Faculty Bibliography

Background Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is prevalent in children, adolescents and adults. It can occur alone or in comorbidity with other disorders. A broad range of psychotherapies such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) have been developed for the treatment of PTSD. Aim Through quantitative meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the efficacy of CBT and EMDR: (i) relieving the post-traumatic symptoms, and (ii) alleviating anxiety and depression, in patients with PTSD. Methods We systematically searched EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) for articles published between 1999 and December 2017. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compare CBT and EMDR in PTSD patients were included for quantitative meta-analysis using RevMan Version 5. Results Fourteen studies out of 714 were finally eligible. Meta-analysis of 11 studies (n = 547) showed that EMDR is better than CBT in reducing post-traumatic symptoms [SDM (95% CI) = -0.43 (-0.73 - -0.12), p = 0.006]. However, meta-analysis of four studies (n = 186) at three-month follow-up revealed no statistically significant difference [SDM (95% CI) = -0.21 (-0.50 - 0.08), p = 0.15]. The EMDR was also better than CBT in reducing anxiety [SDM (95% CI) = -0.71 (-1.21 - -0.21), p = 0.005]. Unfortunately, there was no difference between CBT and EMDR in reducing depression [SDM (95% CI) = -0.21 (-0.44 - 0.02), p = 0.08]. Conclusion The results of this meta-analysis suggested that EMDR is better than CBT in reducing post-traumatic symptoms and anxiety. However, there was no difference reported in reducing depression. Large population randomized trials with longer follow-up are recommended to build conclusive evidence.

What incites infant locomotion? Recent research suggests that locomotor exploration is not primarily directed toward distant people, places, or things. However, this question has not been addressed experimentally. In the current study, we asked whether a room filled with toys designed to encourage locomotion (stroller, ball, etc.) elicits different quantities or patterns of exploration than a room with no toys. Caregivers were present but did not interact with infants. Although most walking bouts in the toy-filled room involved toys, to our surprise, 15-month-olds in both rooms produced the same quantity of locomotion. This finding suggests that mere space to move is sufficient to elicit locomotion. However, infants' patterns of locomotor exploration differed: Infants in the toy-filled room spent a smaller percent of the session within arms' reach of their caregiver and explored more locations in the room. Real-time analyses show that infants in the toy-filled room took an increasing number of steps per bout and covered more area as the session continued, whereas infants in the no-toy room took fewer and fewer steps per bout and traveled repeatedly over the same ground. Although not required to elicit locomotion, moving with toys encouraged infants to travel farther from their caregivers and to explore new areas.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ( DSM) categorizes reactive attachment disorder (RAD) and disinhibited social engagement disorder (DSED) as two separate disorders, and their criteria are revised. For DSED, the core symptoms focus on abnormal social disinhibition, and symptoms regarding lack of selective attachment have been removed. The core symptoms of RAD are the absence of attachment behaviors and emotional dysregulation. In this study, an international team of researchers modified the Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Assessment for RAD to update it from DSM-IV to DSM-5 criteria for RAD and DSED. We renamed the interview the reactive attachment disorder and disinhibited social engagement disorder assessment (RADA). Foster parents of 320 young people aged 11 to 17 years completed the RADA online. Confirmatory factor analysis of RADA items identified good fit for a three-factor model, with one factor comprising DSED items (indiscriminate behaviors with strangers) and two factors comprising RAD items (RAD1: failure to seek/accept comfort, and RAD2: withdrawal/hypervigilance). The three factors showed differential associations with clinical symptoms of emotional and social impairment. Time in foster care was not associated with scores on RAD1, RAD2, or DSED. Higher age was associated with lower scores on DSED, and higher scores on RAD1.

Relatively poor treatment outcomes have been reported for children with conduct problems (CPs) and high levels of callous-unemotional (CU) traits (e.g., a lack of guilt, a lack of empathy, shallow affect), yet the mechanisms underlying this effect are poorly understood. Recently, growing evidence of aberrant reward/punishment processing in children with CU traits has suggested that punishment-based parenting strategies may be less effective among children with high levels of CU traits. Using a randomized controlled trial design, we conducted an experimental test of whether CU traits are associated with differential response to reward versus punishment components of evidence-based parent-training interventions for CPs. Parents of children (n = 74) 3 to 8 years of age were randomized to either 5 weeks of reward-based or 5 weeks of punishment-based parenting strategies, after which time each received the alternative intervention. Contrary to predictions, neither type nor dosage of parent training strategies was found to moderate the relation between CU traits and treatment response. Implications for the treatment of CPs in children with high levels of CU traits, and research into mechanisms of behavior change, are discussed.

Objective:Given the increased risk for cognitive deficits and development of depressive symptoms in youth with spina bifida (SB), this study aimed to examine two pathways through which depressive symptoms and neuropsychological dysfunction may be associated with medical autonomy in this population: (1) depressive symptoms as predictors of medical autonomy as mediated by attention/executive functioning (the cognitive scarring model), and (2) attention/executive functioning as predictors of medical autonomy as mediated by depressive symptoms (the cognitive vulnerability model). Methods:Participants were recruited as part of a larger, longitudinal study, and included 114 youth with SB (M age = 10.96 at Time 1), their parents, and teachers. Neuropsychological constructs included attention, working memory, and planning/organizing abilities, which were measured with questionnaire and performance-based data. Depressive symptoms and medical responsibility were assessed via questionnaires from multiple respondents. Results:Bootstrapped mediation analyses revealed that teacher-reported depressive symptoms significantly mediated the relations between neuropsychological functioning (i.e., attention and working memory) and medical responsibility (all p's < .05); neuropsychological dysfunction did not mediate the relationship between depressive symptoms and medical responsibility. Conclusions:One way in which neurocognitive dysfunction may hinder the development of medical autonomy in youth with SB is through an increased risk for depressive symptoms.

In establishing prognostic models, often aided by machine learning methods, much effort is concentrated in identifying good predictors. However, the same level of rigor is often absent in improving the outcome side of the models. In this study, we focus on this rather neglected aspect of model development. We are particularly interested in the use of longitudinal information as a way of improving the outcome side of prognostic models. This involves optimally characterizing individuals' outcome status, classifying them, and validating the formulated prediction targets. None of these tasks are straightforward, which may explain why longitudinal prediction targets are not commonly used in practice despite their compelling benefits. As a way of improving this situation, we explore the joint use of empirical model fitting, clinical insights, and cross-validation based on how well formulated targets are predicted by clinically relevant baseline characteristics (antecedent validators). The idea here is that all these methods are imperfect but can be used together to triangulate valid prediction targets. The proposed approach is illustrated using data from the longitudinal assessment of manic symptoms study.

Hilar mossy cells (MCs) of the dentate gyrus (DG) distinguish the DG from other hippocampal subfields (CA1-3) because there are two glutamatergic cell types in the DG rather than one. Thus, in the DG, the main cell types include glutamatergic granule cells (GCs) and MCs, whereas in CA1-3, the only glutamatergic cell type is the pyramidal cell. In contrast to GCs, MCs are different in morphology, intrinsic electrophysiological properties, afferent input and axonal projections, so their function is likely to be very different from GCs. Why are MCs necessary to the DG? In past studies, the answer has been unclear because MCs not only excite GCs directly but also inhibit them disynaptically, by exciting GABAergic neurons that project to GCs. Results of new studies are discussed that shed light on this issue. These studies take advantage of recently available transgenic mice with Cre recombinase expression mostly in MCs and techniques such as optogenetics and DREADDs (designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs). The recent studies also address in vivo behavioral functions of MCs. Some of the results support past hypotheses whereas others suggest new conceptualizations of how the MCs contribute to DG circuitry and function. While substantial progess has been made, additional research is still needed to clarify the characteristics and functions of these unique cells.

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.