A randomized crossover clinical study showing that methylphenidate-SODAS improves attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in adolescents with substance use disorder

Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of a long-acting formulation of methylphenidate (MPH-SODAS) on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in an outpatient sample of adolescents with ADHD and substance use disorders (SUD). Secondary goals were to evaluate the tolerability and impact on drug use of MPH-SODAS. This was a 6-week, single-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study assessing efficacy of escalated doses of MPH-SODAS on ADHD symptoms in 16 adolescents with ADHD/SUD. Participants were randomly allocated to either group A (weeks 1-3 on MPH-SODAS, weeks 4-6 on placebo) or group B (reverse order). The primary outcome measures were the Swanson, Nolan and Pelham Scale, version IV (SNAP-IV) and the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI). We also evaluated the adverse effects of MPH-SODAS using the Barkley Side Effect Rating Scale and subject reports of drug use during the study. The sample consisted of marijuana (N = 16; 100%) and cocaine users (N = 7; 43.8%). Subjects had a significantly greater reduction in SNAP-IV and CGI scores (P < 0.001 for all analyses) during MPH-SODAS treatment compared to placebo. No significant effects for period or sequence were found in analyses with the SNAP-IV and CGI scales. There was no significant effect on drug use. MPH-SODAS was well tolerated but was associated with more severe appetite reduction than placebo (P < 0.001). MPH-SODAS was more effective than placebo in reducing ADHD symptoms in a non-abstinent outpatient sample of adolescents with comorbid SUD. Randomized clinical trials, with larger samples and SUD intervention, are recommended.

Psychiatric and neurological symptoms in schizophrenia and substance use disorder patients treated for 12-weeks with quetiapine

Contexte Autant dans une population schizophrène que non schizophrène, l‘abus de substance a pour conséquence la manifestation de symptômes psychiatriques et neurologiques. Dans les présentes études cas-témoins, nous avons examiné les différences initiales ainsi que les changements suite au traitement de 12 semaines à la quetiapine au niveau de la sévérité de la toxicomanie et des symptômes psychiatriques et neurologiques chez 3 groupes distincts. Ces 3 groupes sont: des patients schizophrènes avec une toxicomanie (double diagnostic: DD), des patients schizophrènes sans toxicomanie concomittante (SCZ) et finalement, des toxicomanes non schizophrènes (SUD). Parallèlement, afin de nous aider à interpréter nos résultats, nous avons mené deux revues systématiques: la première regardait l‘effet d‘antipsychotiques dans le traitement de troubles d‘abus/dépendance chez des personnes atteintes ou non de psychoses, la deuxième comparait l‘efficacité de la quetiapine et sa relation dose-réponse parmi différents désordres psychiatriques. Méthodes Pour nos études cas-témoins, l‘ensemble des symptômes psychiatriques et neurologiques ont été évalués via l‘Échelle du syndrome positif et négatif (PANSS), l‘Échelle de dépression de Calgary, l‘Échelle des symptômes extrapyramidaux (ESRS) ainsi qu‘avec l‘Échelle d‘akathisie de Barnes. Résultats À la suite du traitement de 12 semaines avec la quetiapine, les groupes SCZ et DD recevaient des doses de quetiapine significativement plus élevées (moyenne = 554 et 478 mg par jour, respectivement) par rapport au groupe SUD (moyenne = 150 mg par jour). Aussi, nous avons observé chez ces mêmes patients SUD une plus importante baisse du montant d‘argent dépensé par semaine en alcool et autres drogues, ainsi qu‘une nette amélioration de la sévérité de la toxicomanie comparativement aux patients DD. Par conséquent, à la fin de l‘essai de 12 semaines, il n‘y avait pas de différence significative dans l‘argent dépensé en alcool et drogues entre les deux groupes de toxicomanes iv or, les patients DD présentait, comme au point de départ, un score de toxicomanie plus sévère que les SUD. Étonnamment, aux points initial et final de l‘étude, le groupe DD souffrait de plus de symptômes parkinsoniens et de dépression que le groupe SCZ. Par ailleurs, nous avons trouvé qu‘initiallement, les patients SUD présentaient significativement plus d‘akathisie, mais qu‘en cours de traitement, cette akathisie reliée à l‘abus/dépendance de cannabis s‘est nettement améliorée en comparaison aux patients SCZ. Enfin, les patients SUD ont bénéficié d‘une plus grande diminution de leurs symptômes positifs que les 2 groupes atteints de schizophrénie. Conclusions Bref, l‘ensemble de nos résultats fait montre d‘une vulnérabilité accentuée par les effets négatifs de l‘alcool et autres drogues dans une population de patients schizophrènes. Également, ces résultats suggèrent que l‘abus de substance en combinaison avec les états de manque miment certains symptômes retrouvés en schizophrénie. De futures études seront nécessaires afin de déterminer le rôle spécifique qu‘a joué la quetiapine dans ces améliorations.

Childhood trauma in substance use disorder and depression: An analysis by gender among a Brazilian clinical sample

Objective: In this study, we compared the frequency and intensity of childhood traumas in alcohol- or other drug-dependent patients, in patients with depression, and in a control group without psychiatric diagnoses. Methods: The study had a retrospective design of a clinical sample of men and women from the groups listed above. They were evaluated by the same standardized instrument: the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire.. Results: A higher frequency and intensity of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse were found in alcohol- and other drug-dependent patients than in patients with depression, who, in turn, presented significantly higher proportions than the control group. In all of the cases, the frequency was higher among women than men. Conclusion: Because of the high frequency and intensity of childhood traumas among alcohol- or other drug-dependent patients and depressed patients, the assessment of problems due to childhood traumas among these patients is essential to a better understanding of the etiology of those disorders and to their treatment. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Patients with substance use and personality disorders: a comparison of patient characteristics, treatment process, and outcomes in Swiss and U.S. substance use disorder programs

Cross-cultural comparisons may increase our understanding of different models of substance use treatment and help identify consistent associations between patients' characteristics, treatment conditions, and outcomes.

Treatment outcomes of an integrated residential programme for patients with schizophrenia and substance use disorder

About half of all schizophrenic patients have a co-occurring substance use disorder, leading to poorer social and functional outcomes than obtained in non-abusing patients. To improve outcomes, integrated treatments have been designed that address the two conditions simultaneously. Results are, however, conflicting because the available effect studies are hampered by various methodological issues, among which are heterogeneous patient samples.

Substance use disorder treatment programs in Switzerland and the USA: Program characteristics and 1-year outcomes

AIM: This study compared matched samples of substance use disorder (SUD) patients in Swiss and United States (US) residential treatment programs and examined the relationship of program characteristics to patients' substance use and psychosocial functioning at a 1-year follow-up. DESIGN AND SETTING: The study used a prospective, naturalistic design and a sample of 10 public programs in the German-speaking part of Switzerland and 15 US public treatment programs. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 358 male patients in Swiss programs were matched on age, marital status and education with 358 male patients in US programs. A total of 160 Swiss and 329 US patient care staff members also participated. MEASUREMENT: Patients completed comparable inventories at admission, discharge and 1-year follow-up to assess their substance use and psychological functioning and receipt of continuing care. Staff members reported on program characteristics and their beliefs about substance use. FINDINGS: Compared to Swiss patients, US patients had more severe substance use and psychological problems at intake and although they did not differ on abstinence and remission at follow-up, had somewhat poorer outcomes in other areas of functioning. Swiss programs were longer and included more individual treatment sessions; US programs included more group sessions and were more oriented toward a disease model of treatment. Overall, length of program, treatment intensity and 12-step orientation were associated with better 1-year outcomes for patients in both Swiss and US programs. CONCLUSIONS: The sample of Swiss and US programs studied here differed in patient and treatment characteristics; however, in general, there were comparable associations between program characteristics and patients' 1-year outcomes. These findings suggest that associations between treatment processes and patients' outcomes may generalize from one cultural context to another.

Variability in the prevalence of adult ADHD in treatment seeking substance use disorder patients: results from an international multi-center study exploring DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria

Background: Available studies vary in their estimated prevalence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disor-der (ADHD) in substance use disorder (SUD) patients, ranging from 2 to 83%. A better understanding ofthe possible reasons for this variability and the effect of the change from DSM-IV to DSM-5 is needed.Methods: A two stage international multi-center, cross-sectional study in 10 countries, among patientsform inpatient and outpatient addiction treatment centers for alcohol and/or drug use disorder patients. Atotal of 3558 treatment seeking SUD patients were screened for adult ADHD. A subsample of 1276 subjects,both screen positive and screen negative patients, participated in a structured diagnostic interview. 5AdultsResults: Prevalence of DSM-IV and DSM-5 adult ADHD varied for DSM-IV from 5.4% (CI 95%: 2.4–8.3) forHungary to 31.3% (CI 95%:25.2–37.5) for Norway and for DSM-5 from 7.6% (CI 95%: 4.1–11.1) for Hungary to32.6% (CI 95%: 26.4–38.8) for Norway. Using the same assessment procedures in all countries and centersresulted in substantial reduction of the variability in the prevalence of adult ADHD reported in previousstudies among SUD patients (2–83% → 5.4–31.3%). The remaining variability was partly explained byprimary substance of abuse and by country (Nordic versus non-Nordic countries). Prevalence estimatesfor DSM-5 were slightly higher than for DSM-IV.Conclusions: Given the generally high prevalence of adult ADHD, all treatment seeking SUD patientsshould be screened and, after a confirmed diagnosis, treated for ADHD since the literature indicates poorprognoses of SUD in treatment seeking SUD patients with ADHD.

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.

Validity of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) as a screener for adult ADHD in treatment seeking substance use disorder patients

Background: To detect attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in treatment seeking substance use disorders (SUD) patients, a valid screening instrument is needed. Objectives: To test the performance of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale V 1.1(ASRS) for adult ADHD in an international sample of treatment seeking SUD patients for DSM-IV-TR; for the proposed DSM-5 criteria; in different subpopulations, at intake and 1–2 weeks after intake; using different scoring algorithms; and different externalizing disorders as external criterion (including adult ADHD, bipolar disorder, antisocial and borderline personality disorder). Methods: In 1138 treatment seeking SUD subjects, ASRS performance was determined using diagnoses based on Conner's Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV (CAADID) as gold standard. Results: The prevalence of adult ADHD was 13.0% (95% CI: 11.0–15.0%). The overall positive predictive value (PPV) of the ASRS was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.22–0.30), the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96–0.98). The sensitivity (0.84, 95% CI: 0.76–0.88) and specificity (0.66, 95% CI: 0.63–0.69) measured at admission were similar to the sensitivity (0.88, 95% CI: 0.83–0.93) and specificity (0.67, 95% CI: 0.64–0.70) measured 2 weeks after admission. Sensitivity was similar, but specificity was significantly better in patients with alcohol compared to (illicit) drugs as the primary substance of abuse (0.76 vs. 0.56). ASRS was not a good screener for externalizing disorders other than ADHD. Conclusions: The ASRS is a sensitive screener for identifying possible ADHD cases with very few missed cases among those screening negative in this population.

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.

Risk factors for borderline personality disorder in treatment seeking patients with a substance use disorder: an international multicenter study

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) and substance use disorders (SUDs) often co-occur, partly because they share risk factors. In this international multicenter study, risk factors for BPD were examined for SUD patients. In total, 1,205 patients were comprehensively examined by standardized interviews and questionnaires on psychiatric diagnosis and risk factors, and it was found that 1,033 (85.7%) had SUDs without BPD (SUD) and 172 (14.3%) had SUD with BPD (SUD + BPD). SUD + BPD patients were significantly younger, more often females and more often diagnosed with comorbid adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. SUD + BPD patients did not differ from SUD patients on most risk factors typical for SUD such as maternal use of drugs during pregnancy or parents having any SUD. However, SUD + BPD patients did have a higher risk of having experienced emotional and physical abuse, neglect, or family violence in childhood compared to SUD patients, suggesting that child abuse and family violence are BPD-specific risk factors in patients with SUDs. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Substance use disorder comorbidity with schizophrenia in families of Mexican and Central American Ancestry

artículo -- Universidad de Costa Rica. Centro Investigación en Biología Molecular y Celular, 2010. Este documento es privado debido a limitaciones de derechos de autor.

Inter-informant agreement and prevalence estimates for substance use disorders: direct interview versus family history method.

OBJECTIVES: Family studies typically use multiple sources of information on each individual including direct interviews and family history information. The aims of the present study were to: (1) assess agreement for diagnoses of specific substance use disorders between direct interviews and the family history method; (2) compare prevalence estimates according to the two methods; (3) test strategies to approximate prevalence estimates according to family history reports to those based on direct interviews; (4) determine covariates of inter-informant agreement; and (5) identify covariates that affect the likelihood of reporting disorders by informants. METHODS: Analyses were based on family study data which included 1621 distinct informant (first-degree relatives and spouses) - index subject pairs. RESULTS: Our main findings were: (1) inter-informant agreement was fair to good for all substance disorders, except for alcohol abuse; (2) the family history method underestimated the prevalence of drug but not alcohol use disorders; (3) lowering diagnostic thresholds for drug disorders and combining multiple family histories increased the accuracy of prevalence estimates for these disorders according to the family history method; (4) female sex of index subjects was associated with higher agreement for nearly all disorders; and (5) informants who themselves had a history of the same substance use disorder were more likely to report this disorder in their relatives, which entails the risk of overestimation of the size of familial aggregation. CONCLUSION: Our findings have important implications for the best-estimate procedure applied in family studies.