Child Psychiatry Consult

SAN DIEGO– Six telepsychiatry sessions cut symptoms by at least half for 46% of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, compared with 13.6% of those who received one telepsychiatry session plus follow-up care by primary care providers, according to a randomized clinical trial.

The extended telepsychiatry intervention consistently outperformed primary care for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including in subgroups of children with ADHD alone, comorbid anxiety disorders, oppositional defiant disorder, or both, said Dr. Carol M. Rockhill of Seattle Children’s Hospital. “We do think the results of this study justify a more extended consultation model. A single visit is not enough for a child to be stabilized,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity is one of the most common disorders of childhood, and children in rural areas often lack access to appropriate care. The Children’s ADHD Telemental Health Treatment Study (CATTS) included 223 children with ADHD and their primary caregivers at seven underserved sites in Washington and Oregon. The primary outcome was a 50% reduction in ADHD symptoms, “an ambitious goal,” Dr. Rockhill said. Average age of the patients was 9 years, and they did not have serious comorbid diagnoses such as autism, bipolar disorder, or conduct disorder, she said. In all, 18% of children had a diagnosis of ADHD alone, while the rest also had at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder, she said.

For the study, the intervention arm received a total of six telepsychiatry sessions provided by interactive televideo with psychiatrists at Seattle Children’s Hospital. All sites had high bandwidth connectivity, and equipment that could pan, tilt, and zoom, Dr. Rockhill said. “It was nice to really be able to see the parents and caregivers well,” she added. Children received medication management, and caregivers were trained on managing behaviors of ADHD.

The control arm received a single telepsychiatry session and follow-up care by primary care providers. Parents in both groups used the Vanderbilt Assessment Scale to rate children’s behavior throughout the study, Dr. Rockhill said.

The researchers also compared telepsychiatry strategies to those from the Texas Children’s Medication Algorithm Project, which provides consensus guidelines for children with ADHD alone or with comorbid anxiety, depression, tics, or aggression, Dr. Rockhill said. Telepsychiatrists most often used the first algorithm, suggesting that they focused on ADHD symptoms even if children had comorbidities, she reported. In more than 98% of cases, telepsychiatrists chose the same initial algorithm as did study reviewers. Psychiatrists most commonly prescribed methylphenidate alone, followed by amphetamine alone. Among 574 telepsychiatry sessions, there were 29 protocol violations, which most often consisted of changing the algorithm order or combining medications, she added.

Children with comorbidities were more likely to have their medications changed, but this did not translate to greater clinical improvement, Dr. Rockhill said. “The kids who did achieve a 50% reduction in symptoms and had two comorbidities had an average of 2.4 medication changes, compared with 3.2 changes for children who did not meet the treatment target,” she said. “Comorbidity makes achievement of a 50% improvement in symptoms more challenging, and is associated with more complex medication strategies, including more changes in medication and more use of polypharmacy.”

In fact, the rate of polypharmacy more than tripled during the course of the study, Dr. Rockhill said. At the beginning of the trial, 13% of children had been prescribed more than one medication, compared with 41.5% at the end. In most cases, polypharmacy consisted of prescribing one stimulant and one nonstimulant.

The National Institute of Mental Health funded the study. Dr. Rockhill did not report financial conflicts of interest.

SAN DIEGO– Six telepsychiatry sessions cut symptoms by at least half for 46% of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, compared with 13.6% of those who received one telepsychiatry session plus follow-up care by primary care providers, according to a randomized clinical trial.

The extended telepsychiatry intervention consistently outperformed primary care for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including in subgroups of children with ADHD alone, comorbid anxiety disorders, oppositional defiant disorder, or both, said Dr. Carol M. Rockhill of Seattle Children’s Hospital. “We do think the results of this study justify a more extended consultation model. A single visit is not enough for a child to be stabilized,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity is one of the most common disorders of childhood, and children in rural areas often lack access to appropriate care. The Children’s ADHD Telemental Health Treatment Study (CATTS) included 223 children with ADHD and their primary caregivers at seven underserved sites in Washington and Oregon. The primary outcome was a 50% reduction in ADHD symptoms, “an ambitious goal,” Dr. Rockhill said. Average age of the patients was 9 years, and they did not have serious comorbid diagnoses such as autism, bipolar disorder, or conduct disorder, she said. In all, 18% of children had a diagnosis of ADHD alone, while the rest also had at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder, she said.

For the study, the intervention arm received a total of six telepsychiatry sessions provided by interactive televideo with psychiatrists at Seattle Children’s Hospital. All sites had high bandwidth connectivity, and equipment that could pan, tilt, and zoom, Dr. Rockhill said. “It was nice to really be able to see the parents and caregivers well,” she added. Children received medication management, and caregivers were trained on managing behaviors of ADHD.

The control arm received a single telepsychiatry session and follow-up care by primary care providers. Parents in both groups used the Vanderbilt Assessment Scale to rate children’s behavior throughout the study, Dr. Rockhill said.

The researchers also compared telepsychiatry strategies to those from the Texas Children’s Medication Algorithm Project, which provides consensus guidelines for children with ADHD alone or with comorbid anxiety, depression, tics, or aggression, Dr. Rockhill said. Telepsychiatrists most often used the first algorithm, suggesting that they focused on ADHD symptoms even if children had comorbidities, she reported. In more than 98% of cases, telepsychiatrists chose the same initial algorithm as did study reviewers. Psychiatrists most commonly prescribed methylphenidate alone, followed by amphetamine alone. Among 574 telepsychiatry sessions, there were 29 protocol violations, which most often consisted of changing the algorithm order or combining medications, she added.

Children with comorbidities were more likely to have their medications changed, but this did not translate to greater clinical improvement, Dr. Rockhill said. “The kids who did achieve a 50% reduction in symptoms and had two comorbidities had an average of 2.4 medication changes, compared with 3.2 changes for children who did not meet the treatment target,” she said. “Comorbidity makes achievement of a 50% improvement in symptoms more challenging, and is associated with more complex medication strategies, including more changes in medication and more use of polypharmacy.”

In fact, the rate of polypharmacy more than tripled during the course of the study, Dr. Rockhill said. At the beginning of the trial, 13% of children had been prescribed more than one medication, compared with 41.5% at the end. In most cases, polypharmacy consisted of prescribing one stimulant and one nonstimulant.

The National Institute of Mental Health funded the study. Dr. Rockhill did not report financial conflicts of interest.

SAN DIEGO– Six telepsychiatry sessions cut symptoms by at least half for 46% of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, compared with 13.6% of those who received one telepsychiatry session plus follow-up care by primary care providers, according to a randomized clinical trial.

The extended telepsychiatry intervention consistently outperformed primary care for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including in subgroups of children with ADHD alone, comorbid anxiety disorders, oppositional defiant disorder, or both, said Dr. Carol M. Rockhill of Seattle Children’s Hospital. “We do think the results of this study justify a more extended consultation model. A single visit is not enough for a child to be stabilized,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity is one of the most common disorders of childhood, and children in rural areas often lack access to appropriate care. The Children’s ADHD Telemental Health Treatment Study (CATTS) included 223 children with ADHD and their primary caregivers at seven underserved sites in Washington and Oregon. The primary outcome was a 50% reduction in ADHD symptoms, “an ambitious goal,” Dr. Rockhill said. Average age of the patients was 9 years, and they did not have serious comorbid diagnoses such as autism, bipolar disorder, or conduct disorder, she said. In all, 18% of children had a diagnosis of ADHD alone, while the rest also had at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder, she said.

For the study, the intervention arm received a total of six telepsychiatry sessions provided by interactive televideo with psychiatrists at Seattle Children’s Hospital. All sites had high bandwidth connectivity, and equipment that could pan, tilt, and zoom, Dr. Rockhill said. “It was nice to really be able to see the parents and caregivers well,” she added. Children received medication management, and caregivers were trained on managing behaviors of ADHD.

The control arm received a single telepsychiatry session and follow-up care by primary care providers. Parents in both groups used the Vanderbilt Assessment Scale to rate children’s behavior throughout the study, Dr. Rockhill said.

The researchers also compared telepsychiatry strategies to those from the Texas Children’s Medication Algorithm Project, which provides consensus guidelines for children with ADHD alone or with comorbid anxiety, depression, tics, or aggression, Dr. Rockhill said. Telepsychiatrists most often used the first algorithm, suggesting that they focused on ADHD symptoms even if children had comorbidities, she reported. In more than 98% of cases, telepsychiatrists chose the same initial algorithm as did study reviewers. Psychiatrists most commonly prescribed methylphenidate alone, followed by amphetamine alone. Among 574 telepsychiatry sessions, there were 29 protocol violations, which most often consisted of changing the algorithm order or combining medications, she added.

Children with comorbidities were more likely to have their medications changed, but this did not translate to greater clinical improvement, Dr. Rockhill said. “The kids who did achieve a 50% reduction in symptoms and had two comorbidities had an average of 2.4 medication changes, compared with 3.2 changes for children who did not meet the treatment target,” she said. “Comorbidity makes achievement of a 50% improvement in symptoms more challenging, and is associated with more complex medication strategies, including more changes in medication and more use of polypharmacy.”

In fact, the rate of polypharmacy more than tripled during the course of the study, Dr. Rockhill said. At the beginning of the trial, 13% of children had been prescribed more than one medication, compared with 41.5% at the end. In most cases, polypharmacy consisted of prescribing one stimulant and one nonstimulant.

The National Institute of Mental Health funded the study. Dr. Rockhill did not report financial conflicts of interest.

Our relationship with vitamins and supplements may be approach-avoidance. On one hand, if they are beneficial and patients are motivated to take them, we do not complain. This is likely a marker of motivated patient who may heed other health promotional advice that we proffer. On the other hand, it is difficult to keep up with the massive amount of good and bad literature about them. Patients can challenge us on our medical knowledge, pinging our opinions about the latest findings tweeted out while we struggle to keep up with all the wheelchair forms.

Vitamins are clearly not consistently beneficial. B vitamins may increase lung cancer risk in smokers. Vitamin D, however, seems to have some of the greatest “staying power” in the clinical realm and has a good reputation as far as vitamins go. Vitamin D is probably good for the heart, but how about the head? Could low D cause dementia? If so, how?

Previous studies of the relationship between vitamin D and dementia have not shown consistent results. Thomas Littlejohns, M.Sc., and colleagues have published a fantastic piece of work (Neurology 2014 Aug. 6 [doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000755]) that sheds some light. They evaluated a prospective cohort of 1,658 elderly ambulatory adults with no history of dementia, CVD, or stroke who had baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations at baseline. Severely low levels of 25(OH)D and deficiency (≥25 to <50 nmol/L) were associated with a significantly increased risk for all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s dementia.

Several hypotheses exist as to why vitamin D helps the brain. Vitamin D may attenuate amyloid-induced cytotoxicity and neural apoptosis. It also may reduce the risk of strokes by promoting healthy cerebral vasculature.

The Institute of Medicine recommends a serum concentration of 25(OH)D at 50 nmol/L. This study would suggest that sufficiency to this level is neuroprotective. The next step is to see if supplementation can modify baseline risk, but many of my patients may wait for these data to come out before starting their vitamin D supplements.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

Our relationship with vitamins and supplements may be approach-avoidance. On one hand, if they are beneficial and patients are motivated to take them, we do not complain. This is likely a marker of motivated patient who may heed other health promotional advice that we proffer. On the other hand, it is difficult to keep up with the massive amount of good and bad literature about them. Patients can challenge us on our medical knowledge, pinging our opinions about the latest findings tweeted out while we struggle to keep up with all the wheelchair forms.

Vitamins are clearly not consistently beneficial. B vitamins may increase lung cancer risk in smokers. Vitamin D, however, seems to have some of the greatest “staying power” in the clinical realm and has a good reputation as far as vitamins go. Vitamin D is probably good for the heart, but how about the head? Could low D cause dementia? If so, how?

Previous studies of the relationship between vitamin D and dementia have not shown consistent results. Thomas Littlejohns, M.Sc., and colleagues have published a fantastic piece of work (Neurology 2014 Aug. 6 [doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000755]) that sheds some light. They evaluated a prospective cohort of 1,658 elderly ambulatory adults with no history of dementia, CVD, or stroke who had baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations at baseline. Severely low levels of 25(OH)D and deficiency (≥25 to <50 nmol/L) were associated with a significantly increased risk for all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s dementia.

Several hypotheses exist as to why vitamin D helps the brain. Vitamin D may attenuate amyloid-induced cytotoxicity and neural apoptosis. It also may reduce the risk of strokes by promoting healthy cerebral vasculature.

The Institute of Medicine recommends a serum concentration of 25(OH)D at 50 nmol/L. This study would suggest that sufficiency to this level is neuroprotective. The next step is to see if supplementation can modify baseline risk, but many of my patients may wait for these data to come out before starting their vitamin D supplements.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

Our relationship with vitamins and supplements may be approach-avoidance. On one hand, if they are beneficial and patients are motivated to take them, we do not complain. This is likely a marker of motivated patient who may heed other health promotional advice that we proffer. On the other hand, it is difficult to keep up with the massive amount of good and bad literature about them. Patients can challenge us on our medical knowledge, pinging our opinions about the latest findings tweeted out while we struggle to keep up with all the wheelchair forms.

Vitamins are clearly not consistently beneficial. B vitamins may increase lung cancer risk in smokers. Vitamin D, however, seems to have some of the greatest “staying power” in the clinical realm and has a good reputation as far as vitamins go. Vitamin D is probably good for the heart, but how about the head? Could low D cause dementia? If so, how?

Previous studies of the relationship between vitamin D and dementia have not shown consistent results. Thomas Littlejohns, M.Sc., and colleagues have published a fantastic piece of work (Neurology 2014 Aug. 6 [doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000755]) that sheds some light. They evaluated a prospective cohort of 1,658 elderly ambulatory adults with no history of dementia, CVD, or stroke who had baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations at baseline. Severely low levels of 25(OH)D and deficiency (≥25 to <50 nmol/L) were associated with a significantly increased risk for all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s dementia.

Several hypotheses exist as to why vitamin D helps the brain. Vitamin D may attenuate amyloid-induced cytotoxicity and neural apoptosis. It also may reduce the risk of strokes by promoting healthy cerebral vasculature.

The Institute of Medicine recommends a serum concentration of 25(OH)D at 50 nmol/L. This study would suggest that sufficiency to this level is neuroprotective. The next step is to see if supplementation can modify baseline risk, but many of my patients may wait for these data to come out before starting their vitamin D supplements.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved another weight-loss drug (Contrave), a combination of naltrexone (indicated for opioid dependence) and bupropion (indicated for depression). This is the third weight-loss drug approved in the past 2 years. The FDA previously approved lorcaserin (Belviq) and topiramate/phentermine (Qsymia). This approval activity signals pharmaceutical interest in a multibillion dollar weight loss industry and perhaps, maybe less so, the FDA’s recognition of our public health crisis.

For patients who meet criteria for the use of these medications, they should be offered if they can be afforded. However, these medications may make patients behave differently.

It’s called “license.”

License is the psychological phenomenon in which people who feel they have made progress toward a goal feel liberated to make an incongruent choice. Think of a patient interested in losing weight who now takes a weight-loss pill. Despite not having lost any weight yet and perhaps just after taking the first pill, the patient then makes a choice to consume a high-calorie dessert.

Here are some data that support that this could be happening.

One team of investigators randomized subjects to being informed they were taking a placebo or a weight-loss supplement (which was actually the same placebo tablet as in the other study arm). After receiving the supplement, participants were allowed access to a reward buffet lunch at which their food consumption was recorded. Compared with controls, participants receiving a purported weight-loss supplement ate more food at the reward buffet. This effect seemed to occur through a perceived sense that they were making progress toward their weight-loss goal by taking the pill (Nutrition 2014;30:1007-14).

This is critical for us to think about and incorporate into our clinical teaching when prescribing these medications. Psychological liberation threatens any health gains we can make at a population level with any weight-loss approach. We need to help our patients understand that these medications should be used in combination with sustainable lifestyle changes or they may as well be taking a placebo.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved another weight-loss drug (Contrave), a combination of naltrexone (indicated for opioid dependence) and bupropion (indicated for depression). This is the third weight-loss drug approved in the past 2 years. The FDA previously approved lorcaserin (Belviq) and topiramate/phentermine (Qsymia). This approval activity signals pharmaceutical interest in a multibillion dollar weight loss industry and perhaps, maybe less so, the FDA’s recognition of our public health crisis.

For patients who meet criteria for the use of these medications, they should be offered if they can be afforded. However, these medications may make patients behave differently.

It’s called “license.”

License is the psychological phenomenon in which people who feel they have made progress toward a goal feel liberated to make an incongruent choice. Think of a patient interested in losing weight who now takes a weight-loss pill. Despite not having lost any weight yet and perhaps just after taking the first pill, the patient then makes a choice to consume a high-calorie dessert.

Here are some data that support that this could be happening.

One team of investigators randomized subjects to being informed they were taking a placebo or a weight-loss supplement (which was actually the same placebo tablet as in the other study arm). After receiving the supplement, participants were allowed access to a reward buffet lunch at which their food consumption was recorded. Compared with controls, participants receiving a purported weight-loss supplement ate more food at the reward buffet. This effect seemed to occur through a perceived sense that they were making progress toward their weight-loss goal by taking the pill (Nutrition 2014;30:1007-14).

This is critical for us to think about and incorporate into our clinical teaching when prescribing these medications. Psychological liberation threatens any health gains we can make at a population level with any weight-loss approach. We need to help our patients understand that these medications should be used in combination with sustainable lifestyle changes or they may as well be taking a placebo.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved another weight-loss drug (Contrave), a combination of naltrexone (indicated for opioid dependence) and bupropion (indicated for depression). This is the third weight-loss drug approved in the past 2 years. The FDA previously approved lorcaserin (Belviq) and topiramate/phentermine (Qsymia). This approval activity signals pharmaceutical interest in a multibillion dollar weight loss industry and perhaps, maybe less so, the FDA’s recognition of our public health crisis.

For patients who meet criteria for the use of these medications, they should be offered if they can be afforded. However, these medications may make patients behave differently.

It’s called “license.”

License is the psychological phenomenon in which people who feel they have made progress toward a goal feel liberated to make an incongruent choice. Think of a patient interested in losing weight who now takes a weight-loss pill. Despite not having lost any weight yet and perhaps just after taking the first pill, the patient then makes a choice to consume a high-calorie dessert.

Here are some data that support that this could be happening.

One team of investigators randomized subjects to being informed they were taking a placebo or a weight-loss supplement (which was actually the same placebo tablet as in the other study arm). After receiving the supplement, participants were allowed access to a reward buffet lunch at which their food consumption was recorded. Compared with controls, participants receiving a purported weight-loss supplement ate more food at the reward buffet. This effect seemed to occur through a perceived sense that they were making progress toward their weight-loss goal by taking the pill (Nutrition 2014;30:1007-14).

This is critical for us to think about and incorporate into our clinical teaching when prescribing these medications. Psychological liberation threatens any health gains we can make at a population level with any weight-loss approach. We need to help our patients understand that these medications should be used in combination with sustainable lifestyle changes or they may as well be taking a placebo.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

Irritable bowel syndrome affects up to 15% of the U.S. adult population, which may be an underestimate. When patients are managing themselves well, their clinical course can be routine. When their self-management is poor, IBS can make life exceedingly challenging for both patients and their clinicians. Many of us may be stepping up our game in patients with known IBS experiencing symptoms, first by recommending a diet low in FODMAPs (fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols), which have been shown to reduce IBS symptoms.

My experience is that patients who have been struggling for years with IBS have a high degree of health literacy. And they are usually receptive to trying new things that might make their lives better. The exceptions are the occasional patients who are convinced that they do not have IBS and that their clinicians are just too poorly informed to figure out what the real cause is.

Anything else we can recommend?

Jun Sik Yoon and colleagues have published a clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of multispecies probiotics on IBS symptoms and changes in the gut microbiota. In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 49 subjects (25 probiotics, 24 placebo) with clinically-diagnosed IBS received tablets twice a day for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals whose IBS symptoms were substantially relieved at 4 weeks.

Probiotics were associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients with reductions in IBS symptoms (68% vs. 37.5%; P < .05). Probiotics also improved abdominal pain/discomfort and bloating. Fecal analysis revealed increases in the microbiota obtained with the probiotics (J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014;29:52-9).

So probiotics may help our patients with IBS if a low FODMAP diet does not. But what probiotic (i.e., containing which species) should we select? Species may have different effects on gut motility. Importantly, taking probiotics with certain species does not mean that those species will set up permanent residence in the colon. In the current study, only three of the six species contained in the probiotics were still in the stool after 4 weeks. The author concluded that the alleviation in bowel symptoms was attributable to Bifidobacterium lactis, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and Streptococcus thermophiles. So let’s tell patients to look for probiotics with these species.

Probiotics are generally safe with the only possible contraindication being their use in patients with a severely immunocompromised state, but this is debatable. But now we have another evidence-based tool for our patients struggling with symptom recrudescence.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

Irritable bowel syndrome affects up to 15% of the U.S. adult population, which may be an underestimate. When patients are managing themselves well, their clinical course can be routine. When their self-management is poor, IBS can make life exceedingly challenging for both patients and their clinicians. Many of us may be stepping up our game in patients with known IBS experiencing symptoms, first by recommending a diet low in FODMAPs (fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols), which have been shown to reduce IBS symptoms.

My experience is that patients who have been struggling for years with IBS have a high degree of health literacy. And they are usually receptive to trying new things that might make their lives better. The exceptions are the occasional patients who are convinced that they do not have IBS and that their clinicians are just too poorly informed to figure out what the real cause is.

Anything else we can recommend?

Jun Sik Yoon and colleagues have published a clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of multispecies probiotics on IBS symptoms and changes in the gut microbiota. In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 49 subjects (25 probiotics, 24 placebo) with clinically-diagnosed IBS received tablets twice a day for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals whose IBS symptoms were substantially relieved at 4 weeks.

Probiotics were associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients with reductions in IBS symptoms (68% vs. 37.5%; P < .05). Probiotics also improved abdominal pain/discomfort and bloating. Fecal analysis revealed increases in the microbiota obtained with the probiotics (J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014;29:52-9).

So probiotics may help our patients with IBS if a low FODMAP diet does not. But what probiotic (i.e., containing which species) should we select? Species may have different effects on gut motility. Importantly, taking probiotics with certain species does not mean that those species will set up permanent residence in the colon. In the current study, only three of the six species contained in the probiotics were still in the stool after 4 weeks. The author concluded that the alleviation in bowel symptoms was attributable to Bifidobacterium lactis, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and Streptococcus thermophiles. So let’s tell patients to look for probiotics with these species.

Probiotics are generally safe with the only possible contraindication being their use in patients with a severely immunocompromised state, but this is debatable. But now we have another evidence-based tool for our patients struggling with symptom recrudescence.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

Irritable bowel syndrome affects up to 15% of the U.S. adult population, which may be an underestimate. When patients are managing themselves well, their clinical course can be routine. When their self-management is poor, IBS can make life exceedingly challenging for both patients and their clinicians. Many of us may be stepping up our game in patients with known IBS experiencing symptoms, first by recommending a diet low in FODMAPs (fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols), which have been shown to reduce IBS symptoms.

My experience is that patients who have been struggling for years with IBS have a high degree of health literacy. And they are usually receptive to trying new things that might make their lives better. The exceptions are the occasional patients who are convinced that they do not have IBS and that their clinicians are just too poorly informed to figure out what the real cause is.

Anything else we can recommend?

Jun Sik Yoon and colleagues have published a clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of multispecies probiotics on IBS symptoms and changes in the gut microbiota. In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 49 subjects (25 probiotics, 24 placebo) with clinically-diagnosed IBS received tablets twice a day for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals whose IBS symptoms were substantially relieved at 4 weeks.

Probiotics were associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients with reductions in IBS symptoms (68% vs. 37.5%; P < .05). Probiotics also improved abdominal pain/discomfort and bloating. Fecal analysis revealed increases in the microbiota obtained with the probiotics (J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014;29:52-9).

So probiotics may help our patients with IBS if a low FODMAP diet does not. But what probiotic (i.e., containing which species) should we select? Species may have different effects on gut motility. Importantly, taking probiotics with certain species does not mean that those species will set up permanent residence in the colon. In the current study, only three of the six species contained in the probiotics were still in the stool after 4 weeks. The author concluded that the alleviation in bowel symptoms was attributable to Bifidobacterium lactis, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and Streptococcus thermophiles. So let’s tell patients to look for probiotics with these species.

Probiotics are generally safe with the only possible contraindication being their use in patients with a severely immunocompromised state, but this is debatable. But now we have another evidence-based tool for our patients struggling with symptom recrudescence.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

Aggressive behavior is one of the most common child psychiatric symptoms for which parents seek help. The difficulty with managing aggressive behavior is determining whether it is out of the ordinary from typical child development and then assessing the causes of the behavior before tackling the tough job of intervening. The following case is typical of what might present to the pediatrics office and provides a few ideas for the assessment and management of aggressive behavior.

Case summary

Dakota is a 6-year-old boy who presents for a well-child check with his father, Joe. Dakota is just finishing his kindergarten year, and the teachers have expressed concerns about his behavior in the classroom and on the playground. They note that he is often irritable and touchy, and that he will frequently have aggressive outbursts, particularly when asked to do something that he doesn’t like. He will often interrupt other children’s games, and will force children to play by his rules with a threat of, or occasional use of, hitting. In the classroom, he has been removed multiple times to the principal’s office, where he will go only with marked reluctance. He has been noted by his teachers to have difficulty attending to the classroom instructions, and frequently removes himself during circle time. They allow him to do this to avoid a power struggle. Similarly, Joe notes that the entire family is "walking on eggshells" because they never know what might set him off. They’ve tried "everything," including time out, sticker charts, and spanking, but with little effect. Joe says that he was "just like Dakota" when he was a child, and that he was "straightened out" in the Army. He wonders if some kind of boot camp or "scared straight" program would help Dakota learn his lesson.

Discussion

Diagnosis. Irritability and aggression are common manifestations of multiple child psychiatric conditions. While it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that the patient has oppositional-defiant disorder (ODD) or conduct disorder (CD) and move straight to treatment, care must be taken to evaluate common causes and co-occurring disorders that might change the treatment plan.

The differential diagnosis includes a primary mood disorder like depression, other disruptive behavior disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a primary anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, a learning or language disorder, and/or intellectual disability. One also must determine whether the aggression exhibited is greater than that shown by other boys his age. For this reason, the use of a scale that has normative values by age and sex makes sense. Having a standardized instrument filled out by parents and by the teachers also will help give an indication of how he is performing in multiple settings. Using a broad-based instrument that also covers mood, anxiety, and attention problems can be a quick and useful way to examine what type of co-occurring symptoms are present.

Aggression, while a heritable trait, also has a significant component from the environment. It is important to see how much of the aggression is being "caught, not taught" in the family setting. Querying as to the general level of negative, coercive parenting can be performed quickly by asking for a description of how the last outburst was managed – what the precipitant, the course, and the outcome were. Frequently, with ODD in particular, you will find a cycle of escalating threats and illogical consequences that serve to reinforce, rather than to reduce, aggressive and oppositional behavior. Practically, while the busy pediatrician may be able to manage some of this screening in a well-child check, it is likely that a separate appointment will be needed to go over the results of the screening instruments and to more fully assess the parenting environment.

At the scheduled visit designed to specifically assess the aggression:

• Make sure that both the parents and the child see this as a family-based problem. A treatment alliance with both parties is necessary to get the buy-in for any type of intervention that will occur.

• Assess the level of impairment. Are these outbursts severe only at home? In the school setting? With other people such as coaches or health care providers?

• Review the broadband screening instruments from multiple settings to make sure that this is a primary disruptive behavior disorder and not something else, particularly ADHD or a mood disorder, which will need to be managed differently.

• Determine if the aggressive behavior is impulsive/reactive or if it is planned/predatory. Is there remorse afterward (about the action, as opposed to remorse about being caught)? Lack of remorse could be an indicator of callous-unemotional traits, which have a worse prognosis.

Pearl: When asking about aggressive outbursts, make sure to concentrate not just on the outburst, but on the behavior and mood between outbursts. If the mood between outbursts is chronically irritable or sad, this might indicate a mood disorder rather than a primary disruptive behavior disorder.

Treatment. Treatment for aggressive behavior really calls for an "all hands on deck" family-based intervention. Parenting interventions will work best when the parents themselves are as healthy as they can be. Working with them to ensure that aggressive behavior, substance abuse, or anxiety is adequately treated through referral is an important step.

Next, the parenting interventions should involve those best informed by evidence-based practice, which typically include components of reducing the cycle of reinforcing aggressive behavior, noticing and rewarding prosocial behavior, and ceasing corporal punishment and replacing it with predictable, logical consequences for aggressive behavior. There are several excellent programs that therapists can use with parents, and referring to a therapist working with an evidence-based treatment program makes sense. There is a table listing parent management training packages that can be found in the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) Practice Parameters for ODD (J. Am. Acad. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry 2007;46:126-41).

Wellness interventions such as ensuring hydration and adequate caloric intake can make a difference in the management of aggression. It’s harder to maintain control when you are concentrating on the grumbling of your stomach. Further, using exercise and sports as an intervention allows children to channel some of their negative aggressive impulses into positive, prosocial activities.

Pharmacotherapy is not indicated for ODD or CD, except to target co-occurring symptoms. For example, treatment of ADHD or anxiety can quite successfully reduce impulsive or reactive aggression, and can make it easier to treat the ODD or CD through parent management techniques. In very severe cases of aggression, treatment with other agents such as mood stabilizers or antipsychotics might be indicated, but this would likely be implemented only in consultation with a child and adolescent psychiatrist.

Finally, there is little to no evidence for a mock incarceration or boot camp approach with children who exhibit oppositional behavior. In fact, it’s very possible that these kinds of programs can make the behaviors worse (J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 1999;38:1320-1; "Aggression and Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents: Research and Treatment" [New York: The Guilford Press, 2002]).

When to consult? Uncomplicated aggressive behavior can be managed by the primary care team with consultation from a therapist using evidence-based approaches. If there is poor treatment response, or if the aggression is severe enough to cause serious physical injury, or if there is concern for a cycling mood disorder (such as bipolar disorder – a topic for a later column), then consultation with a child psychiatrist is likely appropriate.

Dr. Althoff is an associate professor of psychiatry, psychology, and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He is director of the division of behavioral genetics and conducts research on the development of self-regulation in children. Dr. Althoff has received grants/research support from the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation, and honoraria from the Oakstone General Publishing for CME presentations.

Introduction

Aggressive behavior is one of the most common child psychiatric symptoms for which parents seek help. The difficulty with managing aggressive behavior is determining whether it is out of the ordinary from typical child development and then assessing the causes of the behavior before tackling the tough job of intervening. The following case is typical of what might present to the pediatrics office and provides a few ideas for the assessment and management of aggressive behavior.

Case summary

Dakota is a 6-year-old boy who presents for a well-child check with his father, Joe. Dakota is just finishing his kindergarten year, and the teachers have expressed concerns about his behavior in the classroom and on the playground. They note that he is often irritable and touchy, and that he will frequently have aggressive outbursts, particularly when asked to do something that he doesn’t like. He will often interrupt other children’s games, and will force children to play by his rules with a threat of, or occasional use of, hitting. In the classroom, he has been removed multiple times to the principal’s office, where he will go only with marked reluctance. He has been noted by his teachers to have difficulty attending to the classroom instructions, and frequently removes himself during circle time. They allow him to do this to avoid a power struggle. Similarly, Joe notes that the entire family is "walking on eggshells" because they never know what might set him off. They’ve tried "everything," including time out, sticker charts, and spanking, but with little effect. Joe says that he was "just like Dakota" when he was a child, and that he was "straightened out" in the Army. He wonders if some kind of boot camp or "scared straight" program would help Dakota learn his lesson.

Discussion

Diagnosis. Irritability and aggression are common manifestations of multiple child psychiatric conditions. While it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that the patient has oppositional-defiant disorder (ODD) or conduct disorder (CD) and move straight to treatment, care must be taken to evaluate common causes and co-occurring disorders that might change the treatment plan.

The differential diagnosis includes a primary mood disorder like depression, other disruptive behavior disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a primary anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, a learning or language disorder, and/or intellectual disability. One also must determine whether the aggression exhibited is greater than that shown by other boys his age. For this reason, the use of a scale that has normative values by age and sex makes sense. Having a standardized instrument filled out by parents and by the teachers also will help give an indication of how he is performing in multiple settings. Using a broad-based instrument that also covers mood, anxiety, and attention problems can be a quick and useful way to examine what type of co-occurring symptoms are present.

Aggression, while a heritable trait, also has a significant component from the environment. It is important to see how much of the aggression is being "caught, not taught" in the family setting. Querying as to the general level of negative, coercive parenting can be performed quickly by asking for a description of how the last outburst was managed – what the precipitant, the course, and the outcome were. Frequently, with ODD in particular, you will find a cycle of escalating threats and illogical consequences that serve to reinforce, rather than to reduce, aggressive and oppositional behavior. Practically, while the busy pediatrician may be able to manage some of this screening in a well-child check, it is likely that a separate appointment will be needed to go over the results of the screening instruments and to more fully assess the parenting environment.

At the scheduled visit designed to specifically assess the aggression:

• Make sure that both the parents and the child see this as a family-based problem. A treatment alliance with both parties is necessary to get the buy-in for any type of intervention that will occur.

• Assess the level of impairment. Are these outbursts severe only at home? In the school setting? With other people such as coaches or health care providers?

• Review the broadband screening instruments from multiple settings to make sure that this is a primary disruptive behavior disorder and not something else, particularly ADHD or a mood disorder, which will need to be managed differently.

• Determine if the aggressive behavior is impulsive/reactive or if it is planned/predatory. Is there remorse afterward (about the action, as opposed to remorse about being caught)? Lack of remorse could be an indicator of callous-unemotional traits, which have a worse prognosis.

Pearl: When asking about aggressive outbursts, make sure to concentrate not just on the outburst, but on the behavior and mood between outbursts. If the mood between outbursts is chronically irritable or sad, this might indicate a mood disorder rather than a primary disruptive behavior disorder.

Treatment. Treatment for aggressive behavior really calls for an "all hands on deck" family-based intervention. Parenting interventions will work best when the parents themselves are as healthy as they can be. Working with them to ensure that aggressive behavior, substance abuse, or anxiety is adequately treated through referral is an important step.

Next, the parenting interventions should involve those best informed by evidence-based practice, which typically include components of reducing the cycle of reinforcing aggressive behavior, noticing and rewarding prosocial behavior, and ceasing corporal punishment and replacing it with predictable, logical consequences for aggressive behavior. There are several excellent programs that therapists can use with parents, and referring to a therapist working with an evidence-based treatment program makes sense. There is a table listing parent management training packages that can be found in the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) Practice Parameters for ODD (J. Am. Acad. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry 2007;46:126-41).

Wellness interventions such as ensuring hydration and adequate caloric intake can make a difference in the management of aggression. It’s harder to maintain control when you are concentrating on the grumbling of your stomach. Further, using exercise and sports as an intervention allows children to channel some of their negative aggressive impulses into positive, prosocial activities.

Pharmacotherapy is not indicated for ODD or CD, except to target co-occurring symptoms. For example, treatment of ADHD or anxiety can quite successfully reduce impulsive or reactive aggression, and can make it easier to treat the ODD or CD through parent management techniques. In very severe cases of aggression, treatment with other agents such as mood stabilizers or antipsychotics might be indicated, but this would likely be implemented only in consultation with a child and adolescent psychiatrist.

Finally, there is little to no evidence for a mock incarceration or boot camp approach with children who exhibit oppositional behavior. In fact, it’s very possible that these kinds of programs can make the behaviors worse (J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 1999;38:1320-1; "Aggression and Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents: Research and Treatment" [New York: The Guilford Press, 2002]).

When to consult? Uncomplicated aggressive behavior can be managed by the primary care team with consultation from a therapist using evidence-based approaches. If there is poor treatment response, or if the aggression is severe enough to cause serious physical injury, or if there is concern for a cycling mood disorder (such as bipolar disorder – a topic for a later column), then consultation with a child psychiatrist is likely appropriate.

Dr. Althoff is an associate professor of psychiatry, psychology, and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He is director of the division of behavioral genetics and conducts research on the development of self-regulation in children. Dr. Althoff has received grants/research support from the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation, and honoraria from the Oakstone General Publishing for CME presentations.

Introduction

Aggressive behavior is one of the most common child psychiatric symptoms for which parents seek help. The difficulty with managing aggressive behavior is determining whether it is out of the ordinary from typical child development and then assessing the causes of the behavior before tackling the tough job of intervening. The following case is typical of what might present to the pediatrics office and provides a few ideas for the assessment and management of aggressive behavior.

Case summary

Dakota is a 6-year-old boy who presents for a well-child check with his father, Joe. Dakota is just finishing his kindergarten year, and the teachers have expressed concerns about his behavior in the classroom and on the playground. They note that he is often irritable and touchy, and that he will frequently have aggressive outbursts, particularly when asked to do something that he doesn’t like. He will often interrupt other children’s games, and will force children to play by his rules with a threat of, or occasional use of, hitting. In the classroom, he has been removed multiple times to the principal’s office, where he will go only with marked reluctance. He has been noted by his teachers to have difficulty attending to the classroom instructions, and frequently removes himself during circle time. They allow him to do this to avoid a power struggle. Similarly, Joe notes that the entire family is "walking on eggshells" because they never know what might set him off. They’ve tried "everything," including time out, sticker charts, and spanking, but with little effect. Joe says that he was "just like Dakota" when he was a child, and that he was "straightened out" in the Army. He wonders if some kind of boot camp or "scared straight" program would help Dakota learn his lesson.

Discussion

Diagnosis. Irritability and aggression are common manifestations of multiple child psychiatric conditions. While it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that the patient has oppositional-defiant disorder (ODD) or conduct disorder (CD) and move straight to treatment, care must be taken to evaluate common causes and co-occurring disorders that might change the treatment plan.

The differential diagnosis includes a primary mood disorder like depression, other disruptive behavior disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a primary anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, a learning or language disorder, and/or intellectual disability. One also must determine whether the aggression exhibited is greater than that shown by other boys his age. For this reason, the use of a scale that has normative values by age and sex makes sense. Having a standardized instrument filled out by parents and by the teachers also will help give an indication of how he is performing in multiple settings. Using a broad-based instrument that also covers mood, anxiety, and attention problems can be a quick and useful way to examine what type of co-occurring symptoms are present.

Aggression, while a heritable trait, also has a significant component from the environment. It is important to see how much of the aggression is being "caught, not taught" in the family setting. Querying as to the general level of negative, coercive parenting can be performed quickly by asking for a description of how the last outburst was managed – what the precipitant, the course, and the outcome were. Frequently, with ODD in particular, you will find a cycle of escalating threats and illogical consequences that serve to reinforce, rather than to reduce, aggressive and oppositional behavior. Practically, while the busy pediatrician may be able to manage some of this screening in a well-child check, it is likely that a separate appointment will be needed to go over the results of the screening instruments and to more fully assess the parenting environment.

At the scheduled visit designed to specifically assess the aggression:

• Make sure that both the parents and the child see this as a family-based problem. A treatment alliance with both parties is necessary to get the buy-in for any type of intervention that will occur.

• Assess the level of impairment. Are these outbursts severe only at home? In the school setting? With other people such as coaches or health care providers?

• Review the broadband screening instruments from multiple settings to make sure that this is a primary disruptive behavior disorder and not something else, particularly ADHD or a mood disorder, which will need to be managed differently.

• Determine if the aggressive behavior is impulsive/reactive or if it is planned/predatory. Is there remorse afterward (about the action, as opposed to remorse about being caught)? Lack of remorse could be an indicator of callous-unemotional traits, which have a worse prognosis.

Pearl: When asking about aggressive outbursts, make sure to concentrate not just on the outburst, but on the behavior and mood between outbursts. If the mood between outbursts is chronically irritable or sad, this might indicate a mood disorder rather than a primary disruptive behavior disorder.

Treatment. Treatment for aggressive behavior really calls for an "all hands on deck" family-based intervention. Parenting interventions will work best when the parents themselves are as healthy as they can be. Working with them to ensure that aggressive behavior, substance abuse, or anxiety is adequately treated through referral is an important step.

Next, the parenting interventions should involve those best informed by evidence-based practice, which typically include components of reducing the cycle of reinforcing aggressive behavior, noticing and rewarding prosocial behavior, and ceasing corporal punishment and replacing it with predictable, logical consequences for aggressive behavior. There are several excellent programs that therapists can use with parents, and referring to a therapist working with an evidence-based treatment program makes sense. There is a table listing parent management training packages that can be found in the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) Practice Parameters for ODD (J. Am. Acad. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry 2007;46:126-41).

Wellness interventions such as ensuring hydration and adequate caloric intake can make a difference in the management of aggression. It’s harder to maintain control when you are concentrating on the grumbling of your stomach. Further, using exercise and sports as an intervention allows children to channel some of their negative aggressive impulses into positive, prosocial activities.

Pharmacotherapy is not indicated for ODD or CD, except to target co-occurring symptoms. For example, treatment of ADHD or anxiety can quite successfully reduce impulsive or reactive aggression, and can make it easier to treat the ODD or CD through parent management techniques. In very severe cases of aggression, treatment with other agents such as mood stabilizers or antipsychotics might be indicated, but this would likely be implemented only in consultation with a child and adolescent psychiatrist.

Finally, there is little to no evidence for a mock incarceration or boot camp approach with children who exhibit oppositional behavior. In fact, it’s very possible that these kinds of programs can make the behaviors worse (J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 1999;38:1320-1; "Aggression and Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents: Research and Treatment" [New York: The Guilford Press, 2002]).

When to consult? Uncomplicated aggressive behavior can be managed by the primary care team with consultation from a therapist using evidence-based approaches. If there is poor treatment response, or if the aggression is severe enough to cause serious physical injury, or if there is concern for a cycling mood disorder (such as bipolar disorder – a topic for a later column), then consultation with a child psychiatrist is likely appropriate.

Dr. Althoff is an associate professor of psychiatry, psychology, and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He is director of the division of behavioral genetics and conducts research on the development of self-regulation in children. Dr. Althoff has received grants/research support from the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation, and honoraria from the Oakstone General Publishing for CME presentations.

The prevalence of urinary incontinence is 17%-55% among older women and 12%-42% among younger and middle-aged women. Only 45% of women with at least weekly symptoms seek medical care to address their symptoms.

For most of us, offering conservative measures is the most reasonable approach when women present. Pelvic floor muscle training, sometimes referred to as Kegel exercises, is usually one of the first things we discuss. Many women have heard this spiel before and may report having tried but not benefited from the exercises. This real or perceived lack of benefit may be related to either poor adherence or lack of efficacy.

In theory, pelvic floor muscle training builds strength and improves muscle tone, enhances conscious awareness of muscle groups, and increases perineal support by lifting pelvic viscera. But do clinical trial data support the use of pelvic muscle training for reducing urinary incontinence?

Dr. O. Celiker Tosun of Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey, and colleagues published the results of a randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of an individually prescribed 12-week home-based pelvic floor muscle exercise program (Clin. Rehabil. 2014 Aug. 20 [doi:10.1177/0269215514546768]). Women with stress or mixed urinary incontinence were selected from a urogynecology clinic and randomized to pelvic floor muscle training (65 patients) or a control condition (65 patients).

The pelvic floor muscle training group had significant improvement in their symptoms of urinary incontinence and pelvic floor muscle strength, compared with the control group. Symptoms of urinary incontinence were significantly decreased in the training group.

This study is important because it demonstrates the utility of pelvic floor muscle training exercises under ideal circumstances.

However, the intervention provided in this study was intense and sophisticated – and it will be difficult, if not impossible, for most of us to replicate. A physiotherapist provided the training over a 12-week period, with 30-minute sessions three times a week for the first 2 weeks. Women also kept a training diary. Adherence to the protocol was 89% in the training group.

This is very different from the handout on Kegel’s we might be giving to our patients – with adherence to recommendations likely approaching 0%.

But now that we have these data, perhaps we can talk to our female patients more consistently and convincingly about the utility of this approach for reducing incontinence. If we are lucky and have a women’s health clinic with access to this type of expertise, this might be another option – at least before we refer them for higher-risk surgical procedures.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine and a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. They should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition, nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

The prevalence of urinary incontinence is 17%-55% among older women and 12%-42% among younger and middle-aged women. Only 45% of women with at least weekly symptoms seek medical care to address their symptoms.

For most of us, offering conservative measures is the most reasonable approach when women present. Pelvic floor muscle training, sometimes referred to as Kegel exercises, is usually one of the first things we discuss. Many women have heard this spiel before and may report having tried but not benefited from the exercises. This real or perceived lack of benefit may be related to either poor adherence or lack of efficacy.

In theory, pelvic floor muscle training builds strength and improves muscle tone, enhances conscious awareness of muscle groups, and increases perineal support by lifting pelvic viscera. But do clinical trial data support the use of pelvic muscle training for reducing urinary incontinence?

Dr. O. Celiker Tosun of Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey, and colleagues published the results of a randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of an individually prescribed 12-week home-based pelvic floor muscle exercise program (Clin. Rehabil. 2014 Aug. 20 [doi:10.1177/0269215514546768]). Women with stress or mixed urinary incontinence were selected from a urogynecology clinic and randomized to pelvic floor muscle training (65 patients) or a control condition (65 patients).

The pelvic floor muscle training group had significant improvement in their symptoms of urinary incontinence and pelvic floor muscle strength, compared with the control group. Symptoms of urinary incontinence were significantly decreased in the training group.

This study is important because it demonstrates the utility of pelvic floor muscle training exercises under ideal circumstances.

However, the intervention provided in this study was intense and sophisticated – and it will be difficult, if not impossible, for most of us to replicate. A physiotherapist provided the training over a 12-week period, with 30-minute sessions three times a week for the first 2 weeks. Women also kept a training diary. Adherence to the protocol was 89% in the training group.

This is very different from the handout on Kegel’s we might be giving to our patients – with adherence to recommendations likely approaching 0%.

But now that we have these data, perhaps we can talk to our female patients more consistently and convincingly about the utility of this approach for reducing incontinence. If we are lucky and have a women’s health clinic with access to this type of expertise, this might be another option – at least before we refer them for higher-risk surgical procedures.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine and a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. They should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition, nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

The prevalence of urinary incontinence is 17%-55% among older women and 12%-42% among younger and middle-aged women. Only 45% of women with at least weekly symptoms seek medical care to address their symptoms.

For most of us, offering conservative measures is the most reasonable approach when women present. Pelvic floor muscle training, sometimes referred to as Kegel exercises, is usually one of the first things we discuss. Many women have heard this spiel before and may report having tried but not benefited from the exercises. This real or perceived lack of benefit may be related to either poor adherence or lack of efficacy.

In theory, pelvic floor muscle training builds strength and improves muscle tone, enhances conscious awareness of muscle groups, and increases perineal support by lifting pelvic viscera. But do clinical trial data support the use of pelvic muscle training for reducing urinary incontinence?

Dr. O. Celiker Tosun of Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey, and colleagues published the results of a randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of an individually prescribed 12-week home-based pelvic floor muscle exercise program (Clin. Rehabil. 2014 Aug. 20 [doi:10.1177/0269215514546768]). Women with stress or mixed urinary incontinence were selected from a urogynecology clinic and randomized to pelvic floor muscle training (65 patients) or a control condition (65 patients).

The pelvic floor muscle training group had significant improvement in their symptoms of urinary incontinence and pelvic floor muscle strength, compared with the control group. Symptoms of urinary incontinence were significantly decreased in the training group.

This study is important because it demonstrates the utility of pelvic floor muscle training exercises under ideal circumstances.

However, the intervention provided in this study was intense and sophisticated – and it will be difficult, if not impossible, for most of us to replicate. A physiotherapist provided the training over a 12-week period, with 30-minute sessions three times a week for the first 2 weeks. Women also kept a training diary. Adherence to the protocol was 89% in the training group.

This is very different from the handout on Kegel’s we might be giving to our patients – with adherence to recommendations likely approaching 0%.

But now that we have these data, perhaps we can talk to our female patients more consistently and convincingly about the utility of this approach for reducing incontinence. If we are lucky and have a women’s health clinic with access to this type of expertise, this might be another option – at least before we refer them for higher-risk surgical procedures.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine and a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author. They should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition, nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case summary

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case summary

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case summary

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case summary

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

Discussion

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

Diagnosis

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

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

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

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

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

Pearl

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

Treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Environment. Discuss minimizing OCD triggers at home.

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

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

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

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

Case summary

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

Discussion

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

Diagnosis

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

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

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

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

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

Pearl

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

Treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Environment. Discuss minimizing OCD triggers at home.

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

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

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

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

Case summary

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

Discussion

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

Diagnosis

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

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

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

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

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

Pearl

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

Treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Environment. Discuss minimizing OCD triggers at home.

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

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

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

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