Other studies have examined the rate of PCM in children and adole

Other studies have examined the rate of PCM in children and adolescents with ADHD but typically have been limited to a single region and have not reported whether the patients had concomitant diagnosis of psychiatric disorders [25]. The most common form of PCM recorded in our study was antipsychotics (5.4 %). Atypical PS 341 antipsychotics have been studied

as off-label treatment for ADHD [22] but are not recognized by current practice guidelines in Europe [2, 12, 14]. European guidelines do not recommend the use of any psychotropic medications for ADHD, as these therapies do not have an indication for ADHD in children and adolescents. Rather, most European guidelines recommend the use of stimulant therapy as first-line pharmacologic treatment among school-age children as part of a multimodal treatment plan, and non-stimulant therapy in certain circumstances (e.g., when patients have a suboptimal response or intolerable adverse effects with stimulants [2, 13, 16]). A majority of ADHD patients will be treated with stimulants, which are an effective first-line treatment option of which about 70 % of patients

will respond adequately [28, 29]. However, approximately 30 % of patients do not respond adequately to stimulant therapy and may require additional interventions, either pharmacologic or behavioral. As such, presently the use of PCM may fill some of this void; hence the outcomes of PCM use need to be better understood. Greater consideration should be given to developing TCL individual treatment strategies that allow for different dosages and switching

selleck products among different approved medications for ADHD, in contrast to the current practice of PCM use in ADHD with medications that do not have a product label indication for ADHD [2]. Such strategies would also allow the consideration of the complexities involved in R406 mouse managing ADHD, relying more extensively on clinical impression and partnerships with caretakers [30]. Consequently, further prospective studies are needed to better understand the use patterns of PCM in ADHD and the true impact of PCM in ADHD patients, caretakers, and their physicians. The main strength of this study was the geographically wide pan-European population of children and adolescents with ADHD that represented six European countries and enabled a sufficient sample size to describe the rates and demographics from this convenience sample. The use of physician questionnaires, based on their own abstraction of their patient’s medical record data, could have resulted in PCM use estimates that reflect real-world treatment patterns. In addition, the study design allowed for the collection of data not often collected in clinical trials or available in administrative claims databases. This study contained certain limitations that must be considered alongside the results.

Comments are closed.