ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is increased in children with intellectual disability. Previous research has suggested stimulants are less effective than in typically developing children but no studies have titrated medication for individual optimal dosing or tested the effects for longer than 4 weeks. METHOD: One hundred and twenty two drug-free children aged 7-15 with hyperkinetic disorder and IQ 30-69 were recruited to a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized participants using minimization by probability, stratified by referral source and IQ level in a one to one ratio. Methylphenidate was compared with placebo. Dose titration comprised at least 1 week each of low (0.5 mg/kg/day), medium (1.0 mg/kg/day) and high dose (1.5 mg/kg/day). Parent and teacher Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) index of the Conners Rating Scale-Short Version at 16 weeks provided the primary outcome measures. Clinical response was determined with the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI-I). Adverse effects were evaluated by a parent-rated questionnaire, weight, pulse and blood pressure. Analyses were by intention to treat. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 68384912. RESULTS: Methylphenidate was superior to placebo with effect sizes of 0.39 [95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.09, 0.70] and 0.52 (95% CIs 0.23, 0.82) for the parent and teacher Conners ADHD index. Four (7%) children on placebo versus 24 (40%) of those on methylphenidate were judged improved or much improved on the CGI. IQ and autistic symptoms did not affect treatment efficacy. Active medication was associated with sleep difficulty, loss of appetite and weight loss but there were no significant differences in pulse or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal dosing of methylphenidate is practical and effective in some children with hyperkinetic disorder and intellectual disability. Adverse effects typical of methylphenidate were seen and medication use may require close monitoring in this vulnerable group.
Subject(s)
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/diagnosis , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/drug therapy , Central Nervous System Stimulants/administration & dosage , Intellectual Disability/diagnosis , Intellectual Disability/drug therapy , Methylphenidate/administration & dosage , Adolescent , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/epidemiology , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/psychology , Central Nervous System Stimulants/adverse effects , Child , Comorbidity , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , England , Female , Humans , Intellectual Disability/epidemiology , Intellectual Disability/psychology , Male , Methylphenidate/adverse effects , Personality AssessmentABSTRACT
RATIONALE: The effects of D-cycloserine (DCS) in animal models of anxiety disorders and addiction indicate a role for N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors in extinction learning. Exposure/response prevention treatments for anxiety disorders in humans are enhanced by DCS, suggesting a promising co-therapy regime, mediated by NMDA receptors. Exposure/response prevention may also be effective in problematic drinkers, and DCS might enhance habituation to cues in these individuals. Since heavy drinkers show ostensible conditioned responses to alcohol cues, habituation following exposure/response prevention should be evident in these drinkers, with DCS enhancing this effect. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of DCS on exposure/response prevention in heavy drinkers. METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, heavy social drinkers recruited from the community received either DCS (125 mg; n = 19) or placebo (n = 17) 1 h prior to each of two sessions of exposure/response prevention. Cue reactivity and attentional bias were assessed during these two sessions and at a third follow-up session. Between-session drinking behaviour was recorded. RESULTS: Robust cue reactivity and attentional bias to alcohol cues was evident, as expected of heavy drinkers. Within- and between-session habituation of cue reactivity, as well as a reduction in attentional bias to alcohol cues over time was found. However, there was no evidence of greater habituation in the DCS group. Subtle stimulant effects (increased subjective contentedness and euphoria) which were unrelated to exposure/response prevention were found following DCS. CONCLUSIONS: DCS does not appear to enhance habituation of alcohol cue reactivity in heavy non-dependent drinkers. Its utility in enhancing treatments based on exposure/response prevention in dependent drinkers or drug users remains open.