insomnia (g = 0.35, 95% CI [0.28, 0.42]), and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (standardized mean change = 0.33, 95% CI [0.22, 0.44]). Correlates of larger placebo response in multiple mental disorders included later publication year (opposite finding for ADHD), younger age, more trial sites, larger sample size, increased baseline severity, and larger active treatment effect size. Most (18 of 20) meta-analyses were judged 'low' quality as per AMSTAR-2. Placebo effect sizes varied substantially across mental disorders. Future research should explore the sources of this variation. We identified important gaps in the literature, with no eligible systematic reviews/meta-analyses of placebo response in stress-related disorders, eating disorders, behavioural addictions, or bipolar mania.

There have been increasing efforts to develop prediction models supporting personalised detection, prediction, or treatment of ADHD. We overviewed the current status of prediction science in ADHD by: (1) systematically reviewing and appraising available prediction models; (2) quantitatively assessing factors impacting the performance of published models. We did a PRISMA/CHARMS/TRIPOD-compliant systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42023387502), searching, until 20/12/2023, studies reporting internally and/or externally validated diagnostic/prognostic/treatment-response prediction models in ADHD. Using meta-regressions, we explored the impact of factors affecting the area under the curve (AUC) of the models. We assessed the study risk of bias with the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). From 7764 identified records, 100 prediction models were included (88% diagnostic, 5% prognostic, and 7% treatment-response). Of these, 96% and 7% were internally and externally validated, respectively. None was implemented in clinical practice. Only 8% of the models were deemed at low risk of bias; 67% were considered at high risk of bias. Clinical, neuroimaging, and cognitive predictors were used in 35%, 31%, and 27% of the studies, respectively. The performance of ADHD prediction models was increased in those models including, compared to those models not including, clinical predictors (β = 6.54, p = 0.007). Type of validation, age range, type of model, number of predictors, study quality, and other type of predictors did not alter the AUC. Several prediction models have been developed to support the diagnosis of ADHD. However, efforts to predict outcomes or treatment response have been limited, and none of the available models is ready for implementation into clinical practice. The use of clinical predictors, which may be combined with other type of predictors, seems to improve the performance of the models. A new generation of research should address these gaps by conducting high quality, replicable, and externally validated models, followed by implementation research.

Professor Alessandro Zuddas, from the University of Cagliari (Italy), passed away prematurely in July 2022. As a prominent figure in child and adolescent neuropsychiatry, he substantially influenced the fields of neurodevelopmental disorders and neuropsychopharmacology both nationally and internationally. Professor Zuddas was a renowned expert in basic and clinical research in child and adolescent psychopharmacology, an enlightened and stimulating educator, and a mentor to many students, residents, and senior colleagues. With his enthusiasm and unique ability to network, he contributed enormously to trace a path in the field that we continue to follow. His name will remain in the textbooks and articles he authored. Here, as colleagues and friends who had the honor to work with him, we provide our personal views of Alessandro's impact and legacy, which go far beyond his publications.

BACKGROUND:Placebo and nocebo effects are widely reported across psychiatric conditions, yet have seldom been examined in the context of gambling disorder. Through meta-analysis, we examined placebo effects, their moderating factors, and nocebo effects, from available randomised, controlled pharmacological clinical trials in gambling disorder. METHODS:We searched, up to 19 February 2024, a broad range of databases, for double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medications for gambling disorder. Outcomes were gambling symptom severity and quality of life (for efficacy), and drop outs due to medication side effects in the placebo arms. RESULTS:= 833) in the meta-analysis. The overall effect size for gambling severity reduction in the placebo arms was 1.18 (95%CI 0.91-1.46) and for quality of life improvement was 0.63 (0.42-0.83). Medication class, study sponsorship, trial duration, baseline severity of gambling and publication year significantly moderated effect sizes for at least some of these outcome measures. Author conflict of interest, placebo run-in, gender split, severity scale choice, age of participants or unbalanced randomisation did not moderate effect sizes. Nocebo effects leading to drop out from the trial were observed in 6% of participants in trials involving antipsychotics, while this was less for other medication types. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Placebo effects in trials of pharmacological treatment of gambling disorder are large, and there are several moderators of this effect. Nocebo effects were measureable and may be influenced by medication class being studied. Practical implications of these new findings for the field are discussed, along with recommendations for future clinical trials.

In the past decade, there have been substantial changes in diagnostic nomenclature. This study investigated sex differences in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptom severity based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV, DSM-IV(TR), and DSM-5 criteria, separating rating scale and clinical interview data in children and adults with ADHD. PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched for published studies (1996-2021) reporting severity of attention, and hyperactivity/impulsivity in males and females. We compared data: (1) across the entire lifespan aggregating rating scale and clinical interview data (51 studies), (2) drawing solely on rating scale data (18 studies), and (3) drawing solely on clinical interview data (33 studies). Fifty-two studies met inclusion criteria comparing data for females (n = 8423) and males (n = 9985) with ADHD across childhood and/or adulthood. In total, 15 meta-analyses were conducted. Pooled data across the lifespan aggregating both rating scale and clinical diagnostic interview data, showed males had significantly more severe hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms than females. Rating scale data were similar; boys had significantly more severe hyperactivity/impulsivity than girls. In adulthood, men were rated to have significantly more severe inattention than women with no difference in the hyperactivity/impulsivity dimension. All significant differences were of small effect size. No significant sex differences in the severity of symptoms emerged for clinical interview data for children or adults, in contrast. Possible reasons for the discrepancy in findings between rating scales and clinical diagnostic interviews are discussed.