David C. Rettew, MD

As more and more states consider legalizing marijuana for recreational use, the widely held belief that cannabis is associated with few serious health consequences has been challenged by many medical and substance use professionals. One potential risk that has been discussed is the possibility that cannabis use increases the risk for psychotic symptoms that may be long lasting and develop into schizophrenia. The data, however, have not been completely consistent and often are methodologically flawed, leading proponents of legalization to downplay this possible risk. This debate has even made its way to prominent science journals such as Nature where scholars have presented opposing views (Nature. 2015 Sep 24;525[7570]:S14and Nature. 2015 Nov 19;527[7578]:305).

These divergent opinions can lead to some confusion and hesitancy on the part of pediatricians who may be asked to offer an opinion about the dangers of cannabis use to individual patients and families during this time of public debate. Thus, this column will attempt to offer a brief overview and synthesis of the evidence that cannabis plays a causal role in the progression of psychotic disorders.

A recent review of the subject examined 10 epidemiological studies that have now been performed on the association between cannabis and psychotic disorders. Overall, a nearly 50% increased risk of psychosis was found among cannabis users, compared to nonusers (Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Aug 12. pii: S0006-3223[15]00647-2). This association rises among heavier cannabis users (Lancet. 2007 Jul 28;370[9584]:319-28). Because all of these longitudinal studies were observational in nature, however, proving causation in the face of association has remained challenging. Many of these studies have attempted to control for baseline psychotic symptoms to address the “reverse causation hypothesis,” which posits that early psychotic symptoms leads to cannabis use rather than the other way around. It is also worth pointing out that the inevitable limitations and potential biases of these studies could potentially lead to both overestimation and underestimation of the actual risk.

Putting all of this together, the authors concluded that “there is a strong body of epidemiologic evidence to support the view that regular or heavy cannabis use increases the risk of developing psychotic disorders that persist beyond the direct effects of exogenous cannabinoids.” In making this conclusion, despite the inherent uncertainties of interpreting observational studies, the authors describe a number of lines of evidence that support the likelihood of a causal connection. These include the following:

©Stockphoto4u/ iStockphoto.com

•  The well-known fact that acute intoxication of cannabis can produce transient psychotic symptoms.

•  The replicated finding that there is a dose-dependent response between amount of cannabis use and psychosis.

•  An increased risk of psychosis among cannabis users who carry specific risk genes (Biol Psychiatry. 2012 Nov 15;72[10]:811-6).

•  Increasing evidence that the more potent marijuana that is available now may be associated with additional risk.

•  The finding that the link between cannabis and psychosis is not equal for all age groups, but may be stronger for adolescents.

One line of argument against a causal role of cannabis in the development of psychotic disorders is that the rate of schizophrenia has remained relatively flat over the years that cannabis use has increased. Countering that assertion, however, Large and colleagues pointed out that some studies do show increasing rates of schizophrenia (Nature. 2015 Nov 19;527[7578]:305). Further, it is somewhat precarious to conclude that a possible risk factor is not consequential when it moves in a different direction than a multifactorial disorder such as schizophrenia. Lead toxicity, for example, is an accepted risk factor for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), yet exposure has been decreasing while rates of ADHD climb.

Overall, the data appear to be strengthening that cannabis does play a causal role in the development of psychosis and psychotic disorders. This risk is combined with data showing links between cannabis use and decreased IQ, academic underachievement, car accidents, and use of other types of drugs (Addiction. 2015 Jan;110[1]:19-35). These dangers need to be articulated in discussions about the wisdom of legalizing cannabis at the state and federal level.

Dr. Rettew is associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. E-mail him at [email protected].

As more and more states consider legalizing marijuana for recreational use, the widely held belief that cannabis is associated with few serious health consequences has been challenged by many medical and substance use professionals. One potential risk that has been discussed is the possibility that cannabis use increases the risk for psychotic symptoms that may be long lasting and develop into schizophrenia. The data, however, have not been completely consistent and often are methodologically flawed, leading proponents of legalization to downplay this possible risk. This debate has even made its way to prominent science journals such as Nature where scholars have presented opposing views (Nature. 2015 Sep 24;525[7570]:S14and Nature. 2015 Nov 19;527[7578]:305).

These divergent opinions can lead to some confusion and hesitancy on the part of pediatricians who may be asked to offer an opinion about the dangers of cannabis use to individual patients and families during this time of public debate. Thus, this column will attempt to offer a brief overview and synthesis of the evidence that cannabis plays a causal role in the progression of psychotic disorders.

A recent review of the subject examined 10 epidemiological studies that have now been performed on the association between cannabis and psychotic disorders. Overall, a nearly 50% increased risk of psychosis was found among cannabis users, compared to nonusers (Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Aug 12. pii: S0006-3223[15]00647-2). This association rises among heavier cannabis users (Lancet. 2007 Jul 28;370[9584]:319-28). Because all of these longitudinal studies were observational in nature, however, proving causation in the face of association has remained challenging. Many of these studies have attempted to control for baseline psychotic symptoms to address the “reverse causation hypothesis,” which posits that early psychotic symptoms leads to cannabis use rather than the other way around. It is also worth pointing out that the inevitable limitations and potential biases of these studies could potentially lead to both overestimation and underestimation of the actual risk.

Putting all of this together, the authors concluded that “there is a strong body of epidemiologic evidence to support the view that regular or heavy cannabis use increases the risk of developing psychotic disorders that persist beyond the direct effects of exogenous cannabinoids.” In making this conclusion, despite the inherent uncertainties of interpreting observational studies, the authors describe a number of lines of evidence that support the likelihood of a causal connection. These include the following:

©Stockphoto4u/ iStockphoto.com

•  The well-known fact that acute intoxication of cannabis can produce transient psychotic symptoms.

•  The replicated finding that there is a dose-dependent response between amount of cannabis use and psychosis.

•  An increased risk of psychosis among cannabis users who carry specific risk genes (Biol Psychiatry. 2012 Nov 15;72[10]:811-6).

•  Increasing evidence that the more potent marijuana that is available now may be associated with additional risk.

•  The finding that the link between cannabis and psychosis is not equal for all age groups, but may be stronger for adolescents.

One line of argument against a causal role of cannabis in the development of psychotic disorders is that the rate of schizophrenia has remained relatively flat over the years that cannabis use has increased. Countering that assertion, however, Large and colleagues pointed out that some studies do show increasing rates of schizophrenia (Nature. 2015 Nov 19;527[7578]:305). Further, it is somewhat precarious to conclude that a possible risk factor is not consequential when it moves in a different direction than a multifactorial disorder such as schizophrenia. Lead toxicity, for example, is an accepted risk factor for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), yet exposure has been decreasing while rates of ADHD climb.

Overall, the data appear to be strengthening that cannabis does play a causal role in the development of psychosis and psychotic disorders. This risk is combined with data showing links between cannabis use and decreased IQ, academic underachievement, car accidents, and use of other types of drugs (Addiction. 2015 Jan;110[1]:19-35). These dangers need to be articulated in discussions about the wisdom of legalizing cannabis at the state and federal level.

Dr. Rettew is associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. E-mail him at [email protected].

As more and more states consider legalizing marijuana for recreational use, the widely held belief that cannabis is associated with few serious health consequences has been challenged by many medical and substance use professionals. One potential risk that has been discussed is the possibility that cannabis use increases the risk for psychotic symptoms that may be long lasting and develop into schizophrenia. The data, however, have not been completely consistent and often are methodologically flawed, leading proponents of legalization to downplay this possible risk. This debate has even made its way to prominent science journals such as Nature where scholars have presented opposing views (Nature. 2015 Sep 24;525[7570]:S14and Nature. 2015 Nov 19;527[7578]:305).

These divergent opinions can lead to some confusion and hesitancy on the part of pediatricians who may be asked to offer an opinion about the dangers of cannabis use to individual patients and families during this time of public debate. Thus, this column will attempt to offer a brief overview and synthesis of the evidence that cannabis plays a causal role in the progression of psychotic disorders.

A recent review of the subject examined 10 epidemiological studies that have now been performed on the association between cannabis and psychotic disorders. Overall, a nearly 50% increased risk of psychosis was found among cannabis users, compared to nonusers (Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Aug 12. pii: S0006-3223[15]00647-2). This association rises among heavier cannabis users (Lancet. 2007 Jul 28;370[9584]:319-28). Because all of these longitudinal studies were observational in nature, however, proving causation in the face of association has remained challenging. Many of these studies have attempted to control for baseline psychotic symptoms to address the “reverse causation hypothesis,” which posits that early psychotic symptoms leads to cannabis use rather than the other way around. It is also worth pointing out that the inevitable limitations and potential biases of these studies could potentially lead to both overestimation and underestimation of the actual risk.

Putting all of this together, the authors concluded that “there is a strong body of epidemiologic evidence to support the view that regular or heavy cannabis use increases the risk of developing psychotic disorders that persist beyond the direct effects of exogenous cannabinoids.” In making this conclusion, despite the inherent uncertainties of interpreting observational studies, the authors describe a number of lines of evidence that support the likelihood of a causal connection. These include the following:

©Stockphoto4u/ iStockphoto.com

•  The well-known fact that acute intoxication of cannabis can produce transient psychotic symptoms.

•  The replicated finding that there is a dose-dependent response between amount of cannabis use and psychosis.

•  An increased risk of psychosis among cannabis users who carry specific risk genes (Biol Psychiatry. 2012 Nov 15;72[10]:811-6).

•  Increasing evidence that the more potent marijuana that is available now may be associated with additional risk.

•  The finding that the link between cannabis and psychosis is not equal for all age groups, but may be stronger for adolescents.

One line of argument against a causal role of cannabis in the development of psychotic disorders is that the rate of schizophrenia has remained relatively flat over the years that cannabis use has increased. Countering that assertion, however, Large and colleagues pointed out that some studies do show increasing rates of schizophrenia (Nature. 2015 Nov 19;527[7578]:305). Further, it is somewhat precarious to conclude that a possible risk factor is not consequential when it moves in a different direction than a multifactorial disorder such as schizophrenia. Lead toxicity, for example, is an accepted risk factor for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), yet exposure has been decreasing while rates of ADHD climb.

Overall, the data appear to be strengthening that cannabis does play a causal role in the development of psychosis and psychotic disorders. This risk is combined with data showing links between cannabis use and decreased IQ, academic underachievement, car accidents, and use of other types of drugs (Addiction. 2015 Jan;110[1]:19-35). These dangers need to be articulated in discussions about the wisdom of legalizing cannabis at the state and federal level.

Dr. Rettew is associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. E-mail him at [email protected].

Primary care clinicians have come to realize that a large percentage of patients use alternative or complementary approaches to many types of health problems, including emotional-behavioral ones.

Families often are reluctant to bring up these interventions in primary care appointments for fear that their doctor will criticize them for using unproven and sometimes risky treatments. When it comes to dietary supplements, the evidence for many is rather weak, while others have been studied in controlled trials and now may deserve a closer look. Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation for various types of psychiatric disorders and problems may be leading the pack as an alternative treatment that has earned the right to be on the radar screen of all pediatricians. This article briefly summarizes what scientific evidence exists about the efficacy of omega-3s in pediatric emotional-behavioral problems and where significant gaps in our knowledge remain.

Case summary

Samantha is an 11-year-old girl who was adopted into a loving and supportive family at the age of 4 years after having suffered a tumultuous early childhood that included domestic violence as well as physical and emotional abuse. Despite a much improved home environment, she has continued to struggle for many years with difficulties including inattention, emotional dysregulation, and aggression toward others. Samantha and her family have worked with a mental health counselor, and her pediatrician also has started her on pharmacotherapy with a stimulant medication and an alpha-agonist. Despite some gains, significant difficulties remain. At a follow-up visit, Samantha’s mother states that she has done some research on the Internet and has heard positive things about omega-3 fatty acid supplements. She wonders if this might be appropriate for Samantha and if so, how specifically the treatment would be administered.

Discussion

The possible benefits of omega-3s in the treatment of behavioral problems has been discussed for decades, and good evidence from rigorous trials has slowly been accumulating. In October 2015 at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, researchers in a clinical trial called Omega-3 and Therapy Studies (OATS) presented some preliminary results to see if omega-3s could augment response in children aged 7-14 years with depression and bipolar spectrum disorders who also were receiving evidence-based psychotherapy. The daily dose was 2,000 mg, consisting of 1,400 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), 200 mg of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and 400 mg of other omega-3s. Significant improvement of small to medium effect was found for omega-3s, particularly for depressive symptoms, and side effects were minimal.

Another relatively recent study from 2014 used a randomized double-blind design in 200 youth between the ages of 6 and 18 years from the island nation of Mauritius, near Madagascar (J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015 May;56[5]:509-20). The active treatment here was 1,000 mg of omega-3s (300 mg DHA, 200 mg EPA, 500 mg of others). After subjects were followed for a year, significant and fairly large improvements were found for omega-3s, relative to placebo, across a wide range of problems including aggression in addition to anxiety and depressive symptoms. One very interesting side note of this study was that the improvement in child behavior seemed to be partially mediated by improvements in the parents’ behavior, even though parents did not receive the supplements.

In attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, a meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials also was positive (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;50[10]:991-1000). The effect size was small, but there seemed to be a dose effect with more positive trials related to higher daily doses of EPA. Side effects again were few.

The mechanism for improvement remains to be fully understood, although evidence points to changes in cell membrane fluidity and possible anti-inflammatory properties. The biggest question mark that remains from a practical standpoint is dose, both in absolute numbers and with regard to ratios of EPA to DHA. Given the vast number of suppliers of omega-3 supplementation and the wide range of quality with regard to accurate dosing and impurities, it also is important to help families identify a specific product that can be trusted.

Case follow-up

Somewhat to the surprise of Samantha’s mother, the pediatrician supports a trial of omega-3 supplementation, given the increasing evidence of efficacy and the favorable side effect profile. They discuss reasonable expectations, dosing, and ways that the family can obtain a high-quality supplement. Six months later, the family reports noticeable further improvements in Samantha’s behavior to the point that more aggressive psychopharmacologic treatment is not indicated currently.

In sum, it is reasonable to conclude at this point that evidence supporting omega-3 use for a variety of emotional-behavioral problems now equals or exceeds that for many off-label prescription medications that are now used in similar situations. This increasing evidence, combined with the low risk for most patients, would seem to warrant pediatricians considering omega-3 supplementation as a more mainstream and evidence-based intervention that deserves a place in one’s treatment algorithm for several emotional-behavioral concerns.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He will also be course director of the 10th annual Child Psychiatry in Primary Care conference on May 13, 2016, in Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Primary care clinicians have come to realize that a large percentage of patients use alternative or complementary approaches to many types of health problems, including emotional-behavioral ones.

Families often are reluctant to bring up these interventions in primary care appointments for fear that their doctor will criticize them for using unproven and sometimes risky treatments. When it comes to dietary supplements, the evidence for many is rather weak, while others have been studied in controlled trials and now may deserve a closer look. Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation for various types of psychiatric disorders and problems may be leading the pack as an alternative treatment that has earned the right to be on the radar screen of all pediatricians. This article briefly summarizes what scientific evidence exists about the efficacy of omega-3s in pediatric emotional-behavioral problems and where significant gaps in our knowledge remain.

Case summary

Samantha is an 11-year-old girl who was adopted into a loving and supportive family at the age of 4 years after having suffered a tumultuous early childhood that included domestic violence as well as physical and emotional abuse. Despite a much improved home environment, she has continued to struggle for many years with difficulties including inattention, emotional dysregulation, and aggression toward others. Samantha and her family have worked with a mental health counselor, and her pediatrician also has started her on pharmacotherapy with a stimulant medication and an alpha-agonist. Despite some gains, significant difficulties remain. At a follow-up visit, Samantha’s mother states that she has done some research on the Internet and has heard positive things about omega-3 fatty acid supplements. She wonders if this might be appropriate for Samantha and if so, how specifically the treatment would be administered.

Discussion

The possible benefits of omega-3s in the treatment of behavioral problems has been discussed for decades, and good evidence from rigorous trials has slowly been accumulating. In October 2015 at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, researchers in a clinical trial called Omega-3 and Therapy Studies (OATS) presented some preliminary results to see if omega-3s could augment response in children aged 7-14 years with depression and bipolar spectrum disorders who also were receiving evidence-based psychotherapy. The daily dose was 2,000 mg, consisting of 1,400 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), 200 mg of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and 400 mg of other omega-3s. Significant improvement of small to medium effect was found for omega-3s, particularly for depressive symptoms, and side effects were minimal.

Another relatively recent study from 2014 used a randomized double-blind design in 200 youth between the ages of 6 and 18 years from the island nation of Mauritius, near Madagascar (J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015 May;56[5]:509-20). The active treatment here was 1,000 mg of omega-3s (300 mg DHA, 200 mg EPA, 500 mg of others). After subjects were followed for a year, significant and fairly large improvements were found for omega-3s, relative to placebo, across a wide range of problems including aggression in addition to anxiety and depressive symptoms. One very interesting side note of this study was that the improvement in child behavior seemed to be partially mediated by improvements in the parents’ behavior, even though parents did not receive the supplements.

In attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, a meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials also was positive (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;50[10]:991-1000). The effect size was small, but there seemed to be a dose effect with more positive trials related to higher daily doses of EPA. Side effects again were few.

The mechanism for improvement remains to be fully understood, although evidence points to changes in cell membrane fluidity and possible anti-inflammatory properties. The biggest question mark that remains from a practical standpoint is dose, both in absolute numbers and with regard to ratios of EPA to DHA. Given the vast number of suppliers of omega-3 supplementation and the wide range of quality with regard to accurate dosing and impurities, it also is important to help families identify a specific product that can be trusted.

Case follow-up

Somewhat to the surprise of Samantha’s mother, the pediatrician supports a trial of omega-3 supplementation, given the increasing evidence of efficacy and the favorable side effect profile. They discuss reasonable expectations, dosing, and ways that the family can obtain a high-quality supplement. Six months later, the family reports noticeable further improvements in Samantha’s behavior to the point that more aggressive psychopharmacologic treatment is not indicated currently.

In sum, it is reasonable to conclude at this point that evidence supporting omega-3 use for a variety of emotional-behavioral problems now equals or exceeds that for many off-label prescription medications that are now used in similar situations. This increasing evidence, combined with the low risk for most patients, would seem to warrant pediatricians considering omega-3 supplementation as a more mainstream and evidence-based intervention that deserves a place in one’s treatment algorithm for several emotional-behavioral concerns.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He will also be course director of the 10th annual Child Psychiatry in Primary Care conference on May 13, 2016, in Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Primary care clinicians have come to realize that a large percentage of patients use alternative or complementary approaches to many types of health problems, including emotional-behavioral ones.

Families often are reluctant to bring up these interventions in primary care appointments for fear that their doctor will criticize them for using unproven and sometimes risky treatments. When it comes to dietary supplements, the evidence for many is rather weak, while others have been studied in controlled trials and now may deserve a closer look. Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation for various types of psychiatric disorders and problems may be leading the pack as an alternative treatment that has earned the right to be on the radar screen of all pediatricians. This article briefly summarizes what scientific evidence exists about the efficacy of omega-3s in pediatric emotional-behavioral problems and where significant gaps in our knowledge remain.

Case summary

Samantha is an 11-year-old girl who was adopted into a loving and supportive family at the age of 4 years after having suffered a tumultuous early childhood that included domestic violence as well as physical and emotional abuse. Despite a much improved home environment, she has continued to struggle for many years with difficulties including inattention, emotional dysregulation, and aggression toward others. Samantha and her family have worked with a mental health counselor, and her pediatrician also has started her on pharmacotherapy with a stimulant medication and an alpha-agonist. Despite some gains, significant difficulties remain. At a follow-up visit, Samantha’s mother states that she has done some research on the Internet and has heard positive things about omega-3 fatty acid supplements. She wonders if this might be appropriate for Samantha and if so, how specifically the treatment would be administered.

Discussion

The possible benefits of omega-3s in the treatment of behavioral problems has been discussed for decades, and good evidence from rigorous trials has slowly been accumulating. In October 2015 at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, researchers in a clinical trial called Omega-3 and Therapy Studies (OATS) presented some preliminary results to see if omega-3s could augment response in children aged 7-14 years with depression and bipolar spectrum disorders who also were receiving evidence-based psychotherapy. The daily dose was 2,000 mg, consisting of 1,400 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), 200 mg of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and 400 mg of other omega-3s. Significant improvement of small to medium effect was found for omega-3s, particularly for depressive symptoms, and side effects were minimal.

Another relatively recent study from 2014 used a randomized double-blind design in 200 youth between the ages of 6 and 18 years from the island nation of Mauritius, near Madagascar (J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015 May;56[5]:509-20). The active treatment here was 1,000 mg of omega-3s (300 mg DHA, 200 mg EPA, 500 mg of others). After subjects were followed for a year, significant and fairly large improvements were found for omega-3s, relative to placebo, across a wide range of problems including aggression in addition to anxiety and depressive symptoms. One very interesting side note of this study was that the improvement in child behavior seemed to be partially mediated by improvements in the parents’ behavior, even though parents did not receive the supplements.

In attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, a meta-analysis of 10 clinical trials also was positive (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;50[10]:991-1000). The effect size was small, but there seemed to be a dose effect with more positive trials related to higher daily doses of EPA. Side effects again were few.

The mechanism for improvement remains to be fully understood, although evidence points to changes in cell membrane fluidity and possible anti-inflammatory properties. The biggest question mark that remains from a practical standpoint is dose, both in absolute numbers and with regard to ratios of EPA to DHA. Given the vast number of suppliers of omega-3 supplementation and the wide range of quality with regard to accurate dosing and impurities, it also is important to help families identify a specific product that can be trusted.

Case follow-up

Somewhat to the surprise of Samantha’s mother, the pediatrician supports a trial of omega-3 supplementation, given the increasing evidence of efficacy and the favorable side effect profile. They discuss reasonable expectations, dosing, and ways that the family can obtain a high-quality supplement. Six months later, the family reports noticeable further improvements in Samantha’s behavior to the point that more aggressive psychopharmacologic treatment is not indicated currently.

In sum, it is reasonable to conclude at this point that evidence supporting omega-3 use for a variety of emotional-behavioral problems now equals or exceeds that for many off-label prescription medications that are now used in similar situations. This increasing evidence, combined with the low risk for most patients, would seem to warrant pediatricians considering omega-3 supplementation as a more mainstream and evidence-based intervention that deserves a place in one’s treatment algorithm for several emotional-behavioral concerns.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He will also be course director of the 10th annual Child Psychiatry in Primary Care conference on May 13, 2016, in Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

While it is well established that medications can be an important aspect of treatment for youth who meet the criteria for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), too often clinicians neglect to address important nonpharmacologic interventions that have increasingly been shown to be effective. This column is devoted to reviewing some of the many components of a treatment plan other than medications that could be utilized to provide a more comprehensive and wellness-informed approach to children who struggle with ADHD symptoms.

Case summary

Ethan is a 7-year-old boy who presents with his parents for an ADHD evaluation. The pediatrician conducts the evaluation according to American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, which include the use of rating scales from multiple sources. The outcome of the assessment is that Ethan does indeed meet criteria for ADHD and his symptoms are causing impairment in his school work, home environment, and interactions with his peers. Treatment is recommended.

Discussion

It is easy to rely exclusively on medications when the focus of the evaluation is solely about symptoms. When clinicians expand their view to assess various domains of wellness and health promotion, however, several other potential avenues for intervention often become apparent. Asking about sleep routines, nutrition, participation in the arts and music, physical activity, reading, and screen time – among other things – can reveal the following specific areas that require guidance and support:

•  Exercise. Children today are increasingly sedentary, and there is increasing evidence that physical activity is inversely related to several ADHD behaviors (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2015 Jul;54:565-70). Counsel families about the importance of exercise and try to help the family develop a plan that includes the provision for regular physical activity. Joining sports teams may be particularly useful as it ensures that regular exercise takes place and offers some additional benefits inherent in playing with a team.

•  Screen time. Although there has been active discussion lately about what constitutes “too much” screen time, it is clear that many children well exceed even the most liberal thresholds. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that excessive screen time can lead to worsening attention problems over time (Pediatrics. 2004;113:708-13). One technique that can be effective, especially for younger children, is to have them “earn” their screen time by engaging in other activities such as reading or exercise.

•  Nutrition. Apart from any specific deficiency states, research shows that a healthier diet in general is associated with lower levels of behavioral problems. With regard to ADHD, one aspect that is often worth investigating specifically is whether the child gets a nutritious breakfast each morning that can help keep attentional skills optimal.

•  Musical training. Some intriguing new research is showing links between brain maturation and musical training, and in some of the very regions of the brain that have been implicated in ADHD (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014;53:1153-61).

•  Omega-3s. A meta-analysis demonstrated that omega-3 supplementation can improve ADHD symptoms (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;50:991-1000). While the optimal dose remains under investigation, there is some evidence that improved response was related to higher eicosapentaenoic acid doses.

•  Skills training. To some degree, many skills associated with ADHD (disorganization, forgetfulness, distractibility) can be specifically taught with techniques such as mindfulness (J Atten Disord. 2015 Feb;19[2]:147-57). Having families work with counselors who have specific training in ADHD can be a very useful part of treatment and can help teach important lifelong skills. Parent behavioral therapy also can be effective around many behaviors such as defiance and aggression that accompany ADHD.

Case follow-up

The pediatrician decides to enhance her assessment by inquiring about many domains of wellness, and she discovers that Ethan has chronic problems getting to sleep, and he spends many hours each day playing video games to the exclusion of physical activity. She offers some strategies to improve these areas while the family investigates working with a counselor who has specific expertise in enhancing cognitive skills. Initial improvements are encouraging, and the family decides to pursue these avenues further while delaying medication treatment, at least for now.

By keeping in mind these important other treatment domains, pediatricians can avoid the trap of overrelying on medications as the sole method of treatment while encouraging techniques that will provide long-term benefits in overall health and wellness.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. Rettew said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. E-mail him at [email protected].

While it is well established that medications can be an important aspect of treatment for youth who meet the criteria for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), too often clinicians neglect to address important nonpharmacologic interventions that have increasingly been shown to be effective. This column is devoted to reviewing some of the many components of a treatment plan other than medications that could be utilized to provide a more comprehensive and wellness-informed approach to children who struggle with ADHD symptoms.

Case summary

Ethan is a 7-year-old boy who presents with his parents for an ADHD evaluation. The pediatrician conducts the evaluation according to American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, which include the use of rating scales from multiple sources. The outcome of the assessment is that Ethan does indeed meet criteria for ADHD and his symptoms are causing impairment in his school work, home environment, and interactions with his peers. Treatment is recommended.

Discussion

It is easy to rely exclusively on medications when the focus of the evaluation is solely about symptoms. When clinicians expand their view to assess various domains of wellness and health promotion, however, several other potential avenues for intervention often become apparent. Asking about sleep routines, nutrition, participation in the arts and music, physical activity, reading, and screen time – among other things – can reveal the following specific areas that require guidance and support:

•  Exercise. Children today are increasingly sedentary, and there is increasing evidence that physical activity is inversely related to several ADHD behaviors (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2015 Jul;54:565-70). Counsel families about the importance of exercise and try to help the family develop a plan that includes the provision for regular physical activity. Joining sports teams may be particularly useful as it ensures that regular exercise takes place and offers some additional benefits inherent in playing with a team.

•  Screen time. Although there has been active discussion lately about what constitutes “too much” screen time, it is clear that many children well exceed even the most liberal thresholds. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that excessive screen time can lead to worsening attention problems over time (Pediatrics. 2004;113:708-13). One technique that can be effective, especially for younger children, is to have them “earn” their screen time by engaging in other activities such as reading or exercise.

•  Nutrition. Apart from any specific deficiency states, research shows that a healthier diet in general is associated with lower levels of behavioral problems. With regard to ADHD, one aspect that is often worth investigating specifically is whether the child gets a nutritious breakfast each morning that can help keep attentional skills optimal.

•  Musical training. Some intriguing new research is showing links between brain maturation and musical training, and in some of the very regions of the brain that have been implicated in ADHD (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014;53:1153-61).

•  Omega-3s. A meta-analysis demonstrated that omega-3 supplementation can improve ADHD symptoms (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;50:991-1000). While the optimal dose remains under investigation, there is some evidence that improved response was related to higher eicosapentaenoic acid doses.

•  Skills training. To some degree, many skills associated with ADHD (disorganization, forgetfulness, distractibility) can be specifically taught with techniques such as mindfulness (J Atten Disord. 2015 Feb;19[2]:147-57). Having families work with counselors who have specific training in ADHD can be a very useful part of treatment and can help teach important lifelong skills. Parent behavioral therapy also can be effective around many behaviors such as defiance and aggression that accompany ADHD.

Case follow-up

The pediatrician decides to enhance her assessment by inquiring about many domains of wellness, and she discovers that Ethan has chronic problems getting to sleep, and he spends many hours each day playing video games to the exclusion of physical activity. She offers some strategies to improve these areas while the family investigates working with a counselor who has specific expertise in enhancing cognitive skills. Initial improvements are encouraging, and the family decides to pursue these avenues further while delaying medication treatment, at least for now.

By keeping in mind these important other treatment domains, pediatricians can avoid the trap of overrelying on medications as the sole method of treatment while encouraging techniques that will provide long-term benefits in overall health and wellness.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. Rettew said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. E-mail him at [email protected].

While it is well established that medications can be an important aspect of treatment for youth who meet the criteria for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), too often clinicians neglect to address important nonpharmacologic interventions that have increasingly been shown to be effective. This column is devoted to reviewing some of the many components of a treatment plan other than medications that could be utilized to provide a more comprehensive and wellness-informed approach to children who struggle with ADHD symptoms.

Case summary

Ethan is a 7-year-old boy who presents with his parents for an ADHD evaluation. The pediatrician conducts the evaluation according to American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, which include the use of rating scales from multiple sources. The outcome of the assessment is that Ethan does indeed meet criteria for ADHD and his symptoms are causing impairment in his school work, home environment, and interactions with his peers. Treatment is recommended.

Discussion

It is easy to rely exclusively on medications when the focus of the evaluation is solely about symptoms. When clinicians expand their view to assess various domains of wellness and health promotion, however, several other potential avenues for intervention often become apparent. Asking about sleep routines, nutrition, participation in the arts and music, physical activity, reading, and screen time – among other things – can reveal the following specific areas that require guidance and support:

•  Exercise. Children today are increasingly sedentary, and there is increasing evidence that physical activity is inversely related to several ADHD behaviors (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2015 Jul;54:565-70). Counsel families about the importance of exercise and try to help the family develop a plan that includes the provision for regular physical activity. Joining sports teams may be particularly useful as it ensures that regular exercise takes place and offers some additional benefits inherent in playing with a team.

•  Screen time. Although there has been active discussion lately about what constitutes “too much” screen time, it is clear that many children well exceed even the most liberal thresholds. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that excessive screen time can lead to worsening attention problems over time (Pediatrics. 2004;113:708-13). One technique that can be effective, especially for younger children, is to have them “earn” their screen time by engaging in other activities such as reading or exercise.

•  Nutrition. Apart from any specific deficiency states, research shows that a healthier diet in general is associated with lower levels of behavioral problems. With regard to ADHD, one aspect that is often worth investigating specifically is whether the child gets a nutritious breakfast each morning that can help keep attentional skills optimal.

•  Musical training. Some intriguing new research is showing links between brain maturation and musical training, and in some of the very regions of the brain that have been implicated in ADHD (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014;53:1153-61).

•  Omega-3s. A meta-analysis demonstrated that omega-3 supplementation can improve ADHD symptoms (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;50:991-1000). While the optimal dose remains under investigation, there is some evidence that improved response was related to higher eicosapentaenoic acid doses.

•  Skills training. To some degree, many skills associated with ADHD (disorganization, forgetfulness, distractibility) can be specifically taught with techniques such as mindfulness (J Atten Disord. 2015 Feb;19[2]:147-57). Having families work with counselors who have specific training in ADHD can be a very useful part of treatment and can help teach important lifelong skills. Parent behavioral therapy also can be effective around many behaviors such as defiance and aggression that accompany ADHD.

Case follow-up

The pediatrician decides to enhance her assessment by inquiring about many domains of wellness, and she discovers that Ethan has chronic problems getting to sleep, and he spends many hours each day playing video games to the exclusion of physical activity. She offers some strategies to improve these areas while the family investigates working with a counselor who has specific expertise in enhancing cognitive skills. Initial improvements are encouraging, and the family decides to pursue these avenues further while delaying medication treatment, at least for now.

By keeping in mind these important other treatment domains, pediatricians can avoid the trap of overrelying on medications as the sole method of treatment while encouraging techniques that will provide long-term benefits in overall health and wellness.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. Rettew said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. E-mail him at [email protected].

For decades, bullying has been viewed as an unpleasant but generally benign rite of passage that many children experience and overcome without significant consequences. Some high-profile examples of youth suicide coupled with several stunning research studies demonstrating major negative effects of bullying that rival the impact of things like child abuse and out-of-home placement on future physical and mental health, however, have caused many clinicians across specialties to stop and take notice (Lancet Psychiatry 2015;2:524-31). The result has been concerted antibullying efforts from varied sources including the federal government, such as stopbullying.gov, and many professional organizations. Pediatricians are in a prime position both to help individual children and families and to serve as community advocates against this significant public health concern.

Case summary

Jeremy is an 11-year-old boy who has been followed by his pediatrician since birth. He has had few health concerns over the years other than some low levels of anxiety and being somewhat overweight. At an annual checkup, his mother reports that Jeremy has missed much more school this year, often making somewhat vague physical complaints. He also has told his mother that a couple of peers at school are particularly “mean” to him. He doesn’t elaborate and doesn’t want his parents to make “a big deal” about it for fear of causing further embarrassment at school.

Discussion

At least moderate levels of bullying are estimated to occur in about 30% of school-age children, resulting in approximately160,000 lost days of school. Bullying behavior can include anything from name calling to outright physical assault. Online bullying in the form of texts, e-mails, and social media also is increasingly common. School grounds remain the most common site for bullying, and physical appearance is the most common target of bullying behavior. What is thought to separate bullying from other forms of peer conflict is that there exists some sort of power differential between the bully and the victim in terms of physical size, social status, or other features. Some interesting data also suggest some sex differences regarding bullying with boys being more likely to bully children outside of their core group of friends, and girls being more likely to bully individuals within the network of individuals with whom they typically interact.

A key element of helping bullied children involves getting them to talk about the experience with a parent, teacher, physician, or counselor. Some tips that can help get kids to talk include reassurance that the child has control over what will happen with the information (within legal limits) and that no action will be taken without their knowledge and agreement, and having adults relate stories about their own past experience with bullying. Pediatricians also may want to consider opening up the conversation more broadly by asking if bullying is a problem “at your school” rather than in a particular child’s life.

In making an appropriate intervention, parents and physicians may want to differentiate lower levels of bullying (name calling, teasing) from higher levels (overt threats, physical violence, and intimidation), keeping in mind that all forms can be potentially harmful.

For lower-level bullying, the following tips can be helpful to keep in mind in working with kids directly and in helping parents help their children:

1. Don’t underestimate the power of sympathetic listening. Overt expressions to a child that he or she doesn’t deserve this, and that such behaviors are really hurtful can be very important to many kids. Positive experiences with friends and families also can go a long way to counteract a negative encounter with a bully.

2. Coach bully victims about how to respond. The old adage of telling a bully that he or she is hurting your feelings has been replaced with advice to react emotionally as little as possible. Some children also can be helped by rehearsing specific responses or learning to join groups during higher-risk activities.

3. If the bullying is occurring online, encourage kids to save the texts or social media posts if needed as evidence.

4. Consider the option of an anonymous report to a school principal or guidance counselor. While school personnel will be unable to make a direct response, they might be able, for example, to provide more monitoring in high-risk areas such as bathrooms, school buses, or locker rooms.

For higher levels of bullying, it often is important to have more direct involvement with school staff or even the police. Many states now have mandatory bullying prevention and intervention policies. While parents of bullying victims may have strong and natural urges to confront directly the parents of the alleged bully, this step often does not help the situation and often can makes things worse.

Finally, if there is evidence that bullying is having a strong negative impact on the child, a more in-depth evaluation to rule out anxiety disorders, depression, and the presence of any suicidal or homicidal thinking should be strongly considered (JAMA 2001;285:2094-100).

Case follow-up

After reassuring Jeremy that action would not be taken without his consent, the pediatrician was able to elicit more information. She learned that two older boys have been teasing Jeremy in the cafeteria and once took away part of his lunch while telling him he was too fat to need it. After some discussion, the pediatrician agreed to call the school principal to inform the school anonymously about bullying in the cafeteria. The mother, now aware of the situation, was able to offer some support and suggestions such as having lunch in a larger group and sitting at a table that is closer to adult supervision. They agreed to meet again to make sure improvements were occurring.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. E-mail him at [email protected].

For decades, bullying has been viewed as an unpleasant but generally benign rite of passage that many children experience and overcome without significant consequences. Some high-profile examples of youth suicide coupled with several stunning research studies demonstrating major negative effects of bullying that rival the impact of things like child abuse and out-of-home placement on future physical and mental health, however, have caused many clinicians across specialties to stop and take notice (Lancet Psychiatry 2015;2:524-31). The result has been concerted antibullying efforts from varied sources including the federal government, such as stopbullying.gov, and many professional organizations. Pediatricians are in a prime position both to help individual children and families and to serve as community advocates against this significant public health concern.

Case summary

Jeremy is an 11-year-old boy who has been followed by his pediatrician since birth. He has had few health concerns over the years other than some low levels of anxiety and being somewhat overweight. At an annual checkup, his mother reports that Jeremy has missed much more school this year, often making somewhat vague physical complaints. He also has told his mother that a couple of peers at school are particularly “mean” to him. He doesn’t elaborate and doesn’t want his parents to make “a big deal” about it for fear of causing further embarrassment at school.

Discussion

At least moderate levels of bullying are estimated to occur in about 30% of school-age children, resulting in approximately160,000 lost days of school. Bullying behavior can include anything from name calling to outright physical assault. Online bullying in the form of texts, e-mails, and social media also is increasingly common. School grounds remain the most common site for bullying, and physical appearance is the most common target of bullying behavior. What is thought to separate bullying from other forms of peer conflict is that there exists some sort of power differential between the bully and the victim in terms of physical size, social status, or other features. Some interesting data also suggest some sex differences regarding bullying with boys being more likely to bully children outside of their core group of friends, and girls being more likely to bully individuals within the network of individuals with whom they typically interact.

A key element of helping bullied children involves getting them to talk about the experience with a parent, teacher, physician, or counselor. Some tips that can help get kids to talk include reassurance that the child has control over what will happen with the information (within legal limits) and that no action will be taken without their knowledge and agreement, and having adults relate stories about their own past experience with bullying. Pediatricians also may want to consider opening up the conversation more broadly by asking if bullying is a problem “at your school” rather than in a particular child’s life.

In making an appropriate intervention, parents and physicians may want to differentiate lower levels of bullying (name calling, teasing) from higher levels (overt threats, physical violence, and intimidation), keeping in mind that all forms can be potentially harmful.

For lower-level bullying, the following tips can be helpful to keep in mind in working with kids directly and in helping parents help their children:

1. Don’t underestimate the power of sympathetic listening. Overt expressions to a child that he or she doesn’t deserve this, and that such behaviors are really hurtful can be very important to many kids. Positive experiences with friends and families also can go a long way to counteract a negative encounter with a bully.

2. Coach bully victims about how to respond. The old adage of telling a bully that he or she is hurting your feelings has been replaced with advice to react emotionally as little as possible. Some children also can be helped by rehearsing specific responses or learning to join groups during higher-risk activities.

3. If the bullying is occurring online, encourage kids to save the texts or social media posts if needed as evidence.

4. Consider the option of an anonymous report to a school principal or guidance counselor. While school personnel will be unable to make a direct response, they might be able, for example, to provide more monitoring in high-risk areas such as bathrooms, school buses, or locker rooms.

For higher levels of bullying, it often is important to have more direct involvement with school staff or even the police. Many states now have mandatory bullying prevention and intervention policies. While parents of bullying victims may have strong and natural urges to confront directly the parents of the alleged bully, this step often does not help the situation and often can makes things worse.

Finally, if there is evidence that bullying is having a strong negative impact on the child, a more in-depth evaluation to rule out anxiety disorders, depression, and the presence of any suicidal or homicidal thinking should be strongly considered (JAMA 2001;285:2094-100).

Case follow-up

After reassuring Jeremy that action would not be taken without his consent, the pediatrician was able to elicit more information. She learned that two older boys have been teasing Jeremy in the cafeteria and once took away part of his lunch while telling him he was too fat to need it. After some discussion, the pediatrician agreed to call the school principal to inform the school anonymously about bullying in the cafeteria. The mother, now aware of the situation, was able to offer some support and suggestions such as having lunch in a larger group and sitting at a table that is closer to adult supervision. They agreed to meet again to make sure improvements were occurring.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. E-mail him at [email protected].

For decades, bullying has been viewed as an unpleasant but generally benign rite of passage that many children experience and overcome without significant consequences. Some high-profile examples of youth suicide coupled with several stunning research studies demonstrating major negative effects of bullying that rival the impact of things like child abuse and out-of-home placement on future physical and mental health, however, have caused many clinicians across specialties to stop and take notice (Lancet Psychiatry 2015;2:524-31). The result has been concerted antibullying efforts from varied sources including the federal government, such as stopbullying.gov, and many professional organizations. Pediatricians are in a prime position both to help individual children and families and to serve as community advocates against this significant public health concern.

Case summary

Jeremy is an 11-year-old boy who has been followed by his pediatrician since birth. He has had few health concerns over the years other than some low levels of anxiety and being somewhat overweight. At an annual checkup, his mother reports that Jeremy has missed much more school this year, often making somewhat vague physical complaints. He also has told his mother that a couple of peers at school are particularly “mean” to him. He doesn’t elaborate and doesn’t want his parents to make “a big deal” about it for fear of causing further embarrassment at school.

Discussion

At least moderate levels of bullying are estimated to occur in about 30% of school-age children, resulting in approximately160,000 lost days of school. Bullying behavior can include anything from name calling to outright physical assault. Online bullying in the form of texts, e-mails, and social media also is increasingly common. School grounds remain the most common site for bullying, and physical appearance is the most common target of bullying behavior. What is thought to separate bullying from other forms of peer conflict is that there exists some sort of power differential between the bully and the victim in terms of physical size, social status, or other features. Some interesting data also suggest some sex differences regarding bullying with boys being more likely to bully children outside of their core group of friends, and girls being more likely to bully individuals within the network of individuals with whom they typically interact.

A key element of helping bullied children involves getting them to talk about the experience with a parent, teacher, physician, or counselor. Some tips that can help get kids to talk include reassurance that the child has control over what will happen with the information (within legal limits) and that no action will be taken without their knowledge and agreement, and having adults relate stories about their own past experience with bullying. Pediatricians also may want to consider opening up the conversation more broadly by asking if bullying is a problem “at your school” rather than in a particular child’s life.

In making an appropriate intervention, parents and physicians may want to differentiate lower levels of bullying (name calling, teasing) from higher levels (overt threats, physical violence, and intimidation), keeping in mind that all forms can be potentially harmful.

For lower-level bullying, the following tips can be helpful to keep in mind in working with kids directly and in helping parents help their children:

1. Don’t underestimate the power of sympathetic listening. Overt expressions to a child that he or she doesn’t deserve this, and that such behaviors are really hurtful can be very important to many kids. Positive experiences with friends and families also can go a long way to counteract a negative encounter with a bully.

2. Coach bully victims about how to respond. The old adage of telling a bully that he or she is hurting your feelings has been replaced with advice to react emotionally as little as possible. Some children also can be helped by rehearsing specific responses or learning to join groups during higher-risk activities.

3. If the bullying is occurring online, encourage kids to save the texts or social media posts if needed as evidence.

4. Consider the option of an anonymous report to a school principal or guidance counselor. While school personnel will be unable to make a direct response, they might be able, for example, to provide more monitoring in high-risk areas such as bathrooms, school buses, or locker rooms.

For higher levels of bullying, it often is important to have more direct involvement with school staff or even the police. Many states now have mandatory bullying prevention and intervention policies. While parents of bullying victims may have strong and natural urges to confront directly the parents of the alleged bully, this step often does not help the situation and often can makes things worse.

Finally, if there is evidence that bullying is having a strong negative impact on the child, a more in-depth evaluation to rule out anxiety disorders, depression, and the presence of any suicidal or homicidal thinking should be strongly considered (JAMA 2001;285:2094-100).

Case follow-up

After reassuring Jeremy that action would not be taken without his consent, the pediatrician was able to elicit more information. She learned that two older boys have been teasing Jeremy in the cafeteria and once took away part of his lunch while telling him he was too fat to need it. After some discussion, the pediatrician agreed to call the school principal to inform the school anonymously about bullying in the cafeteria. The mother, now aware of the situation, was able to offer some support and suggestions such as having lunch in a larger group and sitting at a table that is closer to adult supervision. They agreed to meet again to make sure improvements were occurring.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. E-mail him at [email protected].

Some of the more disturbing behavioral symptoms to present are psychotic symptoms such as auditory or visual hallucination, delusions such as paranoia, or grossly disorganized thought content. Similar to the worry many families will have that a headache is the result of a brain tumor, concern that the psychotic symptoms represent the onset of schizophrenia often creates considerable alarm for families and primary care clinicians alike. In most cases, however, further evaluation suggests causes of psychotic or psychotic-like symptoms other than primary thought disorders.

Case Summary

Ella is an 8-year-old girl who has lived with her adoptive parents for 5 years. She was removed from the care of her birth parents by child protective services because of a history of abuse and neglect. Ella has struggled for many years with a variety of emotional-behavioral problems including inattention, frequent and intense angry outbursts, anxiety, and mood instability. She currently takes a long-acting methylphenidate preparation. Her parents present to her pediatrician because Ella is now reporting that she is seeing “shadows” in her room at night that frighten her. She also has lately stated that she hears a “mean voice” in her head that tells her that she is a bad person. The parents are not aware of specific psychiatric diagnoses in the birth parents, but state that they did have a history of “mental health problems” and were homeless at times. The parents are worried that these symptoms might be early signs of schizophrenia.

Discussion

Accumulating data demonstrates that while psychotic symptoms are relatively common in children and adolescents, childhood-onset schizophrenia actually is quite rare. Estimates of psychotic symptoms in otherwise healthy children have been as high as 5%, with a recent study of adolescents reporting that 15% of the sample reported hearing a voice that commented on what the person was thinking or feeling (Schizophr. Bull. 2014;40:868-77). At the same time, the incidence of childhood-onset schizophrenia is thought to be less than 0.04% based on data from a group at the National Institute of Mental Health (Child Adolesc. Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. 2013;22:539-55). This group has been actively evaluating and recruiting children with early onset psychosis and finds that more than 90% of their referrals end up with a diagnosis other than schizophrenia.

The differential diagnosis for psychosis is extensive. In terms of nonpsychiatric diagnoses (what in the past were referred to as “organic” causes), possible etiologies include CNS tumors, encephalitis, metabolic disorders, and various genetic conditions, among others. Some medications, such as corticosteroids, stimulants, and anticholinergic medications, also can result in psychotic symptoms, especially at higher doses. While the acute presence of psychotic symptoms in an otherwise healthy child should certainly prompt suspicion of a possible delirium or other nonpsychiatric condition, it is important to note that some of the above etiologies can be associated with other types of behavioral disturbances; thus, the presence of earlier behavioral problems does not rule out the possibility that one of these nonpsychiatric causes is present.

Clinical tip: From our experience at a busy outpatient child psychiatry clinic, it is often not clear whose job it is to rule out nonpsychiatric causes of behavior problems. There is a risk that the psychiatrist assumes that the pediatrician has done this work-up while the pediatrician assumes that this component is part of a psychiatric evaluation. Communication about this role is important. If a third specialist is needed, such as a pediatric neurologist or geneticist, then it is important to clarify who will initiate that consultation as well.

The differential for psychotic symptoms also includes a number of psychiatric conditions other than schizophrenia, such as bipolar or unipolar depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, autism, or an eating disorder. Substance use, particularly cannabis, also needs to be strongly considered. A child psychiatrist or other mental health professional can be very helpful here to help decipher what are sometimes subtle differences in the nature and content of the psychotic symptoms between various diagnoses. Receptive and expressive language disorders also can be present in many youth who experience psychotic symptoms.

The decision of if and when to begin treatment with an antipsychotic medication can be a difficult one and should be made very thoughtfully and with the help of consultation. The concern that a longer duration of untreated psychosis may be related to a more protracted course needs to be weighed against other data suggesting that using as little medication as possible may predict higher levels of future functioning (JAMA Psychiatry 2013;70:913-20). It is important to note that there are many nonpharmacological interventions that also can be helpful, including individual and family psychotherapy, family education, school modifications, and other social supports.

Case follow-up

Ella was referred to a child psychologist who performed an evaluation and thought that the patient’s symptoms were most representative of posttraumatic stress disorder. She began treatment with trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) which led to a reduction in both her anxiety and psychotic-sounding symptoms.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. Rettew said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. E-mail him at [email protected].

Some of the more disturbing behavioral symptoms to present are psychotic symptoms such as auditory or visual hallucination, delusions such as paranoia, or grossly disorganized thought content. Similar to the worry many families will have that a headache is the result of a brain tumor, concern that the psychotic symptoms represent the onset of schizophrenia often creates considerable alarm for families and primary care clinicians alike. In most cases, however, further evaluation suggests causes of psychotic or psychotic-like symptoms other than primary thought disorders.

Case Summary

Ella is an 8-year-old girl who has lived with her adoptive parents for 5 years. She was removed from the care of her birth parents by child protective services because of a history of abuse and neglect. Ella has struggled for many years with a variety of emotional-behavioral problems including inattention, frequent and intense angry outbursts, anxiety, and mood instability. She currently takes a long-acting methylphenidate preparation. Her parents present to her pediatrician because Ella is now reporting that she is seeing “shadows” in her room at night that frighten her. She also has lately stated that she hears a “mean voice” in her head that tells her that she is a bad person. The parents are not aware of specific psychiatric diagnoses in the birth parents, but state that they did have a history of “mental health problems” and were homeless at times. The parents are worried that these symptoms might be early signs of schizophrenia.

Discussion

Accumulating data demonstrates that while psychotic symptoms are relatively common in children and adolescents, childhood-onset schizophrenia actually is quite rare. Estimates of psychotic symptoms in otherwise healthy children have been as high as 5%, with a recent study of adolescents reporting that 15% of the sample reported hearing a voice that commented on what the person was thinking or feeling (Schizophr. Bull. 2014;40:868-77). At the same time, the incidence of childhood-onset schizophrenia is thought to be less than 0.04% based on data from a group at the National Institute of Mental Health (Child Adolesc. Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. 2013;22:539-55). This group has been actively evaluating and recruiting children with early onset psychosis and finds that more than 90% of their referrals end up with a diagnosis other than schizophrenia.

The differential diagnosis for psychosis is extensive. In terms of nonpsychiatric diagnoses (what in the past were referred to as “organic” causes), possible etiologies include CNS tumors, encephalitis, metabolic disorders, and various genetic conditions, among others. Some medications, such as corticosteroids, stimulants, and anticholinergic medications, also can result in psychotic symptoms, especially at higher doses. While the acute presence of psychotic symptoms in an otherwise healthy child should certainly prompt suspicion of a possible delirium or other nonpsychiatric condition, it is important to note that some of the above etiologies can be associated with other types of behavioral disturbances; thus, the presence of earlier behavioral problems does not rule out the possibility that one of these nonpsychiatric causes is present.

Clinical tip: From our experience at a busy outpatient child psychiatry clinic, it is often not clear whose job it is to rule out nonpsychiatric causes of behavior problems. There is a risk that the psychiatrist assumes that the pediatrician has done this work-up while the pediatrician assumes that this component is part of a psychiatric evaluation. Communication about this role is important. If a third specialist is needed, such as a pediatric neurologist or geneticist, then it is important to clarify who will initiate that consultation as well.

The differential for psychotic symptoms also includes a number of psychiatric conditions other than schizophrenia, such as bipolar or unipolar depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, autism, or an eating disorder. Substance use, particularly cannabis, also needs to be strongly considered. A child psychiatrist or other mental health professional can be very helpful here to help decipher what are sometimes subtle differences in the nature and content of the psychotic symptoms between various diagnoses. Receptive and expressive language disorders also can be present in many youth who experience psychotic symptoms.

The decision of if and when to begin treatment with an antipsychotic medication can be a difficult one and should be made very thoughtfully and with the help of consultation. The concern that a longer duration of untreated psychosis may be related to a more protracted course needs to be weighed against other data suggesting that using as little medication as possible may predict higher levels of future functioning (JAMA Psychiatry 2013;70:913-20). It is important to note that there are many nonpharmacological interventions that also can be helpful, including individual and family psychotherapy, family education, school modifications, and other social supports.

Case follow-up

Ella was referred to a child psychologist who performed an evaluation and thought that the patient’s symptoms were most representative of posttraumatic stress disorder. She began treatment with trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) which led to a reduction in both her anxiety and psychotic-sounding symptoms.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. Rettew said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. E-mail him at [email protected].

Some of the more disturbing behavioral symptoms to present are psychotic symptoms such as auditory or visual hallucination, delusions such as paranoia, or grossly disorganized thought content. Similar to the worry many families will have that a headache is the result of a brain tumor, concern that the psychotic symptoms represent the onset of schizophrenia often creates considerable alarm for families and primary care clinicians alike. In most cases, however, further evaluation suggests causes of psychotic or psychotic-like symptoms other than primary thought disorders.

Case Summary

Ella is an 8-year-old girl who has lived with her adoptive parents for 5 years. She was removed from the care of her birth parents by child protective services because of a history of abuse and neglect. Ella has struggled for many years with a variety of emotional-behavioral problems including inattention, frequent and intense angry outbursts, anxiety, and mood instability. She currently takes a long-acting methylphenidate preparation. Her parents present to her pediatrician because Ella is now reporting that she is seeing “shadows” in her room at night that frighten her. She also has lately stated that she hears a “mean voice” in her head that tells her that she is a bad person. The parents are not aware of specific psychiatric diagnoses in the birth parents, but state that they did have a history of “mental health problems” and were homeless at times. The parents are worried that these symptoms might be early signs of schizophrenia.

Discussion

Accumulating data demonstrates that while psychotic symptoms are relatively common in children and adolescents, childhood-onset schizophrenia actually is quite rare. Estimates of psychotic symptoms in otherwise healthy children have been as high as 5%, with a recent study of adolescents reporting that 15% of the sample reported hearing a voice that commented on what the person was thinking or feeling (Schizophr. Bull. 2014;40:868-77). At the same time, the incidence of childhood-onset schizophrenia is thought to be less than 0.04% based on data from a group at the National Institute of Mental Health (Child Adolesc. Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. 2013;22:539-55). This group has been actively evaluating and recruiting children with early onset psychosis and finds that more than 90% of their referrals end up with a diagnosis other than schizophrenia.

The differential diagnosis for psychosis is extensive. In terms of nonpsychiatric diagnoses (what in the past were referred to as “organic” causes), possible etiologies include CNS tumors, encephalitis, metabolic disorders, and various genetic conditions, among others. Some medications, such as corticosteroids, stimulants, and anticholinergic medications, also can result in psychotic symptoms, especially at higher doses. While the acute presence of psychotic symptoms in an otherwise healthy child should certainly prompt suspicion of a possible delirium or other nonpsychiatric condition, it is important to note that some of the above etiologies can be associated with other types of behavioral disturbances; thus, the presence of earlier behavioral problems does not rule out the possibility that one of these nonpsychiatric causes is present.

Clinical tip: From our experience at a busy outpatient child psychiatry clinic, it is often not clear whose job it is to rule out nonpsychiatric causes of behavior problems. There is a risk that the psychiatrist assumes that the pediatrician has done this work-up while the pediatrician assumes that this component is part of a psychiatric evaluation. Communication about this role is important. If a third specialist is needed, such as a pediatric neurologist or geneticist, then it is important to clarify who will initiate that consultation as well.

The differential for psychotic symptoms also includes a number of psychiatric conditions other than schizophrenia, such as bipolar or unipolar depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, autism, or an eating disorder. Substance use, particularly cannabis, also needs to be strongly considered. A child psychiatrist or other mental health professional can be very helpful here to help decipher what are sometimes subtle differences in the nature and content of the psychotic symptoms between various diagnoses. Receptive and expressive language disorders also can be present in many youth who experience psychotic symptoms.

The decision of if and when to begin treatment with an antipsychotic medication can be a difficult one and should be made very thoughtfully and with the help of consultation. The concern that a longer duration of untreated psychosis may be related to a more protracted course needs to be weighed against other data suggesting that using as little medication as possible may predict higher levels of future functioning (JAMA Psychiatry 2013;70:913-20). It is important to note that there are many nonpharmacological interventions that also can be helpful, including individual and family psychotherapy, family education, school modifications, and other social supports.

Case follow-up

Ella was referred to a child psychologist who performed an evaluation and thought that the patient’s symptoms were most representative of posttraumatic stress disorder. She began treatment with trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) which led to a reduction in both her anxiety and psychotic-sounding symptoms.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. Rettew said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. E-mail him at [email protected].

Introduction

Both the medical and lay press have directed a lot of attention lately to the treatment of children and adolescents with antipsychotic medications. The literature is clear that the number of children taking this class of medications has risen sharply since their release (Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2006;63:679-85). What is much less clear is the degree to which this increase represents a reasonable intervention for patients in significant need versus an overuse when other strategies are more appropriate.

Case Summary

Cody is a 6-year-old boy who lives with his younger sister and single mother. The family struggles financially, and the father, who has never had much contact with his son, is currently incarcerated. Since he was a toddler, Cody has been prone to high levels of aggressive behavior and frequent, intense angry outbursts. He was asked to leave his preschool due to his behavior and now is commonly disruptive at school. His pediatrician diagnosed him with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder a year ago and began a trial of a psychostimulant, which made him even more irritable, and was discontinued. Cody and his mother now present with concerns that there is “something more” affecting his behavior. The pediatrician now considers whether or not treatment with an antipsychotic medication is reasonable at this point.

Discussion

The above clinical scenario represents a critical and often antagonizing moment in treatment for both the family and the treating physician, yet it is hardly uncommon. The situation often is made more complicated by the fact that what is often the first plan of action, namely referral or consultation with a child psychiatrist, can be very difficult to access.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has published online guidelines for the use of antipsychotic medication in youth (http://bit.ly/1eat7e9). Key recommendations and points from this 27-page document and 19 recommendations include the following:

• Patients being considered for treatment with an antipsychotic medication should receive a “meticulous diagnostic assessment” with any medication prescribed being part of a “multidisciplinary” treatment plan (Recommendation 1).

• Prescribers should “regularly check the current literature” regarding the scientific evidence for antipsychotic medication use (Recommendation 2).

• Antipsychotic medications are considered first-line medication treatment for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, tics/Tourette’s, and autism. (Recommendation 2).

• Antipsychotic medications are not first-line treatment for several other diagnoses and behaviors, including disruptive behavior disorders such as ADHD, aggression, eating disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Their use should be considered only after other pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions have failed (Recommendation 2).

• Antipsychotic medications are not advised for preschool-aged patients. (Recommendation 2).

• Dosing should be as low as possible and not exceed the maximum recommended dose for adults (Recommendation 4).

• Simultaneous treatment with multiple antipsychotic medications is not recommended (Recommendation 8).

• Patients should receive regular metabolic monitoring, including lab work, both before and during treatment (Recommendations 11-13).

These are rigorous guidelines that challenge even those who regularly assess and treat children with serious psychiatric disorders. The clinical and legal implications of prescribing antipsychotic medications without adhering to these guidelines will, and probably should, give many physicians pause. Further, the specific point about the need for a thorough psychiatric evaluation underlies the commonly heard recommendation that this class of medicines generally should be avoided by primary care physicians. At the same time, many pediatricians are acutely aware of how dire the clinical situation often is for these families. At this point, it can easily begin to feel very much like a “no-win” situation.

Here are some thoughts that may be useful to consider in these moments:

• Remember that many non-MD mental health professionals can offer a lot of help. Although they can’t do the prescribing themselves, referral to a psychologist or another type of therapist can be useful in getting information about a patient’s diagnosis and the degree to which nonpharmacologic options have been exhausted. If the patient is already seeing a therapist, it is certainly worthwhile to seek their advice as to whether or not antipsychotic medications are now reasonable to consider.

• Look for opportunities to talk “curbside” to a child psychiatrist. Most of us are keenly aware of how inadequate access is to child psychiatry and want to help. Indeed, many states now have specific brief consultation programs in place.

• Get the lab work. A recent study in Pediatrics reported that a baseline glucose was obtained in only 11% of youth receiving antipsychotic medication treatment (Pediatrics 2014;134:e1308-14). In addition to providing important information, this step signals to everyone involved that the decision to use these medications is not something to be taken lightly.

Case follow-up

Cody’s pediatrician decides to get a diagnostic evaluation from a psychologist, who confirms the ADHD diagnosis without associated conditions such as bipolar disorder. The psychologist recommends a course of therapy to build regulatory skills for Cody and provide the mother with some parent behavioral guidance about how to best manage Cody’s challenges and encourage health-promoting behaviors such as physical activity, reading, and a regular sleep routine. The pediatrician decides to try a second line ADHD medication, guanfacine, and the school also begins to institute an incentive plan to reinforce positive behavior. In combination, these efforts significantly reduce the level of aggression and dysregulated behavior.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. Rettew said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Introduction

Both the medical and lay press have directed a lot of attention lately to the treatment of children and adolescents with antipsychotic medications. The literature is clear that the number of children taking this class of medications has risen sharply since their release (Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2006;63:679-85). What is much less clear is the degree to which this increase represents a reasonable intervention for patients in significant need versus an overuse when other strategies are more appropriate.

Case Summary

Cody is a 6-year-old boy who lives with his younger sister and single mother. The family struggles financially, and the father, who has never had much contact with his son, is currently incarcerated. Since he was a toddler, Cody has been prone to high levels of aggressive behavior and frequent, intense angry outbursts. He was asked to leave his preschool due to his behavior and now is commonly disruptive at school. His pediatrician diagnosed him with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder a year ago and began a trial of a psychostimulant, which made him even more irritable, and was discontinued. Cody and his mother now present with concerns that there is “something more” affecting his behavior. The pediatrician now considers whether or not treatment with an antipsychotic medication is reasonable at this point.

Discussion

The above clinical scenario represents a critical and often antagonizing moment in treatment for both the family and the treating physician, yet it is hardly uncommon. The situation often is made more complicated by the fact that what is often the first plan of action, namely referral or consultation with a child psychiatrist, can be very difficult to access.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has published online guidelines for the use of antipsychotic medication in youth (http://bit.ly/1eat7e9). Key recommendations and points from this 27-page document and 19 recommendations include the following:

• Patients being considered for treatment with an antipsychotic medication should receive a “meticulous diagnostic assessment” with any medication prescribed being part of a “multidisciplinary” treatment plan (Recommendation 1).

• Prescribers should “regularly check the current literature” regarding the scientific evidence for antipsychotic medication use (Recommendation 2).

• Antipsychotic medications are considered first-line medication treatment for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, tics/Tourette’s, and autism. (Recommendation 2).

• Antipsychotic medications are not first-line treatment for several other diagnoses and behaviors, including disruptive behavior disorders such as ADHD, aggression, eating disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Their use should be considered only after other pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions have failed (Recommendation 2).

• Antipsychotic medications are not advised for preschool-aged patients. (Recommendation 2).

• Dosing should be as low as possible and not exceed the maximum recommended dose for adults (Recommendation 4).

• Simultaneous treatment with multiple antipsychotic medications is not recommended (Recommendation 8).

• Patients should receive regular metabolic monitoring, including lab work, both before and during treatment (Recommendations 11-13).

These are rigorous guidelines that challenge even those who regularly assess and treat children with serious psychiatric disorders. The clinical and legal implications of prescribing antipsychotic medications without adhering to these guidelines will, and probably should, give many physicians pause. Further, the specific point about the need for a thorough psychiatric evaluation underlies the commonly heard recommendation that this class of medicines generally should be avoided by primary care physicians. At the same time, many pediatricians are acutely aware of how dire the clinical situation often is for these families. At this point, it can easily begin to feel very much like a “no-win” situation.

Here are some thoughts that may be useful to consider in these moments:

• Remember that many non-MD mental health professionals can offer a lot of help. Although they can’t do the prescribing themselves, referral to a psychologist or another type of therapist can be useful in getting information about a patient’s diagnosis and the degree to which nonpharmacologic options have been exhausted. If the patient is already seeing a therapist, it is certainly worthwhile to seek their advice as to whether or not antipsychotic medications are now reasonable to consider.

• Look for opportunities to talk “curbside” to a child psychiatrist. Most of us are keenly aware of how inadequate access is to child psychiatry and want to help. Indeed, many states now have specific brief consultation programs in place.

• Get the lab work. A recent study in Pediatrics reported that a baseline glucose was obtained in only 11% of youth receiving antipsychotic medication treatment (Pediatrics 2014;134:e1308-14). In addition to providing important information, this step signals to everyone involved that the decision to use these medications is not something to be taken lightly.

Case follow-up

Cody’s pediatrician decides to get a diagnostic evaluation from a psychologist, who confirms the ADHD diagnosis without associated conditions such as bipolar disorder. The psychologist recommends a course of therapy to build regulatory skills for Cody and provide the mother with some parent behavioral guidance about how to best manage Cody’s challenges and encourage health-promoting behaviors such as physical activity, reading, and a regular sleep routine. The pediatrician decides to try a second line ADHD medication, guanfacine, and the school also begins to institute an incentive plan to reinforce positive behavior. In combination, these efforts significantly reduce the level of aggression and dysregulated behavior.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. Rettew said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Introduction

Both the medical and lay press have directed a lot of attention lately to the treatment of children and adolescents with antipsychotic medications. The literature is clear that the number of children taking this class of medications has risen sharply since their release (Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2006;63:679-85). What is much less clear is the degree to which this increase represents a reasonable intervention for patients in significant need versus an overuse when other strategies are more appropriate.

Case Summary

Cody is a 6-year-old boy who lives with his younger sister and single mother. The family struggles financially, and the father, who has never had much contact with his son, is currently incarcerated. Since he was a toddler, Cody has been prone to high levels of aggressive behavior and frequent, intense angry outbursts. He was asked to leave his preschool due to his behavior and now is commonly disruptive at school. His pediatrician diagnosed him with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder a year ago and began a trial of a psychostimulant, which made him even more irritable, and was discontinued. Cody and his mother now present with concerns that there is “something more” affecting his behavior. The pediatrician now considers whether or not treatment with an antipsychotic medication is reasonable at this point.

Discussion

The above clinical scenario represents a critical and often antagonizing moment in treatment for both the family and the treating physician, yet it is hardly uncommon. The situation often is made more complicated by the fact that what is often the first plan of action, namely referral or consultation with a child psychiatrist, can be very difficult to access.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has published online guidelines for the use of antipsychotic medication in youth (http://bit.ly/1eat7e9). Key recommendations and points from this 27-page document and 19 recommendations include the following:

• Patients being considered for treatment with an antipsychotic medication should receive a “meticulous diagnostic assessment” with any medication prescribed being part of a “multidisciplinary” treatment plan (Recommendation 1).

• Prescribers should “regularly check the current literature” regarding the scientific evidence for antipsychotic medication use (Recommendation 2).

• Antipsychotic medications are considered first-line medication treatment for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, tics/Tourette’s, and autism. (Recommendation 2).

• Antipsychotic medications are not first-line treatment for several other diagnoses and behaviors, including disruptive behavior disorders such as ADHD, aggression, eating disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Their use should be considered only after other pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions have failed (Recommendation 2).

• Antipsychotic medications are not advised for preschool-aged patients. (Recommendation 2).

• Dosing should be as low as possible and not exceed the maximum recommended dose for adults (Recommendation 4).

• Simultaneous treatment with multiple antipsychotic medications is not recommended (Recommendation 8).

• Patients should receive regular metabolic monitoring, including lab work, both before and during treatment (Recommendations 11-13).

These are rigorous guidelines that challenge even those who regularly assess and treat children with serious psychiatric disorders. The clinical and legal implications of prescribing antipsychotic medications without adhering to these guidelines will, and probably should, give many physicians pause. Further, the specific point about the need for a thorough psychiatric evaluation underlies the commonly heard recommendation that this class of medicines generally should be avoided by primary care physicians. At the same time, many pediatricians are acutely aware of how dire the clinical situation often is for these families. At this point, it can easily begin to feel very much like a “no-win” situation.

Here are some thoughts that may be useful to consider in these moments:

• Remember that many non-MD mental health professionals can offer a lot of help. Although they can’t do the prescribing themselves, referral to a psychologist or another type of therapist can be useful in getting information about a patient’s diagnosis and the degree to which nonpharmacologic options have been exhausted. If the patient is already seeing a therapist, it is certainly worthwhile to seek their advice as to whether or not antipsychotic medications are now reasonable to consider.

• Look for opportunities to talk “curbside” to a child psychiatrist. Most of us are keenly aware of how inadequate access is to child psychiatry and want to help. Indeed, many states now have specific brief consultation programs in place.

• Get the lab work. A recent study in Pediatrics reported that a baseline glucose was obtained in only 11% of youth receiving antipsychotic medication treatment (Pediatrics 2014;134:e1308-14). In addition to providing important information, this step signals to everyone involved that the decision to use these medications is not something to be taken lightly.

Case follow-up

Cody’s pediatrician decides to get a diagnostic evaluation from a psychologist, who confirms the ADHD diagnosis without associated conditions such as bipolar disorder. The psychologist recommends a course of therapy to build regulatory skills for Cody and provide the mother with some parent behavioral guidance about how to best manage Cody’s challenges and encourage health-promoting behaviors such as physical activity, reading, and a regular sleep routine. The pediatrician decides to try a second line ADHD medication, guanfacine, and the school also begins to institute an incentive plan to reinforce positive behavior. In combination, these efforts significantly reduce the level of aggression and dysregulated behavior.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. Rettew said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Between the ongoing shortage of child psychiatrists, ever-evolving changes in health care policy and medical insurance, and documented increases in the rates of many psychiatric disorders, it can be difficult for pediatricians to define their role in delivering quality mental health care. To get some perspective on these issues, I talked with Dr. Joseph F. Hagan Jr., a pediatrician from Burlington, Vt. Dr. Hagan has been involved in shaping pediatric mental health care policy for years as the former chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) Committee on the Psychosocial Aspects of Child & Family Health and current member of the Bright Futures Steering Committee. He is also running this year to be the president-elect of the national AAP.

Q: What do you see as some of the key issues affecting child mental health care?

A: One of the things I haven’t heard a lot about is that there are not enough therapists to see children. The system has traditionally been based upon procedures and not on time, and that’s a problem. Therapists get paid less than the shop rate of your local auto mechanic, and of course, anyone who sees children has to talk with schools and parents outside of the session. That’s nonbillable, and we wonder why nobody will see children. Mental health is part of health, and the earlier we invest, the bigger the return. Because our practice was certified as a Family Centered Medical Home and now has access to a Community Health Team, my life has changed because we now have services that we didn’t have before. The problem with screening in the past has been "What if you find something?" Now we have so much more to offer.

Q: How much should a pediatrician really be expected to know and do when it comes to child behavioral problems? Is there a floor of knowledge and skills when it comes to mental health that all pediatricians should attain?

A: I think there definitely is. I would say that this could happen in steps. The AAP’s Taskforce for Mental Health really helped lay this out, but we already knew this. Behavioral and mental health problems can be managed in our offices, and everyone ought to be able to manage the majority of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but also those with oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety, and depression. There are certain mental health problems that are part of pediatrics. To refer a standard ADHD child is absurd, because it really is a day-to-day problem that needs to be managed in your primary care medical home. Everybody needs to know how to do that and do it well. It is a chronic illness, and you need to hang in there with these children. That’s the basic floor. I think the floor is extended in being able to identify postpartum depression because we know that’s crucial and to be able to identify families who are really struggling with social determinants of health. This is going to be a big push in the forthcoming edition of Bright Futures. I think you also need to be able to identify anxiety and depression and be able to take the first steps in that. And maybe you should know how to treat them with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) if that should become important. I think you also should be able to talk about preventive things and ought to know that there is this thing called CBT (cognitive-behavioral therapy), and which therapists are in town who do CBT. You’ve got to know your community nonmedication options and access them before you decide upon meds.

Q: Psychiatric medications certainly have become even more controversial lately. What advice do you have for pediatricians when they prescribe them?

A: Tell families the expected effects and potential side effects. If you don’t, Dr. Google will. Start low and go slow, but titrate until desired effect of recovery. Remember if you are 100% anxious and miserable, you’ll look and feel great when you’re only 50% anxious, but you’re still only halfway better! It’s also important to discuss with your patient when you start meds, how long you are going to continue them, lest they feel good and stop prematurely.

Q: There are a lot of efforts these days to extend the education of pediatricians and provide consulting back up while the patient remains directly in the care of pediatrician. Do you think those efforts are enough or should we be more focused on providing more psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians that pediatricians can refer to?

A: We need to be able to do this (mental health) work, but part of being successful is having someone to consult with and someone to refer to. Just like with cardiac or GI problems, there are cases we can take care of all by ourselves, cases in which we will need to reach out to a consultant for help, and cases that need referral. Yes, we need more child psychiatrists. Co-located and collaborative care are the best-case scenarios.

More information about mental health care from the American Academy of Pediatrics can be found if you click here.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He is the author of "Child Temperament: New Thinking About the Boundary between Traits and Illness." Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Between the ongoing shortage of child psychiatrists, ever-evolving changes in health care policy and medical insurance, and documented increases in the rates of many psychiatric disorders, it can be difficult for pediatricians to define their role in delivering quality mental health care. To get some perspective on these issues, I talked with Dr. Joseph F. Hagan Jr., a pediatrician from Burlington, Vt. Dr. Hagan has been involved in shaping pediatric mental health care policy for years as the former chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) Committee on the Psychosocial Aspects of Child & Family Health and current member of the Bright Futures Steering Committee. He is also running this year to be the president-elect of the national AAP.

Q: What do you see as some of the key issues affecting child mental health care?

A: One of the things I haven’t heard a lot about is that there are not enough therapists to see children. The system has traditionally been based upon procedures and not on time, and that’s a problem. Therapists get paid less than the shop rate of your local auto mechanic, and of course, anyone who sees children has to talk with schools and parents outside of the session. That’s nonbillable, and we wonder why nobody will see children. Mental health is part of health, and the earlier we invest, the bigger the return. Because our practice was certified as a Family Centered Medical Home and now has access to a Community Health Team, my life has changed because we now have services that we didn’t have before. The problem with screening in the past has been "What if you find something?" Now we have so much more to offer.

Q: How much should a pediatrician really be expected to know and do when it comes to child behavioral problems? Is there a floor of knowledge and skills when it comes to mental health that all pediatricians should attain?

A: I think there definitely is. I would say that this could happen in steps. The AAP’s Taskforce for Mental Health really helped lay this out, but we already knew this. Behavioral and mental health problems can be managed in our offices, and everyone ought to be able to manage the majority of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but also those with oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety, and depression. There are certain mental health problems that are part of pediatrics. To refer a standard ADHD child is absurd, because it really is a day-to-day problem that needs to be managed in your primary care medical home. Everybody needs to know how to do that and do it well. It is a chronic illness, and you need to hang in there with these children. That’s the basic floor. I think the floor is extended in being able to identify postpartum depression because we know that’s crucial and to be able to identify families who are really struggling with social determinants of health. This is going to be a big push in the forthcoming edition of Bright Futures. I think you also need to be able to identify anxiety and depression and be able to take the first steps in that. And maybe you should know how to treat them with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) if that should become important. I think you also should be able to talk about preventive things and ought to know that there is this thing called CBT (cognitive-behavioral therapy), and which therapists are in town who do CBT. You’ve got to know your community nonmedication options and access them before you decide upon meds.

Q: Psychiatric medications certainly have become even more controversial lately. What advice do you have for pediatricians when they prescribe them?

A: Tell families the expected effects and potential side effects. If you don’t, Dr. Google will. Start low and go slow, but titrate until desired effect of recovery. Remember if you are 100% anxious and miserable, you’ll look and feel great when you’re only 50% anxious, but you’re still only halfway better! It’s also important to discuss with your patient when you start meds, how long you are going to continue them, lest they feel good and stop prematurely.

Q: There are a lot of efforts these days to extend the education of pediatricians and provide consulting back up while the patient remains directly in the care of pediatrician. Do you think those efforts are enough or should we be more focused on providing more psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians that pediatricians can refer to?

A: We need to be able to do this (mental health) work, but part of being successful is having someone to consult with and someone to refer to. Just like with cardiac or GI problems, there are cases we can take care of all by ourselves, cases in which we will need to reach out to a consultant for help, and cases that need referral. Yes, we need more child psychiatrists. Co-located and collaborative care are the best-case scenarios.

More information about mental health care from the American Academy of Pediatrics can be found if you click here.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He is the author of "Child Temperament: New Thinking About the Boundary between Traits and Illness." Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Between the ongoing shortage of child psychiatrists, ever-evolving changes in health care policy and medical insurance, and documented increases in the rates of many psychiatric disorders, it can be difficult for pediatricians to define their role in delivering quality mental health care. To get some perspective on these issues, I talked with Dr. Joseph F. Hagan Jr., a pediatrician from Burlington, Vt. Dr. Hagan has been involved in shaping pediatric mental health care policy for years as the former chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) Committee on the Psychosocial Aspects of Child & Family Health and current member of the Bright Futures Steering Committee. He is also running this year to be the president-elect of the national AAP.

Q: What do you see as some of the key issues affecting child mental health care?

A: One of the things I haven’t heard a lot about is that there are not enough therapists to see children. The system has traditionally been based upon procedures and not on time, and that’s a problem. Therapists get paid less than the shop rate of your local auto mechanic, and of course, anyone who sees children has to talk with schools and parents outside of the session. That’s nonbillable, and we wonder why nobody will see children. Mental health is part of health, and the earlier we invest, the bigger the return. Because our practice was certified as a Family Centered Medical Home and now has access to a Community Health Team, my life has changed because we now have services that we didn’t have before. The problem with screening in the past has been "What if you find something?" Now we have so much more to offer.

Q: How much should a pediatrician really be expected to know and do when it comes to child behavioral problems? Is there a floor of knowledge and skills when it comes to mental health that all pediatricians should attain?

A: I think there definitely is. I would say that this could happen in steps. The AAP’s Taskforce for Mental Health really helped lay this out, but we already knew this. Behavioral and mental health problems can be managed in our offices, and everyone ought to be able to manage the majority of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but also those with oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety, and depression. There are certain mental health problems that are part of pediatrics. To refer a standard ADHD child is absurd, because it really is a day-to-day problem that needs to be managed in your primary care medical home. Everybody needs to know how to do that and do it well. It is a chronic illness, and you need to hang in there with these children. That’s the basic floor. I think the floor is extended in being able to identify postpartum depression because we know that’s crucial and to be able to identify families who are really struggling with social determinants of health. This is going to be a big push in the forthcoming edition of Bright Futures. I think you also need to be able to identify anxiety and depression and be able to take the first steps in that. And maybe you should know how to treat them with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) if that should become important. I think you also should be able to talk about preventive things and ought to know that there is this thing called CBT (cognitive-behavioral therapy), and which therapists are in town who do CBT. You’ve got to know your community nonmedication options and access them before you decide upon meds.

Q: Psychiatric medications certainly have become even more controversial lately. What advice do you have for pediatricians when they prescribe them?

A: Tell families the expected effects and potential side effects. If you don’t, Dr. Google will. Start low and go slow, but titrate until desired effect of recovery. Remember if you are 100% anxious and miserable, you’ll look and feel great when you’re only 50% anxious, but you’re still only halfway better! It’s also important to discuss with your patient when you start meds, how long you are going to continue them, lest they feel good and stop prematurely.

Q: There are a lot of efforts these days to extend the education of pediatricians and provide consulting back up while the patient remains directly in the care of pediatrician. Do you think those efforts are enough or should we be more focused on providing more psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians that pediatricians can refer to?

A: We need to be able to do this (mental health) work, but part of being successful is having someone to consult with and someone to refer to. Just like with cardiac or GI problems, there are cases we can take care of all by ourselves, cases in which we will need to reach out to a consultant for help, and cases that need referral. Yes, we need more child psychiatrists. Co-located and collaborative care are the best-case scenarios.

More information about mental health care from the American Academy of Pediatrics can be found if you click here.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He is the author of "Child Temperament: New Thinking About the Boundary between Traits and Illness." Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Ten years ago, the Food and Drug Administration required that all antidepressants carry a severe black box warning to alert prescribers to the possibility that these medications could cause worsening suicidal thoughts and behavior. A decade later, this issue had faded from the public eye and the media headlines. Nevertheless, research into their use has continued, and antidepressants continue to be prescribed. Have things changed since all the attention in the past? The results may be surprising.

Although there are undoubtedly different views, here is my summary of the five key points with direct implications for pediatricians:

1. The risk of suicide due to antidepressants was overstated. Subsequent analyses from additional clinical trials comparing suicidal thoughts or behavior between youths taking antidepressants versus placebo have increasingly struggled to find that "signal" related to active drug. Perhaps more importantly, several other studies that have examined actual suicides and/or suicide attempts from large databases have not shown links to the taking of antidepressants and, if anything, have suggested that untreated depression poses a greater risk (BMJ 2014;348:g3596). It is worth repeating that there still has never been an actual suicide in any of the antidepressant trials.

2. The efficacy of antidepressants also was overstated. As people began to examine more closely the issue of suicidal behavior and antidepressants, it became evident that there was much more data on this than was obvious from published studies. Many more trials of depression and antidepressants were performed, usually funded by pharmaceutical companies, and many of these trials did not show that antidepressants were superior to placebo (N. Engl. J. Med. 2008;358:252-60). As opposed to the positive trials, however, the negative ones tended not to be published or featured. Overall, it seems that about 60% of depressed children and adolescents respond to antidepressant medication, compared with 50% who respond to placebo.

3. The prescribing of antidepressants is making a comeback. After the 2004 warnings, the number of antidepressant prescriptions dropped. Since around 2008, however, the rate of antidepressant prescribing has increased again, although not at 2004 levels, according to some studies.

4. Antidepressants don’t work by fixing a serotonin "chemical imbalance." Although it is true that antidepressants result in more serotonin being available in brain synapses acutely, depression is not caused by a simple serotonin deficit. Medications likely work by changing the expression of certain genes that relate to how strongly particular brain pathways are connected. This process may explain why antidepressants take time to be effective.

5. Antidepressants actually work better for youths with anxiety rather than depression. More promising results with antidepressants have been found for children with anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder (N. Engl. J. Med. 2008;359:2753-66). Although cognitive-behavior therapy remains the recommended first-line intervention for children with anxiety disorders, antidepressants have been shown to be effective both alone and in combination with cognitive-behavior therapy.

There is still much to learn. Children and adolescents who are extremely irritable, unmotivated, and at times suicidal are a diverse group of people whose difficulties can arise from many factors that deserve investigation. When it comes to antidepressants, it appears that both the amount of risk and the amount of benefit associated with this class of medications may be less than what was believed a decade ago.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. Dr. Rettew said he had no financial disclosures relevant to this article.

Ten years ago, the Food and Drug Administration required that all antidepressants carry a severe black box warning to alert prescribers to the possibility that these medications could cause worsening suicidal thoughts and behavior. A decade later, this issue had faded from the public eye and the media headlines. Nevertheless, research into their use has continued, and antidepressants continue to be prescribed. Have things changed since all the attention in the past? The results may be surprising.

Although there are undoubtedly different views, here is my summary of the five key points with direct implications for pediatricians:

1. The risk of suicide due to antidepressants was overstated. Subsequent analyses from additional clinical trials comparing suicidal thoughts or behavior between youths taking antidepressants versus placebo have increasingly struggled to find that "signal" related to active drug. Perhaps more importantly, several other studies that have examined actual suicides and/or suicide attempts from large databases have not shown links to the taking of antidepressants and, if anything, have suggested that untreated depression poses a greater risk (BMJ 2014;348:g3596). It is worth repeating that there still has never been an actual suicide in any of the antidepressant trials.

2. The efficacy of antidepressants also was overstated. As people began to examine more closely the issue of suicidal behavior and antidepressants, it became evident that there was much more data on this than was obvious from published studies. Many more trials of depression and antidepressants were performed, usually funded by pharmaceutical companies, and many of these trials did not show that antidepressants were superior to placebo (N. Engl. J. Med. 2008;358:252-60). As opposed to the positive trials, however, the negative ones tended not to be published or featured. Overall, it seems that about 60% of depressed children and adolescents respond to antidepressant medication, compared with 50% who respond to placebo.

3. The prescribing of antidepressants is making a comeback. After the 2004 warnings, the number of antidepressant prescriptions dropped. Since around 2008, however, the rate of antidepressant prescribing has increased again, although not at 2004 levels, according to some studies.

4. Antidepressants don’t work by fixing a serotonin "chemical imbalance." Although it is true that antidepressants result in more serotonin being available in brain synapses acutely, depression is not caused by a simple serotonin deficit. Medications likely work by changing the expression of certain genes that relate to how strongly particular brain pathways are connected. This process may explain why antidepressants take time to be effective.

5. Antidepressants actually work better for youths with anxiety rather than depression. More promising results with antidepressants have been found for children with anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder (N. Engl. J. Med. 2008;359:2753-66). Although cognitive-behavior therapy remains the recommended first-line intervention for children with anxiety disorders, antidepressants have been shown to be effective both alone and in combination with cognitive-behavior therapy.

There is still much to learn. Children and adolescents who are extremely irritable, unmotivated, and at times suicidal are a diverse group of people whose difficulties can arise from many factors that deserve investigation. When it comes to antidepressants, it appears that both the amount of risk and the amount of benefit associated with this class of medications may be less than what was believed a decade ago.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. Dr. Rettew said he had no financial disclosures relevant to this article.

Ten years ago, the Food and Drug Administration required that all antidepressants carry a severe black box warning to alert prescribers to the possibility that these medications could cause worsening suicidal thoughts and behavior. A decade later, this issue had faded from the public eye and the media headlines. Nevertheless, research into their use has continued, and antidepressants continue to be prescribed. Have things changed since all the attention in the past? The results may be surprising.

Although there are undoubtedly different views, here is my summary of the five key points with direct implications for pediatricians:

1. The risk of suicide due to antidepressants was overstated. Subsequent analyses from additional clinical trials comparing suicidal thoughts or behavior between youths taking antidepressants versus placebo have increasingly struggled to find that "signal" related to active drug. Perhaps more importantly, several other studies that have examined actual suicides and/or suicide attempts from large databases have not shown links to the taking of antidepressants and, if anything, have suggested that untreated depression poses a greater risk (BMJ 2014;348:g3596). It is worth repeating that there still has never been an actual suicide in any of the antidepressant trials.

2. The efficacy of antidepressants also was overstated. As people began to examine more closely the issue of suicidal behavior and antidepressants, it became evident that there was much more data on this than was obvious from published studies. Many more trials of depression and antidepressants were performed, usually funded by pharmaceutical companies, and many of these trials did not show that antidepressants were superior to placebo (N. Engl. J. Med. 2008;358:252-60). As opposed to the positive trials, however, the negative ones tended not to be published or featured. Overall, it seems that about 60% of depressed children and adolescents respond to antidepressant medication, compared with 50% who respond to placebo.

3. The prescribing of antidepressants is making a comeback. After the 2004 warnings, the number of antidepressant prescriptions dropped. Since around 2008, however, the rate of antidepressant prescribing has increased again, although not at 2004 levels, according to some studies.

4. Antidepressants don’t work by fixing a serotonin "chemical imbalance." Although it is true that antidepressants result in more serotonin being available in brain synapses acutely, depression is not caused by a simple serotonin deficit. Medications likely work by changing the expression of certain genes that relate to how strongly particular brain pathways are connected. This process may explain why antidepressants take time to be effective.

5. Antidepressants actually work better for youths with anxiety rather than depression. More promising results with antidepressants have been found for children with anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder (N. Engl. J. Med. 2008;359:2753-66). Although cognitive-behavior therapy remains the recommended first-line intervention for children with anxiety disorders, antidepressants have been shown to be effective both alone and in combination with cognitive-behavior therapy.

There is still much to learn. Children and adolescents who are extremely irritable, unmotivated, and at times suicidal are a diverse group of people whose difficulties can arise from many factors that deserve investigation. When it comes to antidepressants, it appears that both the amount of risk and the amount of benefit associated with this class of medications may be less than what was believed a decade ago.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych. Dr. Rettew said he had no financial disclosures relevant to this article.

Case summary

Dylan is a bright and lively 10-year-old boy who has always been energetic and passionate. His parents have celebrated his exuberance but now have become concerned that there is "something more," after his teacher has needed to remove him from class for several episodes of impulsive and disruptive behavior. Further history reveals that, compared with his classmates, he can be quite distractible and often needs a lot of prompting and redirection to complete his work. Dylan is an intelligent child who has always managed to do well in school despite some longstanding challenges with attention. His performance has slipped somewhat as the academic load increases, although not to the point that he is in jeopardy of being held back.

At home, Dylan enjoys playing outside but also is drawn to video games, an activity that seems to hold his attention well. His parents get frustrated with needing to repeat requests several times and having to remind him to be quieter in the house.

Discussion

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, like all other psychiatric disorders, is defined in binary terms as being present or not-present. Nonetheless, it has become abundantly clear from research studies that the symptoms exist dimensionally and are normally distributed in a manner such as height. As such, diagnosing ADHD is analogous to diagnosing someone as being tall. Given this reality, how does a clinician figure out when a child really "has" a disorder, versus the behavior being "just" part of normal behavior?

All of the diagnostic criteria for ADHD include behaviors that at age-appropriate levels are considered completely normal. To qualify as a symptom that is present, the behaviors have to occur "often" and be inappropriate to the child’s developmental level. These subjective judgments about moving targets make drawing the line difficult for clinicians. Most children are well within normal limits and others are clearly beyond them, yet that leaves a sizable group somewhere in that middle "gray zone."

Making matters more complicated is the increasing but still insufficient evidence suggesting that this dimensionality exists when it comes to the underlying neurobiology of ADHD as well. In other words, the genes, environmental factors, brain regions, neurotransmitters, etc., that determine why a child has an average attention span or activity level are the same ones involved in ADHD. Such a revelation, however, in no way should be interpreted as ADHD being not "real," any more than other dimensional nonpsychiatric conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia).

This continuum of behaviors, however, does present a real diagnostic challenge. The inconvenient reality is that there really may not be any "true" rate of ADHD at 5%, 7%, or more recently, 11%. Many people make much of assessing whether or not there is associated impairment with the behaviors, but the truth of the matter is that impairment itself is dimensional.

Thus, we need to appreciate the complexities and limitations of this challenging diagnosis without throwing up our hands in frustration and giving up. After all, these problems can get significantly better with treatment. Here are a few tips to consider.

1. In making an ADHD diagnosis, use quantitative rating scales that appreciate this dimensional nature. Ideally, these instruments should be standardized by age and sex so that, for example, scores of 8-year-old boys can be compared to those of other 8-year-old boys. Don’t feel compelled to come up with a diagnosis on the spot if this procedure takes a little time in getting input from multiple people (parents, teachers, self-report).

2. Don’t stop investigating just because you arrive at an ADHD diagnosis. There are many factors that can result in a child struggling with these behaviors. Poor sleep, excessive screen time, inadequate nutrition, suboptimal parenting practices, exposures to lead and other substances, and lack of exercise are some factors that can underlie these problems. Correcting them can often make a big difference and in some cases can obviate the need for medication.

3. Approach a dimensional diagnosis with dimensional treatment. Just as many patients with borderline levels of hypertension or borderline glucose levels might be recommended to try nonpharmacological interventions first, the same principle can be applied to ADHD. Parent behavioral management, skills training, and addressing potential causes or exacerbating causes described in No. 2 can all provide important benefits.

The bottom line here, in my view, is to appreciate and respect the inherent blurriness of these boundaries without it leading to clinical paralysis. Children who struggle with inattention and hyperactivity are well known to be at risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Pediatricians have a large number of options to help these children that have been shown to be effective and can be individually tailored to each specific case.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Case summary

Dylan is a bright and lively 10-year-old boy who has always been energetic and passionate. His parents have celebrated his exuberance but now have become concerned that there is "something more," after his teacher has needed to remove him from class for several episodes of impulsive and disruptive behavior. Further history reveals that, compared with his classmates, he can be quite distractible and often needs a lot of prompting and redirection to complete his work. Dylan is an intelligent child who has always managed to do well in school despite some longstanding challenges with attention. His performance has slipped somewhat as the academic load increases, although not to the point that he is in jeopardy of being held back.

At home, Dylan enjoys playing outside but also is drawn to video games, an activity that seems to hold his attention well. His parents get frustrated with needing to repeat requests several times and having to remind him to be quieter in the house.

Discussion

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, like all other psychiatric disorders, is defined in binary terms as being present or not-present. Nonetheless, it has become abundantly clear from research studies that the symptoms exist dimensionally and are normally distributed in a manner such as height. As such, diagnosing ADHD is analogous to diagnosing someone as being tall. Given this reality, how does a clinician figure out when a child really "has" a disorder, versus the behavior being "just" part of normal behavior?

All of the diagnostic criteria for ADHD include behaviors that at age-appropriate levels are considered completely normal. To qualify as a symptom that is present, the behaviors have to occur "often" and be inappropriate to the child’s developmental level. These subjective judgments about moving targets make drawing the line difficult for clinicians. Most children are well within normal limits and others are clearly beyond them, yet that leaves a sizable group somewhere in that middle "gray zone."

Making matters more complicated is the increasing but still insufficient evidence suggesting that this dimensionality exists when it comes to the underlying neurobiology of ADHD as well. In other words, the genes, environmental factors, brain regions, neurotransmitters, etc., that determine why a child has an average attention span or activity level are the same ones involved in ADHD. Such a revelation, however, in no way should be interpreted as ADHD being not "real," any more than other dimensional nonpsychiatric conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia).

This continuum of behaviors, however, does present a real diagnostic challenge. The inconvenient reality is that there really may not be any "true" rate of ADHD at 5%, 7%, or more recently, 11%. Many people make much of assessing whether or not there is associated impairment with the behaviors, but the truth of the matter is that impairment itself is dimensional.

Thus, we need to appreciate the complexities and limitations of this challenging diagnosis without throwing up our hands in frustration and giving up. After all, these problems can get significantly better with treatment. Here are a few tips to consider.

1. In making an ADHD diagnosis, use quantitative rating scales that appreciate this dimensional nature. Ideally, these instruments should be standardized by age and sex so that, for example, scores of 8-year-old boys can be compared to those of other 8-year-old boys. Don’t feel compelled to come up with a diagnosis on the spot if this procedure takes a little time in getting input from multiple people (parents, teachers, self-report).

2. Don’t stop investigating just because you arrive at an ADHD diagnosis. There are many factors that can result in a child struggling with these behaviors. Poor sleep, excessive screen time, inadequate nutrition, suboptimal parenting practices, exposures to lead and other substances, and lack of exercise are some factors that can underlie these problems. Correcting them can often make a big difference and in some cases can obviate the need for medication.

3. Approach a dimensional diagnosis with dimensional treatment. Just as many patients with borderline levels of hypertension or borderline glucose levels might be recommended to try nonpharmacological interventions first, the same principle can be applied to ADHD. Parent behavioral management, skills training, and addressing potential causes or exacerbating causes described in No. 2 can all provide important benefits.

The bottom line here, in my view, is to appreciate and respect the inherent blurriness of these boundaries without it leading to clinical paralysis. Children who struggle with inattention and hyperactivity are well known to be at risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Pediatricians have a large number of options to help these children that have been shown to be effective and can be individually tailored to each specific case.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Case summary

Dylan is a bright and lively 10-year-old boy who has always been energetic and passionate. His parents have celebrated his exuberance but now have become concerned that there is "something more," after his teacher has needed to remove him from class for several episodes of impulsive and disruptive behavior. Further history reveals that, compared with his classmates, he can be quite distractible and often needs a lot of prompting and redirection to complete his work. Dylan is an intelligent child who has always managed to do well in school despite some longstanding challenges with attention. His performance has slipped somewhat as the academic load increases, although not to the point that he is in jeopardy of being held back.

At home, Dylan enjoys playing outside but also is drawn to video games, an activity that seems to hold his attention well. His parents get frustrated with needing to repeat requests several times and having to remind him to be quieter in the house.

Discussion

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, like all other psychiatric disorders, is defined in binary terms as being present or not-present. Nonetheless, it has become abundantly clear from research studies that the symptoms exist dimensionally and are normally distributed in a manner such as height. As such, diagnosing ADHD is analogous to diagnosing someone as being tall. Given this reality, how does a clinician figure out when a child really "has" a disorder, versus the behavior being "just" part of normal behavior?

All of the diagnostic criteria for ADHD include behaviors that at age-appropriate levels are considered completely normal. To qualify as a symptom that is present, the behaviors have to occur "often" and be inappropriate to the child’s developmental level. These subjective judgments about moving targets make drawing the line difficult for clinicians. Most children are well within normal limits and others are clearly beyond them, yet that leaves a sizable group somewhere in that middle "gray zone."

Making matters more complicated is the increasing but still insufficient evidence suggesting that this dimensionality exists when it comes to the underlying neurobiology of ADHD as well. In other words, the genes, environmental factors, brain regions, neurotransmitters, etc., that determine why a child has an average attention span or activity level are the same ones involved in ADHD. Such a revelation, however, in no way should be interpreted as ADHD being not "real," any more than other dimensional nonpsychiatric conditions (hypertension, hyperlipidemia).

This continuum of behaviors, however, does present a real diagnostic challenge. The inconvenient reality is that there really may not be any "true" rate of ADHD at 5%, 7%, or more recently, 11%. Many people make much of assessing whether or not there is associated impairment with the behaviors, but the truth of the matter is that impairment itself is dimensional.

Thus, we need to appreciate the complexities and limitations of this challenging diagnosis without throwing up our hands in frustration and giving up. After all, these problems can get significantly better with treatment. Here are a few tips to consider.

1. In making an ADHD diagnosis, use quantitative rating scales that appreciate this dimensional nature. Ideally, these instruments should be standardized by age and sex so that, for example, scores of 8-year-old boys can be compared to those of other 8-year-old boys. Don’t feel compelled to come up with a diagnosis on the spot if this procedure takes a little time in getting input from multiple people (parents, teachers, self-report).

2. Don’t stop investigating just because you arrive at an ADHD diagnosis. There are many factors that can result in a child struggling with these behaviors. Poor sleep, excessive screen time, inadequate nutrition, suboptimal parenting practices, exposures to lead and other substances, and lack of exercise are some factors that can underlie these problems. Correcting them can often make a big difference and in some cases can obviate the need for medication.

3. Approach a dimensional diagnosis with dimensional treatment. Just as many patients with borderline levels of hypertension or borderline glucose levels might be recommended to try nonpharmacological interventions first, the same principle can be applied to ADHD. Parent behavioral management, skills training, and addressing potential causes or exacerbating causes described in No. 2 can all provide important benefits.

The bottom line here, in my view, is to appreciate and respect the inherent blurriness of these boundaries without it leading to clinical paralysis. Children who struggle with inattention and hyperactivity are well known to be at risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Pediatricians have a large number of options to help these children that have been shown to be effective and can be individually tailored to each specific case.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Case summary

Owen, an 8-year-old boy, is brought to his pediatrician by his mother. She has noticed that Owen is spending increasing amounts of time doing some repetitive behaviors such as counting to himself and needing to tap particular objects a specified number of times. Certain numbers seem to have special significance, and Owen has expressed some vague concern that something bad could happen if he does not do these behaviors. The rituals are starting to impact his schoolwork, as he often can get "stuck" during assignments. The mother is aware that many kids have some superstitions and wants to know if this is "something more."

Discussion

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a relatively common condition that can respond quite well to treatment. This case example outlines an approach that pediatricians can take to its diagnosis and management in a primary care setting.

Diagnosis

The diagnosis of OCD, according to DSM-5, requires the presence of distressing or impairing obsessions or compulsions. The definition didn’t change much from DSM-IV. Obsessions in children can revolve around things like contamination, disturbing thoughts of harm coming to others, sexual thoughts, or special numbers or words. Compulsions can include rituals with washing, checking, counting, arranging, and hoarding, among other behaviors.

When beginning to evaluate for possible OCD, it is important to talk to both the child and the parent, as it is common for parents to be unaware of the extent of the problem. An instrument called the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) is considered to be the standard in the quantitative assessment of OCD. The rating scale and checklist are easy to administer and appear to be in the public domain.

While the diagnosis is often fairly straightforward, it does take some time, and pediatricians should feel comfortable with the idea of not trying to do everything in one visit. Instead, consider scheduling another visit or two to obtain more time to do a careful assessment. During this evaluation, a couple questions are good to keep in mind.

1. Was a diagnosis of an autistic spectrum disorder missed? OCD behaviors are extremely common among children with autistic spectrum disorders. It might be worthwhile to make sure that the developmental history (pointing, babbling, social smile, odd mannerisms) doesn’t suggest the possibility of autism.

2. Could this be a case of a PANS? There remains discussion about the possibility of an autoimmune origin to some children with OCD. The previous term of Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcus (PANDAS) has been changed to Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS) to reflect a broader profile of behaviors and possible infectious triggers. While the idea remains debated in some circles, there may be value in making sure that there is not an infection lurking that should be treated.

Pearl

When querying about particular OCD symptoms, go through a list with a patient (such as provided on the CY-BOCS), and don’t rely on self-disclosure, as some symptoms, such as seeing violent or sexual images, can be quite disturbing to the child, who often won’t bring them up on his or her own.

Treatment

The recommended first-line treatment for OCD is a type of cognitive-behavioral therapy called exposure and response prevention (ERP). It is a structured form of therapy that involves patients unlearning the association that rituals are necessary in order for their fears not to be realized. While effective, the challenge is often finding a therapist with this type of training.

In many cases, it is reasonable to wait on medication treatment until after a course of ERP has been tried. For more severe cases, it is also reasonable to use both psychotherapy and medications at the same time. Some patients will say that the medication helps them do the work required in therapy.

When it comes to medications, there are a number of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that have shown to be effective and have Food and Drug Administration approvals for pediatric OCD (for some reason that escapes me, many pharmaceutical companies have sought FDA approval for OCD and not other child psychiatric disorders). Fluoxetine, sertraline, and fluvoxamine all have FDA approval, in addition to the tricyclic clomipramine for use in refractory cases. As in all children, starting at a low dose is usually prudent (5-10 mg of fluoxetine, 12.5-25 mg of sertraline), but with OCD higher doses are often required for maximal response (more than 100 mg of sertraline or 40 mg of fluoxetine, depending on the patient’s age, size, and tolerance). It is also important to remember that the suicide warning present for the SSRIs also applies to children with anxiety disorders.

An overall treatment plan for an OCD patient, according to a previously discussed model for mental health treatment, might look like the following:

• Education. Discuss diagnosis of OCD with children and family. Let them know about support organizations such as the OC Foundation.

• Individual therapy. Referral to a cognitive-behavioral therapist for exposure and response prevention.

• Parents. Screen parents for their own OCD or other psychopathology and refer if positive. Parental guidance regarding how best to approach the child will occur within cognitive-behavioral therapy.

• School. (This is indicated if the child’s symptoms are affecting school.) Consider a request for evaluation at school to assess the need for a 504 or individualized education plan (IEP).

• Environment. Discuss minimizing OCD triggers at home.

• Medications. Begin fluoxetine 5 mg per day. Informed consent is important, including suicide warnings. (You might delay this step if a therapist is available to begin ERP first.)

• Follow-up should take place in 2 weeks, with a possible increase of fluoxetine to 10 mg and reassessment with CY-BOCS.

When to consult? Many patients with relatively uncomplicated OCD can be effectively managed in the primary care setting. Consultation may be useful for instances of poor treatment response, other occurring psychiatric disorders (such as autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder), family conflict and resistance, or diagnostic uncertainty with other conditions, such as a psychotic disorder.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He is the author of "Child Temperament: New Thinking About the Boundary between Traits and Illness." Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Case summary

Owen, an 8-year-old boy, is brought to his pediatrician by his mother. She has noticed that Owen is spending increasing amounts of time doing some repetitive behaviors such as counting to himself and needing to tap particular objects a specified number of times. Certain numbers seem to have special significance, and Owen has expressed some vague concern that something bad could happen if he does not do these behaviors. The rituals are starting to impact his schoolwork, as he often can get "stuck" during assignments. The mother is aware that many kids have some superstitions and wants to know if this is "something more."

Discussion

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a relatively common condition that can respond quite well to treatment. This case example outlines an approach that pediatricians can take to its diagnosis and management in a primary care setting.

Diagnosis

The diagnosis of OCD, according to DSM-5, requires the presence of distressing or impairing obsessions or compulsions. The definition didn’t change much from DSM-IV. Obsessions in children can revolve around things like contamination, disturbing thoughts of harm coming to others, sexual thoughts, or special numbers or words. Compulsions can include rituals with washing, checking, counting, arranging, and hoarding, among other behaviors.

When beginning to evaluate for possible OCD, it is important to talk to both the child and the parent, as it is common for parents to be unaware of the extent of the problem. An instrument called the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) is considered to be the standard in the quantitative assessment of OCD. The rating scale and checklist are easy to administer and appear to be in the public domain.

While the diagnosis is often fairly straightforward, it does take some time, and pediatricians should feel comfortable with the idea of not trying to do everything in one visit. Instead, consider scheduling another visit or two to obtain more time to do a careful assessment. During this evaluation, a couple questions are good to keep in mind.

1. Was a diagnosis of an autistic spectrum disorder missed? OCD behaviors are extremely common among children with autistic spectrum disorders. It might be worthwhile to make sure that the developmental history (pointing, babbling, social smile, odd mannerisms) doesn’t suggest the possibility of autism.

2. Could this be a case of a PANS? There remains discussion about the possibility of an autoimmune origin to some children with OCD. The previous term of Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcus (PANDAS) has been changed to Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS) to reflect a broader profile of behaviors and possible infectious triggers. While the idea remains debated in some circles, there may be value in making sure that there is not an infection lurking that should be treated.

Pearl

When querying about particular OCD symptoms, go through a list with a patient (such as provided on the CY-BOCS), and don’t rely on self-disclosure, as some symptoms, such as seeing violent or sexual images, can be quite disturbing to the child, who often won’t bring them up on his or her own.

Treatment

The recommended first-line treatment for OCD is a type of cognitive-behavioral therapy called exposure and response prevention (ERP). It is a structured form of therapy that involves patients unlearning the association that rituals are necessary in order for their fears not to be realized. While effective, the challenge is often finding a therapist with this type of training.

In many cases, it is reasonable to wait on medication treatment until after a course of ERP has been tried. For more severe cases, it is also reasonable to use both psychotherapy and medications at the same time. Some patients will say that the medication helps them do the work required in therapy.

When it comes to medications, there are a number of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that have shown to be effective and have Food and Drug Administration approvals for pediatric OCD (for some reason that escapes me, many pharmaceutical companies have sought FDA approval for OCD and not other child psychiatric disorders). Fluoxetine, sertraline, and fluvoxamine all have FDA approval, in addition to the tricyclic clomipramine for use in refractory cases. As in all children, starting at a low dose is usually prudent (5-10 mg of fluoxetine, 12.5-25 mg of sertraline), but with OCD higher doses are often required for maximal response (more than 100 mg of sertraline or 40 mg of fluoxetine, depending on the patient’s age, size, and tolerance). It is also important to remember that the suicide warning present for the SSRIs also applies to children with anxiety disorders.

An overall treatment plan for an OCD patient, according to a previously discussed model for mental health treatment, might look like the following:

• Education. Discuss diagnosis of OCD with children and family. Let them know about support organizations such as the OC Foundation.

• Individual therapy. Referral to a cognitive-behavioral therapist for exposure and response prevention.

• Parents. Screen parents for their own OCD or other psychopathology and refer if positive. Parental guidance regarding how best to approach the child will occur within cognitive-behavioral therapy.

• School. (This is indicated if the child’s symptoms are affecting school.) Consider a request for evaluation at school to assess the need for a 504 or individualized education plan (IEP).

• Environment. Discuss minimizing OCD triggers at home.

• Medications. Begin fluoxetine 5 mg per day. Informed consent is important, including suicide warnings. (You might delay this step if a therapist is available to begin ERP first.)

• Follow-up should take place in 2 weeks, with a possible increase of fluoxetine to 10 mg and reassessment with CY-BOCS.

When to consult? Many patients with relatively uncomplicated OCD can be effectively managed in the primary care setting. Consultation may be useful for instances of poor treatment response, other occurring psychiatric disorders (such as autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder), family conflict and resistance, or diagnostic uncertainty with other conditions, such as a psychotic disorder.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He is the author of "Child Temperament: New Thinking About the Boundary between Traits and Illness." Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.

Case summary

Owen, an 8-year-old boy, is brought to his pediatrician by his mother. She has noticed that Owen is spending increasing amounts of time doing some repetitive behaviors such as counting to himself and needing to tap particular objects a specified number of times. Certain numbers seem to have special significance, and Owen has expressed some vague concern that something bad could happen if he does not do these behaviors. The rituals are starting to impact his schoolwork, as he often can get "stuck" during assignments. The mother is aware that many kids have some superstitions and wants to know if this is "something more."

Discussion

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a relatively common condition that can respond quite well to treatment. This case example outlines an approach that pediatricians can take to its diagnosis and management in a primary care setting.

Diagnosis

The diagnosis of OCD, according to DSM-5, requires the presence of distressing or impairing obsessions or compulsions. The definition didn’t change much from DSM-IV. Obsessions in children can revolve around things like contamination, disturbing thoughts of harm coming to others, sexual thoughts, or special numbers or words. Compulsions can include rituals with washing, checking, counting, arranging, and hoarding, among other behaviors.

When beginning to evaluate for possible OCD, it is important to talk to both the child and the parent, as it is common for parents to be unaware of the extent of the problem. An instrument called the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) is considered to be the standard in the quantitative assessment of OCD. The rating scale and checklist are easy to administer and appear to be in the public domain.

While the diagnosis is often fairly straightforward, it does take some time, and pediatricians should feel comfortable with the idea of not trying to do everything in one visit. Instead, consider scheduling another visit or two to obtain more time to do a careful assessment. During this evaluation, a couple questions are good to keep in mind.

1. Was a diagnosis of an autistic spectrum disorder missed? OCD behaviors are extremely common among children with autistic spectrum disorders. It might be worthwhile to make sure that the developmental history (pointing, babbling, social smile, odd mannerisms) doesn’t suggest the possibility of autism.

2. Could this be a case of a PANS? There remains discussion about the possibility of an autoimmune origin to some children with OCD. The previous term of Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcus (PANDAS) has been changed to Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS) to reflect a broader profile of behaviors and possible infectious triggers. While the idea remains debated in some circles, there may be value in making sure that there is not an infection lurking that should be treated.

Pearl

When querying about particular OCD symptoms, go through a list with a patient (such as provided on the CY-BOCS), and don’t rely on self-disclosure, as some symptoms, such as seeing violent or sexual images, can be quite disturbing to the child, who often won’t bring them up on his or her own.

Treatment

The recommended first-line treatment for OCD is a type of cognitive-behavioral therapy called exposure and response prevention (ERP). It is a structured form of therapy that involves patients unlearning the association that rituals are necessary in order for their fears not to be realized. While effective, the challenge is often finding a therapist with this type of training.

In many cases, it is reasonable to wait on medication treatment until after a course of ERP has been tried. For more severe cases, it is also reasonable to use both psychotherapy and medications at the same time. Some patients will say that the medication helps them do the work required in therapy.

When it comes to medications, there are a number of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that have shown to be effective and have Food and Drug Administration approvals for pediatric OCD (for some reason that escapes me, many pharmaceutical companies have sought FDA approval for OCD and not other child psychiatric disorders). Fluoxetine, sertraline, and fluvoxamine all have FDA approval, in addition to the tricyclic clomipramine for use in refractory cases. As in all children, starting at a low dose is usually prudent (5-10 mg of fluoxetine, 12.5-25 mg of sertraline), but with OCD higher doses are often required for maximal response (more than 100 mg of sertraline or 40 mg of fluoxetine, depending on the patient’s age, size, and tolerance). It is also important to remember that the suicide warning present for the SSRIs also applies to children with anxiety disorders.

An overall treatment plan for an OCD patient, according to a previously discussed model for mental health treatment, might look like the following:

• Education. Discuss diagnosis of OCD with children and family. Let them know about support organizations such as the OC Foundation.

• Individual therapy. Referral to a cognitive-behavioral therapist for exposure and response prevention.

• Parents. Screen parents for their own OCD or other psychopathology and refer if positive. Parental guidance regarding how best to approach the child will occur within cognitive-behavioral therapy.

• School. (This is indicated if the child’s symptoms are affecting school.) Consider a request for evaluation at school to assess the need for a 504 or individualized education plan (IEP).

• Environment. Discuss minimizing OCD triggers at home.

• Medications. Begin fluoxetine 5 mg per day. Informed consent is important, including suicide warnings. (You might delay this step if a therapist is available to begin ERP first.)

• Follow-up should take place in 2 weeks, with a possible increase of fluoxetine to 10 mg and reassessment with CY-BOCS.

When to consult? Many patients with relatively uncomplicated OCD can be effectively managed in the primary care setting. Consultation may be useful for instances of poor treatment response, other occurring psychiatric disorders (such as autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder), family conflict and resistance, or diagnostic uncertainty with other conditions, such as a psychotic disorder.

Dr. Rettew is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He is the author of "Child Temperament: New Thinking About the Boundary between Traits and Illness." Follow him on Twitter @pedipsych.