Jensen, Peter S.

ObjectivesBrain‐derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) Val66Met (rs6265) functional polymorphism has been implicated in early‐onset bipolar disorder. However, results of studies are inconsistent. We aimed to further explore this association.MethodsDNA samples from the Treatment of Early Age Mania (TEAM) and Mayo Clinic Bipolar Disorder Biobank were investigated for association of rs6265 with early‐onset bipolar disorder. Bipolar cases were classified as early onset if the first manic or depressive episode occurred at age ≤19 years (versus adult‐onset cases at age >19 years). After quality control, 69 TEAM early‐onset bipolar disorder cases, 725 Mayo Clinic bipolar disorder cases (including 189 early‐onset cases), and 764 controls were included in the analysis of association, assessed with logistic regression assuming log‐additive allele effects.ResultsComparison of TEAM cases with controls suggested association of early‐onset bipolar disorder with the rs6265 minor allele [odds ratio (OR) = 1.55, p = 0.04]. Although comparison of early‐onset adult bipolar disorder cases from the Mayo Clinic versus controls was not statistically significant, the OR estimate indicated the same direction of effect (OR = 1.21, p = 0.19). When the early‐onset TEAM and Mayo Clinic early‐onset adult groups were combined and compared with the control group, the association of the minor allele rs6265 was statistically significant (OR = 1.30, p = 0.04).ConclusionsThese preliminary analyses of a relatively small sample with early‐onset bipolar disorder are suggestive that functional variation in BDNF is implicated in bipolar disorder risk and may have a more significant role in early‐onset expression of the disorder.

Objective: Therapeutic goals for chronic mental disorders like major depressive disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia have evolved in parallel with the growing medical knowledge about the course and treatment of these disorders. Although the knowledge base regarding the clinical course of ADHD, a chronic psychiatric disorder, has evolved beyond symptomatic improvement and short-term treatment response, long-term goals, such as functional remission, have not yet been clearly defined. Method: A PubMed literature search was conducted to investigate the therapeutic goals of pharmacologic treatment referenced in the published literature from January 1998 through February 2010 using the following commonly used ADHD treatments as keywords: amphetamine, methylphenidate, atomoxetine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, and clonidine. This search was then combined with an additional search that included the following outcome keywords: remission, relapse, remit, response, normal, normalization, recovery, and effectiveness. Results: Our search identified 102 publications. The majority (88.2% [90/102]) of these contained predefined criteria for treatment response. Predefined criteria for normalization and remission and/or relapse were presented in 4.9% (5/102), 12.7% (13/102), and 3.9% (4/102) of publications, respectively. There was a lack of consistency between the instruments used to measure outcomes as well as the criteria used to define treatment response, normalization, and remission as well as relapse. Conclusion: The therapeutic goals in treating ADHD should address optimal treatment outcomes that go beyond modest reductions of ADHD symptoms to include syndromatic, symptomatic, and functional remission. Future work should focus on reliable and valid tools to measure these outcomes in the clinical trial setting.

OBJECTIVE: To develop guidelines for management and treatment of maladaptive aggression in the areas of family engagement, assessment and diagnosis, and initial management, appropriate for use by primary care clinicians and mental health providers. Maladaptive aggression in youth is increasingly treated with psychotropic medications, particularly second-generation antipsychotic agents. Multiple treatment modalities are available, but guidance for clinicians’ assessment and treatment strategies has been inadequately developed. To address this need, the Center for Education and Research on Mental Health Therapeutics and the REACH Institute convened a steering group of national experts to develop evidence-based treatment recommendations for maladaptive aggression in youth. METHODS: Evidence was assembled and evaluated in a multistep process that included a systematic review of published literature; a survey of experts on recommended treatment practices; a consensus conference that brought together clinical experts along with researchers, policy makers, and family advocates; and subsequent review and discussion by the steering committee of successive drafts of the recommendations. The Center for Education and Research on Mental Health Therapeutics Treatment of Maladaptive Aggression in Youth (T-MAY) guidelines reflect a synthesis of the available evidence, based on this multistep process. RESULTS: The current article describes 9 recommendations for family engagement, assessment, and diagnosis as key prerequisites for treatment selection and initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing the family and social context in which aggressive symptoms arise, and understanding the underlying psychiatric conditions that may be associated with aggression, are essential to treatment planning.

OBJECTIVE: To develop guidelines for management and treatment of maladaptive aggression in youth in the areas of psychosocial interventions, medication treatments, and side-effect management. METHODS: Evidence was assembled and evaluated in a multistep process, including systematic reviews of published literature; an expert survey of recommended practices; a consensus conference of researchers, policymakers, clinicians, and family advocates; and review by the steering committee of successive drafts of the recommendations. The Center for Education and Research on Mental Health Therapeutics Treatment of Maladaptive Aggression in Youth guidelines reflect a synthesis of the available evidence, based on this multistep process. RESULTS: This article describes the content, rationale, and evidence for 11 recommendations. Key treatment principles include considering psychosocial interventions, such as evidence-based parent and child skills training as the first line of treatment; targeting the underlying disorder first following evidence-based guidelines; considering individual psychosocial and medical factors, including cardiovascular risk in the selection of agents if medication treatment (ideally with the best evidence base) is initiated; avoiding the use of multiple psychotropic medications simultaneously; and careful monitoring of treatment response, by using structured rating scales, as well as close medical monitoring for side effects, including metabolic changes. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of children with maladaptive aggression is a “moving target” requiring ongoing assimilation of new evidence as it emerges. Based on the existing evidence, the Treatment of Maladaptive Aggression in Youth guidelines provide a framework for management of maladaptive aggression in youth, appropriate for use by primary care clinicians and mental health providers.

Objectives: Despite substantial evidence supporting the efficacy of stimulant medication for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), adherence to stimulant treatment is often suboptimal. Applying social/cognitive theories to understanding and assessing parent attitudes toward initiating medication may provide insight into factors influencing parent decisions to follow ADHD treatment recommendations. This report describes results from formative research that used focus groups to obtain parent input to guide development of a provider-delivered intervention to improve adherence to stimulants. Methods: Participants were caregivers of children with ADHD who were given a stimulant treatment recommendation. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed by inductive, grounded theory methods as well as a deductive analytic strategy using an adapted version of the Unified Theory of Behavior Change to organize and understand parent accounts. Results: Five groups were conducted with 27 parents (mean child age=9.35 years; standard deviation [SD]=2.00), mean time since diagnosis=3.33 years (SD=2.47). Most parents (81.5%) had pursued stimulant treatment. Inductive analysis revealed 17 attitudes facilitating adherence and 25 barriers. Facilitators included parent beliefs that medication treatment resulted in multiple functional gains and that treatment was imperative for their children's safety. Barriers included fears of personality changes and medication side effects. Complex patterns of parent adherence to medication regimens were also identified, as well as preferences for psychiatrists who were diagnostically expert, gave psychoeducation using multiple modalities, and used a chronic illness metaphor to explain ADHD. Theory-based analyses revealed conflicting expectancies about treatment risks and benefits, significant family pressures to avoid medication, guilt and concern that their children required medication, and distorted ideas about treatment risks. Parents, however, took pride in successfully pursuing efforts to manage their child behaviorally and to avoid medication when possible. Conclusions: Focus group data identified social, cognitive, and affective influences on treatment decision making. Results support prior research comparing family/social functioning, physician characteristics, and adherence. Findings suggest that parent attitudes to psychiatric care need to be assessed comprehensively at initial evaluation to aid the development of psychoeducational messages, and a more careful consideration about how parents interpret and respond to adherence-related questioning.

OBJECTIVE: The US Surgeon General has called for new approaches to close the mental health services gap for the large proportion of US children with significant mental health needs who have not received evaluation or services within the previous 6 to 12 months. In response, investigators sought to develop brief, easily understood, scientifically derived “warning signs” to help parents, teachers, and the lay public to more easily recognize children with unmet mental health needs and bring these children to health care providers' attention for evaluation and possible services. METHOD: Analyses of epidemiologic data sets from >6000 children and parents were conducted to (1) determine the frequency of common but severely impairing symptom profiles, (2) examine symptom profile frequencies according to age and gender, (3) evaluate positive predictive values of symptom profiles relative to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders diagnoses, and (4) examine whether children with 1 or more symptom profiles receive mental health services. RESULTS: Symptom-profile frequencies ranged from 0.5% to 2.0%, and 8% of the children had 1 or more symptom profile. Profiles generated moderate-to-high positive predictive values (52.7%–75.4%) for impairing psychiatric diagnoses, but fewer than 25% of children with 1 or more profiles had received services in the previous 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Scientifically robust symptom profiles that reflect severe but largely untreated mental health problems were identified. Used as “action signs,” these profiles might help increase public awareness about children's mental health needs, facilitate communication and referral for specific children in need of evaluation, and narrow the child mental health services gap.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine factors that are associated with aggression that is responsive versus refractory to individualized optimization of stimulant monotherapy among children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Children who were aged 6 to 13 years and had ADHD, either oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder, significant aggressive behavior, and a history of insufficient response to stimulants completed an open stimulant monotherapy optimization protocol. Stimulant titration with weekly assessments of behavior and tolerability identified an optimal regimen for each child. Families also received behavioral therapy. Parents completed the Retrospective-Modified Overt Aggression Scale (R-MOAS) at each visit. Children were classified as having stimulant-refractory aggression on the basis of R-MOAS ratings and clinician judgment. Differences that pertained to treatment, demographic, and psychopathology between groups with stimulant monotherapy–responsive and –refractory aggression were evaluated. RESULTS: Aggression among 32 (49.3%) of 65 children was reduced sufficiently after stimulant dosage adjustment and behavioral therapy to preclude adjunctive medication. Those who responded to stimulant monotherapy were more likely to benefit from the protocol's methylphenidate preparation (once-daily, triphasic release), showed a trend for lower average dosages, and received fewer behavioral therapy sessions than did children with stimulant-refractory aggression. Boys, especially those with higher ratings of baseline aggression and of depressive and manic symptoms, more often exhibited stimulant-refractory aggression. CONCLUSIONS: Among children whose aggressive behavior develops in the context of ADHD and of oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder, and who had insufficient response to previous stimulant treatment in routine clinical care, systematic, well-monitored titration of stimulant monotherapy often culminates in reduced aggression that averts the need for additional agents.