Effect of Needle Gauge Size on Pain During Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Injection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Concerns related to pain from intravitreal injections are one of the key factors mentioned by patients when asked about therapy. In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we evaluate the literature of comparative clinical trials on the relationship between needle gauge size and pain experience during intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy. METHODS: We searched 12 literature databases on 14 October 2023 for comparative studies of gauge sizes for intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. The primary outcome of interest was the reported pain experience immediately after the injection. All outcomes of pain were transformed into standardized effect sizes using Cohen's d. Using a network meta-analysis approach, we were able to compare all gauge sizes and rank them according to the reported pain experience. RESULTS: We identified nine eligible studies with data on a total of 998 patients and 1004 eyes. Needle sizes studied were 26-gauge, 27-gauge, 29-gauge, 30-gauge, 32-gauge, 33-gauge, and 34-gauge. A complete network was present, which allowed for a network meta-analysis. We used the thickest (26-gauge) needle as the reference group and observed a clear trend of lower pain experience with thinner gauge sizes (d: -0.4, d: -2.7, d: -3.8, d: -4.8, d: -4.5, and d: -5.3; respectively, for 27-gauge, 29-gauge, 30-gauge, 32-gauge, 33-gauge, and 34-gauge). CONCLUSION: A gauge size of 30 or thinner may minimize patient discomfort related to intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy.

Evidence-Based Assessment of DSM-5 Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders.

The assessment of oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder-the Disruptive, Impulse Control and Conduct Disorders-can be affected by biases in clinical judgment, including overestimating concerns about distinguishing symptoms from normative behavior and stigma associated with diagnosing antisocial behavior. Recent nosological changes call for special attention during assessment to symptom dimensions of limited prosocial emotions and chronic irritability. The present review summarizes best practices for evidence-based assessment of these disorders and discusses tools to identify their symptoms. Despite the focus on disruptive behavior disorders, their high degree of overlap with disruptive mood dysregulation disorder can complicate assessment. Thus, the latter disorder is also included for discussion here. Good practice in the assessment of disruptive behavior disorders involves using several means of information gathering (e.g., clinical interview, standardized rating scales or checklists), ideally via multiple informants (e.g., parent-, teacher-, and self-report). A commitment to providing a full and accurate diagnostic assessment, with careful and attentive reference to diagnostic guidelines, will mitigate concerns regarding biases.

Pragmatic language and associations with externalizing behaviors in autistic individuals and those who have lost the autism diagnosis.

Background: Pragmatic language weaknesses, a core feature of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), are implicated in externalizing behavior disorders (Gremillion & Martel, 2014). Particularly in a clinical setting, these co-occurring externalizing disorders are very common in autism; rates of Attentional Deficit-Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) are as high as 83% (ADHD) and 73% (ODD; Joshi et al., 2010). It is possible that pragmatic language weaknesses impact the ability to effectively communicate one's needs, which may lead autistic children to utilize externalizing behaviors in order to achieve a desired outcome (Ketelaars et al., 2010; Rodas et al., 2017). Methods: The aim of the current study is to investigate the relationship between pragmatic language, assessed via multiple modalities, and externalizing behaviors, assessed by parent interview, in youth with autistic (n=33) or neurotypical (NT; n=34) developmental histories, along with youth diagnosed with autism, who lost the diagnosis (LAD) by adolescence (n=31). Results: The autism group had significantly more pragmatic language difficulties, and more externalizing behaviors and disorders; ADHD symptoms were particularly more prevalent, while LAD and NT groups did not differ. Challenges in pragmatic language abilities were associated with more externalizing symptoms when controlling for other facts that typically influence such symptoms, including nonverbal cognition, structural language, executive functioning, and autistic characteristics, but did not remain when age was included in the model. Conclusions: We discuss the mechanisms underlying difficult-to-manage externalizing behaviors and implications for interventions and long-term outcomes for youth with and without a history of autism.

Frustration Response and Regulation Among Irritable Children: Contributions of Chronic Irritability, Internalizing, and Externalizing Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: The need to understand and treat childhood chronic irritability (CI; i.e. frequent temper loss and angry/irritable mood) is imperative. CI predicts impairment across development and complex comorbidities with both internalizing and externalizing disorders. Research has emphasized frustration reactivity as a key mechanism of CI. However, there are understudied components of frustrative non-reward, particularly regulation-oriented frustration recovery, frustration tolerance, and cognitive control, that may further explain impairments specific to CI beyond comorbid symptoms. METHOD: Sixty-three community children (N = 25 CI/38 non-CI) and a parent completed surveys and the computerized Frustration Go/No-Go (FGNG) and Mirror Tracing Persistence Task (MTPT). Analyses compared task performance and self-rated affect across youth with or without CI, with further comparison based on negative/positive screen for ADHD (N = 45-/18+). RESULTS: In mixed effects models assessing change across task, the CI group did not demonstrate more intense frustration on the MTPT or rigged FGNG block but exhibited persisting frustration and inhibitory control difficulties into the FGNG recovery period; the CI+ADHD subgroup drove recovery effects. In GEE and logistic regression models including dimensional symptom clusters, only internalizing symptoms predicted child frustration intolerance and reactivity across tasks. ADHD severity was also associated with higher MTPT frustration reactivity, while oppositional behavior predicted lower frustration. Better frustration recovery was associated with lower irritability, but higher internalizing symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Co-occurring symptoms may better explain some frustration-related difficulties among youth with CI. Difficulties with postfrustration affect and inhibitory control recovery suggest the importance of characterizing CI by self-regulation impairments.

The Irritable and Oppositional Dimensions of Oppositional Defiant Disorder: Integral Factors in the Explanation of Affective and Behavioral Psychopathology.

Oppositional defiant disorder includes distinct but inseparable dimensions of chronic irritability and oppositional behavior. The dimensions have been identified in early childhood to adulthood, and show discriminant associations with internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. The introduction of disruptive mood dysregulation disorders and the requirements that it take precedence over oppositional defiant disorder diagnostically are not supported by evidence and introduce confusion about the structure and linkages of irritability and oppositional behavior, and obscure the importance of the behavioral dimension in explaining and predicting poor outcomes. A dimensional framework with irritability, oppositionality, callous-unemotional traits, and aggression may more fully describe antisocial outcomes.

Feasibility and acceptability of a brief cognitive-behavioral group intervention for chronic irritability in youth.

Chronic irritability is a core feature of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD), but few irritability-specific interventions have been tested. Existing evidence-based treatments for disruptive behavior problems offer a strong template. This pilot study was conducted to develop and evaluate a brief irritability-specific module of a validated cognitive-behavioral group intervention for children (Stop Now And Plan (SNAP) Program). Stop now and plan for irritability (I-SNAP) retained core elements of SNAP in a shortened 6-week format. Community families with irritable children (M = 8.44 years, SD = 1.42) were recruited for parent and child emotion regulation skills groups. Of 18 children enrolled (72% male), 14 completed (78%). Half of children attended all six sessions, though homework compliance was lower. All parents reported favorable impressions and would recommend I-SNAP to others. Significant improvements were seen from pre- to post-treatment across parent-reported irritability, ODD symptoms, emotion regulation, and disciplinary effectiveness. This pilot study provides initial support suggesting I-SNAP may be feasible to implement and acceptable to parents. In addition, pilot analyses demonstrated that this brief group intervention was associated with positive outcomes consistent with treatment targets. This preliminary evidence supports the need for further research to assess I-SNAP's effects on irritability relative to control groups.