Prevalence Estimates of ADHD in a Sample of Inpatients With Alcohol Dependence.

Objective: ADHD is common in patients with alcohol dependence, but prevalence results are inconsistent. We investigated ADHD prevalence in a complex design to avoid over- or underdiagnosing. Method: Patients with alcohol dependence starting long-term residential treatment were included. A structured interview (Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults [DIVA]) was conducted on all patients. DIVA results indicating childhood or adulthood ADHD were assessed in successive diagnostic interviews by two expert clinicians. Results: 415 of 488 patients had completed the entire diagnostic assessment. ADHD prevalence was 20.5%. DIVA results correlated moderately with experts' diagnoses. In patients with ADHD, a higher comorbid illicit substance use was prevalent and alcohol dependence started earlier and was more severe. Conclusion: This study provides the largest sample on ADHD prevalence in alcohol dependent inpatients. Despite great efforts to avoid overestimation, we found every fifth patient to have ADHD. ADHD diagnosis should not be based solely on a structured interview but should be clinically confirmed.

[ADHD screening in alcohol dependent subjects : Psychometric characteristics of ADHD self-report scale and Wender Utah Rating Scale short form]. / ADHS-Screening bei Alkoholabhängigen : Psychometrische Eigenschaften der ADHS-Selbstbeurteilungsskala (ADHS-SB) und der Wender-Utah-Rating-Scale Kurzform (WURS­k).

BACKGROUND: Routine screening using self report questionnaires for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in patients with alcohol use disorder is recommended due to its high prevalence and the time-consuming and demanding diagnostic assessment. The psychometric properties of such self-report instruments have hardly been investigated in this patient group. METHODS: The performance of the ADHD self-report scale (ADHD-SR) and the German short form of the Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS-k) was determined in 402 patients with alcohol dependence during long-term residential weaning treatment. The diagnosis of adult ADHD had been confirmed in 85 of these patients using an extensive, standardized diagnostic procedure. RESULTS: The ADHD-SR at a cut-off ≥15 showed the best psychometric properties (sensitivity 75.3%, specificity 94.0%, positive predictive value, PPV 77.1%, negative predictive value, NPV 93.4%). The results of the WURS-k were unsatisfactory at the established cut-off ≥30 and also at lower cut-offs with more false positive screening results compared to the ADHD-SR. The combination of both instruments (ADHD-SR ≥ 15 and/or WURS-k ≥ 30) increased sensitivity (86.9%) albeit at the expense of a higher rate of false positive screening results (specificity 87.7%, PPV 65.2%). CONCLUSION: The ADHD-SR is a suitable instrument for routine screening of ADHD in alcohol dependent patients. To improve sensitivity, a lower cut-off (≥15) should be applied. The WURS-k as a single screening instrument cannot be recommended in alcohol dependent patients. If a higher sensitivity is desired, a combination of ADHD-SR and WURS-k is feasible.

Screening for adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in alcohol dependent patients: Underreporting of ADHD symptoms in self-report scales.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common comorbid disorder that is frequently overlooked in adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Moreover, identifying ADHD in AUD patients is time-consuming and difficult. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of two self-report screening instruments for adult ADHD in AUD patients. METHODS: 404 adults seeking residential treatment for AUD were screened using the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale Screening Self-Rating (CAARS-S-SR) and the Adult ADHD Rating Scale (ASRS). Results were compared with ADHD diagnosis obtained from a stepped approach: first, a structured interview (Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in adults 2.0.; DIVA) was applied; second, probable ADHD diagnoses had to be confirmed by two expert clinicians. RESULTS: At the previously reported cut-off values, ASRS and CAARS-S-SR showed low sensitivities of 57.1 and 70.6%. A high number of false negative results (NPV ASRS: 89.5%; CAARS-S-SR: 92.3%) indicates underreporting of ADHD symptoms. Sensitivity improved at lower cut-off (ASRS ≥ 11; CAARS-S-SR ≥60) or with a combination of both instruments at lower cut-offs. Area Under the Curve (AUC) for the combination of ASRS and CAARS-S-SR was superior to the AUCs of the single questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Underreporting of ADHD symptoms in ASRS and CAARS-S-SR of AUD patients requires lower cut-off values to detect the majority of ADHD, albeit at the expense of an increased rate of false-positive results. Cut-off values should be adjusted to the clinical setting. Clinicians should take into consideration that a negative screening result does not necessarily imply absence of ADHD.