Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Several studies have assessed the possible association between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and asthma. However, existing evidence is inconclusive as to whether this association remains after controlling for possible important confounders. To fill this knowledge gap, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis, followed by a population-based study. METHODS:statistics. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled ORs. The systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017073368). To address the fact that the ORs obtained in the meta-analysis were adjusted for confounders that inevitably varied across studies, we did a population-based study of individuals in multiple national registers in Sweden. We calculated an unadjusted OR and an OR that was simultaneously adjusted for all confounders identified in a directed acyclic graph based on the studies of asthma and ADHD identified in our systematic review. FINDINGS/RESULTS:=50·76), indicating a significant association between asthma and ADHD. Possible lack of representativeness of the study population was detected with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale in 42 of 49 datasets. In the population-based study, we included 1 575 377 individuals born between Jan 1, 1992, and Dec 31, 2006, of whom 259 253 (16·5%) had asthma and 57 957 (3·7%) had ADHD. Asthma was significantly associated with ADHD (OR 1·60, 95% CI 1·57-1·63) in the crude model adjusting for sex and year of birth, and this association remained significant after simultaneous adjustment for all covariates (1·45, 1·41-1·48). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:The combined results of the meta-analysis and the population-based study support a significant association between asthma and ADHD, which remained even after simultaneously controlling for several possible confounders in the population-based study. Awareness of this association might help to reduce delay in the diagnosis of both ADHD and asthma. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:Swedish Research Council and Shire International GmbH.

OBJECTIVE:To perform a systematic review of studies of lurasidone in children and/or adolescents and to present a case report aimed to add further insights into its use in clinical practice with youth. METHODS:We searched the following databases for empirical studies, of any design, focusing on the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, or safety of lurasidone in children and/or adolescents: Pubmed (Medline), OVID (PsycInfo, EMBASE+EMBASE classic, OVID Medline), Web of Knowledge, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last search January 23, 2018). RESULTS:From a pool of 301 potentially relevant references, we retained 12 pertinent studies (reported in 28 references), including 1 pharmacokinetics study, 1 double blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) for bipolar depression (BD) with 1 related interim analysis study of its extension phase and 1 related external posterior predictive check study, 1 double blind RCT for schizophrenia with 3 related interim analyses of its extension phase, 1 RCT and 1 case report for autism spectrum disorder, and 2 open-label studies focusing on a variety of disorders. Overall, these studies show that lurasidone is significantly more efficacious than placebo, with moderate effect sizes, and is well tolerated for BD and schizophrenia in youth. Published studies in youth have in general used doses up to 80 mg/day. Our case report suggests that high doses of lurasidone (148 mg/day) were well tolerated and might have contributed to substantial functional improvement in a 14-year old girl with psychosis and a previous history of anorexia nervosa, who had not responded to previous antipsychotics (olanzapine, risperidone, aripiprazole). CONCLUSIONS:There is increasing evidence that lurasidone may be moderately effective and well tolerated for the treatment of BD and psychosis in youth and may have procognitive effects. Our case report suggests that future RCTs should assess the efficacy and tolerability of high doses (>80 mg/day) of lurasidone in youth.

BACKGROUND:The benefits and safety of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remain controversial, and guidelines are inconsistent on which medications are preferred across different age groups. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of oral medications for ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults. METHODS:We did a literature search for published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing amphetamines (including lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with each other or placebo. We systematically contacted study authors and drug manufacturers for additional information. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in severity of ADHD core symptoms based on teachers' and clinicians' ratings) and tolerability (proportion of patients who dropped out of studies because of side-effects) at timepoints closest to 12 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and confidence of estimates with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for network meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014008976. FINDINGS/RESULTS:133 double-blind randomised controlled trials (81 in children and adolescents, 51 in adults, and one in both) were included. The analysis of efficacy closest to 12 weeks was based on 10 068 children and adolescents and 8131 adults; the analysis of tolerability was based on 11 018 children and adolescents and 5362 adults. The confidence of estimates varied from high or moderate (for some comparisons) to low or very low (for most indirect comparisons). For ADHD core symptoms rated by clinicians in children and adolescents closest to 12 weeks, all included drugs were superior to placebo (eg, SMD -1·02, 95% CI -1·19 to -0·85 for amphetamines, -0·78, -0·93 to -0·62 for methylphenidate, -0·56, -0·66 to -0·45 for atomoxetine). By contrast, for available comparisons based on teachers' ratings, only methylphenidate (SMD -0·82, 95% CI -1·16 to -0·48) and modafinil (-0·76, -1·15 to -0·37) were more efficacious than placebo. In adults (clinicians' ratings), amphetamines (SMD -0·79, 95% CI -0·99 to -0·58), methylphenidate (-0·49, -0·64 to -0·35), bupropion (-0·46, -0·85 to -0·07), and atomoxetine (-0·45, -0·58 to -0·32), but not modafinil (0·16, -0·28 to 0·59), were better than placebo. With respect to tolerability, amphetamines were inferior to placebo in both children and adolescents (odds ratio [OR] 2·30, 95% CI 1·36-3·89) and adults (3·26, 1·54-6·92); guanfacine was inferior to placebo in children and adolescents only (2·64, 1·20-5·81); and atomoxetine (2·33, 1·28-4·25), methylphenidate (2·39, 1·40-4·08), and modafinil (4·01, 1·42-11·33) were less well tolerated than placebo in adults only. In head-to-head comparisons, only differences in efficacy (clinicians' ratings) were found, favouring amphetamines over modafinil, atomoxetine, and methylphenidate in both children and adolescents (SMDs -0·46 to -0·24) and adults (-0·94 to -0·29). We did not find sufficient data for the 26-week and 52-week timepoints. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Our findings represent the most comprehensive available evidence base to inform patients, families, clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the choice of ADHD medications across age groups. Taking into account both efficacy and safety, evidence from this meta-analysis supports methylphenidate in children and adolescents, and amphetamines in adults, as preferred first-choice medications for the short-term treatment of ADHD. New research should be funded urgently to assess long-term effects of these drugs. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:Stichting Eunethydis (European Network for Hyperkinetic Disorders), and the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of methylphenidate (MPH) in children and adolescents by a Cochrane group, led by Storebø, raised concern around the level of evidence supporting the use of this medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. This led to several critical responses from a number of ADHD experts. METHODS:This paper reviews the conclusions reached from the Storebø meta-analysis by a critical analysis of methodologies used along with drawing on extant literature. RESULTS:The controversy raised by the Cochrane meta-analysis should lead to a balanced reflection on the research priorities and needs for the field. CONCLUSIONS:It is hoped the controversy will ultimately lead to improve the quality of the research on the efficacy, effectiveness and tolerability of MPH for ADHD.

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.

Neurofilament (NFL) proteins have recently been found to play unique roles in synapses. NFL is known to interact with the GluN1 subunit of N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDAR) and be reduced in schizophrenia though functional consequences are unknown. Here we investigated whether the interaction of NFL with GluN1 modulates synaptic transmission and schizophrenia-associated behaviors. The interaction of NFL with GluN1 was assessed by means of molecular, pharmacological, electrophysiological, magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), and schizophrenia-associated behavior analyses. NFL deficits cause an NMDAR hypofunction phenotype including abnormal hippocampal function, as seen in schizophrenia. NFL-/- deletion in mice reduces dendritic spines and GluN1 protein levels, elevates ubiquitin-dependent turnover of GluN1 and hippocampal glutamate measured by MRS, and depresses hippocampal long-term potentiation. NMDAR-related behaviors are also impaired, including pup retrieval, spatial and social memory, prepulse inhibition, night-time activity, and response to NMDAR antagonist, whereas motor deficits are minimal. Importantly, partially lowering NFL in NFL+/- mice to levels seen regionally in schizophrenia, induced similar but milder NMDAR-related synaptic and behavioral deficits. Our findings support an emerging view that central nervous system neurofilament subunits including NFL in the present report, serve distinctive, critical roles in synapses relevant to neuropsychiatric diseases.

High-density electroencephalography (EEG) was used to examine the utility of the P1 event-related potential (ERP) as a marker of visual motion sensitivity to luminance defined low-spatial frequency drifting gratings in 16 children with autism and 16 neurotypical children. Children with autism displayed enhanced sensitivity to large, high-contrast low-spatial frequency stimuli as indexed by significantly shorter P1 response latencies to large vs. small gratings. The current study also found that children with autism had larger amplitude responses to large gratings irrespective of contrast. A linear regression established that P1 adaptive mean amplitude for large, high-contrast sinusoidal gratings significantly predicted hyperresponsiveness item mean scores on the Sensory Experiences Questionnaire for children with autism, but not for neurotypical children. We conclude that children with autism have differences in the mechanisms that underlie low-level visual processing potentially related to altered visual spatial suppression or contrast gain control.

Herein we present the unique case of a 21-year-old African American woman who presented with psychotic features and the incidental finding of basal ganglia calcifications on computed tomography (CT) scan of the head. She was initially presumed to have Fahr's syndrome in the context of idiopathic bilateral basal ganglia calcifications and psychotic features. Genetic testing performed revealed the deletion of 22q11.2, thus establishing the diagnosis of DiGeorge syndrome. This case highlights the importance of noticing subtle physical exam findings along with laboratory findings as this led to the diagnosis of DiGeorge syndrome for this patient. This case is unique in two aspects; first, the finding of basal ganglia calcification via CT of the brain in patients with DiGeorge syndrome has rarely been reported in the literature. Second, this case highlights the strong genetic predisposition for schizophrenia in patients with DiGeorge syndrome.

Cancer is highly prevalent and one of the leading causes of global morbidity and mortality. Psychological and existential suffering is common in cancer patients, associated with poor psychiatric and medical outcomes. Promising early-phase clinical research (1960s to early 1970s) suggested a therapeutic signal for serotoninergic psychedelics (e.g. psilocybin, LSD) in treating cancer-related psychiatric distress. After several decades of quiescence, research on psychedelic-assisted therapy to treat psychiatric disorders in cancer patients has resumed within the last 2 decades in the US and Europe. This review article is based on a systematic search of clinical trials from 1960-2018 researching the therapeutic use of psychedelic treatment in patients with serious or terminal illnesses and related psychiatric illness. The search found 10 eligible clinical trials, with a total of 445 participants, with the vast majority of the patients having advanced or terminal cancer diagnoses. Six open label trials, published between 1964 and 1980 (n = 341), suggested that psychedelic therapy (mostly with LSD) may improve cancer-related depression, anxiety, and fear of death. Four RCTs trials were published between 2011 and 2016 (n = 104), mostly with psilocybin treatment (n = 92), and demonstrated that psychedelic-assisted treatment can produce rapid, robust, and sustained improvements in cancer-related psychological and existential distress.