German validation of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales–self-report (CAARS-S) I: Factor structure and normative data

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often persists into adulthood. Instruments for diagnosing ADHD in childhood are well validated and reliable, but diagnosis of ADHD in adults remains problematic. Attempts have been made to develop criteria specific for adult ADHD, resulting in the development of self-report and observer-rated questionnaires. To date, the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) are the international standard for questionnaire assessment of ADHD. The current study evaluates a German version of the CAARS self-report (CAARS-S).

German Validation of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Self-Report: Confirmation of Factor Structure in a Large Sample of Participants With ADHD

Objective: The Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) assess symptoms specific to adults that are frequently used and have been translated into German. The current study tests the factor structure of the CAARS in a large sample of German adults with ADHD and compares the means of the CAARS subscales with those of healthy German controls. Method: CAARS were completed by 466 participants with ADHD and 851 healthy control participants. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to establish model fit with the American original. Comparisons between participants with ADHD and healthy controls and influences of gender, age, and degree of education were analyzed. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis showed a very good fit with the model for the American original. Differences between ADHD participants and healthy controls on all Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales-Self-Report (CAARS-S) subscales were substantial and significant. Conclusion: The factor structure of the original American model was successfully replicated in this sample of adult German ADHD participants. (J. of Att. Dis. 2012; XX(X) 1-XX).

German validation of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) II: reliability, validity, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity

The German version of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) has proven to show very high model fit in confirmative factor analyses with the established factors inattention/memory problems, hyperactivity/restlessness, impulsivity/emotional lability, and problems with self-concept in both large healthy control and ADHD patient samples. This study now presents data on the psychometric properties of the German CAARS-self-report (CAARS-S) and observer-report (CAARS-O) questionnaires.

Behavioral Assessment of Core ADHD Symptoms Using the QbTest

Objective: Hyperactivity, one of the core symptoms of ADHD, has been mostly neglected in neuropsychological assessment of childhood ADHD. The neuropsychological Quantified behavior Test (QbTest) separately assesses all three core symptoms of ADHD on a behavioral level. Factor structure of the QbTest and its concurrent and discriminant validity are presented. Method: An exploratory factor analysis (n = 828 children) was performed. In a second sample (n = 102 children) a Multi-Trait-Multi-Method (MTMM) approach was used for validity analyses. Results: A three factorial model explained 76 % of the total variance, with the resulting QbTest factors significantly influenced by age and gender. The MTMM approach yielded promising results for discriminant, yet inconsistent findings for concurrent validity between the QbTest and another attention test as well as for Conners' Parent and Teacher Rating Scales. Conclusion: Results indicate that the QbTest may be helpful for the behavioral assessment of childhood ADHD, yet further studies on its psychometric quality and clinical utility are needed. (J. of Att. Dis. 2012; XX(X) 1-XX).

Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy in hyperactive children: treatment procedure leads to an unconventional study design. Experience with open-label homeopathic treatment preceding the Swiss ADHD placebo controlled, randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial

BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with homeopathy is difficult. The Swiss randomised, placebo controlled, cross-over trial in ADHD patients (Swiss ADHD trial) was designed with an open-label screening phase prior to the randomised controlled phase. During the screening phase, the response of each child to successive homeopathic medications was observed until the optimal medication was identified. Only children who reached a predefined level of improvement participated in the randomised, cross-over phase. Although the randomised phase revealed a significant beneficial effect of homeopathy, the cross-over caused a strong carryover effect diminishing the apparent difference between placebo and verum treatment. METHODS: This retrospective analysis explores the screening phase data with respect to the risk of failure to demonstrate a specific effect of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with randomisation at the start of the treatment. RESULTS: During the screening phase, 84% (70/83) of the children responded to treatment and reached eligibility for the randomised trial after a median time of 5 months (range 1-18), with a median of 3 different medications (range 1-9). Thirteen children (16%) did not reach eligibility. Five months after treatment start, the difference in Conners Global Index (CGI) rating between responders and non-responders became highly significant (p = 0.0006). Improvement in CGI was much greater following the identification of the optimal medication than in the preceding suboptimal treatment period (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the necessity of identifying an optimal medication before response to treatment can be expected, randomisation at the start of treatment in an RCT of homeopathy in ADHD children has a high risk of failure to demonstrate a specific treatment effect, if the observation time is shorter than 12 months.

Psychiatric comorbidity in treatment-seeking substance use disorder patients with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: results of the IASP study

Aims To determine comorbidity patterns in treatment-seeking substance use disorder (SUD) patients with and without adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with an emphasis on subgroups defined by ADHD subtype, taking into account differences related to gender and primary substance of abuse. Design Data were obtained from the cross-sectional International ADHD in Substance use disorder Prevalence (IASP) study. Setting Forty-seven centres of SUD treatment in 10 countries. Participants A total of 1205 treatment-seeking SUD patients. Measurements Structured diagnostic assessments were used for all disorders: presence of ADHD was assessed with the Conners' Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV (CAADID), the presence of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), major depression (MD) and (hypo)manic episode (HME) was assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Plus (MINI Plus), and the presence of borderline personality disorder (BPD) was assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II (SCID II). Findings The prevalence of DSM-IV adult ADHD in this SUD sample was 13.9%. ASPD [odds ratio (OR) = 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.8–4.2], BPD (OR = 7.0, 95% CI = 3.1–15.6 for alcohol; OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.8–6.4 for drugs), MD in patients with alcohol as primary substance of abuse (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 2.1–7.8) and HME (OR = 4.3, 95% CI = 2.1–8.7) were all more prevalent in ADHD+ compared with ADHD− patients (P < 0.001). These results also indicate increased levels of BPD and MD for alcohol compared with drugs as primary substance of abuse. Comorbidity patterns differed between ADHD subtypes with increased MD in the inattentive and combined subtype (P < 0.01), increased HME and ASPD in the hyperactive/impulsive (P < 0.01) and combined subtypes (P < 0.001) and increased BPD in all subtypes (P < 0.001) compared with SUD patients without ADHD. Seventy-five per cent of ADHD patients had at least one additional comorbid disorder compared with 37% of SUD patients without ADHD. Conclusions Treatment-seeking substance use disorder patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are at a very high risk for additional externalizing disorders.

Einheit der Diagnose und Vielheit der Therapien: Ergebnis haus- und kinderärztlicher Behandlung von Störungen der Aufmerksamkeit und Hyperaktivität bei Kindern und Jugendlichen 10 Jahre nach Integration verschiedener Behandlungsoptionen

Aufmerksamkeitsstörungen mit und ohne Hyperaktivität (AHDS/ ADS) gehören zu den häufigsten neuropsychiatrischen Diagnosen bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Stimulantien haben einen hohen Stellenwert bei konventioneller multimodaler Behandlung und unerwünschte Auswirkungen, die nach anderen Therapieoptionen rufen. Es interessiert das Behandlungsergebnis einer einheitlich rekrutierten mit AD(H)S diagnostizierten Kohorte unter verschiedenen Therapieformen. Die Kinder, die nicht am Doppelblind-Versuch der Berner ADHSStudie (Frei H 2005) teilnahmen, werden in 3 diagnostische Gruppen klassifiziert: (A) AD(H)S-Diagnose und homöopathische Therapie (n = 12), (B) AD(H)S-Diagnose und vorwiegend andere Therapien (n = 13), (C) nicht eindeutige AD(H)S-Diagnose und verschiedene Therapieformen (n = 14). Der Behandlungsverlauf wird mit dem Conners’ Global Index (CGI) und offenen Fragen per Fragebogen oder Telefoninterview dokumentiert und überwiegend deskriptiv ausgewertet. Nach 10 Jahren gibt es CGI-Datensätze von 35/39 Personen (90%; 5 weiblich, 30 männlich). Die CGI-Differenz zwischen Diagnose (19.5, Bereich 14–28 Punkte) und Nachuntersuchung (8.7, 1–19) betrug für alle Patienten 10.8 Punkte (56%): in Gruppe A 61%, in den Gruppen B und C je 53%. Von den seit Rekrutierung einmal mit Methylphenidat (MPH, n = 22/39, 56%) behandelten Patienten waren 18 Patienten (82%), von den mit individueller Homöopathie Behandelten (n = 29/39, 75%) waren 17 Patienten (59%) im CGI mehr als 50% verbessert; je 7 Patienten bekamen beide Therapien. Bei 23/39 Patienten (60%) sind die MPHoder homöopathische Therapie abgeschlossen. Zwölf (12) Patienten sind noch in Behandlung: 9 mit MPH, 2 mit Homöopathie und 1 Patient mit beiden Therapien. Bei je drei Patienten waren homöopathische oder MPH-Medikamente nicht genügend erfolgreich, ein Patient erhielt ein Antidepressivum. In Übereinstimmung mit den CGI-Werten bezeichnen 25/35 Patienten (80%) ihr Befinden als besser. Sieben (7) Patienten (20%) bezeichnen ihr Befinden als gleich, obwohl die Differenz zum Ausgangswert mehr als 9 (10–14) Punkte (ca. 50% Besserung) beträgt. Der aktuelle CGI-Wert ist bei 4 dieser Patienten grösser als 14 Punkte und zeigt die Behandlungsbedürftigkeit an. Je 3 dieser 7 Patienten hatten oder haben noch MPH-Therapie mit einer Besserung von derzeit 40%. Die individuelle homöopathische Behandlung des AD(H)S scheint qualitativ der Stimulantientherapie ebenbürtig zu sein und kann deren Nebenwirkungen vermeiden.

Early developmental, temperamental and educational problems in ‘substance use disorder’ patients with and without ADHD. Does ADHD make a difference?

Introduction: The prevalence of ADHD among patients with substance use disorder (SUD) is substantial. This study addressed the following research questions: Are early developmental, temperamental and educational problems overrepresented among SUD patients with ADHD compared to SUD patients without ADHD? Do this comorbid group receive early help for their ADHD, and are there signs of self-medicating with illicit central stimulants? Method: An international, multi-centre cross-sectional study was carried out involving seven European countries, with 1205 patients in treatment for SUD. The mean age was 40 years and 27% of the sample was female. All par- ticipants were interviewed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus and the Conners' Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV. Results: SUD patients with ADHD (n = 196; 16.3% of the total sample) had a significantly slower infant develop- ment than SUD patients without ADHD (n = 1,009; 83.4%), had greater problems controlling their temperament, and had lower educational attainment. Only 24 (12%) of the current ADHD positive patients had been diagnosed and treated during childhood and/or adolescence. Finally, SUD patients with ADHD were more likely to have central stimulants or cannabis as their primary substance of abuse, whereas alcohol use was more likely to be the primary substance of abuse in SUD patients without ADHD. Conclusion: The results emphasize the importance of early identification of ADHD and targeted interventions in the health and school system, as well as in the addiction field.