• A-Z
  • Directory
  • myUVM
  • Loading search...

Home – Child Mental Health Blog

Drug Holidays During ADHD Treatment

Posted: June 26th, 2012 by David Rettew

With school ending and summer vacation starting, many parents of children with ADHD wonder whether or not it makes sense to do a “drug holiday” until school resumes in the Fall.  The Child Mind Institute recently provided some commentary on this issue for both parents and clinicians. 

The bottom line answer, as it is for many things in our field, is “it depends.” For many children, ADHD symptoms extend far beyond the classroom, especially those with more hyperactive-impulsive symptoms.  Starting a new camp, taking a family vacation, or even spending more time hanging around with siblings may all be impacted by having ADHD behavior flare up without treatment.   Consequently, it makes sense to many experts that the “default” position is to continue treatment during the summer. 

On the other hand, there are certain conditions for which a summer break from ADHD medications, especially stimulants, may be very reasonable.  Those instances could include the following.

  1. Children whose appetite and potentially growth have been negatively impacted by medications
  2. Children who have behavioral side effects of medication such as increased irritability or fatigue (although if these are significant it may make sense to consider a medication change overall)
  3. Children with predominantly inattentive symptoms who are really being treated to keep up at school (as long as they can do some things like continue reading during the summer)

Presently, we do not have evidence that drug holidays help maintain the potency of the medications when they are reinstated.  Nevertheless, this decision is often a good place for a clinician to follow the lead of the parent and the child.  If there is a strong desire to try it and no clear contraindication to doing so, then it often is the right move.

Risperidone Beats Lithium and Divalproex for Pediatric Bipolar Disorder

Posted: June 5th, 2012 by David Rettew

by John Koutras, MD

A recent NIMH funded study in the May issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry found risperidone to be more efficacious than lithium or divalproex sodium for childhood mania. 

John Koutras, MD

The Treatment of Early Age Mania (TEAM) study comes from 5 centers across the country.  The trial was a controlled, randomized, but open-labeled, no-patient-choice, 8-week parallel comparison of lithium carbonate, risperidone, and divalproex sodium among subjects who had not previously received medications for mania.  Participants were outpatients aged 6 to 15 years with a DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar I disorder, manic or mixed episode, with 77% of the sample deemed to have psychotic symptoms.  Lithium was titrated to a level of 1.1 – 1.3 mEq/L, divalproex to 111 to 125 micrograms/mL, and risperidone was dosed generally in the 4 to 6 mg range.  279 subjects were randomized equally, 1:1:1, to each treatment.  The primary outcome measure was the Clinical Global Impressions for Bipolar Illness Improvement-Mania (CGI-BP-IM).

 Results showed that risperidone was significantly superior to lithium and divalproex sodium on the CGI-BP-IM.  A total of 68.5% of risperidone treated subjects responded in comparison to 35.6% and 24% for the lithium and divalproex groups, respectively.  While high discontinuation rates occurred in the lithium group, risperidone was associated with weight gain, hyperprolactinemia, and increased thyrotropin levels. Subjects in the risperidone group gained on average a little over 7 pounds. Also of note was that antidepressants were tapered in study participants (about 10%); however, this variable did not affect response rate. 

Reference

Geller B, Luby J, et al.  A randomized controlled trial of risperidone, lithium, or divalproex sodium for initial treatment of bipolar I disorder, manic or mixed phase, in children and adolescents.  Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012: 69 May: 515-528.

Tiger-Attachment-Ferberization Parenting

Posted: June 1st, 2012 by David Rettew

Time Magazine got lots of the attention it wanted with their recent cover (shown).  The photo, however, was much more provocative than the article that provided a fairly balanced view of Attachment Parenting and its main advocate, Dr. William Sears.  

That’s not to say that the article won’t stir up confusion all over again among well-meaning parents and parents-to-be perplexed with all the mixed messages out there. There is the more traditional approach, championed by people like sleep expert Dr. Ferber and more recently the Tiger Mother advocating for a tougher stance that includes letting your infant cry it out at night, not only for the parent’s sake but for the child’s own development in learning how to self soothe.  The attachment parenting folks tell you the exact opposite – namely that by keeping infants close to you and responding to their distress that they will develop an increased sense of safety and agency which will serve as a strong foundation and, yes, will actually help them be more independent later. 

What is a parent to do with all this contradictory advice?  What should we recommend as the child “experts?”  First, it is important to note that the scientific evidence on the subject is surprisingly weak mainly because a) there are so many moving parts when it comes to positive and negative child behavior that studies can’t account for them all, and b) to really get a definitive study would require randomization, which is nearly impossible and would throw doubt on anyone who would be willing to participate (I want you to sign this form and then we will flip a coin which will tell you how you will raise your kid for the next 10 years, okay?) 

The good Dr. Spock advocated decades ago that parents should be skeptical of all the clatter and trust their instincts.  Far be it from me to contradict one of the preeminent child development experts, but just to make things even more complicated I am tempted to advocate the reverse (sort of) namely – make efforts to parent in a way opposite of what comes naturally.  Of course, I’m not talking about mistreating kids or thumbing your nose at good universal principles – I’m referring to balance.  If a warm loving parent really struggles with setting limits and being firm, then maybe that is where he or she needs to improve.  If another parent easily takes the role of the tough disciplinarian, maybe that person needs to work on being playful and responsive.  

Parenting both with and against one’s instincts is probably not mutually exclusive and may even be optimal.  Furthermore, when it comes to parenting practices, one size definitely does not fit all.  

All kids need love.  All kids need limits.  After that, it starts to get complicated.

The Politics of Child Health

Posted: May 14th, 2012 by David Rettew

Is it just me or does it seem like the politics of health are everywhere these days?

We have the attempt to remove the philosophical exemption for childhood vaccines, thwarted in part by the continued perception about the risk of autism.  There are the naturopathic clinicians who (ironically) want to be able to prescribe medications.  There is law enforcement trying to get access to prescription records without a warrant in order to fight drug abuse.   These efforts are all going on as Vermont works toward major healthcare reform. 

There was also a sloppy and (to me) bizarre front page article in the Burlington Free Press last Monday.  While the article began discussing an investigation of a single individual, it morphed into a condemnation about psychiatric medications while being amazingly full of mistakes (Abilify spelled Amblify twice, antipsychotics called antidepressants, wrongly implying that  physicians “bill” insurance for medications).  

What do all these things have in common?  To me, the thread is information: how one gets it, interprets it, and uses (or misuses) it.  Few would argue that information is easier to obtain now than it has ever been, but with that facility come hazards.  It can be refreshing to be able to access through the internet views other than the party line, but how do we know that these well produced bits have their facts straight?  

Issues related to child mental health are a hot topic right now.  That’s great in a way because people are listening but listening to whom?  Those of us in the mental health and primary care fields need to speak up and advocate for the children and families we serve.  We also can’t be complacent when we hear bad information being turned into poor public policy.   Such a task can be difficult, especially in instances when the information is exactly what we want to hear. 

I’ll end with my favorite bumper sticker – “Don’t believe everything you think.”

Thoughts on Mental Health Awareness Month

Posted: May 1st, 2012 by David Rettew

In case you missed the Hallmark commercial, May is Mental Health Awareness month and May 9 is Children’s Mental Health Awareness day.  Organizations are planning events across the country, including the Child Mind Institute’s, Speak Up for Kids campaign in which various professionals give free talks next week at different community sites.  My own talk on anxiety will be 7pm Thursday May 10 on anxiety at the Browns River Middle School in Jericho, Vermont with more information here

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry states that the month is “designed to increase awareness about mental illnesses and help erase the social stigma preventing children and families suffering from mental illnesses from seeking help.”  While it is hard to argue with these goals, it is interesting to see how quickly the concept of mental health reflexively morphs into mental illness as though they are one in the same.   We all know they are not, yet we often fail to incorporate that key distinction in our practice. 

As the Training Director of our Child & Adolescent Fellowship Program, I noticed that our didactic lectures feature a lot of content about emotional behavioral problems and very little on emotional and behavioral wellness.  Our Division leader, Dr. Hudziak, designed and implemented the Vermont Family Based Approach as a way not only to treat illness but also to promote behavioral health.   This shift has been incorporated into our clinical assessments and treatment plans, but there is still a long way to go.

For my part, I am happy to announce that the incoming fellows for July are going to get to experience a new didactic course before they graduate, tentatively entitled “Thriving: Child Emotional and Behavioral Wellness.”   Hopefully when the course is finished we will be able to take the show on the road and present the concept to other places that train mental HEALTH professionals and those who strive to help children developmentally.

What else can we learn, do and promote to reflect the fact that mental health doesn’t end at “no symptoms?”  Something to think about for at least the rest of May.

Autism Under the Proposed New DSM-5 Criteria

Posted: April 24th, 2012 by David Rettew

As the DSM5 moves closer to its anticipated release next year, several areas are generating widespread debate and discussion both in the public and in more academic circles.  One diagnosis certainly getting its share of attention is Autism.  Under the proposed new guidelines, a single Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) will replace the different sub-diagnoses of Asperger’s Disorder and PDD-NOS, and the former three part criteria will be reduced to two: social communication deficits and fixated interests and repetitive behaviors (social interaction and communication were separate in DSM-IV). 

Just the language changes themselves have triggered some concern, particularly among those who prefer terms like Asperger’s Disorder that convey some distance between it and more classic Autism.  Generating even more controversy is the worry that the new criteria might trigger large changes in who will and will not meet criteria for an ASD in the future.  While some are distressed that more relaxed criteria will label higher and higher percentages of children with a major psychiatric disorder, others fear that more stringent criteria might cause some children to lose important services. 

The latter concern was heightened by a new study that examined the specificity and sensitivity of the new DSM5 criteria as applied to a group of children with autism as defined previously.  The authors reported that while the specificity of the new criteria was excellent (i.e. the new criteria resulted in very few false positives), the sensitivity (i.e. the false negative rate) was much reduced, resulting in fewer ASD diagnoses particularly among those with higher cognitive function.  Overall, the authors reported that 60.6% of children with a previously defined ASD would meet criteria under the new guidelines.  

Adding to the drama are some additional characteristics of the authors and the study, including the fact that the senior author who was previously on the committee tasked to make the new criteria later resigned and the fact that there was a premature release of the study to the public media prior to publication.  Indeed, the study was much more in the public spotlight months ago after articles in the New York Times and elsewhere than it is now with the paper’s official publication this month. 

In the same journal issue, members of the DSM-5 Workgroup on Neurodevelopmental Disorders sharply pointed out some important flaws in the study, such us the study’s use of 20 year old data onto which the authors had to apply DSM-5 criteria that were never explicitly asked as such.  The study was also not representative enough to make the kinds of sweeping conclusions that have been reached.  The Workgroup notes that many of their criteria are less stringent than the DSM-IV items and cites more recent studies indicating a superiority of the new model. 

One area where there is agreement is in the need to work further on the issue to get it right or as good as it can get given the limitations of the science.   Until then, more alarmist concerns that either everyone or no-one will meet criteria for an ASD starting next year seem unwarranted. 

Reference

McPartland JC, Reichow B, Volkmar FR.  (2012). Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolsc Psychiatry 51(4):368-383.

Access to Child Mental Health Care in Times of Shortage

Posted: April 17th, 2012 by David Rettew

It is no surprise to anyone working in primary care or mental health that access to child psychiatrists and other mental health experts is very difficult.  Here at the VCCYF, our own waitlist has grown to many many months despite everyone working on all cylinders.  Frustrations by parents, clinicians, and (yes) those of us here too, are rising and there is no quick fix in the foreseeable future. 

In the meantime, there are a number of things we can all do to ensure that Vermont youth are getting the highest level of assessment and treatment given the current shortage.

  1. Maximize therapy and counseling.   For many conditions, effective psychotherapy can be extremely good at reducing psychiatric symptoms. Many primary care clinicians may be aware that their patient is “in counseling,” but are the families really getting as much out of it as they could?  To ensure that they are, clinicians and/or parents can examine these parameters.
    1. Frequency.  How often is counseling happening?  For a child who is struggling, once every two weeks or less often just isn’t enough.
    2. Type.  Is the counselor using evidenced-based techniques such as cognitive behavior therapy (CBT)?  If not, could they be incorporated or is it worth considering a trial of CBT somewhere else?
    3. Parent involvement.  Are parents an active part of the treatment or does the door close and the parents kept at bay?  Even high functioning parents can benefit from parental guidance and such efforts can make huge improvements in child behavior.
  2. Take the first or next step in your own office.  Everyone’s comfort and expertise levels varies for different types of medical problems, but for children just starting the mental health treatment journey or presenting with relatively straightforward conditions, the potential benefits of avoiding delay and starting the process in house may outweigh the risks.  Consider a choice to advance your knowledge and comfort for one problem area where you have hesitated in the past.
  3. Consult a child psychiatrist informally.  Most physicians here at the VCCYF and elsewhere are aware of the current crisis and are happy to listen to a brief case summary by a primary care clinician if contacted by phone or email.  This blog also has a mechanism for questions.  There may not always be an easy recommendation to give, but if there is we will share it.
  4. Contact your government representative.  Let your representative know that mental health care needs to be a medical priority.  Psychiatry, like primary care and other time-based rather than procedure-based specialties, has been disproportionately under-reimbursed. The current statistics on physician specialty choice, practice location, and patient access to care all reflect these past priority choices.  As Vermont considers major changes in health care, there may be a prime opportunity to bring needed balance into our system.
  5. Assess and treat parents.  This one is especially for you family physicians, who are well positioned to help parents with their own anxiety, depression, and substance use. Doing so can often induce a positive chain reaction that benefits the entire family.
  6. (for those affiliated with some FQHCs) Take advantage of our telepsychiatry service.  Currently, child psychiatry fellows working at FQHCs in St. Johnsbury, Castleton, Richford, and Plainfield have allotted time to do child psychiatry consultations via videoconferencing technology with minimal wait after screening instruments are completed.  Primary care clinicians need to be affiliated with those FQHCs. 

These steps may not be enough to meet fully the need in front of us but can certainly help make the most of the limited resources currently available.  Here at the VCCYF, we are very concerned about this issue too and are working hard to increase access in Vermont and beyond.

Rising Rates of Autism and ADHD: What are We to Make of This?

Posted: April 9th, 2012 by David Rettew

Several recent studies have reported continued increases in the rates of both ADHD and autistic spectrum disorders.

For Autism, a new study from the CDC found an overall rate of 1 in 88 children (1 in 54 boys and 1 in 252 girls).  This rate is much higher than the 1 in 155 reported in 2002.  While the authors point out that the sample was not representative of the total US population (an important point missing in most media coverage), their similar sampling procedures compared to their previous estimates give some credence that the number of children with a diagnosis is indeed rising.   Among the states sampled, Utah was found to have the highest rate (21.2 per 1000 children).  In addition, the level of intellectual disability among children with autism was 38%, lower than the widely held 50% level often quoted.

In ADHD, a similar trend has been found.  A 2010 CDC study showed the ADHD rate increasing from 7.8% in 2003 to 9.5% in 2007.  A recent study by Garfield also showed increasing number of ambulatory visits for ADHD.

What is going on?  There are three main causes to consider when a study reports an increased rate of a disorder.

  1. The detection rate of the diagnosis is improving so more people are being identified
  2. The lower limit of what is considered a diagnosis is falling so more people qualify for a diagnosis
  3. The rate of the diagnosis is actually increasing

Of course, there is also a D) all of the above possibility.  For Autism and ADHD, there is compelling evidence to suggest that both #1 and #2 are at play here with the main question being whether or not there is ALSO a real increase in the incidence of the disorder.   The bottom line here is that we don’t know.  However, even if we discount scientifically disproven links such as vaccines, other possible factors could contribute to increased rates such as increased parental age, environmental toxins, or even changes in assortative mating (i.e. the likelihood that parents will be similar in a trait, resulting in children with higher levels of that trait.  I call that the Eharmony effect).

Further, is lowering the threshold of a diagnosis a good thing?  This one depends a lot upon who you ask.  Clearly, there is good evidence that individuals who just barely meet criteria for a diagnosis, or even have “subthreshold” symptoms, can still be suffering a great deal.  At the same time, more diagnoses often mean more treatment and all the positive and negative ramifications of that.

Many people scoff at the idea of many if not most individuals meeting criteria for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point, but how many kids will have met criteria for a pulmonary or orthopedic diagnosis during their lifetime?  Where is the outrage for that?  Where are all the people claiming that asthma is a made up diagnosis created by drug companies?

One thing that could help a lot is getting past these yes/no dichotomies of a disorder.  Measuring autism and ADHD quantitatively and in turn providing a quantitative response could go a long way towards reducing stigma and allocating the appropriate amount of resources to where they need to go.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Increasing prevalence of parent-reported attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder among children:  United States, 2003 and 2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59:1439–1443.

 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of autistic spectrum disorders: autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 14 sites, United States, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61: 1-19.

 

Garfield CF, et al.  Trends in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ambulatory diagnosis and medical treatment in the United States 2000-2010. Academ Pediatrics 2012:12:110-116.

Antiquated Psychiatric Terms: Time to Retire “Organic,” “Functional,” “Acting Out,” and “BioPsychoSocial”

Posted: April 2nd, 2012 by David Rettew

21st century neuroscience has done much to bring psychiatry and mental health into the modern age.  Our language, however, still lingers behind.  Four terms in particular deserve our scrutiny and, in the opinion of many in our field, some alterations.

ORGANIC

Why it doesn’t work:  This word used to be invoked when behavioral symptoms were found to be the product of a known and observable medical illness.  The problem is it implies that, in the absence of such findings, symptoms are therefore NOT organic.  At this point, there is overwhelming evidence that all psychiatric disorders are true brain based conditions.  How could it be otherwise?

Possible ReplacementNonpsychiatric.  Use it in a sentence. “The lab testing shows evidence of hypothyroidism so it is quite possible than some of your depressive symptoms are nonpsychiatric in origin.”

 

FUNCTIONAL

Why it doesn’t work:  When doctors couldn’t find good explanations for symptoms such as pain or neurological symptoms, they could quickly be chalked up as being functional, which implied that they weren’t real or that they were serving some specific purpose.  While it’s true that things like anxiety can manifest itself in many ways, the “function” is often difficult to determine and, many times, further medical workup reveals other explanations.

Possible ReplacementUnexplained.  Or, if a more precise hypothesis is being proposed, use that more specific term (such as malingering if there is suspicion that a person is consciously making up symptoms to achieve a specific aim).   Use it in a sentence.  “The patient has unexplained abdominal pain each morning before school.  Please evaluate for Separation Anxiety Disorder.”

 

ACTING OUT

Why it doesn’t work:  The expression “acting out” is actually a psychodynamic term that means a patient is enacting conflicts arising in psychotherapy outside of the therapy session.  The term has been usurped to designate any type of disruptive or externalizing behavior.

Possible Replacement:  Disruptive or Acting Up.  Use it in a sentence.  “This child has struggled with a lot of disruptive behavior at school.”

 

BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL

Why it doesn’t work:  This one might surprise people as it seems on the surface like a wonderful term to encompass all the potential sources of behavioral problems.  Indeed, many psychiatrists continue to love the term.  However, it again implies some sort of real division between a biological and psychological factor that can’t really exist.  People use the expression as a convenient way to keep track of lots of potential causes involved in the etiology of emotional behavioral problems (genes, adverse events, poverty, etc.).  These causes are valid, but the categories themselves collapse under scrutiny.  If a series of traumatic experiences results in epigenetic changes in a person’s DNA that in turn evokes increased chaos in the home environment that further exacerbates the patient’s symptoms, what category does this process belong to?

Possible ReplacementComprehensive or Mutually Interacting Factors.  Use it in a sentence.  “In my view, this child’s difficulties are the result of a number of mutually interacting factors that require a comprehensive intervention strategy.”

 

While some will claim that efforts to change these and other terms amounts to little more than political correctness, what we say does have meaning and consequences for our patients.  It may take some time, but in the end it is well worth the effort to have our terminology reflect the state of our science.

 

Questions and Answers – Clonidine

Posted: March 28th, 2012 by David Rettew

Question: So – does anyone use clonidine any more (in conjunction with stimulants for aggression or conduct problems)?  I’ve seen a number of my patients ending up on Intuniv – is that better?  Is it something I can prescribe?  I have 2-3 boys, middle school aged, on stimulants who fit the criteria I used to use.  Any guidelines I could follow?  Thanks!

Answer:  Yes both clonidine and guanfacine in either short or long acting versions are alive and well and can be a good consideration in children with ADHD who have some oppositional and aggressive behaviors.  The long-acting versions, Intuniv for guanfacine and Kapvay for clonidine, actually have FDA indications for ADHD and are used alone and in combination with stimulants.  While there have not been head to head trials between the two alpha agents, many clinicians will report their experience that patients often tend to find clonidine a bit more sedating and more likely to cause dizziness. That may explain why you are hearing more about guanfacine and Intuniv lately.  There general dosing principle is the rule of 10 with doses of guanfacine 10X more than clonidine which translates, for example, into starting doses of .5mg of guanfacine or .05mg of clonidine.  Similarly, Intuniv can be started at 1mg and Kapvay at 0.1mg in the morning or night with bid dosing often recommended if advancing the dose.  A recent reference is given below for a study about using guanfacine in conjunction with stimulants.

I personally have found these two medications helpful in cases when people are beginning to wonder about possible Bipolar Disorder but the child presents more with chronic and explosive irritability rather than true cycles of grandiosity and euphoria.  Sometimes I have been able to get away with these agents and thereby avoid treatment with, in my opinion, more risky mood stabilizers and antipsychotics, sometimes not.

Reference

Wilens T, Bustein O, et al.  A Controlled Trial of Extended-Release Guanfacine and Psychostimulants for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.  J Amer Acad Child Adoesc Psychiatry.  2012: 51 Jan: 74-85.

Contact Us ©2010 The University of Vermont – Burlington, VT 05405 – (802) 656-3131
Skip to toolbar