Trends and Disparities in Firearm Deaths Among Children.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2020, firearm injuries became the leading cause of death among US children and adolescents. This study aimed to evaluate new 2021 data on US pediatric firearm deaths and disparities to understand trends compared with previous years. METHODS: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research was queried for firearm mortalities in children/adolescents from 2018 to 2021. Absolute mortality, death rates, and characteristics were reported. Death rates were defined per 100 000 persons in that population per year. Death rates across states were illustrated via geographic heat maps, and correlations with state poverty levels were calculated. RESULTS: In 2021, firearms continued to be the leading cause of death among US children. From 2018 to 2021, there was a 41.6% increase in the firearm death rate. In 2021, among children who died by firearms, 84.8% were male, 49.9% were Black, 82.6% were aged 15 to 19 years, and 64.3% died by homicide. Black children accounted for 67.3% of firearm homicides, with a death rate increase of 1.8 from 2020 to 2021. White children accounted for 78.4% of firearm suicides. From 2020 to 2021, the suicide rate increased among Black and white children, yet decreased among American Indian or Alaskan Native children. Geographically, there were worsening clusters of firearm death rates in Southern states and increasing rates in Midwestern states from 2018 to 2021. Across the United States, higher poverty levels correlated with higher firearm death rates (R = 0.76, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: US pediatric firearm deaths increased in 2021, above the spike in 2020, with worsening disparities. Implementation of prevention strategies and policies among communities at highest risk is critical.

UNIVERSAL SCREENING FOR FIREARM INJURY RISK COULD REDUCE HEALTHCARE'S HESISTANCY IN TALKING TO PATIENTS ABOUT FIREARM SAFETY.

Despite vast long-standing healthcare industry support for a public health approach to firearm injury and mortality prevention - still -- the minority of physicians, surgeons, nurses, and social workers ask patients questions about firearm access or gun violence risk, let alone counsel about firearm safety.1,2 For most of us, screening and counselling related to firearm injury prevention, though demonstrated to be beneficial,3 continues to fall outside the umbrella of 'usual care' and is often reserved for patients deemed 'high risk' such as those presenting with suicidality, assault-related injuries or perceived risk.1,2,3 But for us to practice what we preach, a complete re-think using a novel, unconventional and non-discriminatory universal firearm injury risk screening approach across trauma, emergency, and primary care settings - for all patients regardless of reason for visit -- may be the transformative change needed to shift the paradigm. By asking each and every patient questions about firearm injury risk as part of routine surgical or medical care, we may finally be able to break down barriers and get comfortable talking to patients about firearm safety. After all, for any public health issue, it all starts with surveillance and screening. If we can't get comfortable asking the necessary questions in the first place, holistic progress from the healthcare lane on our nation's public health crisis of firearm injury and violence will continue to prove elusive.

A mixed methods protocol to implement universal firearm injury risk screening and intervention among youth and adults in emergency departments across a large US health system.

BACKGROUND: Firearm injury is a leading cause of preventable death in the USA. Healthcare providers are uniquely poised to focus on firearm safety and injury prevention from an apolitical harm reduction lens; however, few providers and healthcare settings incorporate firearm injury prevention strategies into usual care. We outline the first protocol to determine how to implement universal Firearm Injury and Mortality Prevention (FIMP) strategies that identify and address firearm access and violence risk in healthcare settings as part of routine care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform implementation and evaluation. METHODS: The components of our FIMP strategy, including universal screening, intervention for patients at risk, and resources, will be developed from existing evidence-based strategies for firearm access and violence risk (intervention characteristics). The implementation process will include components of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for substance use, adapted to FIMP (implementation process). To engage stakeholders, harmonize language, and garner support, an Executive Advisory Board (EAB) will be formed, consisting of the site- and system-level stakeholders (inner setting) and community stakeholders, including influential figures such as local religious and spiritual leaders, individuals with lived experience, and community-based organizations (outer setting). Pre-implementation surveys will identify the characteristics of individuals and guide the development of education prior to implementation. Patient-level screening data will be analyzed to identify the risk factors, implementation will be evaluated using mixed methods, and a limited-efficacy study will evaluate whether strategies were successful in driving behavior change. DISCUSSION: This study protocol has breakthrough and methodological innovations, by addressing FIMP as part of usual care to directly mitigate firearm injury risk among youth, adults, and household members (e.g., children) and by using rigorous methods to inform healthcare industry implementation of FIMP strategies. The expected outcomes of this study protocol will provide a solid basis for larger-scale dissemination and evaluation of implementation, effectiveness, and usability across broader pediatric and adult healthcare settings. This project will advance the implementation science and have a positive impact on the health of our patients and communities by preventing firearm injury and mortality and shifting the paradigm to view FIMP through a public health lens.

Genomics as a Clinical Decision Support Tool for Identifying and Addressing Modifiable Causes of Cognitive Decline and Improving Outcomes: Proof of Concept Support for This Personalized Medicine Strategy.

The landscape of therapeutics for mild cognitive impairment and dementia is quite limited. While many single-agent trials of pharmaceuticals have been conducted, these trials have repeatedly been unable to show improvement in cognition. It is hypothesized that because Alzheimer's, like many other chronic illnesses, is not a monogenic illness, but is instead caused by the downstream effects of an individual's genetic variants interacting with each other, the environment, and lifestyle, that improving outcomes will require a personalized, precision medicine approach. This approach requires identifying and then addressing contributing genomic and other factors specific to each individual in a simultaneous fashion. Until recently, the utility of genomics as part of clinical decision-making for Alzheimer's and cognitive decline has been limited by the lack of availability of a genomic platform designed specifically to evaluate factors contributing to cognitive decline and how to respond to these factors The clinical decision support (CDS) platform used in the cases presented focuses on common variants that relate to topics including, but not limited to brain inflammation, amyloid processing, nutrient carriers, brain ischemia, oxidative stress, and detoxification pathways. Potential interventions based on the scientific literature were included in the CDS, but the final decision on what interventions to apply were chosen by each patient's physician. Interventions included supplements with "generally regarded as safe (GRAS)" rating, along with targeted diet and lifestyle modifications. We hypothesize that a personalized genomically targeted approach can improve outcomes for individuals with mild cognitive impairment who are at high risk of Alzheimer's. The cases presented in this report represent a subset of cases from three physicians' offices and are meant to provide initial proof of concept data demonstrating the efficacy of this method and provide support for this hypothesis. These patients were at elevated risk for Alzheimer's due to their apolipoprotein E ε4 status. While further prospective and controlled trials need to be done, initial case reports are encouraging and lend support to this hypothesis of the benefit of a genomically targeted personalized medicine approach to improve outcomes in individuals with cognitive decline who are at high risk for Alzheimer's.

Implementing a text-messaging intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in emergency departments: protocol for implementation strategy development and a pilot cluster randomized implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is a leading cause of premature mortality among adults in the USA. Emergency departments (EDs) are key intervention settings for UAU but often have limited time and resources. One low-burden, scalable approach to address UAU is text-messaging interventions. Despite strong research support and promise for scalability, there is little research on how to implement such interventions in healthcare settings. The process of providers making them available to patients in an efficient way within already busy and overburdened ED workflows and patients adopting them remains a new area of research. The purpose of this three-phase study is to develop and test an implementation strategy for UAU text-messaging interventions in EDs. METHOD: Our first aim is to examine barriers and facilitators to staff offering and patients accepting a text-messaging intervention in the ED using an explanatory, sequential mixed methods approach. We will examine alcohol screening data in the electronic health records of 17 EDs within a large integrated health system in the Northeast and conduct surveys among chairpersons in each. This data will be used to purposively sample 4 EDs for semi-structured interviews among 20 clinical staff, 20 patients, and 4 chairpersons. Our second aim is to conduct a stakeholder-engaged intervention mapping process to develop a multi-component implementation strategy for EDs. Our third aim is to conduct a mixed method 2-arm cluster randomized pilot study in 4 EDs that serve ~11,000 UAU patients per year to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of the implementation strategy. The Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework will guide study activities. DISCUSSION: Low-burden technology, like text messaging, along with targeted implementation support and strategies driven by identified barriers and facilitators could sustain large-scale ED-based alcohol screening programs and provide much needed support to patients who screen positive while reducing burden on EDs. The proposed study would be the first to develop and test this targeted implementation strategy and will prepare for a larger, fully powered hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. Findings may also be broadly applicable to implementation of patient-facing mobile health technologies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05350878) on 4/28/2022.

"I Felt I Was Reaching a Point with My Health": Understanding Reasons for Engagement and Acceptability of Treatment Services for Unhealthy Alcohol Use in Primary Care.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Despite increasing need, there are large gaps in provision of care for unhealthy alcohol use. Primary care practices have become increasingly important in providing services for unhealthy alcohol use, yet little is known about the reasons patients engage in these services and their views on acceptability of such programs. The purpose of this study was to examine primary care patients' reasons for engagement, experiences with, and acceptability of a primary care practice-based program for treating unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted in a primary care practice that was developing a collaborative care model for treating unhealthy alcohol use in primary care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 primary care patients. Data were analyzed using conventional qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Findings suggest that patients engaged for both internal (concerns about drinking and health) and external reasons (family or provider concern). Patient experiences in the program were shaped by their affective responses (enjoyable, enlightening), as well as therapeutic benefits (gaining new insights about drinking; staff/provider support). Acceptability was driven by core program elements (medication, therapy, integration) as well as positive impacts on drinking cognition and behavior and flexible, patient-centered approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Offering flexible and comprehensive programs with mutiple elements and both abstinence and moderation goals could also improve patient engagement and views on acceptability. Primary care practices will need to be thoughtful about the resources needed to implement these programs in terms of staffing, training, and program support.

Metformin add-on vs. antipsychotic switch vs. continued antipsychotic treatment plus healthy lifestyle education in overweight or obese youth with severe mental illness: results from the IMPACT trial.

Antipsychotics are used for many psychiatric conditions in youth. Although developmentally inappropriate weight gain and metabolic abnormalities, which are risk factors for premature cardiovascular mortality, are especially frequent in youth, optimal strategies to reduce pediatric antipsychotic-induced overweight/obesity are unclear. The Improving Metabolic Parameters in Antipsychotic Child Treatment (IMPACT) was a randomized, parallel group, 24-week clinical trial which enrolled overweight/obese, psychiatrically stable youth, aged 8-19 years, with a DSM-IV diagnosis of severe mental illness (schizophrenia spectrum disorder, bipolar spectrum disorder or psychotic depression), at four US universities. All of them had developed substantial weight gain following treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic. The centralized, computer-based randomization system assigned participants to unmasked treatment groups: metformin (MET); antipsychotic switch (aripiprazole or, if already exposed to that drug, perphenazine or molindone; SWITCH); or continued baseline antipsychotic (CONTROL). All participants received healthy lifestyle education. The primary outcome was body mass index (BMI) z-score change from baseline, analyzed using estimated least squares means. Altogether, 127 participants were randomized: 49 to MET, 31 to SWITCH, and 47 to CONTROL. BMI z-score decreased significantly with MET (week 24: -0.09±0.03, p=0.002) and SWITCH (week 24: -0.11±0.04, p=0.003), while it increased non-significantly with CONTROL (week 24: +0.04±0.03). On 3-way comparison, BMI z-score changes differed significantly (p=0.001). MET and SWITCH were each superior to CONTROL (p=0.002), with effect sizes of 0.68 and 0.81 respectively, while MET and SWITCH did not differ. More gastrointestinal problems occurred in MET than in SWITCH or CONTROL. The data safety monitoring board closed the perphenazine-SWITCH arm because 35.2% of subjects discontinued treatment due to psychiatric worsening. These data suggest that pediatric antipsychotic-related overweight/obesity can be reduced by adding metformin or switching to a lower risk antipsychotic. Healthy lifestyle education is not sufficient to prevent ongoing BMI z-score increase.

Addressing the opioid crisis: An assessment of clinicians' training experience, practices, and attitudes within a large healthcare organization.

OBJECTIVE: To assess provider practices and attitudes toward addiction care and pain management within a large healthcare system, as well as to determine the impact of prior training and perceived effectiveness of organizational implementation strategies. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Large healthcare organization comprising 21 hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and thirteen healthcare providers within a large healthcare organization. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Training, practices, and attitudes toward opioid-related care. METHODS: One thousand providers including physicians (MD/DO) and physician extenders (NP/PA) were contacted via email request. The Mann-Whitney test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate, was used for comparisons of continuous and categorical variables, respectively. RESULTS: Providers lacked prior pain management (36 percent), addiction (38 percent), or buprenorphine training (92 percent). Few providers were confident in treating opioid use disorders (OUD) (19 percent) and opioid tapering (24 percent) but interested in safe prescribing practices (81 percent). While most providers preferred to refer patients for OUD (89 percent), only a small portion felt appropriate services were readily available (22 percent). Trained providers appear significantly more engaged in checking Prescription Drug Monitoring Program database [median = 1 (Q1 = 1, Q3 = 2) vs 2(1, 3); p < 0.001], comfortable obtaining urine drug screens [2(2, 3) vs 3(2, 4); p < 0.002], and willing to treat OUD with additional support [3(2, 4) vs 4(3, 4); p < 0.022] compared to non-trained providers. Primary care providers were more likely to view OUDs in their scope of practice [4(2, 5) vs 4(3, 5); p < 0.016] and willing to treat OUD with additional support [3(2, 3) vs 3(2, 4); p < 0.0007] compared to specialists. Buprenorphine providers appear to have more confidence in skills for OUD [2(1, 3) vs 4(3, 4); p < 0.0001] and tapering [2(1, 2) vs 4(3, 5); p < 0.0001], and diminished preference to refer [2(1, 5) vs 1(1, 2); p < 0.0009] compared to non-buprenorphine providers. CONCLUSIONS: Providers within a large healthcare system lack training and confidence in management of opioid-related care. Buprenorphine training positively modified key attitudes toward addiction care, yet engagement in medication-assisted treatment remains limited. Providers are concerned about opioid risks, and view guideline implementation and direct input from addiction specialists as effective organizational strategies. Further research is needed to clarify the efficacy of such approaches.

Substance use screening and brief intervention: Evaluation of patient and implementation differences between primary care and emergency department settings.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: There are well-documented barriers that have limited widespread, sustained adoption of screening and brief intervention for risky substance use in health care settings. In order to better inform implementation efforts, this study evaluates whether patient characteristics, screening results, and implementation success indicators differed between two clinical setting types: primary care and emergency. METHODS: Patients presenting to an emergency or primary care setting were screened for risky substance use (n = 41 567). Patients with a positive screen were further assessed for psychosocial, health, and substance use problems (n = 1604). Differences in patient characteristics between primary care and emergency settings were examined using chi-square and t tests. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine whether setting type predicted screening results. Site-level indicators of implementation success were calculated (percentage prescreens completed, percentage full screens completed, and percentage refused services) for all patient visits (n = 78 656). RESULTS: As compared with primary care patients, emergency patients had more severe substance use patterns and screening scores, were more likely to use a variety of illicit drugs, and reported more psychosocial issues. In logistic regression models, setting type did not predict whether patients screened positive; however, it did predict screening into a higher vs lower risk category such that emergency patients were more likely to be in a higher risk category. Emergency settings had lower indicators of implementation success (eg, 14% lower prescreen completion rate) as compared with primary care settings on some implementation measures. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation found important differences in patient characteristics and screening and implementation results between primary care and emergency settings. Health care organizations and administrators implementing screening and brief intervention should attend to setting differences that could affect implementation and clinical care.

Usability Testing of a National Substance Use Screening Tool Embedded in Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is currently being implemented into health systems nationally via paper and electronic methods. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the integration of an electronic SBIRT tool into an existing paper-based SBIRT clinical workflow in a patient-centered medical home. METHODS: Usability testing was conducted in an academic ambulatory clinic. Two rounds of usability testing were done with medical office assistants (MOAs) using a paper and electronic version of the SBIRT tool, with two and four participants, respectively. Qualitative and quantitative data was analyzed to determine the impact of both tools on clinical workflow. A second round of usability testing was done with the revised electronic version and compared with the first version. RESULTS: Personal workflow barriers cited in the first round of testing were that the electronic health record (EHR) tool was disruptive to patient's visits. In Round 2 of testing, MOAs reported favoring the electronic version due to improved layout and the inclusion of an alert system embedded in the EHR. For example, using the system usability scale (SUS), MOAs reported a grade "1" for the statement, "I would like to use this system frequently" during the first round of testing but a "5" during the second round of analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of testing usability of various mediums of tools used in health care screening is highlighted by the findings of this study. In the first round of testing, the electronic tool was reported as less user friendly, being difficult to navigate, and time consuming. Many issues faced in the first generation of the tool were improved in the second generation after usability was evaluated. This study demonstrates how usability testing of an electronic SBRIT tool can help to identify challenges that can impact clinical workflow. However, a limitation of this study was the small sample size of MOAs that participated. The results may have been biased to Northwell Health workers' perceptions of the SBIRT tool and their specific clinical workflow.

Activating and Tranquilizing Effects of First-Time Treatment with Aripiprazole, Olanzapine, Quetiapine, and Risperidone in Youth.

OBJECTIVE: To assess activating and tranquilizing effects of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in youth. METHODS: As part of the naturalistic inception cohort study, "Second-generation Antipsychotic Treatment Indication, Effectiveness and Tolerability in Youth (SATIETY)," subjective ratings of activating and tranquilizing symptoms were obtained monthly for 3 months from antipsychotic-naïve youth initiating SGAs using the Treatment Emergent Symptoms Scale (TESS). Discontinuation rates, and TESS-reported symptom rates, and severity were related to clinical and treatment parameters. Two compound measures of TESS were defined: presence of any daytime activating (ACTIVATION+) and sedating symptoms (SEDATION+). RESULTS: In 327 antipsychotic-naïve youth originally initiating the four studied SGAs, discontinuation due to sedation was marginally highest with quetiapine (13.0%) followed by olanzapine (7.3%), risperidone (4.2%), and aripiprazole (2.0%) (p = 0.056). Two hundred fifty-seven antipsychotic-naïve youth (13.8 ± 3.6 years, male = 57.8%) initiated aripiprazole (n = 40), olanzapine (n = 45), quetiapine (n = 36), or risperidone (n = 135) and completed ≥1 postbaseline follow-up visit. Baseline prevalence of ACTIVATION+ (39.9%) or SEDATION+ (54.1%) did not differ between SGAs. Rates of both compound measures changed significantly over time (decrease for ACTIVATION+, p = 0.0002; increase for SEDATION+, p < 0.0001) with slight differences between SGAs, explained by lower rates of ACTIVATION+ with olanzapine (p = 0.002) and slightly higher rates of ACTIVATION+ with aripiprazole (p = 0.018) during follow-up, and lower rates of SEDATION+ with aripiprazole (p = 0.018). All four SGAs reduced insomnia (p = 0.001) and increased hypersomnia (p < 0.001). Postbaseline prevalence of drowsiness, the most frequent, but mild TESS complaint was 85%, without SGA differences. Younger age was associated with activating symptoms, higher age with sedating symptoms, and lower baseline functioning increased both. Psychomotor retardation rates were high in subjects with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, whereas stimulant comedication was associated with psychomotor activation, regardless of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Although small SGA-specific differences in activating/sedating compound side effect measures were noted, independent predictors of single TESS ratings included clinical parameters, rather than specific SGAs, suggesting a need for carefully individualized treatment strategies.

Neuromotor Adverse Effects in 342 Youth During 12 Weeks of Naturalistic Treatment With 5 Second-Generation Antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVE: Second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) effects in youth were monitored to quantify extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) and to identify risk profiles for treatment-emergent EPS. METHOD: Data were analyzed for the nonrandomized, prospective Second-generation Antipsychotic Treatment Indications, Effectiveness and Tolerability in Youth (SATIETY) inception cohort study. EPS were assessed at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 weeks after naturalistic SGA initiation for schizophrenia, mood, disruptive behavior, and autism spectrum disorders using the Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS), Barnes Akathisia Scale, Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), and Treatment Emergent Side Effect Scale. Drug-induced parkinsonism was defined by incident mean SAS score >0.33, anticholinergic initiation, or increasing total SAS score ≥2 in patients with baseline EPS. RESULTS: In 342 youth aged 13.6 ± 3.5 years (male = 58.2%, antipsychotic-naive = 65.8%), 15.2% developed drug-induced parkinsonism. Raw SGA-grouped drug-induced parkinsonism rates were as follows: quetiapine = 1.5%, olanzapine = 13.8%, risperidone = 16.1%, ziprasidone = 20.0%, and aripiprazole = 27.3%. SGA type, dose, higher age, and lower baseline functioning were jointly associated with drug-induced parkinsonism (R(2) = 0.18; p < .0001). Controlling for these factors, drug-induced parkinsonism rates were significantly lower only for quetiapine and olanzapine. Subjectively reported EPS (5%), EPS-related treatment discontinuation (3.3%), and anticholinergic initiation (3%) were infrequent. Anticholinergic initiation was most frequent with risperidone (10.2%; p = .0004). Treatment-emergent dyskinesia ranged from 4.5% (aripiprazole) to 15.5% (olanzapine). SGA type, younger age, white race/ethnicity, and baseline AIMS were jointly associated with treatment-emergent dyskinesia (R(2) = 0.31; p < .0001). Controlling for these factors, treatment-emergent dyskinesia rates differed among SGA subgroups, with higher rates with olanzapine and ziprasidone. At baseline, psychostimulant use was associated with dyskinesia, and number of psychotropic comedications was associated with subjective EPS. CONCLUSION: In youth, SGA-related EPS rates did not generally exceed those reported in adults, with particularly low rates with quetiapine and olanzapine.

Outcome of Youth with Early-Phase Schizophrenia-Spectrum Disorders and Psychosis Not Otherwise Specified Treated with Second-Generation Antipsychotics: 12 Week Results from a Prospective, Naturalistic Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess differences in the outcomes of youth with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (SCZ-S) and psychotic disorder not otherwise specified (PsyNOS) during early antipsychotic treatment. METHODS: The study was a prospective, naturalistic, inception cohort study of youth ≤19 years old with SCZ-S (schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform disorder) or PsyNOS (PsyNOS, brief psychotic disorder) and ≤24 months of lifetime antipsychotic treatment receiving clinician's choice antipsychotic treatment. Baseline demographic, illness and treatment variables, and effectiveness outcomes were compared at 12 weeks last-observation-carried-forward across SCZ-S and PsyNOS patients, adjusting for significantly different baseline variables. RESULTS: Altogether, 130 youth with SCZ-S (n=42) or PsyNOS (n=88), mostly antipsychotic naïve (76.9%), were prescribed risperidone (47.7%), olanzapine (19.2%), aripiprazole (14.6%), quetiapine (11.5%), or ziprasidone (6.9%). Compared with those with PsyNOS, SCZ-S youth were older (16.4±2.1 vs. 14.8±3.2, p=0.0040), and less likely to be Caucasian (19.1% vs. 42.5%, p=0.009). At baseline, SCZ-S patients had significantly higher Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) scores (6.0±0.9 vs. 5.5±0.8, p=0.0018) and lower Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) scores (29.6±9.2 vs. 36.1±8.9, p=0.0002) and were more likely to be in the severely ill CGAS group (i.e., CGAS≤40). SCZ-S and PsyNOS patients did not differ regarding all-cause discontinuation (40.5 vs. 40.3%. p=0.49), discontinuation because of adverse effects (12.2% vs. 12.4%, p=0.97), or nonadherence (29.3% vs. 30.9%, p=0.88), but somewhat more SCZ-S patients discontinued treatment for inefficacy (19.5% vs. 7.4%, p=0.063). CGI-S and CGAS scores improved significantly in both diagnostic groups (p=0.0001, each). Adjusting for baseline differences, PsyNOS patients experienced significantly better CGI-I improvement (CGI-I) scores (p=0.012) and more frequently reached higher categorical CGAS group status (p=0.021) than SCZ-S patients. CONCLUSIONS: Both youth with SCZ-S and those with PsyNOS experienced significant improvements with clinician's choice antipsychotic treatment. However, treatment discontinuation was common within 12 weeks, with greater inefficacy-related discontinuation in the SCZ-S group, whereas CGI-I and CGAS score-based improvements were greater in the PsyNOS group.

Frequency, characteristics and management of adolescent inpatient aggression.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient aggression is a serious challenge in pediatric psychiatry. METHODS: A chart review study in adolescent psychiatric inpatients consecutively admitted over 24 months was conducted, to describe aggressive events requiring an intervention (AERI) and to characterize their management. AERIs were identified based on specific institutional event forms and/or documentation of as-needed (STAT/PRN) medication administration for aggression, both recorded by nursing staff. RESULTS: Among 408 adolescent inpatients (age: 15.2±1.6 years, 43.9% male), 1349 AERIs were recorded, with ≥1 AERI occurring in 28.4% (n=116; AERI+). However, the frequency of AERIs was highly skewed (median 4, range: 1-258). In a logistical regression model, the primary diagnosis at discharge of disruptive behavior disorders and bipolar disorders, history of previous inpatient treatment, length of hospitalization, and absence of a specific precipitant prior to admission were significantly associated with AERIs (R(2)=0.32; p<0.0001). The first line treatment of patients with AERIs (AERI+) was pharmacological in nature (95.6%). Seclusion or restraint (SRU) was used at least once in 59.4% of the AERI+ subgroup (i.e., in 16.9% of all patients; median within-group SRU frequency: 3). Treatment and discharge characteristics indicated a poorer prognosis in the AERI+ (discharge to residential care AERI+: 22.8%, AERI-: 5.6%, p<0.001) and a greater need for psychotropic polypharmacy (median number of psychotropic medications AERI+: 2; AERI-: 1, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite high rates of pharmacological interventions, SRU continue to be used in adolescent inpatient care. As both of these approaches lack a clear evidence base, and as adolescents with clinically significant inpatient aggression have increased illness acuity/severity and service needs, structured research into the most appropriate inpatient aggression management is sorely needed.

Early nonresponse determined by the clinical global impressions scale predicts poorer outcomes in youth with schizophrenia spectrum disorders naturalistically treated with second-generation antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVE: The use of early response/nonresponse (ER/ENR) to antipsychotics as a predictor for ultimate response/nonresponse (UR/UNR) may help decrease inefficacious treatment continuation. However, data have been limited to adults, and ER/ENR has only been determined using time-consuming psychopathology rating scales. In the current study, we assessed if early improvement on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale predicted UR/UNR in psychiatrically ill youth started on antipsychotic treatment. METHODS: Seventy-nine youth aged 6-19 years, with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, treated naturalistically with aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone and evaluated monthly, were divided into ER/ENR groups at week 4, using at least "minimally improved" on the CGI-I scale. Prediction using week 4 ER/ENR status for UR (CGI-I=at least "much improved"), effectiveness and adverse effect outcomes at 8-12 weeks were assessed. RESULTS: At 4 weeks, 45.6% of subjects were ER and 54.4% were ENR without differences regarding baseline demographic, illness, and treatment variables, except for higher age (p=0.034) and maximum risperidone dose (p=0.0043) in ENR. ER/ENR status at 4 weeks predicted UR/UNR at week 12 significantly (p<0.0001): Sensitivity=68.9%, specificity=85.3%, positive predictive value=86.1%, negative predictive value=67.4%. At weeks 4, 8, and 12, ER patients improved significantly more on the CGI-I, CGI-Severity, and Children's Global Assessment of Functioning scales, and more ER patients reached UR compared with ENR patients (83.3% vs. 34.9%, all p<0.0001). ENR patients had more extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) at weeks 4, 8, and 12 (p=0.0019-0.0079). UR was independently associated with ER (odds ratio [OR]=18.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]=4.71-91.68, p<0.0001) and psychosis not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR=4.82 [CI: 1.31-21.41], p=0.017) (r(2)=0.273, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Older age and EPS were associated with ENR; ENR and schizophrenia were associated with UNR in naturalistically treated youth with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Early CGI-I-based treatment decisions require further consideration and study.

Improving metabolic parameters of antipsychotic child treatment (IMPACT) study: rationale, design, and methods.

BACKGROUND: Youth with serious mental illness may experience improved psychiatric stability with second generation antipsychotic (SGA) medication treatment, but unfortunately may also experience unhealthy weight gain adverse events. Research on weight loss strategies for youth who require ongoing antipsychotic treatment is quite limited. The purpose of this paper is to present the design, methods, and rationale of the Improving Metabolic Parameters in Antipsychotic Child Treatment (IMPACT) study, a federally funded, randomized trial comparing two pharmacologic strategies against a control condition to manage SGA-related weight gain. METHODS: The design and methodology considerations of the IMPACT trial are described and embedded in a description of health risks associated with antipsychotic-related weight gain and the limitations of currently available research. RESULTS: The IMPACT study is a 4-site, six month, randomized, open-label, clinical trial of overweight/obese youth ages 8-19 years with pediatric schizophrenia-spectrum and bipolar-spectrum disorders, psychotic or non-psychotic major depressive disorder, or irritability associated with autistic disorder. Youth who have experienced clinically significant weight gain during antipsychotic treatment in the past 3 years are randomized to either (1) switch antipsychotic plus healthy lifestyle education (HLE); (2) add metformin plus HLE; or (3) HLE with no medication change. The primary aim is to compare weight change (body mass index z-scores) for each pharmacologic intervention with the control condition. Key secondary assessments include percentage body fat, insulin resistance, lipid profile, psychiatric symptom stability (monitored independently by the pharmacotherapist and a blinded evaluator), and all-cause and specific cause discontinuation. This study is ongoing, and the targeted sample size is 132 youth. CONCLUSION: Antipsychotic-related weight gain is an important public health issue for youth requiring ongoing antipsychotic treatment to maintain psychiatric stability. The IMPACT study provides a model for pediatric research on adverse event management using state-of-the art methods. The results of this study will provide needed data on risks and benefits of two pharmacologic interventions that are already being used in pediatric clinical settings but that have not yet been compared directly in randomized trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT00806234.

Lack of effect of stimulant combination with second-generation antipsychotics on weight gain, metabolic changes, prolactin levels, and sedation in youth with clinically relevant aggression or oppositionality.

BACKGROUND: Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are associated with weight gain, metabolic abnormalities, sedation/sleep disturbance, and prolactin abnormalities, especially in youths. Although stimulants have opposing dopamine receptor and adverse effects, it is unclear whether stimulant co-treatment counteracts the therapeutic or side effects of antipsychotics. METHODS: This was a naturalistic cohort study including 153 antipsychotic trials in youths aged 4-19 (mean, 11.3 +/- 3.0) years, started on an SGA for clinically significant aggression or oppositionality associated with oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, disruptive behavior disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), impulse control disorder NOS, intermittent explosive disorder, Tourette's disorder, autistic disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder NOS. Patients underwent fasting assessments of body composition, lipids, glucose, insulin, prolactin, sedation, and general efficacy at baseline, weeks 4, 8, and 12, comparing patients co-prescribed stimulants (n = 71) with those not co-prescribed stimulants (n = 82). RESULTS: Patients received risperidone (33.3%), aripiprazole (29.4%), quetiapine (18.4%), olanzapine (11.8%), ziprasidone (5.9%), or clozapine (0.7%). With and without adjustment for differences in baseline variables (sex, prior stimulant use, primary Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4(th) edition [DSM-IV] disorders, co-morbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], present in 46.3% of youths not receiving stimulants, and some body composition parameters), patients on versus off stimulants did not differ on any of the assessed outcomes (all p values > or = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to guidelines, stimulant use did not precede or accompany antipsychotic use during the current episode of aggression/oppositionality in almost half of those youths who had aggressive/oppositional behavior and a DSM-IV diagnosis of ADHD. At the clinically prescribed doses, stimulant co-treatment of SGAs did not seem to significantly reduce antipsychotic effects on body composition, metabolic parameters, prolactin, sedation, and broad efficacy.