Abstracts: Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Life Cycle and Family

Background: Antipsychotic-related weight gain and metabolic adverse effects have become a major focus, especially in youth. Methods: Review of randomized, cohort, and pharmacoepidemiologic studies of antipsychotic-related weight gain and metabolic adverse effects and of interventions for their reduction in youth. Results: Across 34 published head-to-head and placebo-controlled studies in youth with psychotic and bipolar disorders, weight gain ranged from 3.8 to 16.2 kg with olanzapine (n=353), 0.9-9.5 kg with clozapine (n=97), 1.9-7.2 kg with risperidone (n=571), 2.3-6.1 kg with quetiapine (n=133), and 0-4.4 kg with aripiprazole (n=451). In 24 placebo-controlled trials, the numbers-needed-to-harm for weight gain ≥7% in youth with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia were 39 (confidence interval [CI]: -1 to +6, not significant) for aripiprazole, 36 (CI: -1 to +7, not significant) for ziprasidone, 9 (CI: 7-14) for quetiapine, 6 (CI: 5-8) for risperidone, and 3 (CI: 3-4) for olanzapine. Data in youth with autism and disruptive behavior disorders, available only for some antipsychotics, suggest greater weight gain, possibly due to less prior antipsychotic exposure. Three-month results from a large cohort study in antipsychotic-naïve youth indicated that metabolic effects differ among second-generation antipsychotics, despite significant weight gain with all studied agents, suggesting additional, weight-independent effects. Further, pharmacoepidemiologic work indicates that antipsychotic polypharmacy increases the risk for obesity (odds ratio [OR]: 2.28 [CI: 1.49-3.65]) or any cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, or hypertensive adverse event (OR: 1.72 [CI: 1.10-2.69]). However, despite marked weight gain and its greater impact on youth, monitoring rates are low and studies of pharmacologic and behavioral interventions are extremely limited. Conclusions: More research is needed to develop strategies to minimize antipsychotic-related weight gain and metabolic effects in youth and to discover treatments with lower risk potential.

Objective: A growing body of literature has documented pediatric bipolar disorder to be a severely impairing form of psychopathology. However, concerns remain as to the inadequacy of the extant literature on its pharmacotherapy. Furthermore, treatment studies have not been systematically reviewed for treatment effects on core and associated symptoms. Thus, a systematic evaluation and synthesis of the available literature on the efficacy of antimanic pharmacotherapy for pediatric bipolar disorder on symptoms of mania, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was undertaken. Method: A systematic search was conducted through PubMed from 1989 through 2010 for open-label and randomized controlled trials published in English on the pharmacotherapy of pediatric mania. Results: There have been 46 open-label (n = 29) and randomized (n = 17) clinical trials of antimanic agents in pediatric bipolar disorder encompassing 2,666 subjects that evaluated a range of therapeutic agents, including traditional mood stabilizers, other anticonvulsants, second-generation antipsychotics, and naturopathic compounds. This literature has documented that the available armamentarium has different levels of efficacy in the treatment of pediatric mania. Because all psychotropic classes are associated with important adverse effects, a careful risk-benefit analysis is warranted when initiating pharmacologic treatment with any of these compounds. In the limited data available, the effects of antimanic agents on depression and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder have been, in general, modest. Few studies have evaluated the effects of antimanic agents in children younger than 10 years. Conclusions: A substantial body of scientific literature has evaluated the safety and efficacy of various medicines and drug classes in the treatment of mania in pediatric bipolar disorder. More work is needed to assess the safety and efficacy of psychotropic drugs in children younger than 10 years, to further evaluate the efficacy of naturopathic compounds, and to further evaluate the effects of antimanic treatments for the management of depression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Objective: Autism spectrum disorders are considered to be among the most heritable mental disorders, a notion based on surprisingly sparse data from small clinical studies. Population-based studies of the heritability of other neuropsychiatric disorders and comorbidities among them have also been sparse. The authors sought to address both of these issues. Method: Parents of all Swedish 9- and 12-year-old twin pairs born between 1992 and 2000 (N=10,895) were interviewed regarding autism spectrum disorders and associated conditions (response rate, 80%). Concordance rates and structural equation modeling were used for evaluating causes for familial aggregation and overlap between conditions. Results: Monozygotic twins had higher concordance rates than dizygotic twins for autism spectrum disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), developmental coordination disorder, and tic disorder. Genetic effects accounted for 80% (95% CI=29-91) of the variation in liability for autism spectrum disorders, 79% (95% CI=61-88) for ADHD, 70% (95% CI=35-83) for developmental coordination disorder, and 56% (95% CI=37-68) for tic disorder. Among monozygotic co-twins of children with autism spectrum disorders, the probability of having a diagnosis of ADHD was 44%, compared with 15% for dizygotic co-twins. Differences in cross-disorder effects between monozygotic and dizygotic twins were observed for most other comorbidities, and substantial proportions of the genetic variance for autism spectrum disorders was shared with each of the other disorders. Conclusions: Different neuropsychiatric disorders seem to have a common genetic etiology, suggesting caution in the use of diagnostic entities and proband status in efforts to uncover genes predisposing to autism spectrum disorders.

Objective: The authors investigated the efficacy of a 12-week manualized meta-cognitive therapy group intervention designed to enhance time management, organization, and planning in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Method: Eighty-eight clinically referred adults who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD according to clinical and structured diagnostic interviews and standardized questionnaires were stratified by ADHD medication use and otherwise randomly assigned to receive meta-cognitive therapy or supportive psychotherapy in a group modality. Meta-cognitive therapy uses cognitive-behavioral principles and methods to impart skills and strategies in time management, organization, and planning and to target depressogenic and anxiogenic cognitions that undermine effective self-management. The supportive therapy condition controlled for nonspecific aspects of treatment by providing support while avoiding discussion of cognitive-behavioral strategies. Therapeutic response was assessed by an independent (blind) evaluator via structured interview before and after treatment as well as by self-report and collateral informant behavioral ratings. Results: General linear models comparing change from baseline between treatments revealed statistically significant effects for self-report, collateral report, and independent evaluator ratings of DSM-IV inattention symptoms. In dichotomous indices of therapeutic response, a significantly greater proportion of members of the meta-cognitive therapy group demonstrated improvement compared with members of the supportive therapy group. Logistic regression examining group differences in operationally defined response (controlling for baseline ADHD severity) revealed a robust effect of treatment group (odds ratio=5.41; 95% CI=1.77-16.55). Conclusions: Meta-cognitive therapy yielded significantly greater improvements in dimensional and categorical estimates of severity of ADHD symptoms compared with supportive therapy. These findings support the efficacy of meta-cognitive therapy as a viable psychosocial intervention.

Objective: Premorbid cognitive deficits in schizophrenia are well documented and have been interpreted as supporting a neurodevelopmental etiological model. The authors investigated the following three unresolved questions about premorbid cognitive deficits: What is their developmental course? Do all premorbid cognitive deficits follow the same course? Are premorbid cognitive deficits specific to schizophrenia or shared by other psychiatric disorders? Method: Participants were members of a representative cohort of 1,037 males and females born between 1972 and 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand. Cohort members underwent follow-up evaluations at specific intervals from age 3 to 32 years, with a 96% retention rate. Cognitive development was analyzed and compared in children who later developed schizophrenia or recurrent depression as well as in healthy comparison subjects. Results: Children who developed adult schizophrenia exhibited developmental deficits (i.e., static cognitive impairments that emerge early and remain stable) on tests indexing verbal and visual knowledge acquisition, reasoning, and conceptualization. In addition, these children exhibited developmental lags (i.e., growth that is slower relative to healthy comparison subjects) on tests indexing processing speed, attention, visual-spatial problem solving ability, and working memory. These two premorbid cognitive patterns were not observed in children who later developed recurrent depression. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the origins of schizophrenia include two interrelated developmental processes evident from childhood to early adolescence (ages 7-13 years). Children who will grow up to develop adult schizophrenia enter primary school struggling with verbal reasoning and lag further behind their peers in working memory, attention, and processing speed as they get older.

Objective: To examine the course of depression during the treatment of adolescents with depression who had recently attempted suicide. Method: Adolescents (N = 124), ages 12 to 18 years, with a 90-day history of suicide attempt, a current diagnosis of depressive disorder (96.0% had major depressive disorder), and a Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) score of 36 or higher, entered a 6-month treatment with antidepressant medication, cognitive-behavioral therapy focused on suicide prevention, or their combination (Comb), at five academic sites. Treatment assignment could be either random or chosen by study participants. Intent-to-treat, mixed effects regression models of depression and other relevant ratings were estimated. Improvement and remission rates were computed with the last observation carried forward. Results: Most patients (n = 104 or 84%) chose treatment assignment, and overall, three fourths (n = 93) received Comb. In Comb, CDRS-R declined from a baseline adjusted mean of 49.6 (SD 12.3) to 38.3 (8.0) at week 12 and to 27.0 (10.1) at week 24 (p < .0001), with a Clinical Global Impression -defined improvement rate of 58.0% at week 12 and 72.2% at week 24 and a remission (CDRS-R ≤ 28) rate of 32.5% at week 12 and 50.0% at week 24. The CDRS-R and the Scale for Suicidal Ideation scores were correlated at baseline (r = 0.43, p < .0001) and declined in parallel. Conclusions: When vigorously treated with a combination of medication and psychotherapy, adolescents with depression who have recently attempted suicide show rates of improvement and remission of depression that seem comparable to those observed in nonsuicidal adolescents with depression.

Objective: Irritability is a widely occurring DSM-IV symptom in youths. However, little is known about the relationship between irritability in early life and its outcomes in mid-adulthood. This study examines the extent to which youth irritability is related to adult psychiatric outcomes by testing the hypothesis that it predicts depressive and generalized anxiety disorders. Method: The authors conducted a longitudinal community-based study of 631 participants whose parents were interviewed when participants were in early adolescence (mean age=13.8 years [SD=2.6]) and who were themselves interviewed 20 years later (mean age=33.2 years [SD=2.9]). Parent-reported irritability in adolescence was used to predict self-reported psychopathology, assessed by standardized diagnostic interview at 20-year follow-up. Results: Cross-sectionally, irritability in adolescence was widely associated with other psychiatric disorders. After adjustment for baseline emotional and behavioral disorders, irritability in adolescence predicted major depressive disorder (odds ratio=1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.00-1.78]), generalized anxiety disorder (odds ratio=1.72, 95% CI=1.04-2.87), and dysthymia (odds ratio=1.81, 95% CI=1.06-3.12) at 20-year follow-up. Youth irritability did not predict bipolar disorder or axis II disorders at follow-up. Conclusions: Youth irritability as reported by parents is a specific predictor of self-reported depressive and anxiety disorders 20 years later. The role of irritability in developmental psychiatry, and in the pathophysiology of mood and anxiety disorders specifically, should receive further study.

Objective: Despite a marked increase in treatment for bipolar disorder among youths, little is known about their pattern of service use. This article describes mental health service use in the year before and after a new clinical diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Methods: Claims were reviewed between April 1, 2004, and March 31, 2005, for 1,274,726 privately insured youths (17 years and younger) who were eligible for services at least one year before and after a service claim; 2,907 youths had new diagnosis of bipolar disorder during this period. Diagnoses of other mental disorders and prescriptions filled for psychotropic drugs were assessed in the year before and after the initial diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Results: The one-year rate of a new diagnosis of bipolar disorder was .23%. During the year before the new diagnosis of bipolar disorder, youths were commonly diagnosed as having depressive disorder (46.5%) or disruptive behavior disorder (36.7%) and had often filled a prescription for an antidepressant (48.5%), stimulant (33.0%), mood stabilizer (31.8%), or antipsychotic (29.1%). Most youths with a new diagnosis of bipolar disorder had only one (28.8%) or two to four (28.7%) insurance claims for bipolar disorder in the year starting with the index diagnosis. The proportion starting mood stabilizers after the index diagnosis was highest for youths with five or more insurance claims for bipolar disorder (42.1%), intermediate for those with two to four claims (24.2%), and lowest for those with one claim (13.8%). Conclusions: Most youths with a new diagnosis of bipolar disorder had recently received treatment for depressive or disruptive behavior disorders, and many had no claims listing a diagnosis of bipolar disorder after the initial diagnosis. The service pattern suggests that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder is often given tentatively to youths treated for mental disorders with overlapping symptom profiles and is subsequently reconsidered.