Treatment-resistant OCD: There’s more we can do

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/17/2019 - 13:16
Display Headline
Treatment-resistant OCD: There’s more we can do
Mr. S, age 30, transfers to your practice and shares that he was first diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) at age 10. He currently worries about whether he may have offended people by using the wrong words in his emails and he apologizes excessively. He fears that his body odor disturbs other people, and he sprays room freshener every time he exits a room. To measure the severity of his current symptoms, you complete the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). Mr. S’s Y-BOCS score is a 32 out of a maximum of 40, indicating severe OCD. Previously, he has received trials of adequate doses of 2 selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; fluoxetine and sertraline) and currently is taking clomipramine, 100 mg twice daily. However, he still is experiencing substantial obsessions and compulsions that interfere with his relationships with his friends and family members.


Treatment-resistant OCD can be a debilitating condition. Diagnostic clarity is crucial to fully elicit symptoms and identify comorbid conditions in order to develop practical, evidence-based treatment strategies and improve the patient’s and family’s quality of life. In this article, we delineate first-line strategies for treatment-resistant OCD and then review augmentation strategies, with an emphasis on glutamate-modulating agents.

Making the diagnosis

The diagnosis of OCD is made when a patient meets DSM-5 criteria for the presence of obsessions and/or compulsions, which are defined as unwanted, distressing, intrusive, recurrent thoughts or images (obsessions) and repetitive behaviors or mental acts (compulsions).1 OCD is considered a chronic waxing and waning disorder; stress and lack of sleep lead to worsening symptoms. The hidden nature of symptoms and the reinforcement provided by the reduction in anxiety after performing a compulsion contribute to sustained illness. Eliciting symptoms from patients may be challenging due to the shame they may feel. When reviewing symptoms on the Y-BOCS, it is helpful to preface questions with statements such as “Many people report excessive concern or disgust with…” to help the patient feel understood and less anxious, rather than using direct queries, such as “Are you bothered by…?”

 

Consider comorbid conditions

After making the initial diagnosis of OCD, it is important to assess whether the symptoms are better accounted for by another condition, and whether comorbid conditions are present (Table 1).

 

CASE CONTINUED
Ruling out other diagnoses

In the course of Mr. S’s evaluation, you rule out a psychotic disorder because he has insight that his behaviors may not be necessary to combat his fears. You also rule out a mood disorder with obsessive features. Although Mr. S admits he is frustrated by a lack of relief from medication, he denies experiencing any sustained periods of mania, low mood, or suicidal thoughts. He does endorse excessive guilt for contaminating people’s homes and poor concentration at work because he often is distracted by his fears that he has offended his colleagues.

_

Initial treatment: CBT

Cognitive-behavioral therapy with exposures and response prevention (from here on referred to as CBT) has been established as a first-line, evidence-based treatment for OCD in both children and adults.2,3 For patients with treatment-resistant OCD, intensive daily CBT in a partial hospitalization or inpatient setting that is a tailor-made, patient-specific program is one of the most effective treatments, with response rates of up to 70%4-8 CBT’s advantages over medication include lower relapse rates and no known adverse effects. Unfortunately, CBT is underused9-11 due in part to a shortage of trained clinicians, and because patients may favor the ease of taking medication over the time, effort, and cost involved in CBT.

First-line pharmacologic options for treating OCD are SSRIs and clomipramine, as supported by multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, expert guidelines, and consensus statements (Table 22,12-14). No significant difference has been found among SSRIs for the treatment of OCD in a review of 17 studies that included more than 3,000 patients.15 Treatment with SSRIs or clomipramine is effective for 50% to 60% of patients.16 Many clinicians view the combination of an SSRI and CBT as the treatment of choice for OCD.2

 

Continue to: Reluctance to engage in CBT

 

 

CASE CONTINUED
Reluctance to engage in CBT

To determine the next course of action, you review Mr. S’s treatment history. He has received adequate doses of 2 SSRIs and currently is taking clomipramine, 100 mg twice daily. He recently began CBT, which includes homework to help face his fears; however, Mr. S is reluctant to complete the exposure assignments, and after pausing for a few seconds as he tries to resist sending an apology email to his coworkers, he then returns to his compulsive behavior.

Facing treatment resistance

Although currently there isn’t a cure to resolve all traces of OCD, the goal of treatment is to decrease distress, interference, and the frequency of symptoms to a minimal level such that only the patients themselves are aware of symptoms. In broad terms, “response” has been defined as a decrease in symptoms, and “remission” has been defined as minimal symptoms after treatment.

Close to half of adults treated for OCD respond well to standard-of-care treatment (CBT and/or an SSRI), while the other 50% are considered partial responders or nonresponders.2 For patients with OCD, researchers often define “treatment response” as a ≥25% reduction in symptom severity score on the Y-BOCS. Approximately 30% of adults with OCD do not respond substantially to the first-line treatments, and even those who are defined as “responders” in research studies typically continue to have significant symptoms that impact their quality of life.2 In children, a clinical definition for treatment-refractory OCD has been presented as failing to achieve adequate symptom relief despite receiving an adequate course of CBT and at least 2 adequate trials of an SSRI or clomipramine.17 In the Pediatric OCD Treatment Study (POTS) trial, >46% of youth did not achieve remission from their OCD symptoms, even after receiving evidence-based care provided by experienced clinicians (combined treatment with CBT and an SSRI).18

_

Challenges in psychotherapy

Compassion is a key element in developing rapport with patients to help them face increasingly more challenging exposures. Making OCD the problem, not the person, is an essential element in helping patients move forward. Some clinicians may become frustrated with patients when treatment is not moving along well, referring to resistance, denial, or sabotage. According to March and Mulle,19 these terms lack the recognition and compassion that exposures are inherently difficult.19

Another challenge for therapists is if the patient’s presenting symptoms are personally offensive or a sensitive topic. For example, a therapist who is disgusted by public restrooms will find it difficult to tolerate the risks associated with exposure to germs and support a patient in touching objects in the restroom. Therapists also may be challenged when the patient’s fears align with the therapist’s religious beliefs. In these situations, consider transferring care to another therapist.

Family members need to learn about the nature of the illness and their roles in helping patients improve. Family members may unknowingly enable symptoms or criticize patients for their lack of motivation, which can lead to conflict in the home. Family dysfunction can in turn worsen OCD symptoms.

The most likely cause of lack of response to therapy is inexpert CBT.19 Deep breathing and relaxation training have been used as an active placebo in studies20; in a meta-analysis examining the effective components of CBT, studies that added relaxation training were not more effective than those that employed exposures alone.21 Patients receiving CBT should be able to articulate the hierarchical approach used to gradually face their fears.

Continue to: Pharmacologic augmentation strategies

 

 

Pharmacologic augmentation strategies

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. While most OCD research trials have assessed SSRIs in 12-week studies, clinicians may consider extending SSRI treatment for an additional 12 weeks for nonresponders because some patients will continue to make gains. In the past, it was generally believed that higher doses of SSRIs are needed for treating OCD than for treating major depressive disorder. For instance, greater improvement was seen with 250 to 400 mg/d of sertraline compared with 200 mg/d22 and with escitalopram after an increase of dose up to 50 mg/d.23 However, more recently, this notion of higher doses being necessary for treatment response has been called into question. For example, a study of escitalopram found similar responses to 10 mg/d vs 20 mg/d after 24 weeks.24 A meta-analysis of adult studies of SSRIs for OCD supported higher doses as being more effective, but noted that the drop-out rate from treatment was greater in patients treated with higher doses.25 As a note of caution, long-term, high-dose maintenance therapy increases the risk of adverse reactions.26

Following a failed treatment with a first SSRI, it remains debatable as to what ought to be the second pharmacologic treatment. Although clomipramine is often reserved for treatment after 2 failed trials of an SSRI due to its greater risk of adverse effects, in an open-label study, switching from an SSRI to clomipramine led to greater response than switching from one SSRI to another.27 On the other hand, while meta-analyses have reported greater treatment effect for oral clomipramine than for SSRIs, direct head-to-head comparisons have not supported this notion.28 To get the best of both worlds, some clinicians employ a strategy of combining clomipramine with an SSRI, while monitoring for adverse effects and interactions such as serotonin syndrome.29-31

 

Benzodiazepines. Although benzodiazepines are useful for brief treatment of an anxiety disorder (eg, for a person with a fear of heights who needs to take an airplane),32 they have not been shown to be effective for OCD33 or as augmentation to an SSRI.34

N-acetylcysteine (NAC). Two RCTs of adults with OCD who received adjunctive NAC, 3 g/d in divided doses, found no significant difference in the treatment arms by the conclusion of 16 weeks—either both groups improved, or both groups failed to improve.35,36 In a 10-week study of patients with moderate to severe OCD symptoms, NAC, 2 g/d, as augmentation to fluvoxamine, 200 mg/d, showed a significant time x interaction in the treatment group.37 No follow-up information is available, however.

In a multicenter RCT of NAC given to children and adolescents with OCD as augmentation to citalopram, symptoms decreased and the quality-of-life score improved, with a large treatment effect size in the NAC group.38 However, in a study aimed at examining NAC in youth with Tourette syndrome, OCD symptoms were measured as a secondary outcome and there was no benefit of NAC over placebo.39

Memantine. Four 8- to 12-week RCTs in adults with OCD favored adjunctive memantine, 20 mg/d, taken with an SSRI, over placebo.40-43 A small study suggests that patients with OCD may be more likely to respond to memantine than patients with generalized anxiety disorder.44 Case reports have noted that memantine has been beneficial for pediatric patients with refractory OCD.45

Continue to: Topiramate

 

 

Topiramate. Three 12-week RCTs examined topiramate augmentation at 100 to 400 mg/d in patients with OCD who had failed at least 1 previous trial of an SSRI. The earliest study was most encouraging: Y-BOCS scores decreased by 32% in the topiramate group but by only 2.4% in the placebo group.46 However, the other 2 studies found no difference in the final OCD symptom severity score between active treatment and placebo groups,47,48 and the use of topiramate, particularly at higher doses, was limited by its adverse effects.

Lamotrigine. Initially, lamotrigine augmentation of SSRIs in OCD did not appear to be helpful.49 More recently, several case studies reported that lamotrigine, 100 to 200 mg/d, added to paroxetine or clomipramine, resulted in dramatic improvement in Y-BOCS scores for patients with long-standing refractory symptoms.50,51 In a retrospective review of 22 patients who received augmentation with lamotrigine, 150 mg/d, 20 had a significant response; the mean decrease in Y-BOCS score was 67%.52 Finally, in a 16-week RCT, lamotrigine, 100 mg/d, added to an SSRI led to a significant decrease in both Y-BOCS score and depressive symptoms while also improving semantic fluency.53

Ketamine. Ketamine is drawing increased attention for its nearly instantaneous antidepressant effect that lasts for up to 2 weeks after a single infusion.54 In a study of 15 medication-free adults with continuous intrusive obsessions, 4 of 8 patients who received a single IV infusion of ketamine, 0.5 mg/kg, met the criteria for treatment response (>35% reduction in Y-BOCS score measured 1 week later); none of the patients who received a placebo infusion of saline met this criteria.55 A small open-label trial of 10 treatment-refractory patients found that an infusion of ketamine, 0.5 mg/kg, was beneficial for comorbid depression but had only a minimal effect on OCD symptoms measured 3 days post-infusion.56 A short-term follow-up on these patients revealed dysphoria in some responders.57

D-cycloserine. The idea of using a pharmacologic agent to increase the speed or efficacy of behavioral therapy is intriguing. Proof of concept was demonstrated in a study that found that giving D-cycloserine prior to computerized exposure therapy significantly improved clinical response in patients with acrophobia.58 However, using this approach to treating OCD netted mixed results; D-cycloserine was found to be most helpful during early stages of treatment.59,60

 

Table 3 outlines the mechanisms of action and common uses for NAC, memantine, ketamine, topiramate, lamotrigine, and D-cycloserine. Table 4 summarizes the literature on the efficacy of some of the augmentation strategies for treating OCD described in this article.

Continue to: Alternative strategies

 

 

Alternative strategies

Augmentation strategies with neuroleptics,61 transcranial magnetic stimulation,62 and deep brain stimulation63 have recently been reviewed. Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review of these strategies, but in a cross-sectional study of augmentation strategies in OCD, no difference was found in terms of symptom severity between those prescribed SSRI monotherapy or augmentation with neuroleptics, benzodiazepines, or antidepressants.64

CASE CONTINUED
Progress in CBT

Mr. S agrees to a trial of NAC as an augmentation strategy, but after 8 weeks of treatment with NAC, 600 mg twice daily, his Y-BOCS had declined by only 2 points. He also complains of nausea and does not want to increase the dose. You discontinue NAC and opt to further explore his reaction to CBT. Mr. S shares that he has been seeing his psychologist only once every 3 weeks because he does not want to miss work. You encourage him to increase to weekly CBT sessions, and you obtain his permission to contact his therapist and his family members. Fortunately, his therapist is highly qualified, but unfortunately, Mr. S’s father has been sending him multiple critical emails about not advancing at his job and for being “lazy” at work. You schedule a session with Mr. S and his father. Great progress is made after Mr. S and his father both share their frustrations and come to understand and appreciate each other’s struggles. Four weeks later, after weekly CBT appointments, Mr. S has a Y-BOCS of 18 and spends <2 hours/d checking emails for errors and apologizing.

Bottom Line

It is unrealistic to expect OCD symptoms to be cured. Many ‘treatment-resistant’ patients have not received properly delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy, and this first-line treatment modality should be considered in every eligible patient, and augmented with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) when needed. Glutamatergic agents, in turn, can augment SSRIs.

 

Related Resources

Drug Brand Names
Citalopram • Celexa
Clomipramine • Anafranil
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lamotrigine • Lamictal
Memantine • Namenda
Paroxetine • Paxil
Sertraline • Zoloft
Topiramate • Topomax

References

1. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
2. Koran LM, Hanna GL, Hollander E, et al. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Am J Psychiatry; 2007;164(suppl 7):5-53.
3. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2012;51(1):98-113.
4. Bystritsky A, Munford PR, Rosen RM, et al. A preliminary study of partial hospital management of severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;47(2):170-174.
5. Calvocoressi L, McDougle CI, Wasylink S, et al. Inpatient treatment of patients with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1993;44(12):1150-1154.
6. Eddy KT, Dutra L, Bradley R, et al. A multidimensional meta-analysis of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Clin Psychol Rev. 2004;24(8):1011-1030.
7. Abramowitz JS. The psychological treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 2006;51(7):407-416.
8. Simpson HB, Huppert JD, Petkova E, et al. Response versus remission in obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(2):269-276.
9. Marques L, LeBlanc NJ, Weingarden HM, et al. Barriers to treatment and service utilization in an internet sample of individuals with obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Depress Anxiety. 2010;27(5):470-475.
10. Goodwin R, Koenen KC, Hellman F, et al. Helpseeking and access to mental health treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2002;106(2):143-149.
11. Kohn R, Saxena S, Levav I, et al. The treatment gap in mental health care. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(11):858-866.
12. Baldwin DS, Anderson IM, Nutt DJ, et al. Evidence-based pharmacological treatment of anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder: a revision of the 2005 guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology. J Psychopharmacol. 2014;28(5):403-439.
13. Lovell K, Bee P. Implementing the NICE OCD/BDD guidelines. Psychol Psychother. 2008;81(Pt 4):365-376.
14. Bandelow B, Sher L, Bunevicius R, et al. Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder in primary care. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2012;16(2):77-84.
15. Soomro GM, Altman D, Rajagopal S, et al. Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus placebo for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1):CD001765.
16. Pittenger C, Bloch MH. Pharmacological treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2014;37(3):375-391.
17. Bloch MH, Storch EA. Assessment and management of treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder in children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2015;54(4):251-262.
18. Pediatric OCD Treatment Study (POTS) Team. Cognitive-behavior therapy, sertraline, and their combination for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: the Pediatric OCD Treatment Study (POTS) randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;292(16):1969-1976.
19. March JS, Mulle K. OCD in children and adolescents: a cognitive-behavioral treatment manual. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1998.
20. Marks IM. Fears, phobias, and rituals: Panic, anxiety, and their disorders. 1987, New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1987.
21. Ale CM, McCarthy DM, Rothschild LM, et al. Components of cognitive behavioral therapy related to outcome in childhood anxiety disorders. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2015;18(3):240-251.
22. Ninan PT, Koran LM, Kiev A, et al. High-dose sertraline strategy for nonresponders to acute treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a multicenter double-blind trial. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(1):15-22.
23. Rabinowitz I, Baruch Y, Barak Y. High-dose escitalopram for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008;23(1):49-53.
24. Stein DJ, Andersen EW, Tonnoir B, et al. Escitalopram in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled, paroxetine-referenced, fixed-dose, 24-week study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(4):701-711.
25. Bloch MH, McGuire J, Landeros-Weisenberger A, et al. Meta-analysis of the dose-response relationship of SSRI in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Mol Psychiatry. 2010;15(8):850-855.
26. Sayyah M, Majzoob S, Sayyah M. Metabolic and toxicological considerations for obsessive-compulsive disorder drug therapy. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2013;9(6):657-673.
27. Hollander E, Bienstock CA, Koran LM, et al. Refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: state-of-the-art treatment. J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63(suppl 6):20-29.
28. Fineberg NA, Gale TM. Evidence-based pharma­cotherapy of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2005;8(1):107-129.
29. Marazziti D, Golia F, Consoli G, et al. Effectiveness of long-term augmentation with citalopram to clomipramine in treatment-resistant OCD patients. CNS Spectr. 2008;13(11):971-976.
30. Browne M, Horn E, Jones TT. The benefits of clomipramine-fluoxetine combination in obsessive compulsive disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 1993;38(4):242-243.
31. Ravizza L, Barzega G, Bellino S, et al. Drug treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD): long-term trial with clomipramine and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Psychopharmacol Bull. 1996;32(1):167-173.
32. Koen N, Stein DJ. Pharmacotherapy of anxiety disorders: a critical review. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(4):423-437.
33. Hollander E, Kaplan A, Stahl SM. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of clonazepam in obsessive-compulsive disorder. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2003;4(1):30-34.
34. Crockett BA, Churchill E, Davidson JR. A double-blind combination study of clonazepam with sertraline in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2004;16(3):127-132.
35. Costa DLC, Diniz JB, Requena G, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of n-acetylcysteine augmentation for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2017;78(7):e766-e773.
36. Sarris J, Oliver G, Camfield DA, et al. N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC) in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: a 16-week, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study. CNS Drugs. 2015;29(9):801-809.
37. Paydary K, Akamaloo A, Ahmadipour A, et al. N-acetylcysteine augmentation therapy for moderate-to-severe obsessive-compulsive disorder: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2016;41(2):214-219.
38. Ghanizadeh A, Mohammadi MR, Bahraini S, et al. Efficacy of N-acetylcysteine augmentation on obsessive compulsive disorder: a multicenter randomized double blind placebo controlled clinical trial. Iran J Psychiatry. 2017;12(2):134-141.
39. Bloch MH, Panza KE, Yaffa A, et al. N-acetylcysteine in the treatment of pediatric tourette syndrome: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled add-on trial. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2016;26(4):327-334.
40. Ghaleiha A, Entezari N, Modabbernia A, et al. Memantine add-on in moderate to severe obsessive-compulsive disorder: randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. J Psychiatr Res. 2013;47(2):175-180.
41. Stewart SE, Jenike EA, Hezel DM, et al. A single-blinded case-control study of memantine in severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010;30(1):34-39.
42. Modarresi A, Sayyah M, Razooghi S, et al. Memantine augmentation improves symptoms in serotonin reuptake inhibitor-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2017. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-120268. [Epub ahead of print].
43. Haghighi M, Jahangard L, Mohammad-Beigi H, et al. In a double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled trial, adjuvant memantine improved symptoms in inpatients suffering from refractory obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD). Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2013;228(4):633-640.
44. Feusner JD, Kerwin L, Saxena S, et al. Differential efficacy of memantine for obsessive-compulsive disorder vs. generalized anxiety disorder: an open-label trial. Psychopharmacol Bull. 2009;42(1):81-93.
45. Hezel DM, Beattie K, Stewart SE. Memantine as an augmenting agent for severe pediatric OCD. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(2):237.
46. Mowla A, Khajeian AM, Sahraian A, et al. topiramate augmentation in resistant ocd: a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. CNS Spectr. 2010;15(11):613-617.
47. Berlin H, Koran LM, Jenike MA, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of topiramate augmentation in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2011;72(5):716-721.
48. Afshar H, Akuchekian S, Mahaky B, et al. Topiramate augmentation in refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Res Med Sci. 2014;19(10):976-981.
49. Kumar TC, Khanna S. Lamotrigine augmentation of serotonin re-uptake inhibitors in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2000;34(3):527-528.
50. Arrojo-Romero M, Tajes Alonso M, de Leon J. Lamotrigine augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors in severe and long-term treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. Case Rep Psychiatry. 2013;2013:612459.
51. Uzun O. Lamotrigine as an augmentation agent in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: a case report. J Psychopharmacol. 2010;24(3):425-427.
52. Hussain A, Dar MA, Wani RA, et al. Role of lamotrigine augmentation in treatment-resistant obsessive compulsive disorder: a retrospective case review from South Asia. Indian J Psychol Med. 2015;37(2):154-158.
53. Bruno A, Micò U, Pandolfo G, et al. Lamotrigine augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Psychopharmacol. 2012;26(11):1456-1462.
54. Krystal JH, Sanacora G, Duman RS. Rapid-acting glutamatergic antidepressants: the path to ketamine and beyond. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;73(12):113311-41.
55. Rodriguez CI, Kegeles LS, Levinson A, et al. Randomized controlled crossover trial of ketamine in obsessive-compulsive disorder: proof-of-concept. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013;38(12):2475-2483.
56. Bloch MH, Wasylink S, Landeros-Weisenberger A,, et al. Effects of ketamine in treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;72(11):964-970.
57. Niciu MJ, Grunschel BD, Corlett PR, et al. Two cases of delayed-onset suicidal ideation, dysphoria and anxiety after ketamine infusion in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder and a history of major depressive disorder. J Psychopharmacol. 2013;27(7):651-654.
58. Ressler KJ, Rothbaum BO, Tannenbaum L, et al. Cognitive enhancers as adjuncts to psychotherapy: use of D-cycloserine in phobic individuals to facilitate extinction of fear. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004;61(11):1136-1144.
59. Norberg MM, Krystal JH, Tolin DF. A meta-analysis of D-cycloserine and the facilitation of fear extinction and exposure therapy. Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63(12):1118-1126.
60. Xia J, Du Y, Han J, et al. D-cycloserine augmentation in behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analysis. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2015;9:2101-2117.
61. Veale D, Miles S, Smallcombe N, et al. Atypical antipsychotic augmentation in SSRI treatment refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:317.
62. Guo Q, Li C, Wang J. Updated review on the clinical use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in psychiatric disorders. Neurosci Bull. 2017;33(6):747-756.
63. Naesström, M, Blomstedt P, Bodlund O. A systematic review of psychiatric indications for deep brain stimulation, with focus on major depressive and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Nord J Psychiatry. 2016;70(7):483-491.
64. Van Ameringen M, Simpson W, Patterson B, et al. Pharmacological treatment strategies in obsessive compulsive disorder: A cross-sectional view in nine international OCD centers. J Psychopharmacol, 2014;28(6):596-602.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Elana Harris, MD, PhD
Assistant Professor
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
Cincinnati, Ohio

Sergio V. Delgado, MD
Professor
Medical Director of Outpatient Services
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge support from the National Institute of Mental Health 5K23MH100640-04 and helpful editorial comments from Dr. Jessica McClure.

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Issue
Current Psychiatry - 17(11)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
10-12,14-18,51
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Elana Harris, MD, PhD
Assistant Professor
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
Cincinnati, Ohio

Sergio V. Delgado, MD
Professor
Medical Director of Outpatient Services
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge support from the National Institute of Mental Health 5K23MH100640-04 and helpful editorial comments from Dr. Jessica McClure.

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Author and Disclosure Information

Elana Harris, MD, PhD
Assistant Professor
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
Cincinnati, Ohio

Sergio V. Delgado, MD
Professor
Medical Director of Outpatient Services
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge support from the National Institute of Mental Health 5K23MH100640-04 and helpful editorial comments from Dr. Jessica McClure.

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Mr. S, age 30, transfers to your practice and shares that he was first diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) at age 10. He currently worries about whether he may have offended people by using the wrong words in his emails and he apologizes excessively. He fears that his body odor disturbs other people, and he sprays room freshener every time he exits a room. To measure the severity of his current symptoms, you complete the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). Mr. S’s Y-BOCS score is a 32 out of a maximum of 40, indicating severe OCD. Previously, he has received trials of adequate doses of 2 selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; fluoxetine and sertraline) and currently is taking clomipramine, 100 mg twice daily. However, he still is experiencing substantial obsessions and compulsions that interfere with his relationships with his friends and family members.


Treatment-resistant OCD can be a debilitating condition. Diagnostic clarity is crucial to fully elicit symptoms and identify comorbid conditions in order to develop practical, evidence-based treatment strategies and improve the patient’s and family’s quality of life. In this article, we delineate first-line strategies for treatment-resistant OCD and then review augmentation strategies, with an emphasis on glutamate-modulating agents.

Making the diagnosis

The diagnosis of OCD is made when a patient meets DSM-5 criteria for the presence of obsessions and/or compulsions, which are defined as unwanted, distressing, intrusive, recurrent thoughts or images (obsessions) and repetitive behaviors or mental acts (compulsions).1 OCD is considered a chronic waxing and waning disorder; stress and lack of sleep lead to worsening symptoms. The hidden nature of symptoms and the reinforcement provided by the reduction in anxiety after performing a compulsion contribute to sustained illness. Eliciting symptoms from patients may be challenging due to the shame they may feel. When reviewing symptoms on the Y-BOCS, it is helpful to preface questions with statements such as “Many people report excessive concern or disgust with…” to help the patient feel understood and less anxious, rather than using direct queries, such as “Are you bothered by…?”

 

Consider comorbid conditions

After making the initial diagnosis of OCD, it is important to assess whether the symptoms are better accounted for by another condition, and whether comorbid conditions are present (Table 1).

 

CASE CONTINUED
Ruling out other diagnoses

In the course of Mr. S’s evaluation, you rule out a psychotic disorder because he has insight that his behaviors may not be necessary to combat his fears. You also rule out a mood disorder with obsessive features. Although Mr. S admits he is frustrated by a lack of relief from medication, he denies experiencing any sustained periods of mania, low mood, or suicidal thoughts. He does endorse excessive guilt for contaminating people’s homes and poor concentration at work because he often is distracted by his fears that he has offended his colleagues.

_

Initial treatment: CBT

Cognitive-behavioral therapy with exposures and response prevention (from here on referred to as CBT) has been established as a first-line, evidence-based treatment for OCD in both children and adults.2,3 For patients with treatment-resistant OCD, intensive daily CBT in a partial hospitalization or inpatient setting that is a tailor-made, patient-specific program is one of the most effective treatments, with response rates of up to 70%4-8 CBT’s advantages over medication include lower relapse rates and no known adverse effects. Unfortunately, CBT is underused9-11 due in part to a shortage of trained clinicians, and because patients may favor the ease of taking medication over the time, effort, and cost involved in CBT.

First-line pharmacologic options for treating OCD are SSRIs and clomipramine, as supported by multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, expert guidelines, and consensus statements (Table 22,12-14). No significant difference has been found among SSRIs for the treatment of OCD in a review of 17 studies that included more than 3,000 patients.15 Treatment with SSRIs or clomipramine is effective for 50% to 60% of patients.16 Many clinicians view the combination of an SSRI and CBT as the treatment of choice for OCD.2

 

Continue to: Reluctance to engage in CBT

 

 

CASE CONTINUED
Reluctance to engage in CBT

To determine the next course of action, you review Mr. S’s treatment history. He has received adequate doses of 2 SSRIs and currently is taking clomipramine, 100 mg twice daily. He recently began CBT, which includes homework to help face his fears; however, Mr. S is reluctant to complete the exposure assignments, and after pausing for a few seconds as he tries to resist sending an apology email to his coworkers, he then returns to his compulsive behavior.

Facing treatment resistance

Although currently there isn’t a cure to resolve all traces of OCD, the goal of treatment is to decrease distress, interference, and the frequency of symptoms to a minimal level such that only the patients themselves are aware of symptoms. In broad terms, “response” has been defined as a decrease in symptoms, and “remission” has been defined as minimal symptoms after treatment.

Close to half of adults treated for OCD respond well to standard-of-care treatment (CBT and/or an SSRI), while the other 50% are considered partial responders or nonresponders.2 For patients with OCD, researchers often define “treatment response” as a ≥25% reduction in symptom severity score on the Y-BOCS. Approximately 30% of adults with OCD do not respond substantially to the first-line treatments, and even those who are defined as “responders” in research studies typically continue to have significant symptoms that impact their quality of life.2 In children, a clinical definition for treatment-refractory OCD has been presented as failing to achieve adequate symptom relief despite receiving an adequate course of CBT and at least 2 adequate trials of an SSRI or clomipramine.17 In the Pediatric OCD Treatment Study (POTS) trial, >46% of youth did not achieve remission from their OCD symptoms, even after receiving evidence-based care provided by experienced clinicians (combined treatment with CBT and an SSRI).18

_

Challenges in psychotherapy

Compassion is a key element in developing rapport with patients to help them face increasingly more challenging exposures. Making OCD the problem, not the person, is an essential element in helping patients move forward. Some clinicians may become frustrated with patients when treatment is not moving along well, referring to resistance, denial, or sabotage. According to March and Mulle,19 these terms lack the recognition and compassion that exposures are inherently difficult.19

Another challenge for therapists is if the patient’s presenting symptoms are personally offensive or a sensitive topic. For example, a therapist who is disgusted by public restrooms will find it difficult to tolerate the risks associated with exposure to germs and support a patient in touching objects in the restroom. Therapists also may be challenged when the patient’s fears align with the therapist’s religious beliefs. In these situations, consider transferring care to another therapist.

Family members need to learn about the nature of the illness and their roles in helping patients improve. Family members may unknowingly enable symptoms or criticize patients for their lack of motivation, which can lead to conflict in the home. Family dysfunction can in turn worsen OCD symptoms.

The most likely cause of lack of response to therapy is inexpert CBT.19 Deep breathing and relaxation training have been used as an active placebo in studies20; in a meta-analysis examining the effective components of CBT, studies that added relaxation training were not more effective than those that employed exposures alone.21 Patients receiving CBT should be able to articulate the hierarchical approach used to gradually face their fears.

Continue to: Pharmacologic augmentation strategies

 

 

Pharmacologic augmentation strategies

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. While most OCD research trials have assessed SSRIs in 12-week studies, clinicians may consider extending SSRI treatment for an additional 12 weeks for nonresponders because some patients will continue to make gains. In the past, it was generally believed that higher doses of SSRIs are needed for treating OCD than for treating major depressive disorder. For instance, greater improvement was seen with 250 to 400 mg/d of sertraline compared with 200 mg/d22 and with escitalopram after an increase of dose up to 50 mg/d.23 However, more recently, this notion of higher doses being necessary for treatment response has been called into question. For example, a study of escitalopram found similar responses to 10 mg/d vs 20 mg/d after 24 weeks.24 A meta-analysis of adult studies of SSRIs for OCD supported higher doses as being more effective, but noted that the drop-out rate from treatment was greater in patients treated with higher doses.25 As a note of caution, long-term, high-dose maintenance therapy increases the risk of adverse reactions.26

Following a failed treatment with a first SSRI, it remains debatable as to what ought to be the second pharmacologic treatment. Although clomipramine is often reserved for treatment after 2 failed trials of an SSRI due to its greater risk of adverse effects, in an open-label study, switching from an SSRI to clomipramine led to greater response than switching from one SSRI to another.27 On the other hand, while meta-analyses have reported greater treatment effect for oral clomipramine than for SSRIs, direct head-to-head comparisons have not supported this notion.28 To get the best of both worlds, some clinicians employ a strategy of combining clomipramine with an SSRI, while monitoring for adverse effects and interactions such as serotonin syndrome.29-31

 

Benzodiazepines. Although benzodiazepines are useful for brief treatment of an anxiety disorder (eg, for a person with a fear of heights who needs to take an airplane),32 they have not been shown to be effective for OCD33 or as augmentation to an SSRI.34

N-acetylcysteine (NAC). Two RCTs of adults with OCD who received adjunctive NAC, 3 g/d in divided doses, found no significant difference in the treatment arms by the conclusion of 16 weeks—either both groups improved, or both groups failed to improve.35,36 In a 10-week study of patients with moderate to severe OCD symptoms, NAC, 2 g/d, as augmentation to fluvoxamine, 200 mg/d, showed a significant time x interaction in the treatment group.37 No follow-up information is available, however.

In a multicenter RCT of NAC given to children and adolescents with OCD as augmentation to citalopram, symptoms decreased and the quality-of-life score improved, with a large treatment effect size in the NAC group.38 However, in a study aimed at examining NAC in youth with Tourette syndrome, OCD symptoms were measured as a secondary outcome and there was no benefit of NAC over placebo.39

Memantine. Four 8- to 12-week RCTs in adults with OCD favored adjunctive memantine, 20 mg/d, taken with an SSRI, over placebo.40-43 A small study suggests that patients with OCD may be more likely to respond to memantine than patients with generalized anxiety disorder.44 Case reports have noted that memantine has been beneficial for pediatric patients with refractory OCD.45

Continue to: Topiramate

 

 

Topiramate. Three 12-week RCTs examined topiramate augmentation at 100 to 400 mg/d in patients with OCD who had failed at least 1 previous trial of an SSRI. The earliest study was most encouraging: Y-BOCS scores decreased by 32% in the topiramate group but by only 2.4% in the placebo group.46 However, the other 2 studies found no difference in the final OCD symptom severity score between active treatment and placebo groups,47,48 and the use of topiramate, particularly at higher doses, was limited by its adverse effects.

Lamotrigine. Initially, lamotrigine augmentation of SSRIs in OCD did not appear to be helpful.49 More recently, several case studies reported that lamotrigine, 100 to 200 mg/d, added to paroxetine or clomipramine, resulted in dramatic improvement in Y-BOCS scores for patients with long-standing refractory symptoms.50,51 In a retrospective review of 22 patients who received augmentation with lamotrigine, 150 mg/d, 20 had a significant response; the mean decrease in Y-BOCS score was 67%.52 Finally, in a 16-week RCT, lamotrigine, 100 mg/d, added to an SSRI led to a significant decrease in both Y-BOCS score and depressive symptoms while also improving semantic fluency.53

Ketamine. Ketamine is drawing increased attention for its nearly instantaneous antidepressant effect that lasts for up to 2 weeks after a single infusion.54 In a study of 15 medication-free adults with continuous intrusive obsessions, 4 of 8 patients who received a single IV infusion of ketamine, 0.5 mg/kg, met the criteria for treatment response (>35% reduction in Y-BOCS score measured 1 week later); none of the patients who received a placebo infusion of saline met this criteria.55 A small open-label trial of 10 treatment-refractory patients found that an infusion of ketamine, 0.5 mg/kg, was beneficial for comorbid depression but had only a minimal effect on OCD symptoms measured 3 days post-infusion.56 A short-term follow-up on these patients revealed dysphoria in some responders.57

D-cycloserine. The idea of using a pharmacologic agent to increase the speed or efficacy of behavioral therapy is intriguing. Proof of concept was demonstrated in a study that found that giving D-cycloserine prior to computerized exposure therapy significantly improved clinical response in patients with acrophobia.58 However, using this approach to treating OCD netted mixed results; D-cycloserine was found to be most helpful during early stages of treatment.59,60

 

Table 3 outlines the mechanisms of action and common uses for NAC, memantine, ketamine, topiramate, lamotrigine, and D-cycloserine. Table 4 summarizes the literature on the efficacy of some of the augmentation strategies for treating OCD described in this article.

Continue to: Alternative strategies

 

 

Alternative strategies

Augmentation strategies with neuroleptics,61 transcranial magnetic stimulation,62 and deep brain stimulation63 have recently been reviewed. Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review of these strategies, but in a cross-sectional study of augmentation strategies in OCD, no difference was found in terms of symptom severity between those prescribed SSRI monotherapy or augmentation with neuroleptics, benzodiazepines, or antidepressants.64

CASE CONTINUED
Progress in CBT

Mr. S agrees to a trial of NAC as an augmentation strategy, but after 8 weeks of treatment with NAC, 600 mg twice daily, his Y-BOCS had declined by only 2 points. He also complains of nausea and does not want to increase the dose. You discontinue NAC and opt to further explore his reaction to CBT. Mr. S shares that he has been seeing his psychologist only once every 3 weeks because he does not want to miss work. You encourage him to increase to weekly CBT sessions, and you obtain his permission to contact his therapist and his family members. Fortunately, his therapist is highly qualified, but unfortunately, Mr. S’s father has been sending him multiple critical emails about not advancing at his job and for being “lazy” at work. You schedule a session with Mr. S and his father. Great progress is made after Mr. S and his father both share their frustrations and come to understand and appreciate each other’s struggles. Four weeks later, after weekly CBT appointments, Mr. S has a Y-BOCS of 18 and spends <2 hours/d checking emails for errors and apologizing.

Bottom Line

It is unrealistic to expect OCD symptoms to be cured. Many ‘treatment-resistant’ patients have not received properly delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy, and this first-line treatment modality should be considered in every eligible patient, and augmented with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) when needed. Glutamatergic agents, in turn, can augment SSRIs.

 

Related Resources

Drug Brand Names
Citalopram • Celexa
Clomipramine • Anafranil
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lamotrigine • Lamictal
Memantine • Namenda
Paroxetine • Paxil
Sertraline • Zoloft
Topiramate • Topomax

Mr. S, age 30, transfers to your practice and shares that he was first diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) at age 10. He currently worries about whether he may have offended people by using the wrong words in his emails and he apologizes excessively. He fears that his body odor disturbs other people, and he sprays room freshener every time he exits a room. To measure the severity of his current symptoms, you complete the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). Mr. S’s Y-BOCS score is a 32 out of a maximum of 40, indicating severe OCD. Previously, he has received trials of adequate doses of 2 selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; fluoxetine and sertraline) and currently is taking clomipramine, 100 mg twice daily. However, he still is experiencing substantial obsessions and compulsions that interfere with his relationships with his friends and family members.


Treatment-resistant OCD can be a debilitating condition. Diagnostic clarity is crucial to fully elicit symptoms and identify comorbid conditions in order to develop practical, evidence-based treatment strategies and improve the patient’s and family’s quality of life. In this article, we delineate first-line strategies for treatment-resistant OCD and then review augmentation strategies, with an emphasis on glutamate-modulating agents.

Making the diagnosis

The diagnosis of OCD is made when a patient meets DSM-5 criteria for the presence of obsessions and/or compulsions, which are defined as unwanted, distressing, intrusive, recurrent thoughts or images (obsessions) and repetitive behaviors or mental acts (compulsions).1 OCD is considered a chronic waxing and waning disorder; stress and lack of sleep lead to worsening symptoms. The hidden nature of symptoms and the reinforcement provided by the reduction in anxiety after performing a compulsion contribute to sustained illness. Eliciting symptoms from patients may be challenging due to the shame they may feel. When reviewing symptoms on the Y-BOCS, it is helpful to preface questions with statements such as “Many people report excessive concern or disgust with…” to help the patient feel understood and less anxious, rather than using direct queries, such as “Are you bothered by…?”

 

Consider comorbid conditions

After making the initial diagnosis of OCD, it is important to assess whether the symptoms are better accounted for by another condition, and whether comorbid conditions are present (Table 1).

 

CASE CONTINUED
Ruling out other diagnoses

In the course of Mr. S’s evaluation, you rule out a psychotic disorder because he has insight that his behaviors may not be necessary to combat his fears. You also rule out a mood disorder with obsessive features. Although Mr. S admits he is frustrated by a lack of relief from medication, he denies experiencing any sustained periods of mania, low mood, or suicidal thoughts. He does endorse excessive guilt for contaminating people’s homes and poor concentration at work because he often is distracted by his fears that he has offended his colleagues.

_

Initial treatment: CBT

Cognitive-behavioral therapy with exposures and response prevention (from here on referred to as CBT) has been established as a first-line, evidence-based treatment for OCD in both children and adults.2,3 For patients with treatment-resistant OCD, intensive daily CBT in a partial hospitalization or inpatient setting that is a tailor-made, patient-specific program is one of the most effective treatments, with response rates of up to 70%4-8 CBT’s advantages over medication include lower relapse rates and no known adverse effects. Unfortunately, CBT is underused9-11 due in part to a shortage of trained clinicians, and because patients may favor the ease of taking medication over the time, effort, and cost involved in CBT.

First-line pharmacologic options for treating OCD are SSRIs and clomipramine, as supported by multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, expert guidelines, and consensus statements (Table 22,12-14). No significant difference has been found among SSRIs for the treatment of OCD in a review of 17 studies that included more than 3,000 patients.15 Treatment with SSRIs or clomipramine is effective for 50% to 60% of patients.16 Many clinicians view the combination of an SSRI and CBT as the treatment of choice for OCD.2

 

Continue to: Reluctance to engage in CBT

 

 

CASE CONTINUED
Reluctance to engage in CBT

To determine the next course of action, you review Mr. S’s treatment history. He has received adequate doses of 2 SSRIs and currently is taking clomipramine, 100 mg twice daily. He recently began CBT, which includes homework to help face his fears; however, Mr. S is reluctant to complete the exposure assignments, and after pausing for a few seconds as he tries to resist sending an apology email to his coworkers, he then returns to his compulsive behavior.

Facing treatment resistance

Although currently there isn’t a cure to resolve all traces of OCD, the goal of treatment is to decrease distress, interference, and the frequency of symptoms to a minimal level such that only the patients themselves are aware of symptoms. In broad terms, “response” has been defined as a decrease in symptoms, and “remission” has been defined as minimal symptoms after treatment.

Close to half of adults treated for OCD respond well to standard-of-care treatment (CBT and/or an SSRI), while the other 50% are considered partial responders or nonresponders.2 For patients with OCD, researchers often define “treatment response” as a ≥25% reduction in symptom severity score on the Y-BOCS. Approximately 30% of adults with OCD do not respond substantially to the first-line treatments, and even those who are defined as “responders” in research studies typically continue to have significant symptoms that impact their quality of life.2 In children, a clinical definition for treatment-refractory OCD has been presented as failing to achieve adequate symptom relief despite receiving an adequate course of CBT and at least 2 adequate trials of an SSRI or clomipramine.17 In the Pediatric OCD Treatment Study (POTS) trial, >46% of youth did not achieve remission from their OCD symptoms, even after receiving evidence-based care provided by experienced clinicians (combined treatment with CBT and an SSRI).18

_

Challenges in psychotherapy

Compassion is a key element in developing rapport with patients to help them face increasingly more challenging exposures. Making OCD the problem, not the person, is an essential element in helping patients move forward. Some clinicians may become frustrated with patients when treatment is not moving along well, referring to resistance, denial, or sabotage. According to March and Mulle,19 these terms lack the recognition and compassion that exposures are inherently difficult.19

Another challenge for therapists is if the patient’s presenting symptoms are personally offensive or a sensitive topic. For example, a therapist who is disgusted by public restrooms will find it difficult to tolerate the risks associated with exposure to germs and support a patient in touching objects in the restroom. Therapists also may be challenged when the patient’s fears align with the therapist’s religious beliefs. In these situations, consider transferring care to another therapist.

Family members need to learn about the nature of the illness and their roles in helping patients improve. Family members may unknowingly enable symptoms or criticize patients for their lack of motivation, which can lead to conflict in the home. Family dysfunction can in turn worsen OCD symptoms.

The most likely cause of lack of response to therapy is inexpert CBT.19 Deep breathing and relaxation training have been used as an active placebo in studies20; in a meta-analysis examining the effective components of CBT, studies that added relaxation training were not more effective than those that employed exposures alone.21 Patients receiving CBT should be able to articulate the hierarchical approach used to gradually face their fears.

Continue to: Pharmacologic augmentation strategies

 

 

Pharmacologic augmentation strategies

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. While most OCD research trials have assessed SSRIs in 12-week studies, clinicians may consider extending SSRI treatment for an additional 12 weeks for nonresponders because some patients will continue to make gains. In the past, it was generally believed that higher doses of SSRIs are needed for treating OCD than for treating major depressive disorder. For instance, greater improvement was seen with 250 to 400 mg/d of sertraline compared with 200 mg/d22 and with escitalopram after an increase of dose up to 50 mg/d.23 However, more recently, this notion of higher doses being necessary for treatment response has been called into question. For example, a study of escitalopram found similar responses to 10 mg/d vs 20 mg/d after 24 weeks.24 A meta-analysis of adult studies of SSRIs for OCD supported higher doses as being more effective, but noted that the drop-out rate from treatment was greater in patients treated with higher doses.25 As a note of caution, long-term, high-dose maintenance therapy increases the risk of adverse reactions.26

Following a failed treatment with a first SSRI, it remains debatable as to what ought to be the second pharmacologic treatment. Although clomipramine is often reserved for treatment after 2 failed trials of an SSRI due to its greater risk of adverse effects, in an open-label study, switching from an SSRI to clomipramine led to greater response than switching from one SSRI to another.27 On the other hand, while meta-analyses have reported greater treatment effect for oral clomipramine than for SSRIs, direct head-to-head comparisons have not supported this notion.28 To get the best of both worlds, some clinicians employ a strategy of combining clomipramine with an SSRI, while monitoring for adverse effects and interactions such as serotonin syndrome.29-31

 

Benzodiazepines. Although benzodiazepines are useful for brief treatment of an anxiety disorder (eg, for a person with a fear of heights who needs to take an airplane),32 they have not been shown to be effective for OCD33 or as augmentation to an SSRI.34

N-acetylcysteine (NAC). Two RCTs of adults with OCD who received adjunctive NAC, 3 g/d in divided doses, found no significant difference in the treatment arms by the conclusion of 16 weeks—either both groups improved, or both groups failed to improve.35,36 In a 10-week study of patients with moderate to severe OCD symptoms, NAC, 2 g/d, as augmentation to fluvoxamine, 200 mg/d, showed a significant time x interaction in the treatment group.37 No follow-up information is available, however.

In a multicenter RCT of NAC given to children and adolescents with OCD as augmentation to citalopram, symptoms decreased and the quality-of-life score improved, with a large treatment effect size in the NAC group.38 However, in a study aimed at examining NAC in youth with Tourette syndrome, OCD symptoms were measured as a secondary outcome and there was no benefit of NAC over placebo.39

Memantine. Four 8- to 12-week RCTs in adults with OCD favored adjunctive memantine, 20 mg/d, taken with an SSRI, over placebo.40-43 A small study suggests that patients with OCD may be more likely to respond to memantine than patients with generalized anxiety disorder.44 Case reports have noted that memantine has been beneficial for pediatric patients with refractory OCD.45

Continue to: Topiramate

 

 

Topiramate. Three 12-week RCTs examined topiramate augmentation at 100 to 400 mg/d in patients with OCD who had failed at least 1 previous trial of an SSRI. The earliest study was most encouraging: Y-BOCS scores decreased by 32% in the topiramate group but by only 2.4% in the placebo group.46 However, the other 2 studies found no difference in the final OCD symptom severity score between active treatment and placebo groups,47,48 and the use of topiramate, particularly at higher doses, was limited by its adverse effects.

Lamotrigine. Initially, lamotrigine augmentation of SSRIs in OCD did not appear to be helpful.49 More recently, several case studies reported that lamotrigine, 100 to 200 mg/d, added to paroxetine or clomipramine, resulted in dramatic improvement in Y-BOCS scores for patients with long-standing refractory symptoms.50,51 In a retrospective review of 22 patients who received augmentation with lamotrigine, 150 mg/d, 20 had a significant response; the mean decrease in Y-BOCS score was 67%.52 Finally, in a 16-week RCT, lamotrigine, 100 mg/d, added to an SSRI led to a significant decrease in both Y-BOCS score and depressive symptoms while also improving semantic fluency.53

Ketamine. Ketamine is drawing increased attention for its nearly instantaneous antidepressant effect that lasts for up to 2 weeks after a single infusion.54 In a study of 15 medication-free adults with continuous intrusive obsessions, 4 of 8 patients who received a single IV infusion of ketamine, 0.5 mg/kg, met the criteria for treatment response (>35% reduction in Y-BOCS score measured 1 week later); none of the patients who received a placebo infusion of saline met this criteria.55 A small open-label trial of 10 treatment-refractory patients found that an infusion of ketamine, 0.5 mg/kg, was beneficial for comorbid depression but had only a minimal effect on OCD symptoms measured 3 days post-infusion.56 A short-term follow-up on these patients revealed dysphoria in some responders.57

D-cycloserine. The idea of using a pharmacologic agent to increase the speed or efficacy of behavioral therapy is intriguing. Proof of concept was demonstrated in a study that found that giving D-cycloserine prior to computerized exposure therapy significantly improved clinical response in patients with acrophobia.58 However, using this approach to treating OCD netted mixed results; D-cycloserine was found to be most helpful during early stages of treatment.59,60

 

Table 3 outlines the mechanisms of action and common uses for NAC, memantine, ketamine, topiramate, lamotrigine, and D-cycloserine. Table 4 summarizes the literature on the efficacy of some of the augmentation strategies for treating OCD described in this article.

Continue to: Alternative strategies

 

 

Alternative strategies

Augmentation strategies with neuroleptics,61 transcranial magnetic stimulation,62 and deep brain stimulation63 have recently been reviewed. Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review of these strategies, but in a cross-sectional study of augmentation strategies in OCD, no difference was found in terms of symptom severity between those prescribed SSRI monotherapy or augmentation with neuroleptics, benzodiazepines, or antidepressants.64

CASE CONTINUED
Progress in CBT

Mr. S agrees to a trial of NAC as an augmentation strategy, but after 8 weeks of treatment with NAC, 600 mg twice daily, his Y-BOCS had declined by only 2 points. He also complains of nausea and does not want to increase the dose. You discontinue NAC and opt to further explore his reaction to CBT. Mr. S shares that he has been seeing his psychologist only once every 3 weeks because he does not want to miss work. You encourage him to increase to weekly CBT sessions, and you obtain his permission to contact his therapist and his family members. Fortunately, his therapist is highly qualified, but unfortunately, Mr. S’s father has been sending him multiple critical emails about not advancing at his job and for being “lazy” at work. You schedule a session with Mr. S and his father. Great progress is made after Mr. S and his father both share their frustrations and come to understand and appreciate each other’s struggles. Four weeks later, after weekly CBT appointments, Mr. S has a Y-BOCS of 18 and spends <2 hours/d checking emails for errors and apologizing.

Bottom Line

It is unrealistic to expect OCD symptoms to be cured. Many ‘treatment-resistant’ patients have not received properly delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy, and this first-line treatment modality should be considered in every eligible patient, and augmented with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) when needed. Glutamatergic agents, in turn, can augment SSRIs.

 

Related Resources

Drug Brand Names
Citalopram • Celexa
Clomipramine • Anafranil
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lamotrigine • Lamictal
Memantine • Namenda
Paroxetine • Paxil
Sertraline • Zoloft
Topiramate • Topomax

References

1. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
2. Koran LM, Hanna GL, Hollander E, et al. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Am J Psychiatry; 2007;164(suppl 7):5-53.
3. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2012;51(1):98-113.
4. Bystritsky A, Munford PR, Rosen RM, et al. A preliminary study of partial hospital management of severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;47(2):170-174.
5. Calvocoressi L, McDougle CI, Wasylink S, et al. Inpatient treatment of patients with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1993;44(12):1150-1154.
6. Eddy KT, Dutra L, Bradley R, et al. A multidimensional meta-analysis of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Clin Psychol Rev. 2004;24(8):1011-1030.
7. Abramowitz JS. The psychological treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 2006;51(7):407-416.
8. Simpson HB, Huppert JD, Petkova E, et al. Response versus remission in obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(2):269-276.
9. Marques L, LeBlanc NJ, Weingarden HM, et al. Barriers to treatment and service utilization in an internet sample of individuals with obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Depress Anxiety. 2010;27(5):470-475.
10. Goodwin R, Koenen KC, Hellman F, et al. Helpseeking and access to mental health treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2002;106(2):143-149.
11. Kohn R, Saxena S, Levav I, et al. The treatment gap in mental health care. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(11):858-866.
12. Baldwin DS, Anderson IM, Nutt DJ, et al. Evidence-based pharmacological treatment of anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder: a revision of the 2005 guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology. J Psychopharmacol. 2014;28(5):403-439.
13. Lovell K, Bee P. Implementing the NICE OCD/BDD guidelines. Psychol Psychother. 2008;81(Pt 4):365-376.
14. Bandelow B, Sher L, Bunevicius R, et al. Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder in primary care. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2012;16(2):77-84.
15. Soomro GM, Altman D, Rajagopal S, et al. Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus placebo for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1):CD001765.
16. Pittenger C, Bloch MH. Pharmacological treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2014;37(3):375-391.
17. Bloch MH, Storch EA. Assessment and management of treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder in children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2015;54(4):251-262.
18. Pediatric OCD Treatment Study (POTS) Team. Cognitive-behavior therapy, sertraline, and their combination for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: the Pediatric OCD Treatment Study (POTS) randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;292(16):1969-1976.
19. March JS, Mulle K. OCD in children and adolescents: a cognitive-behavioral treatment manual. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1998.
20. Marks IM. Fears, phobias, and rituals: Panic, anxiety, and their disorders. 1987, New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1987.
21. Ale CM, McCarthy DM, Rothschild LM, et al. Components of cognitive behavioral therapy related to outcome in childhood anxiety disorders. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2015;18(3):240-251.
22. Ninan PT, Koran LM, Kiev A, et al. High-dose sertraline strategy for nonresponders to acute treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a multicenter double-blind trial. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(1):15-22.
23. Rabinowitz I, Baruch Y, Barak Y. High-dose escitalopram for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008;23(1):49-53.
24. Stein DJ, Andersen EW, Tonnoir B, et al. Escitalopram in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled, paroxetine-referenced, fixed-dose, 24-week study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(4):701-711.
25. Bloch MH, McGuire J, Landeros-Weisenberger A, et al. Meta-analysis of the dose-response relationship of SSRI in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Mol Psychiatry. 2010;15(8):850-855.
26. Sayyah M, Majzoob S, Sayyah M. Metabolic and toxicological considerations for obsessive-compulsive disorder drug therapy. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2013;9(6):657-673.
27. Hollander E, Bienstock CA, Koran LM, et al. Refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: state-of-the-art treatment. J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63(suppl 6):20-29.
28. Fineberg NA, Gale TM. Evidence-based pharma­cotherapy of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2005;8(1):107-129.
29. Marazziti D, Golia F, Consoli G, et al. Effectiveness of long-term augmentation with citalopram to clomipramine in treatment-resistant OCD patients. CNS Spectr. 2008;13(11):971-976.
30. Browne M, Horn E, Jones TT. The benefits of clomipramine-fluoxetine combination in obsessive compulsive disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 1993;38(4):242-243.
31. Ravizza L, Barzega G, Bellino S, et al. Drug treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD): long-term trial with clomipramine and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Psychopharmacol Bull. 1996;32(1):167-173.
32. Koen N, Stein DJ. Pharmacotherapy of anxiety disorders: a critical review. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(4):423-437.
33. Hollander E, Kaplan A, Stahl SM. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of clonazepam in obsessive-compulsive disorder. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2003;4(1):30-34.
34. Crockett BA, Churchill E, Davidson JR. A double-blind combination study of clonazepam with sertraline in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2004;16(3):127-132.
35. Costa DLC, Diniz JB, Requena G, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of n-acetylcysteine augmentation for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2017;78(7):e766-e773.
36. Sarris J, Oliver G, Camfield DA, et al. N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC) in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: a 16-week, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study. CNS Drugs. 2015;29(9):801-809.
37. Paydary K, Akamaloo A, Ahmadipour A, et al. N-acetylcysteine augmentation therapy for moderate-to-severe obsessive-compulsive disorder: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2016;41(2):214-219.
38. Ghanizadeh A, Mohammadi MR, Bahraini S, et al. Efficacy of N-acetylcysteine augmentation on obsessive compulsive disorder: a multicenter randomized double blind placebo controlled clinical trial. Iran J Psychiatry. 2017;12(2):134-141.
39. Bloch MH, Panza KE, Yaffa A, et al. N-acetylcysteine in the treatment of pediatric tourette syndrome: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled add-on trial. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2016;26(4):327-334.
40. Ghaleiha A, Entezari N, Modabbernia A, et al. Memantine add-on in moderate to severe obsessive-compulsive disorder: randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. J Psychiatr Res. 2013;47(2):175-180.
41. Stewart SE, Jenike EA, Hezel DM, et al. A single-blinded case-control study of memantine in severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010;30(1):34-39.
42. Modarresi A, Sayyah M, Razooghi S, et al. Memantine augmentation improves symptoms in serotonin reuptake inhibitor-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2017. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-120268. [Epub ahead of print].
43. Haghighi M, Jahangard L, Mohammad-Beigi H, et al. In a double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled trial, adjuvant memantine improved symptoms in inpatients suffering from refractory obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD). Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2013;228(4):633-640.
44. Feusner JD, Kerwin L, Saxena S, et al. Differential efficacy of memantine for obsessive-compulsive disorder vs. generalized anxiety disorder: an open-label trial. Psychopharmacol Bull. 2009;42(1):81-93.
45. Hezel DM, Beattie K, Stewart SE. Memantine as an augmenting agent for severe pediatric OCD. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(2):237.
46. Mowla A, Khajeian AM, Sahraian A, et al. topiramate augmentation in resistant ocd: a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. CNS Spectr. 2010;15(11):613-617.
47. Berlin H, Koran LM, Jenike MA, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of topiramate augmentation in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2011;72(5):716-721.
48. Afshar H, Akuchekian S, Mahaky B, et al. Topiramate augmentation in refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Res Med Sci. 2014;19(10):976-981.
49. Kumar TC, Khanna S. Lamotrigine augmentation of serotonin re-uptake inhibitors in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2000;34(3):527-528.
50. Arrojo-Romero M, Tajes Alonso M, de Leon J. Lamotrigine augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors in severe and long-term treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. Case Rep Psychiatry. 2013;2013:612459.
51. Uzun O. Lamotrigine as an augmentation agent in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: a case report. J Psychopharmacol. 2010;24(3):425-427.
52. Hussain A, Dar MA, Wani RA, et al. Role of lamotrigine augmentation in treatment-resistant obsessive compulsive disorder: a retrospective case review from South Asia. Indian J Psychol Med. 2015;37(2):154-158.
53. Bruno A, Micò U, Pandolfo G, et al. Lamotrigine augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Psychopharmacol. 2012;26(11):1456-1462.
54. Krystal JH, Sanacora G, Duman RS. Rapid-acting glutamatergic antidepressants: the path to ketamine and beyond. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;73(12):113311-41.
55. Rodriguez CI, Kegeles LS, Levinson A, et al. Randomized controlled crossover trial of ketamine in obsessive-compulsive disorder: proof-of-concept. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013;38(12):2475-2483.
56. Bloch MH, Wasylink S, Landeros-Weisenberger A,, et al. Effects of ketamine in treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;72(11):964-970.
57. Niciu MJ, Grunschel BD, Corlett PR, et al. Two cases of delayed-onset suicidal ideation, dysphoria and anxiety after ketamine infusion in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder and a history of major depressive disorder. J Psychopharmacol. 2013;27(7):651-654.
58. Ressler KJ, Rothbaum BO, Tannenbaum L, et al. Cognitive enhancers as adjuncts to psychotherapy: use of D-cycloserine in phobic individuals to facilitate extinction of fear. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004;61(11):1136-1144.
59. Norberg MM, Krystal JH, Tolin DF. A meta-analysis of D-cycloserine and the facilitation of fear extinction and exposure therapy. Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63(12):1118-1126.
60. Xia J, Du Y, Han J, et al. D-cycloserine augmentation in behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analysis. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2015;9:2101-2117.
61. Veale D, Miles S, Smallcombe N, et al. Atypical antipsychotic augmentation in SSRI treatment refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:317.
62. Guo Q, Li C, Wang J. Updated review on the clinical use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in psychiatric disorders. Neurosci Bull. 2017;33(6):747-756.
63. Naesström, M, Blomstedt P, Bodlund O. A systematic review of psychiatric indications for deep brain stimulation, with focus on major depressive and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Nord J Psychiatry. 2016;70(7):483-491.
64. Van Ameringen M, Simpson W, Patterson B, et al. Pharmacological treatment strategies in obsessive compulsive disorder: A cross-sectional view in nine international OCD centers. J Psychopharmacol, 2014;28(6):596-602.

References

1. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
2. Koran LM, Hanna GL, Hollander E, et al. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Am J Psychiatry; 2007;164(suppl 7):5-53.
3. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2012;51(1):98-113.
4. Bystritsky A, Munford PR, Rosen RM, et al. A preliminary study of partial hospital management of severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;47(2):170-174.
5. Calvocoressi L, McDougle CI, Wasylink S, et al. Inpatient treatment of patients with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1993;44(12):1150-1154.
6. Eddy KT, Dutra L, Bradley R, et al. A multidimensional meta-analysis of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Clin Psychol Rev. 2004;24(8):1011-1030.
7. Abramowitz JS. The psychological treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 2006;51(7):407-416.
8. Simpson HB, Huppert JD, Petkova E, et al. Response versus remission in obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(2):269-276.
9. Marques L, LeBlanc NJ, Weingarden HM, et al. Barriers to treatment and service utilization in an internet sample of individuals with obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Depress Anxiety. 2010;27(5):470-475.
10. Goodwin R, Koenen KC, Hellman F, et al. Helpseeking and access to mental health treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2002;106(2):143-149.
11. Kohn R, Saxena S, Levav I, et al. The treatment gap in mental health care. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(11):858-866.
12. Baldwin DS, Anderson IM, Nutt DJ, et al. Evidence-based pharmacological treatment of anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder: a revision of the 2005 guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology. J Psychopharmacol. 2014;28(5):403-439.
13. Lovell K, Bee P. Implementing the NICE OCD/BDD guidelines. Psychol Psychother. 2008;81(Pt 4):365-376.
14. Bandelow B, Sher L, Bunevicius R, et al. Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder in primary care. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2012;16(2):77-84.
15. Soomro GM, Altman D, Rajagopal S, et al. Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus placebo for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1):CD001765.
16. Pittenger C, Bloch MH. Pharmacological treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2014;37(3):375-391.
17. Bloch MH, Storch EA. Assessment and management of treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder in children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2015;54(4):251-262.
18. Pediatric OCD Treatment Study (POTS) Team. Cognitive-behavior therapy, sertraline, and their combination for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: the Pediatric OCD Treatment Study (POTS) randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;292(16):1969-1976.
19. March JS, Mulle K. OCD in children and adolescents: a cognitive-behavioral treatment manual. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1998.
20. Marks IM. Fears, phobias, and rituals: Panic, anxiety, and their disorders. 1987, New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1987.
21. Ale CM, McCarthy DM, Rothschild LM, et al. Components of cognitive behavioral therapy related to outcome in childhood anxiety disorders. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2015;18(3):240-251.
22. Ninan PT, Koran LM, Kiev A, et al. High-dose sertraline strategy for nonresponders to acute treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a multicenter double-blind trial. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(1):15-22.
23. Rabinowitz I, Baruch Y, Barak Y. High-dose escitalopram for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008;23(1):49-53.
24. Stein DJ, Andersen EW, Tonnoir B, et al. Escitalopram in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled, paroxetine-referenced, fixed-dose, 24-week study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(4):701-711.
25. Bloch MH, McGuire J, Landeros-Weisenberger A, et al. Meta-analysis of the dose-response relationship of SSRI in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Mol Psychiatry. 2010;15(8):850-855.
26. Sayyah M, Majzoob S, Sayyah M. Metabolic and toxicological considerations for obsessive-compulsive disorder drug therapy. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2013;9(6):657-673.
27. Hollander E, Bienstock CA, Koran LM, et al. Refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: state-of-the-art treatment. J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63(suppl 6):20-29.
28. Fineberg NA, Gale TM. Evidence-based pharma­cotherapy of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2005;8(1):107-129.
29. Marazziti D, Golia F, Consoli G, et al. Effectiveness of long-term augmentation with citalopram to clomipramine in treatment-resistant OCD patients. CNS Spectr. 2008;13(11):971-976.
30. Browne M, Horn E, Jones TT. The benefits of clomipramine-fluoxetine combination in obsessive compulsive disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 1993;38(4):242-243.
31. Ravizza L, Barzega G, Bellino S, et al. Drug treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD): long-term trial with clomipramine and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Psychopharmacol Bull. 1996;32(1):167-173.
32. Koen N, Stein DJ. Pharmacotherapy of anxiety disorders: a critical review. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(4):423-437.
33. Hollander E, Kaplan A, Stahl SM. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of clonazepam in obsessive-compulsive disorder. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2003;4(1):30-34.
34. Crockett BA, Churchill E, Davidson JR. A double-blind combination study of clonazepam with sertraline in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2004;16(3):127-132.
35. Costa DLC, Diniz JB, Requena G, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of n-acetylcysteine augmentation for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2017;78(7):e766-e773.
36. Sarris J, Oliver G, Camfield DA, et al. N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC) in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: a 16-week, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study. CNS Drugs. 2015;29(9):801-809.
37. Paydary K, Akamaloo A, Ahmadipour A, et al. N-acetylcysteine augmentation therapy for moderate-to-severe obsessive-compulsive disorder: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2016;41(2):214-219.
38. Ghanizadeh A, Mohammadi MR, Bahraini S, et al. Efficacy of N-acetylcysteine augmentation on obsessive compulsive disorder: a multicenter randomized double blind placebo controlled clinical trial. Iran J Psychiatry. 2017;12(2):134-141.
39. Bloch MH, Panza KE, Yaffa A, et al. N-acetylcysteine in the treatment of pediatric tourette syndrome: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled add-on trial. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2016;26(4):327-334.
40. Ghaleiha A, Entezari N, Modabbernia A, et al. Memantine add-on in moderate to severe obsessive-compulsive disorder: randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. J Psychiatr Res. 2013;47(2):175-180.
41. Stewart SE, Jenike EA, Hezel DM, et al. A single-blinded case-control study of memantine in severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010;30(1):34-39.
42. Modarresi A, Sayyah M, Razooghi S, et al. Memantine augmentation improves symptoms in serotonin reuptake inhibitor-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2017. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-120268. [Epub ahead of print].
43. Haghighi M, Jahangard L, Mohammad-Beigi H, et al. In a double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled trial, adjuvant memantine improved symptoms in inpatients suffering from refractory obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD). Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2013;228(4):633-640.
44. Feusner JD, Kerwin L, Saxena S, et al. Differential efficacy of memantine for obsessive-compulsive disorder vs. generalized anxiety disorder: an open-label trial. Psychopharmacol Bull. 2009;42(1):81-93.
45. Hezel DM, Beattie K, Stewart SE. Memantine as an augmenting agent for severe pediatric OCD. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(2):237.
46. Mowla A, Khajeian AM, Sahraian A, et al. topiramate augmentation in resistant ocd: a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. CNS Spectr. 2010;15(11):613-617.
47. Berlin H, Koran LM, Jenike MA, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of topiramate augmentation in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2011;72(5):716-721.
48. Afshar H, Akuchekian S, Mahaky B, et al. Topiramate augmentation in refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Res Med Sci. 2014;19(10):976-981.
49. Kumar TC, Khanna S. Lamotrigine augmentation of serotonin re-uptake inhibitors in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2000;34(3):527-528.
50. Arrojo-Romero M, Tajes Alonso M, de Leon J. Lamotrigine augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors in severe and long-term treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. Case Rep Psychiatry. 2013;2013:612459.
51. Uzun O. Lamotrigine as an augmentation agent in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: a case report. J Psychopharmacol. 2010;24(3):425-427.
52. Hussain A, Dar MA, Wani RA, et al. Role of lamotrigine augmentation in treatment-resistant obsessive compulsive disorder: a retrospective case review from South Asia. Indian J Psychol Med. 2015;37(2):154-158.
53. Bruno A, Micò U, Pandolfo G, et al. Lamotrigine augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Psychopharmacol. 2012;26(11):1456-1462.
54. Krystal JH, Sanacora G, Duman RS. Rapid-acting glutamatergic antidepressants: the path to ketamine and beyond. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;73(12):113311-41.
55. Rodriguez CI, Kegeles LS, Levinson A, et al. Randomized controlled crossover trial of ketamine in obsessive-compulsive disorder: proof-of-concept. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013;38(12):2475-2483.
56. Bloch MH, Wasylink S, Landeros-Weisenberger A,, et al. Effects of ketamine in treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;72(11):964-970.
57. Niciu MJ, Grunschel BD, Corlett PR, et al. Two cases of delayed-onset suicidal ideation, dysphoria and anxiety after ketamine infusion in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder and a history of major depressive disorder. J Psychopharmacol. 2013;27(7):651-654.
58. Ressler KJ, Rothbaum BO, Tannenbaum L, et al. Cognitive enhancers as adjuncts to psychotherapy: use of D-cycloserine in phobic individuals to facilitate extinction of fear. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004;61(11):1136-1144.
59. Norberg MM, Krystal JH, Tolin DF. A meta-analysis of D-cycloserine and the facilitation of fear extinction and exposure therapy. Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63(12):1118-1126.
60. Xia J, Du Y, Han J, et al. D-cycloserine augmentation in behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analysis. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2015;9:2101-2117.
61. Veale D, Miles S, Smallcombe N, et al. Atypical antipsychotic augmentation in SSRI treatment refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:317.
62. Guo Q, Li C, Wang J. Updated review on the clinical use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in psychiatric disorders. Neurosci Bull. 2017;33(6):747-756.
63. Naesström, M, Blomstedt P, Bodlund O. A systematic review of psychiatric indications for deep brain stimulation, with focus on major depressive and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Nord J Psychiatry. 2016;70(7):483-491.
64. Van Ameringen M, Simpson W, Patterson B, et al. Pharmacological treatment strategies in obsessive compulsive disorder: A cross-sectional view in nine international OCD centers. J Psychopharmacol, 2014;28(6):596-602.

Issue
Current Psychiatry - 17(11)
Issue
Current Psychiatry - 17(11)
Page Number
10-12,14-18,51
Page Number
10-12,14-18,51
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Treatment-resistant OCD: There’s more we can do
Display Headline
Treatment-resistant OCD: There’s more we can do
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media

Expanding medication options for pediatric ADHD

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/11/2018 - 15:03
Display Headline
Expanding medication options for pediatric ADHD

Molly, age 9, is diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by her psychiatrist, who prescribes a long-acting methylphenidate formulation at 1 mg/kg. She tolerates the medication without side effects and shows significant improvement in her academic performance and on-task behavior in school. Molly takes methylphenidate before school at 7:00 am; this dose usually wears off at approximately 3:30 pm.

Molly and her parents are pleased with her response to methylphenidate, but report that she has difficulty getting ready for school because of distractibility. In the evenings Molly has trouble staying seated to do homework and often interrupts and argues with family members, but cannot tolerate afternoon dosing of immediate-release methylphenidate because of insomnia.

ADHD, the most common childhood neurobehavioral disorder, is characterized by difficulties with attention, impulse control, and modulating activity level. The pathophysiology of ADHD is thought to involve dysregulation of brain dopamine and norepinephrine systems.1 Managing ADHD includes pharmacotherapeutic and nonpharmacotherapeutic—ie, behavioral and psychoeducational—interventions.2,3

In this article, we provide an overview of the efficacy, side effects, and dosing for the 3 classes of ADHD medication—psychostimulants, atomoxetine, and α2 adrenergic agonists—including guidance on medication choice and combination treatment. We also discuss the effects of psychostimulants on tics, cardiovascular concerns, and substance abuse potential.

Psychostimulants

Methylphenidates and amphetamines are first-line agents for ADHD. Their primary mechanism of action involves blocking dopamine transporters, with additional effects including blockade of norepinephrine transporters, dampening action of monoamine oxidase (which slows dopamine and norepinephrine degradation), and enhanced release of dopamine into the synaptic space.1

Efficacy and response rates are similar for methylphenidate and amphetamine medications, although as many as 25% of patients may respond to only 1 agent.1 More than 90% of patients will have a positive response to one of the psychostimulants.1 The beneficial effects of psychostimulants on inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity are well documented.2Improvements in noncompliance, aggression, social interactions, and academic productivity also have been observed.4,5

Because of increased recognition of pervasive ADHD-related impairments, which can affect functioning in social, family, and extracurricular settings, practitioners have shifted to long-acting psychostimulants to reduce the need for in-school dosing, improve compliance, and obtain more after-school treatment effects. Long-acting formulations produce a slower rise and fall of psychostimulant levels in the brain, which may decrease side effects and potential for later drug abuse.6 See Table 12,7-9 and Table 22,7,9  for titration, dosing, and duration of action of psychostimulants.

The most common side effects of psychostimulants are appetite loss, abdominal pain, headaches, and sleep disturbances.2 Emotional symptoms—irritability and nervousness—may be observed with psychostimulant use, but these behaviors may improve, rather than become worse, with treatment.5 Methylphenidates and amphetamines share many of the same side effects,2 with many studies indicating no differences between their side-effect profiles.1 Other studies indicate that sleep and emotional side effects may be more prominent with amphetamines than methylphenidates,10 although response varies by individual.

There is little evidence that methylphenidate, low-dose amphetamine, or low-dose dextroamphetamine makes tics worse in most children who have them, although significant tic exacerbation has been observed with higher-dose dextroamphetamine.11,12 In patients with comorbid ADHD and tic disorders, a trial of psychostimulants with monitoring for worsening tics is appropriate.

Changes in heart rate and blood pressure generally are not clinically significant in patients taking psychostimulants (average increases: 1 or 2 beats per minute and 1 to 4 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic blood pressures).12 However, psychostimulants may be associated with more substantial increases in heart rate and blood pressure in a subset of individuals (5% to 15%).12 Large studies of children and adults in the general population have not found an association between psychostimulant use and severe cardiovascular events (sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke).12-14 Because of reports of sudden cardiac death in children with underlying heart disease who take a psychostimulant,15 clinicians are advised to screen patients and consider an electrocardiogram or evaluation by a cardiologist before starting a psychostimulant in a patient who has a personal or family history of specific cardiovascular risk factors (see Perrin et al16 and Cortese et al12 for screening questions and conditions).

Modest reductions in height (1 or 2 cm after 3 years of psychostimulant treatment) appear to be dose-dependent, and are similar across the methylphenidate and amphetamine classes. Some studies have shown reversal of growth deficits after treatment is stopped treatment and no adverse effects on final adult height.12,17 More study is needed to clarify the effects of continuous psychostimulant treatment from childhood to adulthood on growth.

Studies have failed to show an increased risk of substance abuse in persons with ADHD who were treated with psychostimulants during childhood. Some studies document a lower rate of later substance abuse in youths who received ADHD medications, although other reports show no effect of psychostimulant treatment on subsequent substance use disorder risk.12 Be aware that psychostimulants can be misused (eg, to get “high,” for performance enhancement, to suppress appetite, etc.). Misuse of psychostimulants is most common with short-acting preparations, and generally more difficult with long-acting preparations because extracting the active ingredients for snorting is difficult.2,12 Monitor refill requests and patient behavior for signs of misuse, and be alert for signs of illegal drug use in the patient’s family.

 

 

Psychotic symptoms—including hallucinations, delusions, mania, and extreme agitation—with psychostimulant treatment are rare, occurring at a rate of 1.5%.12

Atomoxetine

Approved by the FDA in 2002 for ADHD, atomoxetine is effective and generally well tolerated, although it is not as effective as psychostimulants.2 Atomoxetine is a potent norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor18 that does not produce euphoria, does not have potential for abuse, and has not been linked to increased tic onset or severity.19 Atomoxetine treatment is associated with a lower rate of sleep initiation difficulty compared with psychostimulants.18 Some studies suggest that atomoxetine may have mild beneficial effects on anxiety disorders,18 making it a reasonable choice for patients with significant anxiety or insomnia during psychostimulant treatment. Table 12,7-9 and Table 32,7,9 include information on dosing and duration of action for atomoxetine.

Common side effects of atomoxetine include sedation and fatigue, upset stomach, nausea and vomiting, reduced appetite, headache, and irritability.18 Inform patients that atomoxetine carries an FDA black-box warning for suicide risk; a review of 14 studies showed suicidal ideation was more common with atomoxetine than placebo, although no suicides occurred in any trials.20

Hepatotoxicity is rare with atomoxetine.21 Although routine liver enzyme testing is not required, discontinue atomoxetine if jaundice develops or elevated levels of liver enzymes are noted. Other rare but potentially serious side effects include changes in heart rate (≥20 beats per min) or blood pressure that occur in 5% to 10% of patients taking atomoxetine.22 The risk of serious cardiovascular events and sudden cardiac death with atomoxetine is extremely low, but patients should be screened for a personal and family history of cardiovascular risk factors and, if any of these are present, evaluated further before starting atomoxetine. Routine heart rate and blood pressure monitoring is recommended for all patients.12-14,16

Last, atomoxetine has been linked to growth delays in the first 1 or 2 years of treatment, with a return to expected measurements after an average 2 or 3 years of treatment; persistent decreases in growth rate were observed in patients who were taller or heavier than average before treatment.23

α2 Adrenergic agonists

Guanfacine ER and clonidine ER, the extended release (ER) formulations of α2 adrenergic agonists, were FDA-approved for treating ADHD in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Short-acting guanfacine and clonidine also are used for treating ADHD.24 Their mechanism of action involves stimulation of the pre-synaptic and post-synapic α2 adrenergic receptors, which control the release of norepinephrine and the rate of cell firing.25 The α2 agonists are considered a second-line treatment for ADHD because their efficacy and response rate for core ADHD symptoms lags behind those of psychostimulants.25 In addition to treating core ADHD symptoms, guanfacine and clonidine are used to treat tics and oppositional/aggressive behavior comorbid with ADHD.24,26 Clonidine, which is more sedating than guanfacine, can be used to treat comorbid ADHD and sleep disorders.24 The α2 agonists do not produce euphoria and do not have drug abuse potential.2Table 12,7-9 and Table 32,7,9 provide guidelines for prescribing guanfacine ER and clonidine ER.

The most common adverse effect is drowsiness; other common side effects include dizziness, irritability, headache, and abdominal pain.24 Short-term studies of α2 agonist treatment of ADHD have shown small, non-clinically significant reductions in heart rate and blood pressure; α2 agonist-associated bradycardia, increased QT interval, and cardiac arrhythmias have been reported,7,24,27 as well as rebound hypertension with abrupt discontinuation.24 Screen patients for a personal and family history of cardiovascular risk factors and, if present, evaluate further before initiating α2 agonists.

Combining ADHD medication classes

Combination therapy with >1 ADHD medications is employed when 1 class does not provide adequate symptom coverage or produces problematic side effects.8,24 Psychostimulants can be combined with low-dose atomoxetine (0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg/d) when atomoxetine does not adequately cover ADHD symptoms in school, or when psychostimulants do not adequately cover evening symptoms or patients experience problems with evening psychostimulant rebound.8 To date, prospective data on the safety and efficacy of combining atomoxetine and psychostimulants are limited, but what evidence is available suggests improved symptom control for some, but not all, patients, and a lack of serious adverse events.28

Psychostimulants have been combined with α2agonists when children have an inadequate response to psychostimulants alone, or in cases of ADHD comorbid with aggression or tics.24 Although early case reports raised concern about the safety of combining psychostimulants and α2 agonists, subsequent studies suggest that clonidine and guanfacine generally are well-tolerated when co-administered with psychostimulants.24,27,29

Case continued

Molly has derived substantial benefit from long-acting methylphenidate during the school day, but continues to have significant ADHD-related impairment in the mornings and evenings. Her physician tried afternoon dosing of immediate-release methylphenidate to address evening difficulties, but Molly experienced insomnia. It would be reasonable to consider adjunctive therapy with a non-stimulant medication. A medication that can provide round-the-clock ADHD symptom coverage—such as atomoxetine, guanfacine ER, or clonidine ER—could be added to her current day-time psychostimulant treatment, potentially improving her functioning at home before school and in the evenings.

 

 

Additional considerations

Combining medication and behavior therapy offers greater improvements on academic, conduct, and family satisfaction measures than either treatment alone.2 Clinicians can choose to employ behavior therapy alone, particularly if parents feel uncomfortable with—or children have not tolerated—medication.2,3 Evidence-based behavioral parent training and classroom management strategies (implemented by teachers) have shown the strongest and most consistent effects among nonpharmacotherapeutic interventions for ADHD.2 Most studies comparing behavior therapy to psychostimulants have found a stronger effect on core ADHD symptoms from psychostimulants than from behavior therapy.

When a patient does not respond adequately to FDA-approved ADHD medications alone or in combination, consider bupropion, an antidepressant with indirect dopamine and noradrenergic effects. Off-label bupropion has been shown to be effective for ADHD in controlled trials of both children and adults.30

Clinicians often encounter children who meet criteria for ADHD and an anxiety or mood disorder. Table 48,31 summarizes treatment recommendations for these patients.

Clinical considerations

  • Begin treatment with a psychostimulant at a low dosage, and titrate gradually until symptoms are controlled or side effects develop.
  • Keep in mind that an effective dosage of a psychostimulant is not closely correlated with age, weight, or severity of symptoms.
  • Monitor refill requests and patient behavior for signs of psychostimulant misuse. Be alert for signs of illegal drug use in patient family members.
  • Lisdexamfetamine, dermal methylphenidate, and osmotic release oral system methylphenidate are the formulations least likely to be misused because their delivery systems make it difficult to extract the active ingredient for snorting or intravenous injection.
  • Psychostimulants have not been shown to exacerbate tics in most children who have comorbid ADHD and a tic disorder. When a stimulant is associated with an exacerbation of tics, switching treatment to atomoxetine or α2 agonists is reasonable.
  • For patients whose use of a stimulant is limited by an adverse effect on sleep, consider atomoxetine and α2 adrenergic agonists as alternative or adjunctive treatments.
  • All 3 classes of FDA-approved ADHD medications (psychostimulants, atomoxetine, and adrenergic agonists) have been associated with adverse cardiac events in children who have underlying cardiovascular conditions. Before initiating treatment, screen patients for a personal or family history of cardiovascular risk factors, and undertake further evaluation as indicated.

Bottom Line

In general, the evidence supports psychostimulants as initial pharmacotherapy for ADHD, with additional options including atomoxetine and α2 agonists. When one medication class does not provide adequate coverage for ADHD symptoms, combining medication classes can be beneficial.

Related Resources

Drug Brand Names

Atomoxetine • Strattera

Lisdexamfetamine • Vyvanse

Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban

Clonidine extended release • Kapvay

Guanfacine extended release • Intuniv

Dexmethylphenidate • Focalin, Focalin XR

Mixed amphetamine salts • Adderall, Adderall XR

Dextroamphetamine • Dexedrine, Dexedrine SR, DextroStat, ProCentra

Methylphenidate • Ritalin, Methylin, Metadate CD, Metadate ER, Methylin ER, Ritalin LA, Ritalin SR, Concerta, Quillivant XR, Daytrana

Disclosures

Dr. Froehlich receives support from the National Institute of Mental Health Grant K23 MH083881. Dr. Delgado has received research support from Pfizer, Inc. Dr. Anixt reports no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

References

1. Solanto MV. Neuropsychopharmacological mechanisms of stimulant drug action in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a review and integration. Behav Brain Res. 1998; 94(1):127-152.

2. Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; Steering Committee on Quality Improvement and Management; Wolraich M, Brown L, Brown RT, et al. ADHD: clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2011;128(5):1007-1022.

3. Pliszka S; AACAP Work Group on Quality Issues. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46(7):894-921.

4. Zametkin AJ, Ernst M. Problems in the management of attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(1):40-46.

5. Goldman LS, Genel M, Bezman RJ, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA. 1998;279(14):1100-1107.

6. Swanson J, Gupta S, Lam A, et al. Development of a new once-a-day formulation of methylphenidate for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: proof-of-concept and proof-of-product studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):204-211.

7. Vaughan B, Kratochvil CJ. Pharmacotherapy of pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2012;21(4):941-955.

8. Pliszka SR, Crismon ML, Hughes CW, et al; Texas Consensus Conference Panel on Pharmacotherapy of Childhood Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The Texas Children’s Medication Algorithm Project: revision of the algorithm for pharmacotherapy of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006;45(6):642-657.

9. Antshel KM, Hargrave TM, Simonescu M, et al. Advances in understanding and treating ADHD. BMC Med. 2011;9:72.

10. Efron D, Jarman F, Barker M. Side effects of methylphenidate and dexamphetamine in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a double-blind, crossover trial. Pediatrics. 1997;100(4):662-666.

11. Pringsheim T, Steeves T. Pharmacological treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children with comorbid tic disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(4):CD007990.

12. Cortese S, Holtmann M, Banaschewski T, et al. Practitioner review: current best practice in the management of adverse events during treatment with ADHD medications in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013; 54(3):227-246.

13. Cooper WO, Habel LA, Sox CM, et al. ADHD drugs and serious cardiovascular events in children and young adults. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(20):1896-1904.

14. Martinez-Raga J, Knecht C, Szerman N, et al. Risk of serious cardiovascular problems with medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. CNS Drugs. 2013;27(1):15-30.

15. Vetter VL, Elia J, Erickson C, et al; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young Congenital Cardiac Defects Committee; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Nursing. Cardiovascular monitoring of children and  adolescents with heart disease receiving medications for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder [corrected]: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young Congenital Cardiac Defects Committee and the Council on Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation. 2008;117(18):2407-2423.

16. Perrin JM, Friedman RA, Knilans TK; Black Box Working Group; Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery. Cardiovascular monitoring and stimulant drugs for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics. 2008;122(2):451-453.

17. Faraone SV, Biederman J, Morley CP, et al. Effect of stimulants on height and weight: a review of the literature. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(9):994-1009.

18. Garnock-Jones KP, Keating GM. Atomoxetine: a review of its use in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Paediatr Drugs. 2009;11(3):203-226.

19. Bymaster FP, Katner JS, Nelson DL, et al. Atomoxetine increases extracellular levels of norepinephrine and dopamine in prefrontal cortex of rat: a potential mechanism for efficacy in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2002;27(5):699-711.

20. Bangs ME, Tauscher-Wisniewski S, Polzer J, et al. Meta-analysis of suicide-related behavior events in patients treated with atomoxetine. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(2):209-218.

21. Bangs ME, Jin L, Zhang S, et al. Hepatic events associated with atomoxetine treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Drug Saf. 2008;31(4):345-354.

22. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Strattera (atomoxetine hydrochloride) capsule. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/ucm223889.htm. Published August 2013. Accessed October 31, 2013.

23. Spencer TJ, Kratochvil CJ, Sangal RB, et al. Effects of atomoxetine on growth in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder following up to five years of treatment. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2007;17(5):689-700.

24. Connor DF. Other medications. In: Barkley RA, ed. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a handbook for diagnosis and treatment. 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2006:658-677.

25. May DE, Kratochvil CJ. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: recent advances in paediatric pharmacotherapy. Drugs. 2010;70(1):15-40.

26. Connor DF, Findling RL, Kollins SH, et al. Effects of guanfacine extended release on oppositional symptoms in children aged 6-12 years with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional symptoms: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. CNS Drugs. 2010; 24(9):755-768.

27. Croxtall JD. Clonidine extended-release: in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Paediatr Drugs. 2011;13(5):329-336.

28. Treuer T, Gau SS, Mendez L, et al. A systematic review of combination therapy with stimulants and atomoxetine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including patient characteristics, treatment strategies, effectiveness, and tolerability. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2013;23(3):179-193.

29. Sallee FR. The role of alpha2-adrenergic agonists in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Postgrad Med. 2010;122(5):78-87.

30. Spencer TJ. Antidepressant and specific norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor treatments. In: Barkley RA, ed. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a handbook for diagnosis and treatment. 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2006:648-657.

31. Singh MK, DelBello MP, Kowatch RA, et al. Co-occurrence of bipolar and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders in children. Bipolar Disord. 2006;8(6):710-720.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Tanya E. Froehlich, MD, MS
Associate Professor
Department of Pediatrics
Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics

Sergio V. Delgado, MD
Professor
Medical Director Outpatient Services
Division of Child Psychiatry

Julia S. Anixt, MD
Assistant Professor
Department of Pediatrics
Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio

Issue
Current Psychiatry - 12(12)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
20-29
Legacy Keywords
pediatric, ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, children, medication
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Tanya E. Froehlich, MD, MS
Associate Professor
Department of Pediatrics
Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics

Sergio V. Delgado, MD
Professor
Medical Director Outpatient Services
Division of Child Psychiatry

Julia S. Anixt, MD
Assistant Professor
Department of Pediatrics
Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio

Author and Disclosure Information

Tanya E. Froehlich, MD, MS
Associate Professor
Department of Pediatrics
Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics

Sergio V. Delgado, MD
Professor
Medical Director Outpatient Services
Division of Child Psychiatry

Julia S. Anixt, MD
Assistant Professor
Department of Pediatrics
Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

Molly, age 9, is diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by her psychiatrist, who prescribes a long-acting methylphenidate formulation at 1 mg/kg. She tolerates the medication without side effects and shows significant improvement in her academic performance and on-task behavior in school. Molly takes methylphenidate before school at 7:00 am; this dose usually wears off at approximately 3:30 pm.

Molly and her parents are pleased with her response to methylphenidate, but report that she has difficulty getting ready for school because of distractibility. In the evenings Molly has trouble staying seated to do homework and often interrupts and argues with family members, but cannot tolerate afternoon dosing of immediate-release methylphenidate because of insomnia.

ADHD, the most common childhood neurobehavioral disorder, is characterized by difficulties with attention, impulse control, and modulating activity level. The pathophysiology of ADHD is thought to involve dysregulation of brain dopamine and norepinephrine systems.1 Managing ADHD includes pharmacotherapeutic and nonpharmacotherapeutic—ie, behavioral and psychoeducational—interventions.2,3

In this article, we provide an overview of the efficacy, side effects, and dosing for the 3 classes of ADHD medication—psychostimulants, atomoxetine, and α2 adrenergic agonists—including guidance on medication choice and combination treatment. We also discuss the effects of psychostimulants on tics, cardiovascular concerns, and substance abuse potential.

Psychostimulants

Methylphenidates and amphetamines are first-line agents for ADHD. Their primary mechanism of action involves blocking dopamine transporters, with additional effects including blockade of norepinephrine transporters, dampening action of monoamine oxidase (which slows dopamine and norepinephrine degradation), and enhanced release of dopamine into the synaptic space.1

Efficacy and response rates are similar for methylphenidate and amphetamine medications, although as many as 25% of patients may respond to only 1 agent.1 More than 90% of patients will have a positive response to one of the psychostimulants.1 The beneficial effects of psychostimulants on inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity are well documented.2Improvements in noncompliance, aggression, social interactions, and academic productivity also have been observed.4,5

Because of increased recognition of pervasive ADHD-related impairments, which can affect functioning in social, family, and extracurricular settings, practitioners have shifted to long-acting psychostimulants to reduce the need for in-school dosing, improve compliance, and obtain more after-school treatment effects. Long-acting formulations produce a slower rise and fall of psychostimulant levels in the brain, which may decrease side effects and potential for later drug abuse.6 See Table 12,7-9 and Table 22,7,9  for titration, dosing, and duration of action of psychostimulants.

The most common side effects of psychostimulants are appetite loss, abdominal pain, headaches, and sleep disturbances.2 Emotional symptoms—irritability and nervousness—may be observed with psychostimulant use, but these behaviors may improve, rather than become worse, with treatment.5 Methylphenidates and amphetamines share many of the same side effects,2 with many studies indicating no differences between their side-effect profiles.1 Other studies indicate that sleep and emotional side effects may be more prominent with amphetamines than methylphenidates,10 although response varies by individual.

There is little evidence that methylphenidate, low-dose amphetamine, or low-dose dextroamphetamine makes tics worse in most children who have them, although significant tic exacerbation has been observed with higher-dose dextroamphetamine.11,12 In patients with comorbid ADHD and tic disorders, a trial of psychostimulants with monitoring for worsening tics is appropriate.

Changes in heart rate and blood pressure generally are not clinically significant in patients taking psychostimulants (average increases: 1 or 2 beats per minute and 1 to 4 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic blood pressures).12 However, psychostimulants may be associated with more substantial increases in heart rate and blood pressure in a subset of individuals (5% to 15%).12 Large studies of children and adults in the general population have not found an association between psychostimulant use and severe cardiovascular events (sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke).12-14 Because of reports of sudden cardiac death in children with underlying heart disease who take a psychostimulant,15 clinicians are advised to screen patients and consider an electrocardiogram or evaluation by a cardiologist before starting a psychostimulant in a patient who has a personal or family history of specific cardiovascular risk factors (see Perrin et al16 and Cortese et al12 for screening questions and conditions).

Modest reductions in height (1 or 2 cm after 3 years of psychostimulant treatment) appear to be dose-dependent, and are similar across the methylphenidate and amphetamine classes. Some studies have shown reversal of growth deficits after treatment is stopped treatment and no adverse effects on final adult height.12,17 More study is needed to clarify the effects of continuous psychostimulant treatment from childhood to adulthood on growth.

Studies have failed to show an increased risk of substance abuse in persons with ADHD who were treated with psychostimulants during childhood. Some studies document a lower rate of later substance abuse in youths who received ADHD medications, although other reports show no effect of psychostimulant treatment on subsequent substance use disorder risk.12 Be aware that psychostimulants can be misused (eg, to get “high,” for performance enhancement, to suppress appetite, etc.). Misuse of psychostimulants is most common with short-acting preparations, and generally more difficult with long-acting preparations because extracting the active ingredients for snorting is difficult.2,12 Monitor refill requests and patient behavior for signs of misuse, and be alert for signs of illegal drug use in the patient’s family.

 

 

Psychotic symptoms—including hallucinations, delusions, mania, and extreme agitation—with psychostimulant treatment are rare, occurring at a rate of 1.5%.12

Atomoxetine

Approved by the FDA in 2002 for ADHD, atomoxetine is effective and generally well tolerated, although it is not as effective as psychostimulants.2 Atomoxetine is a potent norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor18 that does not produce euphoria, does not have potential for abuse, and has not been linked to increased tic onset or severity.19 Atomoxetine treatment is associated with a lower rate of sleep initiation difficulty compared with psychostimulants.18 Some studies suggest that atomoxetine may have mild beneficial effects on anxiety disorders,18 making it a reasonable choice for patients with significant anxiety or insomnia during psychostimulant treatment. Table 12,7-9 and Table 32,7,9 include information on dosing and duration of action for atomoxetine.

Common side effects of atomoxetine include sedation and fatigue, upset stomach, nausea and vomiting, reduced appetite, headache, and irritability.18 Inform patients that atomoxetine carries an FDA black-box warning for suicide risk; a review of 14 studies showed suicidal ideation was more common with atomoxetine than placebo, although no suicides occurred in any trials.20

Hepatotoxicity is rare with atomoxetine.21 Although routine liver enzyme testing is not required, discontinue atomoxetine if jaundice develops or elevated levels of liver enzymes are noted. Other rare but potentially serious side effects include changes in heart rate (≥20 beats per min) or blood pressure that occur in 5% to 10% of patients taking atomoxetine.22 The risk of serious cardiovascular events and sudden cardiac death with atomoxetine is extremely low, but patients should be screened for a personal and family history of cardiovascular risk factors and, if any of these are present, evaluated further before starting atomoxetine. Routine heart rate and blood pressure monitoring is recommended for all patients.12-14,16

Last, atomoxetine has been linked to growth delays in the first 1 or 2 years of treatment, with a return to expected measurements after an average 2 or 3 years of treatment; persistent decreases in growth rate were observed in patients who were taller or heavier than average before treatment.23

α2 Adrenergic agonists

Guanfacine ER and clonidine ER, the extended release (ER) formulations of α2 adrenergic agonists, were FDA-approved for treating ADHD in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Short-acting guanfacine and clonidine also are used for treating ADHD.24 Their mechanism of action involves stimulation of the pre-synaptic and post-synapic α2 adrenergic receptors, which control the release of norepinephrine and the rate of cell firing.25 The α2 agonists are considered a second-line treatment for ADHD because their efficacy and response rate for core ADHD symptoms lags behind those of psychostimulants.25 In addition to treating core ADHD symptoms, guanfacine and clonidine are used to treat tics and oppositional/aggressive behavior comorbid with ADHD.24,26 Clonidine, which is more sedating than guanfacine, can be used to treat comorbid ADHD and sleep disorders.24 The α2 agonists do not produce euphoria and do not have drug abuse potential.2Table 12,7-9 and Table 32,7,9 provide guidelines for prescribing guanfacine ER and clonidine ER.

The most common adverse effect is drowsiness; other common side effects include dizziness, irritability, headache, and abdominal pain.24 Short-term studies of α2 agonist treatment of ADHD have shown small, non-clinically significant reductions in heart rate and blood pressure; α2 agonist-associated bradycardia, increased QT interval, and cardiac arrhythmias have been reported,7,24,27 as well as rebound hypertension with abrupt discontinuation.24 Screen patients for a personal and family history of cardiovascular risk factors and, if present, evaluate further before initiating α2 agonists.

Combining ADHD medication classes

Combination therapy with >1 ADHD medications is employed when 1 class does not provide adequate symptom coverage or produces problematic side effects.8,24 Psychostimulants can be combined with low-dose atomoxetine (0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg/d) when atomoxetine does not adequately cover ADHD symptoms in school, or when psychostimulants do not adequately cover evening symptoms or patients experience problems with evening psychostimulant rebound.8 To date, prospective data on the safety and efficacy of combining atomoxetine and psychostimulants are limited, but what evidence is available suggests improved symptom control for some, but not all, patients, and a lack of serious adverse events.28

Psychostimulants have been combined with α2agonists when children have an inadequate response to psychostimulants alone, or in cases of ADHD comorbid with aggression or tics.24 Although early case reports raised concern about the safety of combining psychostimulants and α2 agonists, subsequent studies suggest that clonidine and guanfacine generally are well-tolerated when co-administered with psychostimulants.24,27,29

Case continued

Molly has derived substantial benefit from long-acting methylphenidate during the school day, but continues to have significant ADHD-related impairment in the mornings and evenings. Her physician tried afternoon dosing of immediate-release methylphenidate to address evening difficulties, but Molly experienced insomnia. It would be reasonable to consider adjunctive therapy with a non-stimulant medication. A medication that can provide round-the-clock ADHD symptom coverage—such as atomoxetine, guanfacine ER, or clonidine ER—could be added to her current day-time psychostimulant treatment, potentially improving her functioning at home before school and in the evenings.

 

 

Additional considerations

Combining medication and behavior therapy offers greater improvements on academic, conduct, and family satisfaction measures than either treatment alone.2 Clinicians can choose to employ behavior therapy alone, particularly if parents feel uncomfortable with—or children have not tolerated—medication.2,3 Evidence-based behavioral parent training and classroom management strategies (implemented by teachers) have shown the strongest and most consistent effects among nonpharmacotherapeutic interventions for ADHD.2 Most studies comparing behavior therapy to psychostimulants have found a stronger effect on core ADHD symptoms from psychostimulants than from behavior therapy.

When a patient does not respond adequately to FDA-approved ADHD medications alone or in combination, consider bupropion, an antidepressant with indirect dopamine and noradrenergic effects. Off-label bupropion has been shown to be effective for ADHD in controlled trials of both children and adults.30

Clinicians often encounter children who meet criteria for ADHD and an anxiety or mood disorder. Table 48,31 summarizes treatment recommendations for these patients.

Clinical considerations

  • Begin treatment with a psychostimulant at a low dosage, and titrate gradually until symptoms are controlled or side effects develop.
  • Keep in mind that an effective dosage of a psychostimulant is not closely correlated with age, weight, or severity of symptoms.
  • Monitor refill requests and patient behavior for signs of psychostimulant misuse. Be alert for signs of illegal drug use in patient family members.
  • Lisdexamfetamine, dermal methylphenidate, and osmotic release oral system methylphenidate are the formulations least likely to be misused because their delivery systems make it difficult to extract the active ingredient for snorting or intravenous injection.
  • Psychostimulants have not been shown to exacerbate tics in most children who have comorbid ADHD and a tic disorder. When a stimulant is associated with an exacerbation of tics, switching treatment to atomoxetine or α2 agonists is reasonable.
  • For patients whose use of a stimulant is limited by an adverse effect on sleep, consider atomoxetine and α2 adrenergic agonists as alternative or adjunctive treatments.
  • All 3 classes of FDA-approved ADHD medications (psychostimulants, atomoxetine, and adrenergic agonists) have been associated with adverse cardiac events in children who have underlying cardiovascular conditions. Before initiating treatment, screen patients for a personal or family history of cardiovascular risk factors, and undertake further evaluation as indicated.

Bottom Line

In general, the evidence supports psychostimulants as initial pharmacotherapy for ADHD, with additional options including atomoxetine and α2 agonists. When one medication class does not provide adequate coverage for ADHD symptoms, combining medication classes can be beneficial.

Related Resources

Drug Brand Names

Atomoxetine • Strattera

Lisdexamfetamine • Vyvanse

Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban

Clonidine extended release • Kapvay

Guanfacine extended release • Intuniv

Dexmethylphenidate • Focalin, Focalin XR

Mixed amphetamine salts • Adderall, Adderall XR

Dextroamphetamine • Dexedrine, Dexedrine SR, DextroStat, ProCentra

Methylphenidate • Ritalin, Methylin, Metadate CD, Metadate ER, Methylin ER, Ritalin LA, Ritalin SR, Concerta, Quillivant XR, Daytrana

Disclosures

Dr. Froehlich receives support from the National Institute of Mental Health Grant K23 MH083881. Dr. Delgado has received research support from Pfizer, Inc. Dr. Anixt reports no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Molly, age 9, is diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by her psychiatrist, who prescribes a long-acting methylphenidate formulation at 1 mg/kg. She tolerates the medication without side effects and shows significant improvement in her academic performance and on-task behavior in school. Molly takes methylphenidate before school at 7:00 am; this dose usually wears off at approximately 3:30 pm.

Molly and her parents are pleased with her response to methylphenidate, but report that she has difficulty getting ready for school because of distractibility. In the evenings Molly has trouble staying seated to do homework and often interrupts and argues with family members, but cannot tolerate afternoon dosing of immediate-release methylphenidate because of insomnia.

ADHD, the most common childhood neurobehavioral disorder, is characterized by difficulties with attention, impulse control, and modulating activity level. The pathophysiology of ADHD is thought to involve dysregulation of brain dopamine and norepinephrine systems.1 Managing ADHD includes pharmacotherapeutic and nonpharmacotherapeutic—ie, behavioral and psychoeducational—interventions.2,3

In this article, we provide an overview of the efficacy, side effects, and dosing for the 3 classes of ADHD medication—psychostimulants, atomoxetine, and α2 adrenergic agonists—including guidance on medication choice and combination treatment. We also discuss the effects of psychostimulants on tics, cardiovascular concerns, and substance abuse potential.

Psychostimulants

Methylphenidates and amphetamines are first-line agents for ADHD. Their primary mechanism of action involves blocking dopamine transporters, with additional effects including blockade of norepinephrine transporters, dampening action of monoamine oxidase (which slows dopamine and norepinephrine degradation), and enhanced release of dopamine into the synaptic space.1

Efficacy and response rates are similar for methylphenidate and amphetamine medications, although as many as 25% of patients may respond to only 1 agent.1 More than 90% of patients will have a positive response to one of the psychostimulants.1 The beneficial effects of psychostimulants on inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity are well documented.2Improvements in noncompliance, aggression, social interactions, and academic productivity also have been observed.4,5

Because of increased recognition of pervasive ADHD-related impairments, which can affect functioning in social, family, and extracurricular settings, practitioners have shifted to long-acting psychostimulants to reduce the need for in-school dosing, improve compliance, and obtain more after-school treatment effects. Long-acting formulations produce a slower rise and fall of psychostimulant levels in the brain, which may decrease side effects and potential for later drug abuse.6 See Table 12,7-9 and Table 22,7,9  for titration, dosing, and duration of action of psychostimulants.

The most common side effects of psychostimulants are appetite loss, abdominal pain, headaches, and sleep disturbances.2 Emotional symptoms—irritability and nervousness—may be observed with psychostimulant use, but these behaviors may improve, rather than become worse, with treatment.5 Methylphenidates and amphetamines share many of the same side effects,2 with many studies indicating no differences between their side-effect profiles.1 Other studies indicate that sleep and emotional side effects may be more prominent with amphetamines than methylphenidates,10 although response varies by individual.

There is little evidence that methylphenidate, low-dose amphetamine, or low-dose dextroamphetamine makes tics worse in most children who have them, although significant tic exacerbation has been observed with higher-dose dextroamphetamine.11,12 In patients with comorbid ADHD and tic disorders, a trial of psychostimulants with monitoring for worsening tics is appropriate.

Changes in heart rate and blood pressure generally are not clinically significant in patients taking psychostimulants (average increases: 1 or 2 beats per minute and 1 to 4 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic blood pressures).12 However, psychostimulants may be associated with more substantial increases in heart rate and blood pressure in a subset of individuals (5% to 15%).12 Large studies of children and adults in the general population have not found an association between psychostimulant use and severe cardiovascular events (sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke).12-14 Because of reports of sudden cardiac death in children with underlying heart disease who take a psychostimulant,15 clinicians are advised to screen patients and consider an electrocardiogram or evaluation by a cardiologist before starting a psychostimulant in a patient who has a personal or family history of specific cardiovascular risk factors (see Perrin et al16 and Cortese et al12 for screening questions and conditions).

Modest reductions in height (1 or 2 cm after 3 years of psychostimulant treatment) appear to be dose-dependent, and are similar across the methylphenidate and amphetamine classes. Some studies have shown reversal of growth deficits after treatment is stopped treatment and no adverse effects on final adult height.12,17 More study is needed to clarify the effects of continuous psychostimulant treatment from childhood to adulthood on growth.

Studies have failed to show an increased risk of substance abuse in persons with ADHD who were treated with psychostimulants during childhood. Some studies document a lower rate of later substance abuse in youths who received ADHD medications, although other reports show no effect of psychostimulant treatment on subsequent substance use disorder risk.12 Be aware that psychostimulants can be misused (eg, to get “high,” for performance enhancement, to suppress appetite, etc.). Misuse of psychostimulants is most common with short-acting preparations, and generally more difficult with long-acting preparations because extracting the active ingredients for snorting is difficult.2,12 Monitor refill requests and patient behavior for signs of misuse, and be alert for signs of illegal drug use in the patient’s family.

 

 

Psychotic symptoms—including hallucinations, delusions, mania, and extreme agitation—with psychostimulant treatment are rare, occurring at a rate of 1.5%.12

Atomoxetine

Approved by the FDA in 2002 for ADHD, atomoxetine is effective and generally well tolerated, although it is not as effective as psychostimulants.2 Atomoxetine is a potent norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor18 that does not produce euphoria, does not have potential for abuse, and has not been linked to increased tic onset or severity.19 Atomoxetine treatment is associated with a lower rate of sleep initiation difficulty compared with psychostimulants.18 Some studies suggest that atomoxetine may have mild beneficial effects on anxiety disorders,18 making it a reasonable choice for patients with significant anxiety or insomnia during psychostimulant treatment. Table 12,7-9 and Table 32,7,9 include information on dosing and duration of action for atomoxetine.

Common side effects of atomoxetine include sedation and fatigue, upset stomach, nausea and vomiting, reduced appetite, headache, and irritability.18 Inform patients that atomoxetine carries an FDA black-box warning for suicide risk; a review of 14 studies showed suicidal ideation was more common with atomoxetine than placebo, although no suicides occurred in any trials.20

Hepatotoxicity is rare with atomoxetine.21 Although routine liver enzyme testing is not required, discontinue atomoxetine if jaundice develops or elevated levels of liver enzymes are noted. Other rare but potentially serious side effects include changes in heart rate (≥20 beats per min) or blood pressure that occur in 5% to 10% of patients taking atomoxetine.22 The risk of serious cardiovascular events and sudden cardiac death with atomoxetine is extremely low, but patients should be screened for a personal and family history of cardiovascular risk factors and, if any of these are present, evaluated further before starting atomoxetine. Routine heart rate and blood pressure monitoring is recommended for all patients.12-14,16

Last, atomoxetine has been linked to growth delays in the first 1 or 2 years of treatment, with a return to expected measurements after an average 2 or 3 years of treatment; persistent decreases in growth rate were observed in patients who were taller or heavier than average before treatment.23

α2 Adrenergic agonists

Guanfacine ER and clonidine ER, the extended release (ER) formulations of α2 adrenergic agonists, were FDA-approved for treating ADHD in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Short-acting guanfacine and clonidine also are used for treating ADHD.24 Their mechanism of action involves stimulation of the pre-synaptic and post-synapic α2 adrenergic receptors, which control the release of norepinephrine and the rate of cell firing.25 The α2 agonists are considered a second-line treatment for ADHD because their efficacy and response rate for core ADHD symptoms lags behind those of psychostimulants.25 In addition to treating core ADHD symptoms, guanfacine and clonidine are used to treat tics and oppositional/aggressive behavior comorbid with ADHD.24,26 Clonidine, which is more sedating than guanfacine, can be used to treat comorbid ADHD and sleep disorders.24 The α2 agonists do not produce euphoria and do not have drug abuse potential.2Table 12,7-9 and Table 32,7,9 provide guidelines for prescribing guanfacine ER and clonidine ER.

The most common adverse effect is drowsiness; other common side effects include dizziness, irritability, headache, and abdominal pain.24 Short-term studies of α2 agonist treatment of ADHD have shown small, non-clinically significant reductions in heart rate and blood pressure; α2 agonist-associated bradycardia, increased QT interval, and cardiac arrhythmias have been reported,7,24,27 as well as rebound hypertension with abrupt discontinuation.24 Screen patients for a personal and family history of cardiovascular risk factors and, if present, evaluate further before initiating α2 agonists.

Combining ADHD medication classes

Combination therapy with >1 ADHD medications is employed when 1 class does not provide adequate symptom coverage or produces problematic side effects.8,24 Psychostimulants can be combined with low-dose atomoxetine (0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg/d) when atomoxetine does not adequately cover ADHD symptoms in school, or when psychostimulants do not adequately cover evening symptoms or patients experience problems with evening psychostimulant rebound.8 To date, prospective data on the safety and efficacy of combining atomoxetine and psychostimulants are limited, but what evidence is available suggests improved symptom control for some, but not all, patients, and a lack of serious adverse events.28

Psychostimulants have been combined with α2agonists when children have an inadequate response to psychostimulants alone, or in cases of ADHD comorbid with aggression or tics.24 Although early case reports raised concern about the safety of combining psychostimulants and α2 agonists, subsequent studies suggest that clonidine and guanfacine generally are well-tolerated when co-administered with psychostimulants.24,27,29

Case continued

Molly has derived substantial benefit from long-acting methylphenidate during the school day, but continues to have significant ADHD-related impairment in the mornings and evenings. Her physician tried afternoon dosing of immediate-release methylphenidate to address evening difficulties, but Molly experienced insomnia. It would be reasonable to consider adjunctive therapy with a non-stimulant medication. A medication that can provide round-the-clock ADHD symptom coverage—such as atomoxetine, guanfacine ER, or clonidine ER—could be added to her current day-time psychostimulant treatment, potentially improving her functioning at home before school and in the evenings.

 

 

Additional considerations

Combining medication and behavior therapy offers greater improvements on academic, conduct, and family satisfaction measures than either treatment alone.2 Clinicians can choose to employ behavior therapy alone, particularly if parents feel uncomfortable with—or children have not tolerated—medication.2,3 Evidence-based behavioral parent training and classroom management strategies (implemented by teachers) have shown the strongest and most consistent effects among nonpharmacotherapeutic interventions for ADHD.2 Most studies comparing behavior therapy to psychostimulants have found a stronger effect on core ADHD symptoms from psychostimulants than from behavior therapy.

When a patient does not respond adequately to FDA-approved ADHD medications alone or in combination, consider bupropion, an antidepressant with indirect dopamine and noradrenergic effects. Off-label bupropion has been shown to be effective for ADHD in controlled trials of both children and adults.30

Clinicians often encounter children who meet criteria for ADHD and an anxiety or mood disorder. Table 48,31 summarizes treatment recommendations for these patients.

Clinical considerations

  • Begin treatment with a psychostimulant at a low dosage, and titrate gradually until symptoms are controlled or side effects develop.
  • Keep in mind that an effective dosage of a psychostimulant is not closely correlated with age, weight, or severity of symptoms.
  • Monitor refill requests and patient behavior for signs of psychostimulant misuse. Be alert for signs of illegal drug use in patient family members.
  • Lisdexamfetamine, dermal methylphenidate, and osmotic release oral system methylphenidate are the formulations least likely to be misused because their delivery systems make it difficult to extract the active ingredient for snorting or intravenous injection.
  • Psychostimulants have not been shown to exacerbate tics in most children who have comorbid ADHD and a tic disorder. When a stimulant is associated with an exacerbation of tics, switching treatment to atomoxetine or α2 agonists is reasonable.
  • For patients whose use of a stimulant is limited by an adverse effect on sleep, consider atomoxetine and α2 adrenergic agonists as alternative or adjunctive treatments.
  • All 3 classes of FDA-approved ADHD medications (psychostimulants, atomoxetine, and adrenergic agonists) have been associated with adverse cardiac events in children who have underlying cardiovascular conditions. Before initiating treatment, screen patients for a personal or family history of cardiovascular risk factors, and undertake further evaluation as indicated.

Bottom Line

In general, the evidence supports psychostimulants as initial pharmacotherapy for ADHD, with additional options including atomoxetine and α2 agonists. When one medication class does not provide adequate coverage for ADHD symptoms, combining medication classes can be beneficial.

Related Resources

Drug Brand Names

Atomoxetine • Strattera

Lisdexamfetamine • Vyvanse

Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban

Clonidine extended release • Kapvay

Guanfacine extended release • Intuniv

Dexmethylphenidate • Focalin, Focalin XR

Mixed amphetamine salts • Adderall, Adderall XR

Dextroamphetamine • Dexedrine, Dexedrine SR, DextroStat, ProCentra

Methylphenidate • Ritalin, Methylin, Metadate CD, Metadate ER, Methylin ER, Ritalin LA, Ritalin SR, Concerta, Quillivant XR, Daytrana

Disclosures

Dr. Froehlich receives support from the National Institute of Mental Health Grant K23 MH083881. Dr. Delgado has received research support from Pfizer, Inc. Dr. Anixt reports no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

References

1. Solanto MV. Neuropsychopharmacological mechanisms of stimulant drug action in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a review and integration. Behav Brain Res. 1998; 94(1):127-152.

2. Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; Steering Committee on Quality Improvement and Management; Wolraich M, Brown L, Brown RT, et al. ADHD: clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2011;128(5):1007-1022.

3. Pliszka S; AACAP Work Group on Quality Issues. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46(7):894-921.

4. Zametkin AJ, Ernst M. Problems in the management of attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(1):40-46.

5. Goldman LS, Genel M, Bezman RJ, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA. 1998;279(14):1100-1107.

6. Swanson J, Gupta S, Lam A, et al. Development of a new once-a-day formulation of methylphenidate for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: proof-of-concept and proof-of-product studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):204-211.

7. Vaughan B, Kratochvil CJ. Pharmacotherapy of pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2012;21(4):941-955.

8. Pliszka SR, Crismon ML, Hughes CW, et al; Texas Consensus Conference Panel on Pharmacotherapy of Childhood Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The Texas Children’s Medication Algorithm Project: revision of the algorithm for pharmacotherapy of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006;45(6):642-657.

9. Antshel KM, Hargrave TM, Simonescu M, et al. Advances in understanding and treating ADHD. BMC Med. 2011;9:72.

10. Efron D, Jarman F, Barker M. Side effects of methylphenidate and dexamphetamine in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a double-blind, crossover trial. Pediatrics. 1997;100(4):662-666.

11. Pringsheim T, Steeves T. Pharmacological treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children with comorbid tic disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(4):CD007990.

12. Cortese S, Holtmann M, Banaschewski T, et al. Practitioner review: current best practice in the management of adverse events during treatment with ADHD medications in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013; 54(3):227-246.

13. Cooper WO, Habel LA, Sox CM, et al. ADHD drugs and serious cardiovascular events in children and young adults. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(20):1896-1904.

14. Martinez-Raga J, Knecht C, Szerman N, et al. Risk of serious cardiovascular problems with medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. CNS Drugs. 2013;27(1):15-30.

15. Vetter VL, Elia J, Erickson C, et al; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young Congenital Cardiac Defects Committee; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Nursing. Cardiovascular monitoring of children and  adolescents with heart disease receiving medications for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder [corrected]: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young Congenital Cardiac Defects Committee and the Council on Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation. 2008;117(18):2407-2423.

16. Perrin JM, Friedman RA, Knilans TK; Black Box Working Group; Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery. Cardiovascular monitoring and stimulant drugs for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics. 2008;122(2):451-453.

17. Faraone SV, Biederman J, Morley CP, et al. Effect of stimulants on height and weight: a review of the literature. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(9):994-1009.

18. Garnock-Jones KP, Keating GM. Atomoxetine: a review of its use in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Paediatr Drugs. 2009;11(3):203-226.

19. Bymaster FP, Katner JS, Nelson DL, et al. Atomoxetine increases extracellular levels of norepinephrine and dopamine in prefrontal cortex of rat: a potential mechanism for efficacy in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2002;27(5):699-711.

20. Bangs ME, Tauscher-Wisniewski S, Polzer J, et al. Meta-analysis of suicide-related behavior events in patients treated with atomoxetine. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(2):209-218.

21. Bangs ME, Jin L, Zhang S, et al. Hepatic events associated with atomoxetine treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Drug Saf. 2008;31(4):345-354.

22. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Strattera (atomoxetine hydrochloride) capsule. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/ucm223889.htm. Published August 2013. Accessed October 31, 2013.

23. Spencer TJ, Kratochvil CJ, Sangal RB, et al. Effects of atomoxetine on growth in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder following up to five years of treatment. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2007;17(5):689-700.

24. Connor DF. Other medications. In: Barkley RA, ed. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a handbook for diagnosis and treatment. 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2006:658-677.

25. May DE, Kratochvil CJ. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: recent advances in paediatric pharmacotherapy. Drugs. 2010;70(1):15-40.

26. Connor DF, Findling RL, Kollins SH, et al. Effects of guanfacine extended release on oppositional symptoms in children aged 6-12 years with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional symptoms: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. CNS Drugs. 2010; 24(9):755-768.

27. Croxtall JD. Clonidine extended-release: in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Paediatr Drugs. 2011;13(5):329-336.

28. Treuer T, Gau SS, Mendez L, et al. A systematic review of combination therapy with stimulants and atomoxetine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including patient characteristics, treatment strategies, effectiveness, and tolerability. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2013;23(3):179-193.

29. Sallee FR. The role of alpha2-adrenergic agonists in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Postgrad Med. 2010;122(5):78-87.

30. Spencer TJ. Antidepressant and specific norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor treatments. In: Barkley RA, ed. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a handbook for diagnosis and treatment. 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2006:648-657.

31. Singh MK, DelBello MP, Kowatch RA, et al. Co-occurrence of bipolar and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders in children. Bipolar Disord. 2006;8(6):710-720.

References

1. Solanto MV. Neuropsychopharmacological mechanisms of stimulant drug action in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a review and integration. Behav Brain Res. 1998; 94(1):127-152.

2. Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; Steering Committee on Quality Improvement and Management; Wolraich M, Brown L, Brown RT, et al. ADHD: clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2011;128(5):1007-1022.

3. Pliszka S; AACAP Work Group on Quality Issues. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46(7):894-921.

4. Zametkin AJ, Ernst M. Problems in the management of attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(1):40-46.

5. Goldman LS, Genel M, Bezman RJ, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA. 1998;279(14):1100-1107.

6. Swanson J, Gupta S, Lam A, et al. Development of a new once-a-day formulation of methylphenidate for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: proof-of-concept and proof-of-product studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):204-211.

7. Vaughan B, Kratochvil CJ. Pharmacotherapy of pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2012;21(4):941-955.

8. Pliszka SR, Crismon ML, Hughes CW, et al; Texas Consensus Conference Panel on Pharmacotherapy of Childhood Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The Texas Children’s Medication Algorithm Project: revision of the algorithm for pharmacotherapy of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006;45(6):642-657.

9. Antshel KM, Hargrave TM, Simonescu M, et al. Advances in understanding and treating ADHD. BMC Med. 2011;9:72.

10. Efron D, Jarman F, Barker M. Side effects of methylphenidate and dexamphetamine in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a double-blind, crossover trial. Pediatrics. 1997;100(4):662-666.

11. Pringsheim T, Steeves T. Pharmacological treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children with comorbid tic disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(4):CD007990.

12. Cortese S, Holtmann M, Banaschewski T, et al. Practitioner review: current best practice in the management of adverse events during treatment with ADHD medications in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013; 54(3):227-246.

13. Cooper WO, Habel LA, Sox CM, et al. ADHD drugs and serious cardiovascular events in children and young adults. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(20):1896-1904.

14. Martinez-Raga J, Knecht C, Szerman N, et al. Risk of serious cardiovascular problems with medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. CNS Drugs. 2013;27(1):15-30.

15. Vetter VL, Elia J, Erickson C, et al; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young Congenital Cardiac Defects Committee; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Nursing. Cardiovascular monitoring of children and  adolescents with heart disease receiving medications for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder [corrected]: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young Congenital Cardiac Defects Committee and the Council on Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation. 2008;117(18):2407-2423.

16. Perrin JM, Friedman RA, Knilans TK; Black Box Working Group; Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery. Cardiovascular monitoring and stimulant drugs for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics. 2008;122(2):451-453.

17. Faraone SV, Biederman J, Morley CP, et al. Effect of stimulants on height and weight: a review of the literature. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(9):994-1009.

18. Garnock-Jones KP, Keating GM. Atomoxetine: a review of its use in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Paediatr Drugs. 2009;11(3):203-226.

19. Bymaster FP, Katner JS, Nelson DL, et al. Atomoxetine increases extracellular levels of norepinephrine and dopamine in prefrontal cortex of rat: a potential mechanism for efficacy in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2002;27(5):699-711.

20. Bangs ME, Tauscher-Wisniewski S, Polzer J, et al. Meta-analysis of suicide-related behavior events in patients treated with atomoxetine. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(2):209-218.

21. Bangs ME, Jin L, Zhang S, et al. Hepatic events associated with atomoxetine treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Drug Saf. 2008;31(4):345-354.

22. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Strattera (atomoxetine hydrochloride) capsule. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/ucm223889.htm. Published August 2013. Accessed October 31, 2013.

23. Spencer TJ, Kratochvil CJ, Sangal RB, et al. Effects of atomoxetine on growth in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder following up to five years of treatment. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2007;17(5):689-700.

24. Connor DF. Other medications. In: Barkley RA, ed. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a handbook for diagnosis and treatment. 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2006:658-677.

25. May DE, Kratochvil CJ. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: recent advances in paediatric pharmacotherapy. Drugs. 2010;70(1):15-40.

26. Connor DF, Findling RL, Kollins SH, et al. Effects of guanfacine extended release on oppositional symptoms in children aged 6-12 years with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional symptoms: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. CNS Drugs. 2010; 24(9):755-768.

27. Croxtall JD. Clonidine extended-release: in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Paediatr Drugs. 2011;13(5):329-336.

28. Treuer T, Gau SS, Mendez L, et al. A systematic review of combination therapy with stimulants and atomoxetine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including patient characteristics, treatment strategies, effectiveness, and tolerability. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2013;23(3):179-193.

29. Sallee FR. The role of alpha2-adrenergic agonists in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Postgrad Med. 2010;122(5):78-87.

30. Spencer TJ. Antidepressant and specific norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor treatments. In: Barkley RA, ed. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a handbook for diagnosis and treatment. 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2006:648-657.

31. Singh MK, DelBello MP, Kowatch RA, et al. Co-occurrence of bipolar and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders in children. Bipolar Disord. 2006;8(6):710-720.

Issue
Current Psychiatry - 12(12)
Issue
Current Psychiatry - 12(12)
Page Number
20-29
Page Number
20-29
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Expanding medication options for pediatric ADHD
Display Headline
Expanding medication options for pediatric ADHD
Legacy Keywords
pediatric, ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, children, medication
Legacy Keywords
pediatric, ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, children, medication
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Does your patient have a psychiatric illness or nonverbal learning disorder?

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/11/2018 - 15:04
Display Headline
Does your patient have a psychiatric illness or nonverbal learning disorder?

Discuss this article at www.facebook.com/CurrentPsychiatry

Patients who present with impairment in academic, cognitive, social, and vocational functioning might be struggling with an unrecognized learning disorder. Ten percent of the US population has some form of learning disability, and up to 40% of those with learning disorders may meet diagnostic criteria for a psychiatric disorder.1,2 Some learning disorders affect a person’s ability to read, write, or do math, whereas less-recognized nonverbal learning disorder (NLD) impacts the social and emotional functioning of children, adolescents, and adults. Common features of NLD include:

  • deficits in nonlinguistic information processing
  • speech prosody deficits
  • difficulty reading facial expressions
  • associated impairment in interpersonal functioning.

The severity of these deficits varies among individuals with NLD. Patients may experience chronic low self-esteem, anxiety, and mood symptoms because of their limited ability to express their feelings within an appropriate social context. NLD may be first misdiagnosed as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder (BD), or Asperger’s disorder.

In this article we review the underlying neurophysiology of NLD and present a clinical approach to these patients, including the differential diagnosis and factors that will allow clinicians to distinguish NLD from psychiatric conditions with symptomatic and syndromic overlap. We also describe treatment for patients with NLD.

The learning process

Learning is a cognitive process of acquiring and processing information and experiences from the environment that allows us to acquire knowledge, skills, and social abilities. When we learn how to relate to others, we undergo neurophysiologic changes that subsequently influence behavior and the way we understand our environment. Deficits in learning processes or the ability to acquire relational skills result in impaired affect regulation in regard to others and may lead to low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, interpersonal conflict, and anger toward others. Learning influences a person’s ability to navigate social relationships and perform academically and occupationally.

The impact of learning deficits may be magnified in adulthood after an individual has suffered years of in-securities and poor self-esteem. Adults with learning disabilities often seek psychiatric treatment as a result of their disappointment about difficulties in relationships and work. NLD may coexist with or mimic other neuropsychiatric disorders. For example, problematic behavior within a family or at the workplace is a common reason for referral to a psychiatrist. These behaviors may be influenced by a patient’s NLD symptoms, which can complicate diagnosis and treatment.

Persons with NLD are at increased risk for depression because of failures in coping, loss of self-esteem, internalized psychopathology, and other social and emotional strains. In addition, individuals with NLD may experience multiple psychosocial impairments, including difficulty maintaining employment, achieving goals, and maintaining relationships.3

A variable presentation

NLD has been associated with right hemispheric dysfunction.3 For a description of the neurophysiology of NLD, see this article at CurrentPsychiatry.com. In childhood, NLD may present as deficits in:

  • processing nonlinguistic information
  • expressing or comprehending nonverbal components of language such as pitch, volume, or rate of speech (aprosodia)
  • reading facial expressions
  • social or emotional functioning, such as difficulty understanding social situations, violations of personal space, or difficulty learning from past emotional experiences.4

The extent of these deficits varies among patients. As children, patients with NLD often show strengths in rote verbal memory, spoken language mechanics or form, and word reading. These children may be hyperverbal and use language at a level higher than expected for their age group, which may mask some learning difficulties and delay diagnosis.

Throughout life, NLD manifests as difficulty interacting with peers. Children with NLD may have difficulty playing with others and making friends and as result may feel socially isolated. Without the critical skills of social reciprocity or understanding social context, NLD patients often have many superficial friendships but lack deep relationships.4,5

Patients with NLD may rely on their verbal skills for relating socially and relieving anxiety and tend to withdraw from social situations as they become aware of their deficits.

NLD can be characterized on the basis of primary, secondary, and tertiary deficits. Primary deficits in tactile and visual perception and complex psychomotor skills lead to secondary deficits in attention and exploratory behavior, which lead to tertiary deficits in memory and executive function.6

Given NLD’s variable presentation, clinicians must remain vigilant to this possible diagnosis in patients with a history of multiple pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy failures for axis I disorders. Using clues from symptoms described in Table 17 may provide information necessary to refer for formal psychoeducational testing to diagnose NLD. Early diagnosis can help target NLD symptoms and tailor treatment of comorbid psychopathology.7 NLD is a chronic disability and—similar to other learning disabilities—early, targeted interventions initiated by parents, teachers, and clinicians can improve outcomes.

 

 

Neuropsychological/psychoeducational testing. Traditionally, clinicians suspected NLD if a patient had a ≥10 point difference between performance intelligence quotient (IQ) and verbal IQ on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III).8 However, the most recent version—the WISC-IV9—incorporates changes based on new neurologic models of cognitive functioning, and performance IQ and verbal IQ are no longer calculated. Thus, interpreting this split in IQ type with regard to NLD is no longer straightforward. IQ tests, such as the Woodcock-Johnson10 battery, which assesses visual-spatial thinking and fluid reasoning, may be particularly important in characterizing NLD deficits—especially when used in conjunction with other neuropsychological batteries, which may directly assess discrete abilities related to visual and spatial processing.

A thorough social and educational history, IQ testing, neuropsychological batteries, and a psychoeducational assessment can help determine the extent of cognitive deficits that may require accommodations at school or work and characterize the complex interplay of specific deficits and functioning.

Table 1

Clinical manifestation of nonverbal learning disorder

Tactile-perceptual deficits and psychomotor coordination deficiencies, usually more marked on the left side
Visual-spatial organization deficits
Deficiencies in nonverbal problem solving, such as hypothesis testing and understanding cause-effect relationships
Difficulty adapting to novel situations and reliance on rote behaviors
Relative deficiencies in mechanical arithmetic with proficiencies in reading, word recognition, and spelling
Well developed rote verbal-memory skills
Verbosity characterized by poor pragmatics
Deficits in social perception, judgment, and interaction
Source: Reference 7

Differential diagnosis

ADHD. Patients diagnosed with ADHD or NLD may have a history of attention difficulties and hyperactivity. These clinical similarities may include restlessness, distractibility, impulsivity, and poor attention (Table 2).11,12 In adults, these features may attenuate and patients with NLD or ADHD could appear normoactive. Individuals with NLD demonstrate withdrawal, anxiety, and continued social skills deficits,13 whereas adult ADHD patients show persistent attention difficulties. Although both groups may have difficulty maintaining steady employment, NLD patients’ employment failures often are caused by cognitive and social difficulties as opposed to problems with attention.

The psychopathology of these 2 conditions differs in that ADHD is characterized primarily by prefrontal dysfunction.14 However, in a small study of children with NLD (N=20), all participants also met diagnostic criteria for ADHD; therefore, the true epidemiologic comorbidity is unknown.15

BD. Because patients with NLD may experience affective symptoms similar to those with BD, it is critical to clarify the temporal course of mood symptoms and understand the complex relationships between symptoms and external events (Table 2).11,12 In BD, mood symptoms are cyclical, punctuated by discrete periods of euthymia. In NLD affective symptoms are clearly linked to learning difficulties and impaired information processing. Research shows cognitive deficits in individuals with BD often persist during euthymic periods.16 Literature suggests that cognitive deficits in adult BD commonly involve verbal memory, executive function, and attention, whereas patients with NLD often have strong verbal memory.17,18

Individuals with BD may understand the intentions of others and—especially in periods of hypomania or mania—will engage others. In contrast, persons with NLD struggle to attract and engage friends, may be irritable when they misunderstand social cues, may be bullied or taken advantage of by others, and may struggle to communicate this problem to clinicians. NLD patients’ sense of frustration typically does not vary; a continuous depressed or anxious mood may improve briefly when they feel accepted in their environment. This pattern can be discerned from BD by strictly applying DSM-IV-TR criteria for variability in mood states.19 BD treatment may be complicated in patients with comorbid NLD. These patients may underreport adverse effects of medications, including metabolic effects and cognitive dulling, which results in a complicated and frustrating clinical course.20

Asperger’s disorder. Patients with NLD—a neuropsychological disorder—may present with social interaction difficulties that seem similar to those of Asperger’s disorder—a behavioral disorder. Overlapping behaviors, similar cognitive processes, and coexisting conditions may challenge even experienced clinicians (Table 3).21-23 However, impairments are more severe in Asperger’s disorder and will present as early as age 4. Patients with Asperger’s disorder show difficulty communicating characterized by unusual interactions, such as pedantic or 1-sided discussions of topics that are unusual for the patient’s age group and inattentiveness to social cues. By contrast, communication difficulties in children with NLD are not apparent until after they start school.

Both Asperger’s disorder and NLD patients will show noticeable variations in thought process that often are apparent in conversations. Individuals with Asperger’s disorder may have some concrete thinking, although they often express idiosyncratic thinking, whereas individuals with NLD often show concrete logic. An individual with NLD may be easily overwhelmed by peer group social interactions but remains emotionally aware of his or her shortcomings and may be able to handle 1-on-1 interactions. Individuals with Asperger’s disorder will demonstrate restrictive interests or repetitive behaviors, a characteristic typically not seen in individuals with NLD. Patients with Asperger’s disorder may have specific skills, such as expertise with directions and spatial reasoning, whereas individuals with NLD may get lost even when traveling to familiar places or may have difficulty relating directions. Both groups likely will have good reading skills but patients with NLD will have trouble comprehending and integrating the material, evident by difficulty with multiple choice questions or “story problems.” Individuals with either disorder may develop frustration and anger with their challenges.

 

 

In adults, many of these subtle differences in language and thought process may be masked by years of difficult and frustrating communication, making definitive diagnosis challenging. Semistructured interviews, such as the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule24 or the Gilliam Asperger’s Disorder Scale,25 may help in differentiating Asperger’s disorder from NLD. However, these 2 disorders may be comorbid, thus complicating the diagnostic process.21

Table 2

Differences among NLD, ADHD, and bipolar disorder

Clinical featuresNLDADHDBipolar disorder
CognitionImpairment stableImpairment fluctuates with attentionImpairment fluctuates with mood episodes
IQ1.5 to 2 standard deviations between verbal and performance IQFull scale IQ within one standard deviation of healthy subjectsIndependent of disorder
Experiential learningDeficits presentSuccessful with treatmentExperiences influence behavior
Social competencyMostly aware of shortcomings, a degree of mind sharing, empathyGenerally good, attentive to othersGenerally good, when manic patients are ‘the life of the party’
Peer relationshipsOften lack friends, victims of bullyingOften have friendsOften have friends
Motor coordinationMultiple impairmentsNo impairments (may be good at sports)No impairments
ADHD: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; IQ: intelligence quotient; NLD: nonverbal learning disorder
Source: References 11,12

Table 3

Differences between NLD and Asperger’s disorder

Clinical featuresNLDAsperger’s disorder
Spatial cognitionPoor sense of directionPrecise sense of direction
Reading and math comprehensionGood word recognition and ‘word attack,’ with poor reading comprehensionGood
InterestsIntense interest in 1 topic for short periods, frequent changesIdiosyncratic, repetitive, inflexible
Social competencyMostly aware of shortcomings, a degree of mind sharing, empathyBlames others for social difficulties, poor empathy
Regulation of affectOften impaired, unaware when infringing on others’ personal spaceMay be impaired when anxious; fear of being in close proximity to nonfamily members
NLD: nonverbal learning disorder
Source: References 21-23

Treatment implications

The day-to-day care of patients with NLD and a comorbid psychiatric disorder may include systems-level interventions, supportive psychotherapy, and psychopharmacologic treatments that are informed by the comorbid condition (Table 4).7,26 Open, honest dialogue about strengths and challenges for individuals with NLD will help reframe expectations and frustrations. Early recognition of NLD may, in some cases, prevent internalized psychopathology and loss of self-esteem.27,28

Children and adolescents with NLD require early intervention to help them function socially and academically. Involving family and school personnel is important to develop accommodations to improve functioning. Comprehension problems associated with NLD often become more noticeable as the student moves into upper elementary grades, where abstract thinking and the ability to manage novelty (eg, unfamiliar content or situations) are required. Many students with NLD can manage rote memorization and concrete facts, but have trouble with inference, integration, and reasoning. Academically appropriate classroom placement, limited writing, and use of voice recognition software may aid success. Parents can help by teaching and modeling social skills such as appropriate expression of emotions, which can be facilitated by watching movies or attending group activities together.

Adults. Patients with NLD may be late for appointments and often forget what is discussed. They may be at increased risk for noncompliance with pharmacotherapy for comorbid disorders and may require written instructions, frequent reminders, and reviews of treatment plan. In addition, interactions with clinicians may seem shallow and unsatisfying, despite the clinician’s best efforts to empathize. The pattern of feeling misunderstood likely exists in the patient’s other relationships, including significant others and employers. Although no systemic evaluations exist, mindfulness-based therapies might help alleviate this deficit.29,30

Treatment plans may involve family-focused modalities where NLD patients learn to rely on family members to interpret others’ motives and intentions.31 Education of the patient and family and friends should emphasize the need for consistent daily schedules and frequent verbal feedback, such as taking turns in conversations. Academic accommodations in college are crucial for success. Education experts have advocated for increased use of technology for students with NLD, including voice recognition software, laptop computers, and audio recordings of class notes.32

Table 4

Treating patients with NLD

Remember that treating patients with NLD can be challenging
Clinical neuropsychological and psychoeducational assessments often are necessary
Employ open dialogue with patient and family about need for multifaceted approach
Recognize a patient’s individual strengths and weaknesses
Suggest academic and workplace accommodations
Provide written instructions and discuss your patient’s understanding of them
Suggest the use of frequent visual cues and reminders of scheduled tasks and appointments
Provide supportive psychotherapy and review the treatment plan frequently
Recognize the increased risk of suicide and develop a safety plan appropriate to your patient’s cognitive abilities
NLD: nonverbal learning disorder
Source: References 7,26
 

 

Related Resources

Disclosures

Drs. Delgado and Wassenaar report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Dr. Strawn has received research support from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Eli Lilly and Company.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Drs. Michele Berg and Carleen Franz for their careful review of this manuscript and for their critiques, which have greatly improved this contribution.

Neurophysiology of nonverbal learning disorder

Rourkea conceptualized nonverbal learning disorder (NLD) as being related to dysfunction in the right cerebral hemisphere with subsequent disruption of the cognitive functions modulated by that region. Difficulties associated with NLD were thought to be related to dysfunction in intermodal integration, a process that inherently depends on white matter connectivity.b

More recent data suggest that although right brain dysfunction may affect cognition, NLD patients likely exhibit dysfunction in multiple brain regions.c-e Nonetheless, right hemisphere lesions in adults often result in similar disturbances as those observed in patients with NLD (eg, visual-spatial integration, attention, nonverbal memory, and expression and integration of emotion).f,g Functional brain imaging studies and functional connectivity studies are needed to better elucidate the neurocircuitry of NLD.

References

a. Drummond CR, Ahmad SA, Rourke BP. Rules for the classification of younger children with nonverbal learning disabilities and basic phonological processing disabilities. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005;(20):171-182.
b. McDonald BC. Recent developments in the application of the nonverbal learning disabilities model. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2002;4(5):323-330.
c. McCann MV, Pongonis SJ, Golomb MR, et al. Like father, like son: periventricular nodular heterotopia and nonverbal learning disorder. J Child Neurol. 2008;23:950-953.
d. Carey ME, Barakat LP, Foley B, et al. Neuropsychological functioning and social functioning of survivors of pediatric brain tumors: evidence of nonverbal learning disability. Child Neuropsychol. 2001;7(4):265-272.
e. Denckla MB. Academic and extracurricular aspects of nonverbal learning disabilities. Psychiatric Annals. 1991;21: 717-724.
f. Gross-Tsur V, Shalev RS, Manor O, et al. Developmental right-hemisphere syndrome: clinical spectrum of the nonverbal learning disability. J Learn Disabil. 1995;28(2):80-86.
g. Mesulam M. Principles of behavioral and cognitive neurology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000.

References

1. Altarac M, Saroha E. Lifetime prevalence of learning disability among US children. Pediatrics. 2007;119(suppl 1):S77-S83.

2. Cooper S, Smiley E, Morrison J, et al. Mental ill-health in adults with intellectual disabilities: prevalence and associated factors. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190:27-35.

3. Rourke BP, Young GC, Leenaars AA. A childhood learning disability that predisposes those afflicted to adolescent and adult depression and suicide risk. J Learn Disabil. 1989;22(3):169-175.

4. Little SS. Nonverbal learning disabilities and socioemotional functioning: a review of recent literature. J Learn Disabil. 1993;26(10):653-665.

5. Hubbard A, Smith Myles B. NLDA. Nonverbal learning disabilities. 2005. Available at: http://www.partnerstx.org/Resources/LD/NVLD.html. Accessed August 11 2010.

6. Drummond CR, Ahmad SA, Rourke BP. Rules for the classification of younger children with nonverbal learning disabilities and basic phonological processing disabilities. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005;(20):171-182.

7. Palombo J. Nonverbal learning disabilities: a clinical perspective. New York NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc; 2006.

8. Wechsler D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. 3rd edition. San Antonio TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1991.

9. Wechsler D. The WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio TX: The Psychological Corporation; 2003.

10. Woodcock RR, Shrank FA, McGrew KS, et al. Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing; 2007.

11. Frazier TW, Demaree HA, Youngstrom EA. Meta-analysis of intellectual and neuropsychological test performance in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychology. 2004;18(3):543-555.

12. Torres IJ, Boudreau VG, Yatham LN. Neuropsychological functioning in euthymic bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2007;(434):17-26.

13. Rourke BP. Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: past and future. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2005;(28):111-114.

14. Dhar M, Been PH, Minderaa RB, et al. Information processing differences and similarities in adults with dyslexia and adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder during a Continuous Performance Test: a study of cortical potentials. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48:3045-3056.

15. Gross-Tsur V, Shalev RS, Manor O, et al. Developmental right-hemisphere syndrome: clinical spectrum of the nonverbal learning disability. J Learn Disabil. 1995;28(2):80-86.

16. Strakowski SM, Adler CM, Holland SK, et al. Abnormal FMRI brain activation in euthymic bipolar disorder patients during a counting Stroop interference task. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(9):1697-1705.

17. Goldberg JF, Chengappa KN. Identifying and treating cognitive impairment in bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2009;11(suppl 2):123-137.

18. McDonough-Ryan P, DelBello M, Shear PK, et al. Academic and cognitive abilities in children of parents with bipolar disorder: a test of the nonverbal learning disability model. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2002;24(3):280-285.

19. Mokros HB, Poznanski EO, Merrick WA. Depression and learning disabilities in children: a test of an hypothesis. J Learn Disabil. 1989;22(4):230-233,244.

20. Vieta E. Maintenance therapy for bipolar disorder: current and future management options. Expert Rev Neurother. 2004;4(6 suppl 2):S35-S42.

21. Stein MT, Klin A, Miller K. When Asperger’s syndrome and a nonverbal learning disability look alike. Pediatrics. 2004;114(suppl 6):1458-1463.

22. Klin A, Volkmar FR, Sparrow SS, et al. Validity and neuropsychological characterization of Asperger syndrome: convergence with nonverbal learning disabilities syndrome. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1995;36(7):1127-1140.

23. Volkmar FR, Klin A. Asperger syndrome and nonverbal learning disabilities. In: Schopler E, Mesibov GB, Kunce LJ, eds. Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism? New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1998:107–121.

24. Lord C, Rutter M, Goode S, et al. Autism diagnostic observation schedule: a standardized observation of communicative and social behavior. J Autism Dev Disord. 1989;19(2):185-212.

25. Gilliam JE. Gilliam Asperger’s disorder scale: second edition. Austin TX: Pro-Ed; 2005.

26. Pennington BF. Diagnosing learning disorders: a neuropsychological framework. 2nd ed. New York NY: The Guilford Press; 1998.

27. Sundheim ST, Voeller KK. Psychiatric implications of language disorders and learning disabilities: risks and management. J Child Neurol. 2004;19(10):814-826.

28. Fletcher J. Nonverbal learning disabilities and suicide: classification leads to prevention. J Learn Disabil. 1989;22(3):176-179.

29. Williams KA, Kolar MM, Reger BE, et al. Evaluation of a wellness-based mindfulness stress reduction intervention: a controlled trial. Am J Health Promot. 2001;15:422-432.

30. Sanders KM. Mindfulness and psychotherapy. Focus. 2010;8:19-24.

31. Fisher NJ, DeLuca JW. Verbal learning strategies of adults and adolescents with syndrome of NVLD. Child Neuropsychol. 1997;3(3):192-198.

32. Thompson S. Developing an educational plan for the student with NLD. 1998. Available at: http://www.ldonline.org/article/Developing_an_Educational_Plan_for_the_Student_with_NLD. Accessed March 25 2011.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Sergio V. Delgado, MD
Professor of Psychiatry, Pediatrics, and Psychoanalysis, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH
Elizabeth Wassenaar, MD
Resident in Psychiatry, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH
Jeffrey R. Strawn, MD
Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH

Issue
Current Psychiatry - 10(05)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
17-36
Legacy Keywords
psychiatric illness;nonverbal learning disorder;Sergio Delgado;Elizabeth Wassenaar;Jeffrey Strawn;unrecognized learning disorder;NLD;nonlinguistic information processing;speech prosody deficits;attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder;ADHD;bipolardisorder;BD;Asperger's disorder;learning process;right hemispheric dysfunction;neuropsychological testing;psychoeducational testing
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Sergio V. Delgado, MD
Professor of Psychiatry, Pediatrics, and Psychoanalysis, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH
Elizabeth Wassenaar, MD
Resident in Psychiatry, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH
Jeffrey R. Strawn, MD
Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH

Author and Disclosure Information

Sergio V. Delgado, MD
Professor of Psychiatry, Pediatrics, and Psychoanalysis, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH
Elizabeth Wassenaar, MD
Resident in Psychiatry, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH
Jeffrey R. Strawn, MD
Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH

Article PDF
Article PDF

Discuss this article at www.facebook.com/CurrentPsychiatry

Patients who present with impairment in academic, cognitive, social, and vocational functioning might be struggling with an unrecognized learning disorder. Ten percent of the US population has some form of learning disability, and up to 40% of those with learning disorders may meet diagnostic criteria for a psychiatric disorder.1,2 Some learning disorders affect a person’s ability to read, write, or do math, whereas less-recognized nonverbal learning disorder (NLD) impacts the social and emotional functioning of children, adolescents, and adults. Common features of NLD include:

  • deficits in nonlinguistic information processing
  • speech prosody deficits
  • difficulty reading facial expressions
  • associated impairment in interpersonal functioning.

The severity of these deficits varies among individuals with NLD. Patients may experience chronic low self-esteem, anxiety, and mood symptoms because of their limited ability to express their feelings within an appropriate social context. NLD may be first misdiagnosed as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder (BD), or Asperger’s disorder.

In this article we review the underlying neurophysiology of NLD and present a clinical approach to these patients, including the differential diagnosis and factors that will allow clinicians to distinguish NLD from psychiatric conditions with symptomatic and syndromic overlap. We also describe treatment for patients with NLD.

The learning process

Learning is a cognitive process of acquiring and processing information and experiences from the environment that allows us to acquire knowledge, skills, and social abilities. When we learn how to relate to others, we undergo neurophysiologic changes that subsequently influence behavior and the way we understand our environment. Deficits in learning processes or the ability to acquire relational skills result in impaired affect regulation in regard to others and may lead to low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, interpersonal conflict, and anger toward others. Learning influences a person’s ability to navigate social relationships and perform academically and occupationally.

The impact of learning deficits may be magnified in adulthood after an individual has suffered years of in-securities and poor self-esteem. Adults with learning disabilities often seek psychiatric treatment as a result of their disappointment about difficulties in relationships and work. NLD may coexist with or mimic other neuropsychiatric disorders. For example, problematic behavior within a family or at the workplace is a common reason for referral to a psychiatrist. These behaviors may be influenced by a patient’s NLD symptoms, which can complicate diagnosis and treatment.

Persons with NLD are at increased risk for depression because of failures in coping, loss of self-esteem, internalized psychopathology, and other social and emotional strains. In addition, individuals with NLD may experience multiple psychosocial impairments, including difficulty maintaining employment, achieving goals, and maintaining relationships.3

A variable presentation

NLD has been associated with right hemispheric dysfunction.3 For a description of the neurophysiology of NLD, see this article at CurrentPsychiatry.com. In childhood, NLD may present as deficits in:

  • processing nonlinguistic information
  • expressing or comprehending nonverbal components of language such as pitch, volume, or rate of speech (aprosodia)
  • reading facial expressions
  • social or emotional functioning, such as difficulty understanding social situations, violations of personal space, or difficulty learning from past emotional experiences.4

The extent of these deficits varies among patients. As children, patients with NLD often show strengths in rote verbal memory, spoken language mechanics or form, and word reading. These children may be hyperverbal and use language at a level higher than expected for their age group, which may mask some learning difficulties and delay diagnosis.

Throughout life, NLD manifests as difficulty interacting with peers. Children with NLD may have difficulty playing with others and making friends and as result may feel socially isolated. Without the critical skills of social reciprocity or understanding social context, NLD patients often have many superficial friendships but lack deep relationships.4,5

Patients with NLD may rely on their verbal skills for relating socially and relieving anxiety and tend to withdraw from social situations as they become aware of their deficits.

NLD can be characterized on the basis of primary, secondary, and tertiary deficits. Primary deficits in tactile and visual perception and complex psychomotor skills lead to secondary deficits in attention and exploratory behavior, which lead to tertiary deficits in memory and executive function.6

Given NLD’s variable presentation, clinicians must remain vigilant to this possible diagnosis in patients with a history of multiple pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy failures for axis I disorders. Using clues from symptoms described in Table 17 may provide information necessary to refer for formal psychoeducational testing to diagnose NLD. Early diagnosis can help target NLD symptoms and tailor treatment of comorbid psychopathology.7 NLD is a chronic disability and—similar to other learning disabilities—early, targeted interventions initiated by parents, teachers, and clinicians can improve outcomes.

 

 

Neuropsychological/psychoeducational testing. Traditionally, clinicians suspected NLD if a patient had a ≥10 point difference between performance intelligence quotient (IQ) and verbal IQ on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III).8 However, the most recent version—the WISC-IV9—incorporates changes based on new neurologic models of cognitive functioning, and performance IQ and verbal IQ are no longer calculated. Thus, interpreting this split in IQ type with regard to NLD is no longer straightforward. IQ tests, such as the Woodcock-Johnson10 battery, which assesses visual-spatial thinking and fluid reasoning, may be particularly important in characterizing NLD deficits—especially when used in conjunction with other neuropsychological batteries, which may directly assess discrete abilities related to visual and spatial processing.

A thorough social and educational history, IQ testing, neuropsychological batteries, and a psychoeducational assessment can help determine the extent of cognitive deficits that may require accommodations at school or work and characterize the complex interplay of specific deficits and functioning.

Table 1

Clinical manifestation of nonverbal learning disorder

Tactile-perceptual deficits and psychomotor coordination deficiencies, usually more marked on the left side
Visual-spatial organization deficits
Deficiencies in nonverbal problem solving, such as hypothesis testing and understanding cause-effect relationships
Difficulty adapting to novel situations and reliance on rote behaviors
Relative deficiencies in mechanical arithmetic with proficiencies in reading, word recognition, and spelling
Well developed rote verbal-memory skills
Verbosity characterized by poor pragmatics
Deficits in social perception, judgment, and interaction
Source: Reference 7

Differential diagnosis

ADHD. Patients diagnosed with ADHD or NLD may have a history of attention difficulties and hyperactivity. These clinical similarities may include restlessness, distractibility, impulsivity, and poor attention (Table 2).11,12 In adults, these features may attenuate and patients with NLD or ADHD could appear normoactive. Individuals with NLD demonstrate withdrawal, anxiety, and continued social skills deficits,13 whereas adult ADHD patients show persistent attention difficulties. Although both groups may have difficulty maintaining steady employment, NLD patients’ employment failures often are caused by cognitive and social difficulties as opposed to problems with attention.

The psychopathology of these 2 conditions differs in that ADHD is characterized primarily by prefrontal dysfunction.14 However, in a small study of children with NLD (N=20), all participants also met diagnostic criteria for ADHD; therefore, the true epidemiologic comorbidity is unknown.15

BD. Because patients with NLD may experience affective symptoms similar to those with BD, it is critical to clarify the temporal course of mood symptoms and understand the complex relationships between symptoms and external events (Table 2).11,12 In BD, mood symptoms are cyclical, punctuated by discrete periods of euthymia. In NLD affective symptoms are clearly linked to learning difficulties and impaired information processing. Research shows cognitive deficits in individuals with BD often persist during euthymic periods.16 Literature suggests that cognitive deficits in adult BD commonly involve verbal memory, executive function, and attention, whereas patients with NLD often have strong verbal memory.17,18

Individuals with BD may understand the intentions of others and—especially in periods of hypomania or mania—will engage others. In contrast, persons with NLD struggle to attract and engage friends, may be irritable when they misunderstand social cues, may be bullied or taken advantage of by others, and may struggle to communicate this problem to clinicians. NLD patients’ sense of frustration typically does not vary; a continuous depressed or anxious mood may improve briefly when they feel accepted in their environment. This pattern can be discerned from BD by strictly applying DSM-IV-TR criteria for variability in mood states.19 BD treatment may be complicated in patients with comorbid NLD. These patients may underreport adverse effects of medications, including metabolic effects and cognitive dulling, which results in a complicated and frustrating clinical course.20

Asperger’s disorder. Patients with NLD—a neuropsychological disorder—may present with social interaction difficulties that seem similar to those of Asperger’s disorder—a behavioral disorder. Overlapping behaviors, similar cognitive processes, and coexisting conditions may challenge even experienced clinicians (Table 3).21-23 However, impairments are more severe in Asperger’s disorder and will present as early as age 4. Patients with Asperger’s disorder show difficulty communicating characterized by unusual interactions, such as pedantic or 1-sided discussions of topics that are unusual for the patient’s age group and inattentiveness to social cues. By contrast, communication difficulties in children with NLD are not apparent until after they start school.

Both Asperger’s disorder and NLD patients will show noticeable variations in thought process that often are apparent in conversations. Individuals with Asperger’s disorder may have some concrete thinking, although they often express idiosyncratic thinking, whereas individuals with NLD often show concrete logic. An individual with NLD may be easily overwhelmed by peer group social interactions but remains emotionally aware of his or her shortcomings and may be able to handle 1-on-1 interactions. Individuals with Asperger’s disorder will demonstrate restrictive interests or repetitive behaviors, a characteristic typically not seen in individuals with NLD. Patients with Asperger’s disorder may have specific skills, such as expertise with directions and spatial reasoning, whereas individuals with NLD may get lost even when traveling to familiar places or may have difficulty relating directions. Both groups likely will have good reading skills but patients with NLD will have trouble comprehending and integrating the material, evident by difficulty with multiple choice questions or “story problems.” Individuals with either disorder may develop frustration and anger with their challenges.

 

 

In adults, many of these subtle differences in language and thought process may be masked by years of difficult and frustrating communication, making definitive diagnosis challenging. Semistructured interviews, such as the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule24 or the Gilliam Asperger’s Disorder Scale,25 may help in differentiating Asperger’s disorder from NLD. However, these 2 disorders may be comorbid, thus complicating the diagnostic process.21

Table 2

Differences among NLD, ADHD, and bipolar disorder

Clinical featuresNLDADHDBipolar disorder
CognitionImpairment stableImpairment fluctuates with attentionImpairment fluctuates with mood episodes
IQ1.5 to 2 standard deviations between verbal and performance IQFull scale IQ within one standard deviation of healthy subjectsIndependent of disorder
Experiential learningDeficits presentSuccessful with treatmentExperiences influence behavior
Social competencyMostly aware of shortcomings, a degree of mind sharing, empathyGenerally good, attentive to othersGenerally good, when manic patients are ‘the life of the party’
Peer relationshipsOften lack friends, victims of bullyingOften have friendsOften have friends
Motor coordinationMultiple impairmentsNo impairments (may be good at sports)No impairments
ADHD: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; IQ: intelligence quotient; NLD: nonverbal learning disorder
Source: References 11,12

Table 3

Differences between NLD and Asperger’s disorder

Clinical featuresNLDAsperger’s disorder
Spatial cognitionPoor sense of directionPrecise sense of direction
Reading and math comprehensionGood word recognition and ‘word attack,’ with poor reading comprehensionGood
InterestsIntense interest in 1 topic for short periods, frequent changesIdiosyncratic, repetitive, inflexible
Social competencyMostly aware of shortcomings, a degree of mind sharing, empathyBlames others for social difficulties, poor empathy
Regulation of affectOften impaired, unaware when infringing on others’ personal spaceMay be impaired when anxious; fear of being in close proximity to nonfamily members
NLD: nonverbal learning disorder
Source: References 21-23

Treatment implications

The day-to-day care of patients with NLD and a comorbid psychiatric disorder may include systems-level interventions, supportive psychotherapy, and psychopharmacologic treatments that are informed by the comorbid condition (Table 4).7,26 Open, honest dialogue about strengths and challenges for individuals with NLD will help reframe expectations and frustrations. Early recognition of NLD may, in some cases, prevent internalized psychopathology and loss of self-esteem.27,28

Children and adolescents with NLD require early intervention to help them function socially and academically. Involving family and school personnel is important to develop accommodations to improve functioning. Comprehension problems associated with NLD often become more noticeable as the student moves into upper elementary grades, where abstract thinking and the ability to manage novelty (eg, unfamiliar content or situations) are required. Many students with NLD can manage rote memorization and concrete facts, but have trouble with inference, integration, and reasoning. Academically appropriate classroom placement, limited writing, and use of voice recognition software may aid success. Parents can help by teaching and modeling social skills such as appropriate expression of emotions, which can be facilitated by watching movies or attending group activities together.

Adults. Patients with NLD may be late for appointments and often forget what is discussed. They may be at increased risk for noncompliance with pharmacotherapy for comorbid disorders and may require written instructions, frequent reminders, and reviews of treatment plan. In addition, interactions with clinicians may seem shallow and unsatisfying, despite the clinician’s best efforts to empathize. The pattern of feeling misunderstood likely exists in the patient’s other relationships, including significant others and employers. Although no systemic evaluations exist, mindfulness-based therapies might help alleviate this deficit.29,30

Treatment plans may involve family-focused modalities where NLD patients learn to rely on family members to interpret others’ motives and intentions.31 Education of the patient and family and friends should emphasize the need for consistent daily schedules and frequent verbal feedback, such as taking turns in conversations. Academic accommodations in college are crucial for success. Education experts have advocated for increased use of technology for students with NLD, including voice recognition software, laptop computers, and audio recordings of class notes.32

Table 4

Treating patients with NLD

Remember that treating patients with NLD can be challenging
Clinical neuropsychological and psychoeducational assessments often are necessary
Employ open dialogue with patient and family about need for multifaceted approach
Recognize a patient’s individual strengths and weaknesses
Suggest academic and workplace accommodations
Provide written instructions and discuss your patient’s understanding of them
Suggest the use of frequent visual cues and reminders of scheduled tasks and appointments
Provide supportive psychotherapy and review the treatment plan frequently
Recognize the increased risk of suicide and develop a safety plan appropriate to your patient’s cognitive abilities
NLD: nonverbal learning disorder
Source: References 7,26
 

 

Related Resources

Disclosures

Drs. Delgado and Wassenaar report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Dr. Strawn has received research support from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Eli Lilly and Company.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Drs. Michele Berg and Carleen Franz for their careful review of this manuscript and for their critiques, which have greatly improved this contribution.

Neurophysiology of nonverbal learning disorder

Rourkea conceptualized nonverbal learning disorder (NLD) as being related to dysfunction in the right cerebral hemisphere with subsequent disruption of the cognitive functions modulated by that region. Difficulties associated with NLD were thought to be related to dysfunction in intermodal integration, a process that inherently depends on white matter connectivity.b

More recent data suggest that although right brain dysfunction may affect cognition, NLD patients likely exhibit dysfunction in multiple brain regions.c-e Nonetheless, right hemisphere lesions in adults often result in similar disturbances as those observed in patients with NLD (eg, visual-spatial integration, attention, nonverbal memory, and expression and integration of emotion).f,g Functional brain imaging studies and functional connectivity studies are needed to better elucidate the neurocircuitry of NLD.

References

a. Drummond CR, Ahmad SA, Rourke BP. Rules for the classification of younger children with nonverbal learning disabilities and basic phonological processing disabilities. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005;(20):171-182.
b. McDonald BC. Recent developments in the application of the nonverbal learning disabilities model. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2002;4(5):323-330.
c. McCann MV, Pongonis SJ, Golomb MR, et al. Like father, like son: periventricular nodular heterotopia and nonverbal learning disorder. J Child Neurol. 2008;23:950-953.
d. Carey ME, Barakat LP, Foley B, et al. Neuropsychological functioning and social functioning of survivors of pediatric brain tumors: evidence of nonverbal learning disability. Child Neuropsychol. 2001;7(4):265-272.
e. Denckla MB. Academic and extracurricular aspects of nonverbal learning disabilities. Psychiatric Annals. 1991;21: 717-724.
f. Gross-Tsur V, Shalev RS, Manor O, et al. Developmental right-hemisphere syndrome: clinical spectrum of the nonverbal learning disability. J Learn Disabil. 1995;28(2):80-86.
g. Mesulam M. Principles of behavioral and cognitive neurology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000.

Discuss this article at www.facebook.com/CurrentPsychiatry

Patients who present with impairment in academic, cognitive, social, and vocational functioning might be struggling with an unrecognized learning disorder. Ten percent of the US population has some form of learning disability, and up to 40% of those with learning disorders may meet diagnostic criteria for a psychiatric disorder.1,2 Some learning disorders affect a person’s ability to read, write, or do math, whereas less-recognized nonverbal learning disorder (NLD) impacts the social and emotional functioning of children, adolescents, and adults. Common features of NLD include:

  • deficits in nonlinguistic information processing
  • speech prosody deficits
  • difficulty reading facial expressions
  • associated impairment in interpersonal functioning.

The severity of these deficits varies among individuals with NLD. Patients may experience chronic low self-esteem, anxiety, and mood symptoms because of their limited ability to express their feelings within an appropriate social context. NLD may be first misdiagnosed as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder (BD), or Asperger’s disorder.

In this article we review the underlying neurophysiology of NLD and present a clinical approach to these patients, including the differential diagnosis and factors that will allow clinicians to distinguish NLD from psychiatric conditions with symptomatic and syndromic overlap. We also describe treatment for patients with NLD.

The learning process

Learning is a cognitive process of acquiring and processing information and experiences from the environment that allows us to acquire knowledge, skills, and social abilities. When we learn how to relate to others, we undergo neurophysiologic changes that subsequently influence behavior and the way we understand our environment. Deficits in learning processes or the ability to acquire relational skills result in impaired affect regulation in regard to others and may lead to low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, interpersonal conflict, and anger toward others. Learning influences a person’s ability to navigate social relationships and perform academically and occupationally.

The impact of learning deficits may be magnified in adulthood after an individual has suffered years of in-securities and poor self-esteem. Adults with learning disabilities often seek psychiatric treatment as a result of their disappointment about difficulties in relationships and work. NLD may coexist with or mimic other neuropsychiatric disorders. For example, problematic behavior within a family or at the workplace is a common reason for referral to a psychiatrist. These behaviors may be influenced by a patient’s NLD symptoms, which can complicate diagnosis and treatment.

Persons with NLD are at increased risk for depression because of failures in coping, loss of self-esteem, internalized psychopathology, and other social and emotional strains. In addition, individuals with NLD may experience multiple psychosocial impairments, including difficulty maintaining employment, achieving goals, and maintaining relationships.3

A variable presentation

NLD has been associated with right hemispheric dysfunction.3 For a description of the neurophysiology of NLD, see this article at CurrentPsychiatry.com. In childhood, NLD may present as deficits in:

  • processing nonlinguistic information
  • expressing or comprehending nonverbal components of language such as pitch, volume, or rate of speech (aprosodia)
  • reading facial expressions
  • social or emotional functioning, such as difficulty understanding social situations, violations of personal space, or difficulty learning from past emotional experiences.4

The extent of these deficits varies among patients. As children, patients with NLD often show strengths in rote verbal memory, spoken language mechanics or form, and word reading. These children may be hyperverbal and use language at a level higher than expected for their age group, which may mask some learning difficulties and delay diagnosis.

Throughout life, NLD manifests as difficulty interacting with peers. Children with NLD may have difficulty playing with others and making friends and as result may feel socially isolated. Without the critical skills of social reciprocity or understanding social context, NLD patients often have many superficial friendships but lack deep relationships.4,5

Patients with NLD may rely on their verbal skills for relating socially and relieving anxiety and tend to withdraw from social situations as they become aware of their deficits.

NLD can be characterized on the basis of primary, secondary, and tertiary deficits. Primary deficits in tactile and visual perception and complex psychomotor skills lead to secondary deficits in attention and exploratory behavior, which lead to tertiary deficits in memory and executive function.6

Given NLD’s variable presentation, clinicians must remain vigilant to this possible diagnosis in patients with a history of multiple pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy failures for axis I disorders. Using clues from symptoms described in Table 17 may provide information necessary to refer for formal psychoeducational testing to diagnose NLD. Early diagnosis can help target NLD symptoms and tailor treatment of comorbid psychopathology.7 NLD is a chronic disability and—similar to other learning disabilities—early, targeted interventions initiated by parents, teachers, and clinicians can improve outcomes.

 

 

Neuropsychological/psychoeducational testing. Traditionally, clinicians suspected NLD if a patient had a ≥10 point difference between performance intelligence quotient (IQ) and verbal IQ on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III).8 However, the most recent version—the WISC-IV9—incorporates changes based on new neurologic models of cognitive functioning, and performance IQ and verbal IQ are no longer calculated. Thus, interpreting this split in IQ type with regard to NLD is no longer straightforward. IQ tests, such as the Woodcock-Johnson10 battery, which assesses visual-spatial thinking and fluid reasoning, may be particularly important in characterizing NLD deficits—especially when used in conjunction with other neuropsychological batteries, which may directly assess discrete abilities related to visual and spatial processing.

A thorough social and educational history, IQ testing, neuropsychological batteries, and a psychoeducational assessment can help determine the extent of cognitive deficits that may require accommodations at school or work and characterize the complex interplay of specific deficits and functioning.

Table 1

Clinical manifestation of nonverbal learning disorder

Tactile-perceptual deficits and psychomotor coordination deficiencies, usually more marked on the left side
Visual-spatial organization deficits
Deficiencies in nonverbal problem solving, such as hypothesis testing and understanding cause-effect relationships
Difficulty adapting to novel situations and reliance on rote behaviors
Relative deficiencies in mechanical arithmetic with proficiencies in reading, word recognition, and spelling
Well developed rote verbal-memory skills
Verbosity characterized by poor pragmatics
Deficits in social perception, judgment, and interaction
Source: Reference 7

Differential diagnosis

ADHD. Patients diagnosed with ADHD or NLD may have a history of attention difficulties and hyperactivity. These clinical similarities may include restlessness, distractibility, impulsivity, and poor attention (Table 2).11,12 In adults, these features may attenuate and patients with NLD or ADHD could appear normoactive. Individuals with NLD demonstrate withdrawal, anxiety, and continued social skills deficits,13 whereas adult ADHD patients show persistent attention difficulties. Although both groups may have difficulty maintaining steady employment, NLD patients’ employment failures often are caused by cognitive and social difficulties as opposed to problems with attention.

The psychopathology of these 2 conditions differs in that ADHD is characterized primarily by prefrontal dysfunction.14 However, in a small study of children with NLD (N=20), all participants also met diagnostic criteria for ADHD; therefore, the true epidemiologic comorbidity is unknown.15

BD. Because patients with NLD may experience affective symptoms similar to those with BD, it is critical to clarify the temporal course of mood symptoms and understand the complex relationships between symptoms and external events (Table 2).11,12 In BD, mood symptoms are cyclical, punctuated by discrete periods of euthymia. In NLD affective symptoms are clearly linked to learning difficulties and impaired information processing. Research shows cognitive deficits in individuals with BD often persist during euthymic periods.16 Literature suggests that cognitive deficits in adult BD commonly involve verbal memory, executive function, and attention, whereas patients with NLD often have strong verbal memory.17,18

Individuals with BD may understand the intentions of others and—especially in periods of hypomania or mania—will engage others. In contrast, persons with NLD struggle to attract and engage friends, may be irritable when they misunderstand social cues, may be bullied or taken advantage of by others, and may struggle to communicate this problem to clinicians. NLD patients’ sense of frustration typically does not vary; a continuous depressed or anxious mood may improve briefly when they feel accepted in their environment. This pattern can be discerned from BD by strictly applying DSM-IV-TR criteria for variability in mood states.19 BD treatment may be complicated in patients with comorbid NLD. These patients may underreport adverse effects of medications, including metabolic effects and cognitive dulling, which results in a complicated and frustrating clinical course.20

Asperger’s disorder. Patients with NLD—a neuropsychological disorder—may present with social interaction difficulties that seem similar to those of Asperger’s disorder—a behavioral disorder. Overlapping behaviors, similar cognitive processes, and coexisting conditions may challenge even experienced clinicians (Table 3).21-23 However, impairments are more severe in Asperger’s disorder and will present as early as age 4. Patients with Asperger’s disorder show difficulty communicating characterized by unusual interactions, such as pedantic or 1-sided discussions of topics that are unusual for the patient’s age group and inattentiveness to social cues. By contrast, communication difficulties in children with NLD are not apparent until after they start school.

Both Asperger’s disorder and NLD patients will show noticeable variations in thought process that often are apparent in conversations. Individuals with Asperger’s disorder may have some concrete thinking, although they often express idiosyncratic thinking, whereas individuals with NLD often show concrete logic. An individual with NLD may be easily overwhelmed by peer group social interactions but remains emotionally aware of his or her shortcomings and may be able to handle 1-on-1 interactions. Individuals with Asperger’s disorder will demonstrate restrictive interests or repetitive behaviors, a characteristic typically not seen in individuals with NLD. Patients with Asperger’s disorder may have specific skills, such as expertise with directions and spatial reasoning, whereas individuals with NLD may get lost even when traveling to familiar places or may have difficulty relating directions. Both groups likely will have good reading skills but patients with NLD will have trouble comprehending and integrating the material, evident by difficulty with multiple choice questions or “story problems.” Individuals with either disorder may develop frustration and anger with their challenges.

 

 

In adults, many of these subtle differences in language and thought process may be masked by years of difficult and frustrating communication, making definitive diagnosis challenging. Semistructured interviews, such as the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule24 or the Gilliam Asperger’s Disorder Scale,25 may help in differentiating Asperger’s disorder from NLD. However, these 2 disorders may be comorbid, thus complicating the diagnostic process.21

Table 2

Differences among NLD, ADHD, and bipolar disorder

Clinical featuresNLDADHDBipolar disorder
CognitionImpairment stableImpairment fluctuates with attentionImpairment fluctuates with mood episodes
IQ1.5 to 2 standard deviations between verbal and performance IQFull scale IQ within one standard deviation of healthy subjectsIndependent of disorder
Experiential learningDeficits presentSuccessful with treatmentExperiences influence behavior
Social competencyMostly aware of shortcomings, a degree of mind sharing, empathyGenerally good, attentive to othersGenerally good, when manic patients are ‘the life of the party’
Peer relationshipsOften lack friends, victims of bullyingOften have friendsOften have friends
Motor coordinationMultiple impairmentsNo impairments (may be good at sports)No impairments
ADHD: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; IQ: intelligence quotient; NLD: nonverbal learning disorder
Source: References 11,12

Table 3

Differences between NLD and Asperger’s disorder

Clinical featuresNLDAsperger’s disorder
Spatial cognitionPoor sense of directionPrecise sense of direction
Reading and math comprehensionGood word recognition and ‘word attack,’ with poor reading comprehensionGood
InterestsIntense interest in 1 topic for short periods, frequent changesIdiosyncratic, repetitive, inflexible
Social competencyMostly aware of shortcomings, a degree of mind sharing, empathyBlames others for social difficulties, poor empathy
Regulation of affectOften impaired, unaware when infringing on others’ personal spaceMay be impaired when anxious; fear of being in close proximity to nonfamily members
NLD: nonverbal learning disorder
Source: References 21-23

Treatment implications

The day-to-day care of patients with NLD and a comorbid psychiatric disorder may include systems-level interventions, supportive psychotherapy, and psychopharmacologic treatments that are informed by the comorbid condition (Table 4).7,26 Open, honest dialogue about strengths and challenges for individuals with NLD will help reframe expectations and frustrations. Early recognition of NLD may, in some cases, prevent internalized psychopathology and loss of self-esteem.27,28

Children and adolescents with NLD require early intervention to help them function socially and academically. Involving family and school personnel is important to develop accommodations to improve functioning. Comprehension problems associated with NLD often become more noticeable as the student moves into upper elementary grades, where abstract thinking and the ability to manage novelty (eg, unfamiliar content or situations) are required. Many students with NLD can manage rote memorization and concrete facts, but have trouble with inference, integration, and reasoning. Academically appropriate classroom placement, limited writing, and use of voice recognition software may aid success. Parents can help by teaching and modeling social skills such as appropriate expression of emotions, which can be facilitated by watching movies or attending group activities together.

Adults. Patients with NLD may be late for appointments and often forget what is discussed. They may be at increased risk for noncompliance with pharmacotherapy for comorbid disorders and may require written instructions, frequent reminders, and reviews of treatment plan. In addition, interactions with clinicians may seem shallow and unsatisfying, despite the clinician’s best efforts to empathize. The pattern of feeling misunderstood likely exists in the patient’s other relationships, including significant others and employers. Although no systemic evaluations exist, mindfulness-based therapies might help alleviate this deficit.29,30

Treatment plans may involve family-focused modalities where NLD patients learn to rely on family members to interpret others’ motives and intentions.31 Education of the patient and family and friends should emphasize the need for consistent daily schedules and frequent verbal feedback, such as taking turns in conversations. Academic accommodations in college are crucial for success. Education experts have advocated for increased use of technology for students with NLD, including voice recognition software, laptop computers, and audio recordings of class notes.32

Table 4

Treating patients with NLD

Remember that treating patients with NLD can be challenging
Clinical neuropsychological and psychoeducational assessments often are necessary
Employ open dialogue with patient and family about need for multifaceted approach
Recognize a patient’s individual strengths and weaknesses
Suggest academic and workplace accommodations
Provide written instructions and discuss your patient’s understanding of them
Suggest the use of frequent visual cues and reminders of scheduled tasks and appointments
Provide supportive psychotherapy and review the treatment plan frequently
Recognize the increased risk of suicide and develop a safety plan appropriate to your patient’s cognitive abilities
NLD: nonverbal learning disorder
Source: References 7,26
 

 

Related Resources

Disclosures

Drs. Delgado and Wassenaar report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Dr. Strawn has received research support from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Eli Lilly and Company.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Drs. Michele Berg and Carleen Franz for their careful review of this manuscript and for their critiques, which have greatly improved this contribution.

Neurophysiology of nonverbal learning disorder

Rourkea conceptualized nonverbal learning disorder (NLD) as being related to dysfunction in the right cerebral hemisphere with subsequent disruption of the cognitive functions modulated by that region. Difficulties associated with NLD were thought to be related to dysfunction in intermodal integration, a process that inherently depends on white matter connectivity.b

More recent data suggest that although right brain dysfunction may affect cognition, NLD patients likely exhibit dysfunction in multiple brain regions.c-e Nonetheless, right hemisphere lesions in adults often result in similar disturbances as those observed in patients with NLD (eg, visual-spatial integration, attention, nonverbal memory, and expression and integration of emotion).f,g Functional brain imaging studies and functional connectivity studies are needed to better elucidate the neurocircuitry of NLD.

References

a. Drummond CR, Ahmad SA, Rourke BP. Rules for the classification of younger children with nonverbal learning disabilities and basic phonological processing disabilities. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005;(20):171-182.
b. McDonald BC. Recent developments in the application of the nonverbal learning disabilities model. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2002;4(5):323-330.
c. McCann MV, Pongonis SJ, Golomb MR, et al. Like father, like son: periventricular nodular heterotopia and nonverbal learning disorder. J Child Neurol. 2008;23:950-953.
d. Carey ME, Barakat LP, Foley B, et al. Neuropsychological functioning and social functioning of survivors of pediatric brain tumors: evidence of nonverbal learning disability. Child Neuropsychol. 2001;7(4):265-272.
e. Denckla MB. Academic and extracurricular aspects of nonverbal learning disabilities. Psychiatric Annals. 1991;21: 717-724.
f. Gross-Tsur V, Shalev RS, Manor O, et al. Developmental right-hemisphere syndrome: clinical spectrum of the nonverbal learning disability. J Learn Disabil. 1995;28(2):80-86.
g. Mesulam M. Principles of behavioral and cognitive neurology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000.

References

1. Altarac M, Saroha E. Lifetime prevalence of learning disability among US children. Pediatrics. 2007;119(suppl 1):S77-S83.

2. Cooper S, Smiley E, Morrison J, et al. Mental ill-health in adults with intellectual disabilities: prevalence and associated factors. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190:27-35.

3. Rourke BP, Young GC, Leenaars AA. A childhood learning disability that predisposes those afflicted to adolescent and adult depression and suicide risk. J Learn Disabil. 1989;22(3):169-175.

4. Little SS. Nonverbal learning disabilities and socioemotional functioning: a review of recent literature. J Learn Disabil. 1993;26(10):653-665.

5. Hubbard A, Smith Myles B. NLDA. Nonverbal learning disabilities. 2005. Available at: http://www.partnerstx.org/Resources/LD/NVLD.html. Accessed August 11 2010.

6. Drummond CR, Ahmad SA, Rourke BP. Rules for the classification of younger children with nonverbal learning disabilities and basic phonological processing disabilities. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005;(20):171-182.

7. Palombo J. Nonverbal learning disabilities: a clinical perspective. New York NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc; 2006.

8. Wechsler D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. 3rd edition. San Antonio TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1991.

9. Wechsler D. The WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio TX: The Psychological Corporation; 2003.

10. Woodcock RR, Shrank FA, McGrew KS, et al. Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing; 2007.

11. Frazier TW, Demaree HA, Youngstrom EA. Meta-analysis of intellectual and neuropsychological test performance in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychology. 2004;18(3):543-555.

12. Torres IJ, Boudreau VG, Yatham LN. Neuropsychological functioning in euthymic bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2007;(434):17-26.

13. Rourke BP. Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: past and future. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2005;(28):111-114.

14. Dhar M, Been PH, Minderaa RB, et al. Information processing differences and similarities in adults with dyslexia and adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder during a Continuous Performance Test: a study of cortical potentials. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48:3045-3056.

15. Gross-Tsur V, Shalev RS, Manor O, et al. Developmental right-hemisphere syndrome: clinical spectrum of the nonverbal learning disability. J Learn Disabil. 1995;28(2):80-86.

16. Strakowski SM, Adler CM, Holland SK, et al. Abnormal FMRI brain activation in euthymic bipolar disorder patients during a counting Stroop interference task. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(9):1697-1705.

17. Goldberg JF, Chengappa KN. Identifying and treating cognitive impairment in bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2009;11(suppl 2):123-137.

18. McDonough-Ryan P, DelBello M, Shear PK, et al. Academic and cognitive abilities in children of parents with bipolar disorder: a test of the nonverbal learning disability model. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2002;24(3):280-285.

19. Mokros HB, Poznanski EO, Merrick WA. Depression and learning disabilities in children: a test of an hypothesis. J Learn Disabil. 1989;22(4):230-233,244.

20. Vieta E. Maintenance therapy for bipolar disorder: current and future management options. Expert Rev Neurother. 2004;4(6 suppl 2):S35-S42.

21. Stein MT, Klin A, Miller K. When Asperger’s syndrome and a nonverbal learning disability look alike. Pediatrics. 2004;114(suppl 6):1458-1463.

22. Klin A, Volkmar FR, Sparrow SS, et al. Validity and neuropsychological characterization of Asperger syndrome: convergence with nonverbal learning disabilities syndrome. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1995;36(7):1127-1140.

23. Volkmar FR, Klin A. Asperger syndrome and nonverbal learning disabilities. In: Schopler E, Mesibov GB, Kunce LJ, eds. Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism? New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1998:107–121.

24. Lord C, Rutter M, Goode S, et al. Autism diagnostic observation schedule: a standardized observation of communicative and social behavior. J Autism Dev Disord. 1989;19(2):185-212.

25. Gilliam JE. Gilliam Asperger’s disorder scale: second edition. Austin TX: Pro-Ed; 2005.

26. Pennington BF. Diagnosing learning disorders: a neuropsychological framework. 2nd ed. New York NY: The Guilford Press; 1998.

27. Sundheim ST, Voeller KK. Psychiatric implications of language disorders and learning disabilities: risks and management. J Child Neurol. 2004;19(10):814-826.

28. Fletcher J. Nonverbal learning disabilities and suicide: classification leads to prevention. J Learn Disabil. 1989;22(3):176-179.

29. Williams KA, Kolar MM, Reger BE, et al. Evaluation of a wellness-based mindfulness stress reduction intervention: a controlled trial. Am J Health Promot. 2001;15:422-432.

30. Sanders KM. Mindfulness and psychotherapy. Focus. 2010;8:19-24.

31. Fisher NJ, DeLuca JW. Verbal learning strategies of adults and adolescents with syndrome of NVLD. Child Neuropsychol. 1997;3(3):192-198.

32. Thompson S. Developing an educational plan for the student with NLD. 1998. Available at: http://www.ldonline.org/article/Developing_an_Educational_Plan_for_the_Student_with_NLD. Accessed March 25 2011.

References

1. Altarac M, Saroha E. Lifetime prevalence of learning disability among US children. Pediatrics. 2007;119(suppl 1):S77-S83.

2. Cooper S, Smiley E, Morrison J, et al. Mental ill-health in adults with intellectual disabilities: prevalence and associated factors. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190:27-35.

3. Rourke BP, Young GC, Leenaars AA. A childhood learning disability that predisposes those afflicted to adolescent and adult depression and suicide risk. J Learn Disabil. 1989;22(3):169-175.

4. Little SS. Nonverbal learning disabilities and socioemotional functioning: a review of recent literature. J Learn Disabil. 1993;26(10):653-665.

5. Hubbard A, Smith Myles B. NLDA. Nonverbal learning disabilities. 2005. Available at: http://www.partnerstx.org/Resources/LD/NVLD.html. Accessed August 11 2010.

6. Drummond CR, Ahmad SA, Rourke BP. Rules for the classification of younger children with nonverbal learning disabilities and basic phonological processing disabilities. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005;(20):171-182.

7. Palombo J. Nonverbal learning disabilities: a clinical perspective. New York NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc; 2006.

8. Wechsler D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. 3rd edition. San Antonio TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1991.

9. Wechsler D. The WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio TX: The Psychological Corporation; 2003.

10. Woodcock RR, Shrank FA, McGrew KS, et al. Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing; 2007.

11. Frazier TW, Demaree HA, Youngstrom EA. Meta-analysis of intellectual and neuropsychological test performance in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychology. 2004;18(3):543-555.

12. Torres IJ, Boudreau VG, Yatham LN. Neuropsychological functioning in euthymic bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2007;(434):17-26.

13. Rourke BP. Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: past and future. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2005;(28):111-114.

14. Dhar M, Been PH, Minderaa RB, et al. Information processing differences and similarities in adults with dyslexia and adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder during a Continuous Performance Test: a study of cortical potentials. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48:3045-3056.

15. Gross-Tsur V, Shalev RS, Manor O, et al. Developmental right-hemisphere syndrome: clinical spectrum of the nonverbal learning disability. J Learn Disabil. 1995;28(2):80-86.

16. Strakowski SM, Adler CM, Holland SK, et al. Abnormal FMRI brain activation in euthymic bipolar disorder patients during a counting Stroop interference task. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(9):1697-1705.

17. Goldberg JF, Chengappa KN. Identifying and treating cognitive impairment in bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2009;11(suppl 2):123-137.

18. McDonough-Ryan P, DelBello M, Shear PK, et al. Academic and cognitive abilities in children of parents with bipolar disorder: a test of the nonverbal learning disability model. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2002;24(3):280-285.

19. Mokros HB, Poznanski EO, Merrick WA. Depression and learning disabilities in children: a test of an hypothesis. J Learn Disabil. 1989;22(4):230-233,244.

20. Vieta E. Maintenance therapy for bipolar disorder: current and future management options. Expert Rev Neurother. 2004;4(6 suppl 2):S35-S42.

21. Stein MT, Klin A, Miller K. When Asperger’s syndrome and a nonverbal learning disability look alike. Pediatrics. 2004;114(suppl 6):1458-1463.

22. Klin A, Volkmar FR, Sparrow SS, et al. Validity and neuropsychological characterization of Asperger syndrome: convergence with nonverbal learning disabilities syndrome. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1995;36(7):1127-1140.

23. Volkmar FR, Klin A. Asperger syndrome and nonverbal learning disabilities. In: Schopler E, Mesibov GB, Kunce LJ, eds. Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism? New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1998:107–121.

24. Lord C, Rutter M, Goode S, et al. Autism diagnostic observation schedule: a standardized observation of communicative and social behavior. J Autism Dev Disord. 1989;19(2):185-212.

25. Gilliam JE. Gilliam Asperger’s disorder scale: second edition. Austin TX: Pro-Ed; 2005.

26. Pennington BF. Diagnosing learning disorders: a neuropsychological framework. 2nd ed. New York NY: The Guilford Press; 1998.

27. Sundheim ST, Voeller KK. Psychiatric implications of language disorders and learning disabilities: risks and management. J Child Neurol. 2004;19(10):814-826.

28. Fletcher J. Nonverbal learning disabilities and suicide: classification leads to prevention. J Learn Disabil. 1989;22(3):176-179.

29. Williams KA, Kolar MM, Reger BE, et al. Evaluation of a wellness-based mindfulness stress reduction intervention: a controlled trial. Am J Health Promot. 2001;15:422-432.

30. Sanders KM. Mindfulness and psychotherapy. Focus. 2010;8:19-24.

31. Fisher NJ, DeLuca JW. Verbal learning strategies of adults and adolescents with syndrome of NVLD. Child Neuropsychol. 1997;3(3):192-198.

32. Thompson S. Developing an educational plan for the student with NLD. 1998. Available at: http://www.ldonline.org/article/Developing_an_Educational_Plan_for_the_Student_with_NLD. Accessed March 25 2011.

Issue
Current Psychiatry - 10(05)
Issue
Current Psychiatry - 10(05)
Page Number
17-36
Page Number
17-36
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Does your patient have a psychiatric illness or nonverbal learning disorder?
Display Headline
Does your patient have a psychiatric illness or nonverbal learning disorder?
Legacy Keywords
psychiatric illness;nonverbal learning disorder;Sergio Delgado;Elizabeth Wassenaar;Jeffrey Strawn;unrecognized learning disorder;NLD;nonlinguistic information processing;speech prosody deficits;attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder;ADHD;bipolardisorder;BD;Asperger's disorder;learning process;right hemispheric dysfunction;neuropsychological testing;psychoeducational testing
Legacy Keywords
psychiatric illness;nonverbal learning disorder;Sergio Delgado;Elizabeth Wassenaar;Jeffrey Strawn;unrecognized learning disorder;NLD;nonlinguistic information processing;speech prosody deficits;attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder;ADHD;bipolardisorder;BD;Asperger's disorder;learning process;right hemispheric dysfunction;neuropsychological testing;psychoeducational testing
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media