The effects of collaborative care versus consultation liaison for anxiety disorders and depression in Denmark: two randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care (CC) and consultation liaison (CL) are two conceptual models aiming to improve mental healthcare in primary care. The effects of these models have not been compared in a Danish setting. AIMS: To examine the effects of CC versus CL for persons with anxiety and depression in Danish general practices (trial registration: NCT03113175 and NCT03113201). METHOD: Two randomised parallel superiority trials for anxiety disorders and depression were carried out in 2018-2019. In the CC-group, care managers collaborated with general practitioners (GPs) to provide evidence-based treatment according to structured treatment plans. They followed up and provided psychoeducation and/or cognitive-behavioural therapy. The GPs initiated pharmacological treatment if indicated, and a psychiatrist provided supervision. In the CL-group, the intervention consisted of the GP's usual treatment. However, the psychiatrist and care manager could be consulted. Primary outcomes were depression symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory-II, BDI-II) in the depression trial and anxiety symptoms (Beck Anxiety Inventory, BAI) in the anxiety trial at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 302 participants with anxiety disorders and 389 participants with depression were included. A significant difference in BDI-II score was found in the depression trial, with larger symptom reductions in the CC-group (CC: 12.7, 95% CI 11.4-14.0; CL: 17.5, 95% CI 16.2-18.9; Cohen's d = -0.50, P ≤ 0.001). There was a significant difference in BAI in the anxiety trial (CC: 14.9, 95% CI 13.5-16.3; CL: 17.9, 95% CI 16.5-19.3; Cohen's d = -0.34, P ≤ 0.001), with larger symptom reductions in the CC-group. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care was an effective model to improve outcomes for persons with depression and anxiety disorders.

Collaborative care vs consultation liaison for depression and anxiety disorders in general practice: study protocol for two randomized controlled trials (the Danish Collabri Flex trials).

BACKGROUND: Models of collaborative care and consultation liaison propose organizational changes to improve the quality of care for people with common mental disorders, such as anxiety and depression. Some literature suggests only short-term positive effects of consultation liaison on patient-related outcomes, whereas collaborative care demonstrates both short-term and long-term positive effects. To our knowledge, only one randomized trial has compared the effects of these models. Collaborative care was superior to consultation liaison in reducing symptoms of depression for up to 3 months, but the authors found no difference at 9-months' follow-up. The Collabri Flex Trial for Depression and the Collabri Flex Trial for Anxiety aim to compare the effects of collaborative care with those of a form of consultation liaison that contains potential contaminating elements from collaborative care. The trials build on knowledge from the previous cluster-randomized Collabri trials. METHODS: Two randomized, investigator-initiated, parallel-group, superiority trials have been established: one investigating the effects of collaborative care vs consultation liaison for depression and one investigating the effects of collaborative care vs consultation liaison for generalized anxiety, panic disorder and social anxiety disorder at 6-months' follow-up. Participants are recruited from general practices in the Capital Region of Denmark: 240 in the depression trial and 284 in the anxiety trial. The primary outcome is self-reported depression symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II)) in the depression trial and self-reported anxiety symptoms (Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)) in the anxiety trial. In both trials, the self-reported secondary outcomes are general psychological problems and symptoms (Symptom Checklist 90-Revised), functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) and general well-being (World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index). In the depression trial, BAI is an additional secondary outcome, and BDI-II is an additional secondary outcome in the anxiety trial. Explorative outcomes will also be collected. DISCUSSION: The results will supplement those of the cluster-randomized Collabri trials and provide pivotal information about the effects of collaborative care in Denmark. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03113175 and NCT03113201 . Registered on 13 April 2017.

Methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents - assessment of adverse events in non-randomised studies.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Fourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.Primary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.In the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).Secondary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).With non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.Given the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention, they are hyperactive and impulsive.Methylphenidate is the drug most often prescribed to treat children and adolescents with ADHD but, despite its widespread use, this is the first comprehensive systematic review of its benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2015 we searched six databases (CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citations Index), and two trials registers. We checked for additional trials in the reference lists of relevant reviews and included trials. We contacted the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture methylphenidate to request published and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. At least 75% of participants needed to have an intellectual quotient of at least 70 (i.e. normal intellectual functioning). Outcomes assessed included ADHD symptoms, serious adverse events, non-serious adverse events, general behaviour and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seventeen review authors participated in data extraction and risk of bias assessment, and two review authors independently performed all tasks. We used standard methodological procedures expected within Cochrane. Data from parallel-group trials and first period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses; separate analyses were undertaken using post-cross-over data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for high risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, heterogeneity and publication bias. MAIN RESULTS: The studies.We included 38 parallel-group trials (5111 participants randomised) and 147 cross-over trials (7134 participants randomised). Participants included individuals of both sexes, at a boys-to-girls ratio of 5:1, and participants' ages ranged from 3 to 18 years across most studies (in two studies ages ranged from 3 to 21 years). The average age across all studies was 9.7 years. Most participants were from high-income countries.The duration of methylphenidate treatment ranged from 1 to 425 days, with an average duration of 75 days. Methylphenidate was compared to placebo (175 trials) or no intervention (10 trials). Risk of Bias.All 185 trials were assessed to be at high risk of bias. Primary outcomes. Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.90 to -0.64; 19 trials, 1698 participants; very low-quality evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -9.6 points (95% CI -13.75 to -6.38) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points; DuPaul 1991a). A change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS is considered clinically to represent the minimal relevant difference. There was no evidence that methylphenidate was associated with an increase in serious (e.g. life threatening) adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.22; 9 trials, 1532 participants; very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.02 to 33.2). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Among those prescribed methylphenidate, 526 per 1000 (range 448 to 615) experienced non-serious adverse events, compared with 408 per 1000 in the control group. This equates to a 29% increase in the overall risk of any non-serious adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51; 21 trials, 3132 participants; very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.29 (CI 1.06 to 1.56). The most common non-serious adverse events were sleep problems and decreased appetite. Children in the methylphenidate group were at 60% greater risk for trouble sleeping/sleep problems (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.23; 13 trials, 2416 participants), and 266% greater risk for decreased appetite (RR 3.66, 95% CI 2.56 to 5.23; 16 trials, 2962 participants) than children in the control group.Teacher-rated general behaviour seemed to improve with methylphenidate (SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.71; 5 trials, 668 participants; very low-quality evidence).A change of seven points on the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ; range 0 to 100 points; Landgraf 1998) has been deemed a minimal clinically relevant difference. The change reported in a meta-analysis of three trials corresponds to a MD of 8.0 points (95% CI 5.49 to 10.46) on the CHQ, which suggests that methylphenidate may improve parent-reported quality of life (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80; 3 trials, 514 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate may improve teacher-reported ADHD symptoms, teacher-reported general behaviour, and parent-reported quality of life among children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. However, the low quality of the underpinning evidence means that we cannot be certain of the magnitude of the effects. Within the short follow-up periods typical of the included trials, there is some evidence that methylphenidate is associated with increased risk of non-serious adverse events, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite, but no evidence that it increases risk of serious adverse events.Better designed trials are needed to assess the benefits of methylphenidate. Given the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the particular difficulties for blinding of participants and outcome assessors point to the advantage of large, 'nocebo tablet' controlled trials. These use a placebo-like substance that causes adverse events in the control arm that are comparable to those associated with methylphenidate. However, for ethical reasons, such trials should first be conducted with adults, who can give their informed consent.Future trials should publish depersonalised individual participant data and report all outcomes, including adverse events. This will enable researchers conducting systematic reviews to assess differences between intervention effects according to age, sex, comorbidity, type of ADHD and dose. Finally, the findings highlight the urgent need for large RCTs of non-pharmacological treatments.

Methylphenidate for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: Cochrane systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

STUDY QUESTION: Is methylphenidate beneficial or harmful for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents? METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to February 2015 for parallel and crossover randomised clinical trials comparing methylphenidate with placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents with ADHD. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) were conducted. Quality was assessed using GRADE. Teachers, parents, and observers rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour. STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS: The analyses included 38 parallel group trials (n=5111, median treatment duration 49 days) and 147 crossover trials (n=7134, 14 days). The average age across all studies was 9.7 years. The analysis suggested a beneficial effect of methylphenidate on teacher rated symptoms in 19 parallel group trials (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, n=1698), corresponding to a mean difference of -9.6 points on the ADHD rating scale. There was no evidence that methylphenidate was associated with an increase in serious adverse events (risk ratio 0.98, nine trials, n=1532; TSA adjusted intervention effect RR 0.91). Methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk of non-serious adverse events (1.29, 21 trials, n=3132; TSA adjusted RR 1.29). Teacher rated general behaviour seemed to improve with methylphenidate (SMD -0.87, five trials, n=668) A change of 7 points on the child health questionnaire (CHQ) has been deemed a minimal clinically relevant difference. The change reported in a meta-analysis of three trials corresponds to a mean difference of 8.0 points on the CHQ (range 0-100 points), which suggests that methylphenidate may improve parent reported quality of life (SMD 0.61, three trials, n=514). 96.8% of trials were considered high risk of bias trials according to the Cochrane guidelines. All outcomes were assessed very low quality according to GRADE. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: The results suggest that among children and adolescents with a diagnosis of ADHD, methylphenidate may improve teacher reported symptoms of ADHD and general behaviour and parent reported quality of life. However, given the risk of bias in the included studies, and the very low quality of outcomes, the magnitude of the effects is uncertain. Methylphenidate is associated with an increased risk of non-serious but not serious adverse events. FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING: Region Zealand Research Foundation and Copenhagen Trial Unit. Competing interests are given in the full paper on bmj.com. Full data are available in the version of this review published in The Cochrane Library.

Use of health care services before and after a natural disaster among survivors with and without PTSD.

OBJECTIVE: This study used a questionnaire to identify individuals who met criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) ten months after surviving a disaster and compared their use of health care services before and after the disaster with that of survivors who did not meet criteria for PTSD. METHODS: Ten months after the December 26, 2004, Southeast Asian tsunami, Danish tourists who had been in areas exposed to the disaster were mailed a questionnaire asking about demographic characteristics and exposure to the tsunami. The questionnaire included the PTSD Checklist, which measures symptoms of posttraumatic stress. Individuals who met DSM-IV PTSD criterion A1--in this case, being caught, touched, or chased by the waves or having witnessed the death, serious injury, or suffering of others--were included in the analyses (N=635). The Danish National Health Service Register provided longitudinal data on annual number of contacts with health care services before (2002-2004) and after (2005-2007) the tsunami. RESULTS: Survivors with PTSD or partial PTSD used health care services more than survivors without PTSD before and after the tsunami. The severity of posttraumatic stress symptoms was positively correlated with postdisaster use of health care services. However, when adjusted for predisaster health care use, this association was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Postdisaster health care service utilization was predicted by predisaster health care service utilization and was hardly affected by the onset of PTSD itself. Associations between PTSD and subsequent health problems must be interpreted with caution.

Exposure characteristics and peri-trauma emotional reactions during the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia--what predicts posttraumatic stress and depressive symptoms?

This study examined the impact of disaster-related stressors and peri-trauma emotional reactions on mental health 10 months after the 2004 Southeast Asian tsunami disaster in a sample of 660 Danish tourists evacuated from the disaster area. The estimated rates of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression were 10.2% and 6.4%, respectively. The strongest predictors of posttraumatic stress and depressive symptoms were peri-trauma fear and dissociation. Among exposure variables, only witnessing others suffering was associated with both these disorders, whereas loss of family members and history of psychiatric treatment emerged as independent risk factors for depression. These variables explained a smaller proportion of variance in posttraumatic stress symptoms. These findings contribute to a body of evidence showing the critical role that appraisal of trauma plays in posttraumatic stress disorder and depression.

Tsunami-affected Scandinavian tourists: disaster exposure and post-traumatic stress symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Studies of short- and long-term mental effects of natural disasters have reported a high prevalence of post-traumatic stress. Less is known about disaster-exposed tourists repatriated to stable societies. AIMS: To examine the association between exposure to the 2004 Southeast Asian tsunami and symptoms of post-traumatic stress in three Scandinavian tourist populations. METHODS: Postal survey of Norwegian, Danish and Swedish Southeast Asia tourists registered by the police when arriving at national airports. Follow-up time was 6 (Norway), 10 (Denmark) and 14 months (Sweden) post-disaster; 6772 individuals were included and categorized according to disaster exposure: danger exposed (caught or chased by the waves), non-danger exposed (other disaster-related stressors) and non-exposed. Outcome measures were the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Check List (PCL). RESULTS: Danger exposed reported more post-traumatic stress than non-danger exposed, and the latter reported more symptoms than non-exposed (each P<0.001). Comparison of the Norwegian and Swedish data suggested that symptoms were attenuated at 14 months follow-up (P<0.001). Female gender and low education, but not age, predicted higher levels of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Disaster-exposed tourists repatriated to unaffected home environments show long-term post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms related to the severity of exposure.

Sexual dysfunctions in men treated for testicular cancer--secondary publication.

Patients treated for testicular cancer have increased risk of ejaculatory, orgasmic and erectile dysfunction compared with healthy men. The underlying relations are unclear. This review describes sexual dysfunctions that are associated with various treatment modalities. One meta-analysis and 11 original works were examined. About one third of the patients experience one or more sexual problems in relation to the treatment. Only retroperitoneal surgery can cause a specific sexual dysfunction, namely loss of ejaculation ability or ejaculatory functioning. Psychosexual causes are important for understanding sexual dysfunctions in patients with testicular cancer.

[Sexual dysfunction in men treated for testicular cancer]. / Seksuelle dysfunktioner hos maend, der er behandlet for testikelkraeft.

Patients treated for testicular cancer have a higher risk of ejaculatory, orgasmic and erectile dysfunctions compared with healthy males. The causality is not clear. In this paper we assess sexual dysfunction in the different treatment modalities based on primarily 1 meta-analysis and 11 original articles. During treatment, approximately 1/3 of patients experience one or more sexual dysfunctions. Only retroperitodineal surgery is significantly correlated with a specific sexual dysfunction, which is loss of ejaculation. Psychosexual causes seem to be important in the understanding of sexual dysfunctions in the aftermath of testicular-cancer treatment.