Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To improve the methods for long-term assessment of drug-associated side effects and advance knowledge of the safety profile of psychotropic medications in children and adolescents. METHOD: A multidisciplinary, interactive workshop was hosted by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the Research Units on Pediatric Psychopharmacology network. Participants were experts in child and adolescent psychiatry, psychopharmacology, pharmacoepidemiology, and statistics from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the NIMH. Evaluation of drug safety was examined from five perspectives: research design and methods, industry, regulatory requirements, bioethics, and practice settings. For each of these areas, special emphasis was placed on identifying barriers and generating solutions. RESULTS: A major obstacle is the lack of standardization of the methods used for collecting safety data. The limitations of both randomized clinical trials and passive postmarketing surveillance in assessing long-term safety were recognized. The need to consider alternative approaches, such as registries and trend analysis of population-based databases, was highlighted. Recommendations were proposed together with possible approaches to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: A concerted effort by academic researchers, industry, FDA, practitioners, and NIMH is needed to standardize methods and lay the foundations for systematic research on the long-term safety of psychotropic medications in children

OBJECTIVE: To identify approaches to improving methods for assessing tolerability and safety of psychotropic medications in children and adolescents. METHOD: Strengths and limitations of current methodology were reviewed and possible alternatives examined. RESULTS: Research on the validity of safety evaluation has been extremely limited. No evidence-based 'gold standard' exists. Clinical trials remain the best design to establish causality, but sample size limitations prevent the detection of infrequent, though serious, adverse events. Other designs, such as cohort and case-control studies, and approaches, such as mining of large databases, must be considered. CONCLUSION: The current lack of methodological standardization across studies prevents generalizations and meta-analyses. Because the issues relevant to drug safety are diverse, a variety of methodological approaches and instruments are needed. It is, however, possible to adopt standard basic definitions of adverse events, degree of severity, ascertainment methods, and recording procedures, as a common 'core,' to which more specific assessment instruments can be added. Systematic empirical testing and validation of safety methodology is needed

OBJECTIVE: Elicitation is an essential and critical step in ascertaining adverse events (AEs). This report reviews elicitation methods used in published clinical trials of psychopharmacological agents in children. METHOD: Pediatric psychopharmacology reports were reviewed for safety methods in the Medline database. Studies were included if they were published 1980 or later, provided data on AEs, and described the ascertainment methodology used for determining them. RESULTS: A review of 196 pediatric psychopharmacology articles depicting safety assessments in clinical studies over the past 22 years revealed that there was no common method used for eliciting or reporting AE data. CONCLUSION: The current inconsistency in safety data ascertainment is a major limitation that likely impairs the ability to promptly and accurately identify drug-induced AEs. Research on how best to standardize safety methods should be considered a priority in pediatric psychopharmacology

Using receiver operating characteristics, the authors examined outcome predictors (variables associated with outcome regardless of treatment) and moderators (variables identifying subgroups with differential treatment effectiveness) in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD; MTA). Treatment response was determined using parent- and teacher-reported ADHD and oppositional defiant symptoms, with levels near or within the normal range indicating excellent response. Among 9 baseline child and family characteristics, none predicted but 3 moderated treatment response. In medication management and combined treatments, parental depressive symptoms and severity of child ADHD were associated with decreased rates of excellent response; when these 2 characteristics were present, below-average child IQ was an additional moderator. No predictors or moderators emerged for behavioral and community comparison treatments. The authors discuss conceptual and clinical implications of research on treatment moderators

OBJECTIVE: Few treatment studies of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) extend beyond a few months. This article reports an interim analysis of a 24-month study evaluating the 12-month tolerability and effectiveness of a once-daily OROS formulation of methylphenidate (OROS MPH) in children with ADHD. METHOD: Children, aged 6-13 years, with ADHD who participated in previous controlled studies and were MPH responders, received once-daily OROS MPH in this multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized study. Effectiveness was evaluated monthly by parents/caregivers and schoolteachers using validated rating scales (e.g., IOWA Conners). Safety and adverse events assessments involved objective (e.g., vital signs, growth) and subjective (sleep quality, tics) reporting. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of subjects (289/407) completed 12 months' treatment. Effectiveness was maintained throughout 12 months as demonstrated by stable IOWA Conners ratings and sustained improvements in peer interaction and Global Assessment Scale scores. OROS MPH was well tolerated, with adverse events similar to those expected with short-acting stimulant medication. OROS MPH had minimal impact on sleep quality and tics. There were no clinically meaningful changes in blood pressure, pulse, or height. The apparent absence of meaningful changes is tempered by the fact that children were MPH responders and were medicated at baseline, most for extended periods prior to enrollment. CONCLUSION: In this open-label study, once-daily OROS MPH treatment appears to be well tolerated and effectiveness was maintained for up to 12 months in these children with ADHD

OBJECTIVE: To identify the obstacles and special challenges-ethical, practical, scientific, and regulatory-faced by investigators who attempt to conduct psychopharmacological studies in preschoolers. METHOD: In a workshop held at the 47th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, featuring interactive sessions designed to elicit discussion of the theory and feasibility of research in this young population, several key domains were identified: diagnosis and assessment, ethics, research design, special considerations for preschoolers, regulatory/industry issues, and education/training. RESULTS: A Pediatric Psychopharmacology Initiative is needed to consolidate recommendations from this and other workshops and current federal, research, and regulatory committees. A scholarly review and a guide for institutional review boards and investigators should be prepared on issues related to preschoolers. Developmental specialists provide valuable expertise that can strengthen studies of pediatric psychopharmacology. 'N of 1' case studies can provide valuable information to clinicians. Only preschoolers with severe symptoms that occur in several interpersonal contexts should be entered into trials. Indications for the study of symptom complexes (e.g., aggression) rather than specific diagnoses should be examined and considered for regulatory activities. Psychopharmacology practice parameters for preschoolers are needed. CONCLUSIONS: With preschoolers being increasingly treated with psychopharmacological agents, the need for investigations to address the safety and efficacy of these medications is becoming a central issue for researchers from many disciplines

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether age, gender, ethnicity, type of anxiety disorder, severity of illness, comorbidity, intellectual level, family income, or parental education may function as moderators and whether treatment adherence, medication dose, adverse events, or blinded rater's guess of treatment assignment may function as mediators of pharmacological treatment effect in children and adolescents with anxiety disorders. METHOD: The database of a recently reported double-blind placebo-controlled trial of fluvoxamine in 128 youths was analyzed. With a mixed-model random-effects regression analysis of the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale total score, moderators and mediators were searched by testing for a three-way interaction (strata by treatment by time). A two-way interaction (strata by time) identified predictors of treatment outcome. RESULTS: No significant moderators of efficacy were identified, except for lower baseline depression scores, based on parent's (but not child's) report, being associated with greater improvement (p < .001). Patients with social phobia (p < .05) and greater severity of illness (p < .001) were less likely to improve, independently of treatment assignment. Blinded rater's guess of treatment assignment acted as a possible mediator (p < .001), but improvement was attributed to fluvoxamine, regardless of actual treatment assignment. Treatment adherence tended to be associated (p = .05) with improvement. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory study, patient demographics, illness characteristics, family income, and parental education did not function as moderators of treatment effect. Social phobia and severity of illness predicted less favorable outcome. Attribution analyses indicated that study blindness remained intact. The presence of concomitant depressive symptoms deserves attention in future treatment studies of anxious children

Examined hypothesized gender and comorbidity differences in the observed classroom behavior of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The behavior of 403 boys and 99 girls with ADHD, ages 7-10, was compared (a) to observed, sex-specific classroom behavior norms, (b) by sex, and (c) by comorbid subgroups. Boys and girls with ADHD deviated significantly from classroom norms on 15/16 and 13/16 categories, respectively. Compared to comparison girls, girls with ADHD had relatively high rates of verbal aggression to children. Boys with ADHD engaged in more rule-breaking and externalizing behaviors than did girls with ADHD, but the sexes did not differ on more 'neutral,' unobtrusive behaviors. The sex differences are consistent with notions of why girls with ADHD are identified and referred later than boys. Contrary to hypothesis, the presence of comorbid anxiety disorder (ANX) was not associated with behavioral suppression; yet, as hypothesized, children with a comorbid disruptive behavior disorder (DBD) had higher rates of rule-breaking, and impulsive and aggressive behavior, than did children with ADHD alone and those with ADHD+ANX. Elevated rates of ADHD behaviors were also observed in children with comorbid DBD, indicating that these behaviors are truly present and suggesting that reports of higher ADHD ratings in this subgroup are not simply a consequence of negative halo effects and rater biases

In the December 2000 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, we published a set of papers presenting secondary analyses of the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA), and R. A. Barkley (2000) provided a commentary. A critique of the design of the study (MTA Cooperative Group, 1999) was presented based on a theoretical perspective of a 'behavioral inhibition' deficit that has been hypothesized as the core deficit of ADHD (R. A. Barkley, 1997). The commentary questioned the design and analysis of the MTA in terms of (1) the empirical criteria for selection of components of behavioral (Beh) intervention, (2) the effectiveness of the Beh intervention, (3) the methods for analyses at the group and individual level, (4) implications of the MTA findings for clinical practice, (5) the role of genetics in response to treatment, and (6) the lack of a nontreatment control group. In this response, we relate the content of the papers to the commentary, (1) by reviewing the selection criteria for the Beh treatment, as outlined by K. C. Wells, W. E. Pelham, et al. (2000), (2) by addressing the myth that the MTA Beh treatment was ineffective (Pelham, 1999), (3) by describing the use of analyses at the level of the individual participant, as presented by J. S. March et al. (2000) and W. E. Pelham et al. (2000) as well as elsewhere by J. M. Swanson et al. (2001) and C. K. Conners et al. (2001), (4) by relating some of the suggestions from the secondary analyses about clinically relevant factors such as comorbidity (as presented by J. S. March et al., 2000) and family and parental characteristics (as presented by B. Hoza et al., 2000, S. P. Hinshaw et al., 2000, and K. C. Wells, J. N. Epstein, et al., 2000), (5) by discussing the statistical concept of heritability and the lack of a significant difference in the presence of ADHD symptoms in parents of the MTA families compared to parents in the classmate-control families (as presented by J. N. Epstein, et al., 2000), and (6) by acknowledging that an ethically necessary weakness of the MTA design is that it did not include a no-treatment control group. We discuss the use of secondary analyses to suggest how, when, and for what subgroups effectiveness of the Beh treatment may have been manifested. Finally, we invite others to use the large and rich data set that will soon be available in the public domain, to perform secondary analyses to mine the meaning of the MTA and to evaluate theories of ADHD and response to treatments