[Supervised off-label prescribing of methylphenidate in adult ADHD]. / Prescriptions hors AMM supervisées de méthylphénidate dans le TDAH de l'adulte.

OBJECTIVE: Off-label prescription is a common practice in psychiatry, raising health and economic concerns. Collegial consultation could allow a framed prescription of treatments that are not authorized in specific indications. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity in adult populations (ADHD) is a striking example of a pathology where off-label prescription is frequent. First considered to be a childhood disorder, the awareness of this condition in adults is increasing, leading to the development of new clinical practices and treatments. However, the adult ADHD diagnosis and its management are still emerging in France despite a high prevalence. Treatment of adult ADHD relies on methylphenidate prescription, but the initiation of this drug is not authorized in adult populations. Methylphenidate is a central nervous system stimulant that is structurally close to amphetamine and acts as a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor. Due to these pharmacological properties, neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular side-effects could occur. Furthermore, its addictive potential has led France to classify it as a psychoactive drug, dispensed via secured prescription. The first prescription and the one-year follow-up are restricted to neurologists, paediatrics, psychiatrists and sleep disorders specialists at hospital. The objective of this article is to propose a multidisciplinary framework for the off-label prescription of methylphenidate in adult ADHD. METHODS: The Multidisciplinary Advice Consultation for Exceptional Addiction Treatments (Consultation d'Avis Multidisciplinaire de Traitements d'Exception en Addictologie CAMTEA) was first set up in Lille for the prescription of baclofen in alcohol dependence and was then extended to topiramate in binge eating disorder. This procedure has been adapted to the particularities of ADHD in adult populations, the differential diagnosis (bipolar disorder, depressive disorder, anxious disorder, personality disorder, substance use disorder) and the co-morbidities requiring a full psychiatric and neuropsychological assessment. Moreover, a particular attention has been paid to the monitoring of neuropsychiatric, cardiovascular and misuse risk because of the potential side-effects of methylphenidate. RESULTS: The proposed prescription framework is structured into several specialized consultations. A first psychiatric evaluation aims to diagnose adult ADHD, using the French version of the Diagnostisch Interview Voor ADHD 2.0 questionnaire (DIVA 2.0), and to assess the quality of life impact with the Weiss Functional Inventory Rating Scale (WIFRS). It also searches for the presence of differential diagnosis or co-morbidities. The second appointment consists of a pharmacological evaluation that aims to search for contraindications and potential drug interaction. A neuropsychological evaluation based on standardized tests (Weschler Adulte Intelligence Scale [WAIS IV], Conner's Continuous Performance Test 3 [CPT] and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personnality Inventory [MMPI]) is also required to evaluate neurocognitive disabilities and personality features. Once the parameters of the different assessments have been collected, the synthesis is presented during a multidisciplinary meeting in order to assess the risk-benefit ratio for each patient. Several specialties are involved in this multidisciplinary meeting: psychiatry, addictology, general medicine, addictovigilance, pharmacovigilance and neuropsychology. One strategy among three possibilities can be decided: (1) contraindication to treatment with methylphenidate, (2) attention deficit disorder that does not require medication management, and (3) indication of treatment with methylphenidate with the choice of the pharmacological form (immediate or prolonged release). A biological check-up and an electrocardiogram are carried out systematically before any treatment. If the decision is made to initiate treatment, it is started at the lowest dosage and followed by a titration phase. A weekly follow-up is carried out during the titration phase in order to assess treatment efficacy and safety. After treatment stabilization, the general practitioner can carry out the renewal, and the patient will be reassessed within the framework of the multidisciplinary consultation every 3 months. CONCLUSION: When an off-label prescription is being considered, it must comply with the basic rules of good clinical practice, and the benefit/risk ratio should be constantly reassessed. The proposed multidisciplinary framework, adapted to the characteristics of adult ADHD and the pharmacological properties of methylphenidate, appears to be an interesting strategy to meet the requirements of the good clinical practice. The complementary assessments carried out and the collegial framework allow enhancing the patient's follow-up and minimize the drug risk, particularly in the psychiatric, addictive and cardiovascular adverse events. Finally, this framework could also help the monitoring of other off-label treatments for ADHD, such as atomoxetine or guanfacine.

European survey on efficacy and safety of duty-cycled radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Duty-cycled radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been used for atrial fibrillation (AF) for around 5 years, but large-scale data are scarce. The purpose of this survey was to report the outcome of the technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey was conducted among 20 centres from seven European countries including 2748 patients (2128 with paroxysmal and 620 with persistent AF). In paroxysmal AF an overall success rate of 82% [median 80%, interquartile range (IQR) 74-90%], a first procedure success rate of 72% [median 74% (IQR 59-83%)], and a success of antiarrhythmic medication of 59% [median 60% (IQR 39-72%)] was reported. In persistent AF, success rates were significantly lower with 70% [median 74% (IQR 60-92%)]; P = 0.05) as well as the first procedure success rate of 58% [median 55% (IQR 47-81%)]; P = 0.001). The overall success rate was similar among higher and lower volume centres and were not dependent on the duration of experience with duty-cycled RFA (r = -0.08, P = 0.72). Complications were observed in 108 (3.9%) patients, including 31 (1.1%) with symptomatic transient ischaemic attack or stroke, which had the same incidence in paroxysmal and persistent AF (1.1 vs. 1.1%) and was unrelated to the case load (r = 0.24, P = 0.15), bridging anticoagulation to low molecular heparin, routine administration of heparin over the long sheath, whether a transoesophageal echocardiogram was performed in every patient or not and average procedure times. CONCLUSION: Duty-cycled RFA has a self-reported success and complication rate similar to conventional RFA. After technical modifications a prospective registry with controlled data monitoring should be conducted to assess outcome.

Cardiometabolic assessment of lamin A/C gene mutation carriers: a phenotype-genotype correlation.

AIMS: Mutations of the LMNA gene encoding lamin A/C induce heterogeneous phenotypes ranging from cardiopathies and myopathies to lipodystrophies. The aim of this study was to compare cardiometabolic complications in patients with heterozygous LMNA mutations at the 482nd codon, the 'hotspot' for partial lipodystrophy, with carriers of other, non-R482 LMNA mutations. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 29 patients with R482 LMNA mutations, 29 carriers of non-R482 LMNA mutation and 19 control subjects. Cardiac and metabolic phenotypes were compared between groups. A family history of either cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs; P < 0.001) or sudden death (P < 0.01) was more frequent in non-R482 than R482 carriers. The non-R482 carriers also had more abnormalities on electrocardiography and received CIEDs more often than R482 carriers (P < 0.001). On cardiac ultrasound, non-R482 patients had greater frequencies of left atrial enlargement (P < 0.05) and lower left ventricular ejection fractions (P < 0.01) than R482 carriers. In contrast, R482 carriers had lower BMI (P < 0.05), leptin (P < 0.01) and fat mass (P < 0.001), but higher intra-/total abdominal fat-mass ratios (P < 0.001) and prevalences of diabetes (P < 0.01) and hypertriglyceridaemia (P < 0.05) than non-R482 carriers, with a trend towards more coronary artery disease. However, non-R482 carriers had higher intra-/total abdominal fat-mass ratios (P < 0.02) and prevalences of diabetes (P < 0.001) and hypertriglyceridaemia (P < 0.05) than the controls. CONCLUSION: Non-R482 carriers present more frequently with arrhythmias than R482 carriers, who twice as often have diabetes, suggesting that follow-up for laminopathies could be adjusted for genotype. Non-R482 mutations require ultra-specialized cardiac follow-up, and coronary artery disease should not be overlooked. Although overlapping phenotypes are found, LMNA mutations essentially lead to tissue-specific diseases, favouring genotype-specific pathophysiological mechanisms.

[New concepts of anticoagulant therapy of atrial fibrillation]. / Nouveautés dans le traitement anticoagulant de la fibrillation auriculaire.

The news concerning anticoagulant therapy is very rich. It was also keenly awaited in view of the real imperfection of antivitamin K drugs on which the present strategy of prevention of thromboembolic risk related to atrial fibrillation is based. The new anticoagulants have differing targets identified from the physiological mechanism of coagulation and the physiopathology of thrombosis.

Post-operative use of heparin increases morbidity of pacemaker implantation.

AIMS: The objective of this study is to characterize the incidence of peri-operative severe adverse events (AEs) related to the post-operative use of heparin in patients undergoing pacemaker surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively compared the outcome of 38 patients with mechanical valves (MVs) and 76 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with control cases matched for gender, age, and surgical details. Heparin was systematically used post-operatively in MV patients, but left to clinical judgment in AF patients. The relative risk for severe haemorrhagic AEs was 11 (CI 1.5-81.1, P < 0.01) in the MV group when compared with matched controls and 8 (CI 1.0-62.5, P < 0.05) in the AF group. Overall, the relative risk of heparin use in the post-operative period was 14 (CI 1.88-104, P = 0.0006) and the post-operative stay was prolonged from 7 days in this group when compared with control cases (P < 0.0001).The variables associated with haemorrhage were the delay to restart heparin after surgery and the presence of an MV. CONCLUSION: Post-operative use of heparin increases morbidity of pacemaker implantation. A different approach to management of these patients is possible.