Multistage Adolescent Depression Screening: A Comparison of 11-Year-Olds to 12-Year-Olds.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescent depression screening is recommended starting at age 12 years, but younger children experience depression as well. Our objective was to determine whether screening for depression at age 11 years yields similar results to screening at age 12 years. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 1000 11- and 12-year-olds in multiple pediatric offices of a large-group practice associated with a health maintenance organization in Southern California. All offices used a multistage depression screening process during well-child visits using the Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents, the global depression inquiry within a parent questionnaire, a chart-based review of mental health history, and brief patient/parent interview informed by the first 3 elements. RESULTS: The 11- and 12-year-old cohorts had similar completion rates for the Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents (99.2% vs 97.8%, P = 0.06), with similar mean total Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents scores (2.12 vs 2.22, P = 0.48). There was no significant difference for positive screenings determined by the pediatrician (12.0% vs 16.0%, P = 0.07), but parents of 12-year-olds were more likely have concerns for their child's mood (6.8% vs 10.5%, P = 0.04). There were similar percentages of referrals (6.2% vs 8.8%, P = 0.12), beneficial conversations related to depression and anxiety, (4.5% vs 4.8%, P = 0.85), and new mental health diagnoses (2.0% vs 2.3%, P = 0.79). DISCUSSION: The process, results, and outcomes of screenings are similar for 11- and 12-year-olds, with a tendency toward more positive findings in 12-year-olds. CONCLUSION: Multistage depression screening in 11-year-olds can be applied successfully in clinical practice, with most cases identifying youths without a prior mental health diagnosis.

Adverse events in medication treatment-naïve children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: results from a small, controlled trial of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the type, frequency, duration, and severity of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of the prodrug lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in children with and without previous exposure to stimulant medication in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: This single-blind, modified laboratory school study used open-label, dose optimization of children aged 6-12 years. LDX, initiated at 30 mg, was dose titrated in 20 mg increments to a possible 70 mg over 4-5 weeks. Safety was assessed using adverse effects and LDX levels. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subjects enrolled in the study, with 27 safety protocol completers (n=14 previous stimulant exposure; n=13 stimulant naïve). The stimulant-naïve group reported more trouble sleeping, stomach pain, and hyperfocus, but only previous-exposure subjects experienced dizziness. Previous-exposure subjects showed trends of more decreased appetite, less talkativeness, and less lip sucking. There were no differences in the mean duration of TEAEs. The epidemiological method of percent person-weeks applied to ADHD treatment offers a novel approach to interpreting the pattern of TEAEs. CONCLUSION: LDX reduced the core symptoms of ADHD with more severe adverse events in stimulant-naïve than previous-exposure subjects. Future controlled studies with larger samples should address the impact of previous stimulant exposure on other ADHD treatments.

Does prior exposure to stimulants in children with ADHD impact cardiovascular parameters from lisdexamfetamine dimesylate?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety profile, based on cardiovascular measurements, of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in children with and without prior exposure to stimulant medication in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: This single-blind, modified laboratory school study used open-label dose optimization of children aged 6 to 12 years. Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, initiated at 30 mg, was dose titrated in 20-mg weekly increments to a possible 70 mg over 4 to 5 weeks. Safety outcomes presented in this study were assessed using vital signs (blood pressure and pulse) and electrocardiograms, conducted at baseline and following LDX treatment. Analyses were performed across all subjects, as well as post hoc based on prior treatment status. In addition, hematologic and blood biochemistry analyses were conducted at baseline but not following treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subjects enrolled in the study, with 27 safety protocol completers (n = 14 prior stimulant exposure; n = 13 stimulant naïve). In total, 2 subjects in the stimulant-naïve group experienced changes from baseline vital sign measurements outside the normal range: 1 with tachycardia and 1 with blood pressure ≥ 95th percentile of the normal age range. One other subject in the stimulant-naïve group experienced prolonged QTc in response to LDX, which resolved at follow-up. Pretreatment laboratory work revealed no differences on any parameters when reviewed by exposure subgroup. CONCLUSION: While LDX reduced the core symptoms of ADHD to a similar degree in treatment-naïve and previously treated groups of children with ADHD, more cardiovascular effects were measured in stimulant-naïve children than in children who had previously been exposed to stimulant treatment. Future controlled studies with larger samples should address the impact of prior stimulant exposure on other ADHD treatments.