Dataset Information

A meta-analytic review of the impact of ADHD medications on anxiety and depression in children and adolescents.

ABSTRACT: Anxiety and depression are listed as common side effects for medications licensed for treating ADHD in children and adolescents. This meta-analytic review of randomised controlled trials aimed to explore the effect of medications on symptoms of anxiety and depression in children and adolescents with ADHD. A meta-analytic review of ADHD drug trials in children and adolescents was conducted. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted on anxiety and depression outcomes measured by validated psychological scales or side effect rating scales. Only 11% of eligible trials in this review reported anxiety and/or depression as an outcome or side effect, limiting the conclusions of the meta-analyses. Relative to placebo control, no significant effect of medication was found for symptoms of anxiety or depression in randomised controlled trials of ADHD medication in children and adolescents. This review highlights the systemic lack of mental health outcome reporting in child and adolescent ADHD drug trials. The importance of widespread implementation of standardised measurement of mental health outcomes in future trials is discussed.

SUBMITTER: Bryant A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10533622 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A meta-analytic review of the impact of ADHD medications on anxiety and depression in children and adolescents.

Bryant Annie A Schlesinger Hope H Sideri Athina A Holmes Joni J Buitelaar Jan J Meiser-Stedman Richard R

European child & adolescent psychiatry 20220526 10

Anxiety and depression are listed as common side effects for medications licensed for treating ADHD in children and adolescents. This meta-analytic review of randomised controlled trials aimed to explore the effect of medications on symptoms of anxiety and depression in children and adolescents with ADHD. A meta-analytic review of ADHD drug trials in children and adolescents was conducted. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted on anxiety and depression outcomes measured by validated psycho ...[more]

PMID: 35616714

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAttention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been related to increased rates of unintentional injuries. However, the magnitude of the effect and to which extent variables such as sex, age or comorbidity can influence this relationship is unknown. Additionally, and importantly, it is unclear if, and to which degree, ADHD medications can decrease the number of unintentional injuries. Due to the amount of economic and social resources invested in the treatment of injuries, filling these gaps in the literature is highly relevant from a public health standpoint. Here, we present a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the relationship between ADHD and unintentional injuries and assess the impact of pharmacological treatment for ADHD METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will combine results from 114 bibliographic databases for studies relating ADHD and risk of injuries. Bibliographic searches and data extraction will be carried out independently by two researchers. The studies' risk of bias will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Articles reporting ORs or HRs of suffering an injury in ADHD compared with controls (or enough data to calculate them) will be combined using Robust Variance Estimation, a method that permits to include multiple non-independent outcomes in the analysis. All analyses will be carried out in Stata. Age, sex and comorbid conduct disorders will be considered as potential causes of variance and their effect analysed through meta-regression and subgroup analysis. Sensitivity analyses will exclude articles with longer follow-ups, non-stringent definitions of ADHD or controls and statistically uncontrolled/controlled outcomes. Studies implementing a self-controlled case series methodology to investigate if ADHD drugs reduce the risk of injuries will be combined with a generalised linear mixed model using the Poisson distribution and a log link function.Registration detailsPROSPERO-Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42017064967).

Project description:Objective: To identify predictors of medication-placebo differences in double-blind placebo-controlled antidepressant trials in children and adolescents with anxiety and depression. Methods: Clinical trials in patients <18 years of age with major depressive disorder or generalized, separation or social anxiety disorders were obtained from PubMed, the Cochrane Database and clinicaltrials.gov searches from inception through 2019. Forty-nine trials (43 published and 6 unpublished) of anxiety (κ = 13) and depression (κ = 36) evaluated 19 antidepressants in 8642 child and adolescent patients; placebo and medication response rates, trial characteristics, disorder, medication class, and funding source were extracted. Antidepressant-placebo differences were examined using Bayesian hierarchical models and estimates of response were determined for trial design, disorder, and medication class variables. Using meta-regression, correlates of antidepressant-placebo difference and placebo response were examined. Results: Funding source differentiated medication-placebo differences regardless of disorder. Industry trials had larger placebo response rates (mean difference: 0.189 ± 0.066, credible interval [CrI]: 0.067 to 0.33, p = 0.0008) and smaller medication-placebo differences (-0.235 ± 0.078, CrI: -0.397 to -0.086, p = 0.005) compared with federally funded trials. However, medication response was similar for industry- and federally-funded studies (-0.046 ± 0.042, CrI: -0.130 to 0.038, p = 0.252). Conclusions: The impact of study sponsorship on trial outcome supports the assertion that industry-funded trials with high placebo response rates and small drug-placebo differences are "failed trials" and should not be described as "negative trials" or used to determine public health estimates of antidepressant efficacy in children and adolescents with anxiety and depression. Identifying the proper role and value of industry-funded trials is critical to establishing the evidence base for antidepressants in youth.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence suggests that cognitive bias modification of interpretations (CBM-I) is effective in modifying interpretation biases and has a small effect on reducing anxiety in children and adolescents. However, most evidence to date is based on studies which report anxiety or general distress using ad-hoc Likert-type or Visual Analogue Scales, which are useful but do not reliably index symptoms of clinical importance. This meta-analysis aimed to establish the effects of CBM-I for children and adolescents on both anxiety and depression using psychometrically validated symptom measures, as well as state negative affect and negative and positive interpretation bias.MethodsWe identified studies through a systematic search. To be eligible for inclusion, studies needed to target interpretation biases, not combine CBM-I with another intervention, randomly allocate participants to CBM-I or a control condition, assess a mental health outcome (i.e., anxiety or depression symptoms using validated measures or state measures of negative affect) and/or interpretation bias and have a mean age less than 18 years.ResultsWe identified 36 studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis. CBM-I had a small and non-significant unadjusted effect on anxiety symptoms (g = 0.16), no effect on depression symptoms (g = -0.03), and small and non-significant unadjusted effects on state negative affect both at post-training (g = 0.16) and following a stressor task (g = 0.23). In line with previous findings, CBM-I had moderate to large unadjusted effects on negative and positive interpretations (g = 0.78 and g = 0.52). No significant moderators were identified.ConclusionsCBM-I is effective at modifying interpretation bias, however there were no effects on mental health outcomes. The substantial variability across studies and paucity of studies using validated symptom measures highlight the need to establish randomized controlled trial protocols that evaluate CBM-I in clinical youth samples to determine its future as a clinical intervention.

Project description:IntroductionThe prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms in pregnant and postpartum women during the COVID-19 pandemic was assessed by several systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses which provided contrasting and different results. We aimed to summarize the evidence relating to the global prevalence of anxiety and depression among pregnant and postpartum women during the COVID-19 pandemic.Material and methodsAn umbrella review of SRs and meta-analyses was performed. Searches were conducted in electronic databases up to April 2023. SRs and meta-analyses reporting the prevalence of perinatal anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic were selected for eligibility. Primary studies extracted from eligible meta-analyses were included in the quantitative synthesis. The research protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020173125).ResultsA total of 25 SRs (198 primary studies) and 12 meta-analyses (129 primary studies) were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis, respectively. Studies involved data from five continents and 45 countries. The pooled prevalence of antenatal and postpartum depression was 29% (n = 55; 95% CI: 25%-33%) and 26% (n = 54; 95% CI: 23%-30%), respectively. In the case of anxiety, the pooled antenatal and postnatal prevalence was 31% (n = 44; 95% CI: 26%-37%; n = 16; 95% CI: 24%-39%). Differences emerged between continents, with Africa having the highest prevalence of perinatal depression and Oceania and Europe having the highest prevalence of antenatal and postnatal anxiety. The prevalence also varied depending on the assessment tools, especially for antenatal anxiety. A medium-high quality of the studies was observed. One SR assessed strength-of-evidence, reporting very low strength.ConclusionsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, depression and anxiety were common, affecting almost one in three perinatal women globally. A high heterogeneity and a risk of publication bias were found, partially due to the variety of assessment tools and cut-offs. The results may not be generalized to minorities. Studies on the prevalence of clinical diagnoses are needed. Based on our results it is not possible to firmly affirm that the COVID-19 pandemic was the main factor that directly increased perinatal depression and anxiety during the past few years. Future studies should study other factors' impact.

Dataset Information

A meta-analytic review of the impact of ADHD medications on anxiety and depression in children and adolescents.

Publications

A meta-analytic review of the impact of ADHD medications on anxiety and depression in children and adolescents.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets