Playfulness in children with autistic disorder and their typically developing peers

This study investigated the playfulness of 24 children with autistic disorder (AD) and 34 typically developing children aged 3-7 years, in free (unstructured) and adult-facilitated (structured) play conditions within a clinical play environment. Video recordings of play were rated using the Test of Playfulness (Bundy 2003). The data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA and ANCOVA and qualitative observations. The children with AD were less playful compared with the typically developing children (F = 49.64, p < 0.001), even when developmental age was accounted for (F = 28.20, p < 0.001). Both groups of children were slightly more playful in a structured environment with adult facilitation (F = 7.72, p = 0.007). Despite statistically significant differences in playfulness between play conditions, considerable overlap in observations for both groups suggests that this may not be as clinically meaningful. When developmental age was accounted for, the play conditions no longer had a significant effect on playfulness (F = 1.54, p = 0.220). The implications of the findings and the limitations of the study are discussed

An n-of-1 trial service in clinical practice: Testing the effectiveness of stimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVE. We sought to describe the clinical use of n-of-1 trials for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in publicly and privately funded family and specialized pediatric practice in Australia. METHODS. We used a within-patient randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of stimulant (dexamphetamine or methylphenidate) versus placebo or alternative stimulant using 3 pairs of treatment periods. Trials were conducted from a central location using mail and telephone communication, with local supervision by the patients' clinicians. PATIENTS. Our study population included children with clinically diagnosed attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder who were aged 5 to 16 years and previously stabilized on an optimal dose of stimulant. They were selected because treatment effectiveness was uncertain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES. Our measures included number of patients recruited, number of doctors who used the service, geographic spread, completion rates, response rate, and post-n-of-1 trial decisions. RESULTS. Forty-five doctors across Australia requested 108 n-of-1 trials, of which 86 were completed. In 69 drug-versus-placebo comparisons, 29 children responded better to stimulant than placebo. Immediately posttrial, 19 of 25 drug-versus-placebo responders stayed on the same stimulant, and 13 of 24 nonresponders ceased or switched stimulants. In 40 of 63 for which data were available, posttrial management was consistent with the trial results. For all types of n-of-1 trials, management changed for 28 of 64 children for whom information was available. DISCUSSION. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder n-of-1 trials can be implemented successfully by mail and telephone communication. This type of trial can be valuable in clarifying treatment effect when it is uncertain, and in this series, they had a noticeable impact on short-term management.

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of twice-daily Ritalin and once-daily Equasym XL with placebo in children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of two methylphenidate (MPH) formulations—once-daily modified-release MPH (EqXL, Equasym™ XL) and twice-daily immediate-release methylphenidate (MPH-IR, Ritalin®)—and placebo in children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Methods Children aged 6–12 years on a stable dose of MPH were randomized into a double-blind, three-arm, parallel-group, multi-center study and received 3 weeks of EqXL (20, 40, or 60 mg qd), MPH-IR (10, 20, or 30 mg bid) or placebo. Non-inferiority of EqXL to MPH-IR was assessed by the difference in the inattention/overactivity component of the overall teacher’s IOWA Conners’ Rating Scale on the last week of treatment (per protocol population). Safety was monitored by adverse events, laboratory parameters, vital signs, physical exam, and a Side Effect Rating Scale. Results The lower 97.5% confidence interval bound of the difference between MPH groups fell above the non-inferiority margin (−1.5 points) not only during the last week of treatment but during all three treatment weeks. Both MPH-treatment groups experienced superior benefit when compared to placebo during all treatment weeks (P < 0.001). All treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions EqXL given once-daily was non-inferior to MPH-IR given twice-daily. Both treatments were superior to placebo in reducing ADHD symptoms.