A recent study from Istanbul sheds light on how psychiatric admissions and diagnoses changed during the first few months of the pandemic compared to previous periods, offering critical insights for parents, clinicians, and policymakers.
This study, conducted by a team of researchers led by Ozalp Ekinci, examined psychiatric admissions among children and adolescents during 2019 and 2020.
By looking at diagnosis rates for various psychiatric conditions, the researchers aimed to pinpoint shifts in the mental health landscape as a direct response to the pandemic.
The analysis revealed several notable trends in psychiatric diagnoses among children and adolescents:
This study’s findings highlight some key takeaways that can guide mental health support efforts for children and adolescents:
As we continue to see the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, studies like this one serve as important reminders of the unique mental health needs of young people. Supporting children and adolescents through proactive and targeted mental health services—especially during times of crisis—will be crucial to fostering resilience and well-being in future generations.
Neurofeedback, also known as EEG (electroencephalogram)biofeedback, is a treatment that seeks to alleviate symptoms of various neurological and mental health disorders, including ADHD. It does this through immediate feedback from a computer program that tracks a client's brainwave activity, then uses sound or visual signals to retrain these brain signals. This in principle enables patients to learn to regulate and improve their brain function and reduce symptoms.
An Iranian study team recently performed a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature. It identified seventeen randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of neurofeedback treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD that could be aggregated for meta-analysis.
A meta-analysis of twelve RCTs with a combined total of 740 youths looked at parent ratings of changes in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms, and separately of changes in inattention symptoms. In both instances, the net pooled effect centered on zero.
A meta-analysis of nine RCTs with a combined total of 787 youths examined teacher ratings. Once again, the pooled change hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms centered on zero. For inattention symptoms, the teacher ratings centered on a tiny improvement, but it did not approach statistical significance. The 95% confidence interval stretched well into negative territory.
There was no sign of publication bias. Between-study heterogeneity, on the other hand, was high, with some small sample size RCTs pointing to reduced symptoms, and other small sample size RCTs pointing to increased symptoms. However, the RCTs with the larger sample sizes clustered close around zero effect size.
The authors concluded,"The results provide preliminary evidence that neurofeedback treatment is not an efficacious clinical method for ADHD."
An international study team conducted the first meta-analysis of studies examining differences in time perception between persons with ADHD and normally developing controls. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature identified 55 studies that could be combined into various subgroups for meta-analysis.
A meta-analysis of 25 studies with a combined 1,633 participants looking at time discrimination found a medium effect size deficit among persons with ADHD in the number of correct comparisons between the length of two signals. There was little between-study heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.
Turning to time estimation, a meta-analysis of eight studies with a combined 1,024 participants found a small-to-medium effect size increase in absolute errors (i.e., the absolute value of deviation between the specified and the estimated time interval, representing the absolute amount of error regardless of its direction) among persons with ADHD, compared to controls. Again, there was little between-study heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.
A meta-analysis of seven studies with combined 380 participants looked at differences in time production, in which they had to produce a previously specified time interval by pressing and holding a button. In this case, those with ADHD manifested a small effect size increase in absolute error relative to their normally developing counterparts. There was moderate between-study heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias.
Finally, a meta-analysis of 26 studies with combined 2,364 participants examined differences in time reproduction, in which they had to reproduce the duration of a previously presented stimulus by pressing and holding a button. Here, those with ADHD exhibited a medium effect size increase in absolute error. There was moderate between-study heterogeneity and no indication of publication bias.
An acknowledged limitation of these meta-analyses was the inability to assess the effects of pharmacological treatment. In addition, 84% of the studies did not report the ethnicity of participants.
The team concluded, "We found meta-analytic evidence of significant deficits in individuals with ADHD across all timing paradigms ... individuals with ADHD have difficulties to discriminate stimuli that vary from each other for only several milliseconds, and they are more variable in their time estimates of several seconds irrespective of the paradigm examined, which may both be driven by their lowered alertness levels."
They suggested that this might eventually become a criterion to help diagnose ADHD: "Our findings have possible clinical implications, albeit not currently directly applicable to the clinical practice. As timing has been proposed as an independent neuropsychological pathway to ADHD, timing tasks should be considered in the clinical assessment of ADHD to better characterize the clinical profile of the patient... To characterize further the phenotype of the patient during the diagnostic process that may deserve clinical attention, we suggest developing a tool based on the time estimation paradigm. The time estimation accuracy score not only represents an intuitive score reflecting faster internal clock mechanisms in individuals with ADHD, but the paradigm also shows high internal consistency and test-retest reliability, allowing for a reliable assessment of developmental or interventional changes in timing abilities related to developmental factors or external interventions."
Persons with type 1 diabetes were found to be eight times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than those who were not diabetic.
Taiwan has a mandatory single-payer universal health insurance system, the National Health Insurance (NHI), that records diagnoses and prescriptions across virtually the entire resident population. Out of the roughly 28 million residents covered by NHI, a randomly assigned sample of 3 million is tracked in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database(NHIRD).
Expert panels have to confirm all diagnoses of severe systemic autoimmune diseases, ensuring a high level of accuracy.
A Taiwanese study team availed itself of these records to explore the link between type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and ADHD. ADHD diagnoses were made by board-certified psychiatrists, based on comprehensive interviews and clinical judgment.
The team found a total of 6,226 cases diagnosed with T1DM in the decade from 2001 through 2010 and followed them through the end of 2001. It matched each case with ten age- and sex-matched non-T1DM controls from the same database, for a total of 62,260 controls.
Persons with type 1 diabetes were found to be eight times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than those who were not diabetic. There was no difference in the risk ratio between youth and adults. The risk of ADHD among females with T1DM was only slightly lower than among males: sevenfold greater, rather than 8.5 times greater.
The authors concluded, "Our findings indicate the importance of the close monitoring of the mental health condition of patients with T1DM by clinicians ... The exact path of mechanisms between T1DM and major psychiatric disorders should be elucidated in future studies."
A Chinese study team performed a systematic search of peer-reviewed journal literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of cognitive training as a treatment for youths with ADHD.
Seventeen RCTs with a combined total of 1,075 participants met standards for inclusion in a series of meta-analyses. Seven RCTs used waitlist controls, seven used placebo training, two used treatment-as-usual, and one used active knowledge training. Participants were unmediated in four RCTs, with varying proportions of medicated participants in the remaining thirteen.
A meta-analysis of 15 RCTs, with a combined 789 participants, assessed changes in inattention symptoms following treatment, as rated by parents or clinicians. It found a small-to-medium effect size improvement in symptoms of inattention. There was no indication of publication bias, but between-study heterogeneity was very high.
But that gain vanished altogether when combining only the six RCTs that were blinded, meaning the symptom evaluators had no idea which participants had received cognitive treatment and which participants had not. There was zero difference between the treatment and control groups. Significantly, between-study heterogeneity also diminished markedly, becoming low to moderate.
A second meta-analysis, of 15 RCTs with a combined 723 participants, assessed changes in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms following treatment, as rated by parents or clinicians. It found no significant difference between participants who received cognitive training and controls. There was no sign of publication bias, and between-study heterogeneity was moderate-to-high.
The three remaining meta-analyses looked for improvements in executive functions, using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF).
A meta-analysis of 13 RCTs, with a combined 748 participants, found a small-to-medium effect size improvement in the global executive composite index of BRIEF, as evaluated by parents. There was no sign of publication bias, and between-study heterogeneity was moderate-to-high.
But that improvement again disappeared altogether when considering only the five RCTs that were blinded. Between-study heterogeneity also became insignificant.
A meta-analysis of 6 RCTs with 401 participants found no significant improvement in the behavioral regulation index of BRIEF. Heterogeneity was negligible.
Finally, a meta-analysis of 7 RCTs with 463 participants also found no significant improvement in the metacognition index of BRIEF. In this case, between-study heterogeneity was high.
While acknowledging that "when analyses were set in blinded measures, effect sizes were not statistically significant," the author nevertheless concluded, "In summary, multiple cognitive training alleviates the presentation of inattention and improves general executive function behaviors in children with ADHD." This suggests an underlying bias on the part of the study team in favor of treatment even when not supported by best (i.e., blinded) methodological practices.
A meta-analysis of eight studies with a combined total of over 396,000 persons with ADHD reported a twofold greater risk of premature death in persons with ADHD as compared with the general population. There was no significant difference in mortality between males and females with ADHD.
But when natural causes of death, primarily disease, were distinguished from unnatural causes, such as injuries and poisoning, virtually all the increased risk was attributable to the latter.
A meta-analysis of four studies with a combined total of over 394,000 participants with ADHD found no significant increase in natural mortality among persons with ADHD. This held for both males and females.
But a meta-analysis of ten studies with over 430,000 persons with ADHD found a nearly threefold increase in unnatural mortality (injuries, poisoning, etc.) in persons with ADHD. Among females (five studies, over 110,000 participants) the increase was threefold. Males with ADHD (five studies, over 310,000 participants) were 2.5 times more susceptible to premature death.
An important caution: in all of these meta-analyses, between-study heterogeneity was extreme, meaning there was little consistency from one study to the next. Moreover, no effort was made to evaluate the likelihood of publication bias.
The largest study, with over 275,000 participants with ADHD, found a negligible and only marginally significant 7% increased all-cause risk of death. It found no increase in natural causes of mortality, but a 50% increase in unnatural causes of premature mortality.
The authors described these results as "suggestive," but emphasized that "the evidence was judged as only low confidence," in line with "inconsistent" evidence from previous nationwide population studies: in Denmark, a twofold increase in all-cause mortality; in Sweden, a fourfold increase; but in Taiwan, a tiny 7% increase that was at the limit of statistical significance, once the data was fully adjusted for confounding factors.
That led the authors to suggest "that all relevant potential confounders should be accounted for" in "future studies."
Bipolar disorder is a severe mental illness that afflicts over one in fifty persons worldwide. About a quarter of those with bipolar disorder also has alcohol use disorder (AUD). This in turn complicates the treatment of their bipolar disorder. It exacerbates their symptoms, makes them more likely to be suicidal, and increases the risk of hospitalization.
More than one in five persons with bipolar disorder also have ADHD, which is likewise known to be correlated with AUD. To what extent does ADHD contribute to AUD in persons with comorbid bipolar disorder?
A European study team recently conducted a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature to address that question. The team identified eleven studies with a combined total of 2,734 participants that could be aggregated to perform a meta-analysis.
They found that persons with comorbid ADHD and bipolar disorder were two and a half times more likely to be diagnosed with alcohol use disorder than persons with bipolar disorder but no ADHD.
Between-study heterogeneity was negligible, and there was no sign of publication bias.
The authors concluded, "At least a portion of the high rates of AUD in BD may, thereby, be related to comorbid ADHD. Longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the nature of this relationship."
Meta-analysis discovers clear link between mothers with PCOS and children with ADHD.
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects somewhere between 6 and 20% of women of reproductive age. Typical effects include:
· failure to ovulate;
· high levels of male hormones (androgens), which can lead to acne, seborrhea, hair loss on the scalp, increased body or facial hair, and infrequent or absent menstruation;
· metabolic disruption, including obesity and insulin resistance.
In pregnancy, PCOS is also known to increase the chances of birth complications.
Previous studies have suggested a link between maternal PCOS and ADHD.
A team of Arabian (Saudi and United Arab Emirates) researchers conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed medical literature and were able to identify four studies with a total of 1,354,182 participants that could be combined into a meta-analysis.
The meta-analysis found that children born to mothers with PCOS were 43% more likely to develop ADHD. The 95% confidence interval stretched from 35% to 51%, indicating a highly reliable finding.
Moreover, there was between-study variation: They all produced essentially identical results. There was also no sign of publication bias.
"However,"the authors noted, "the reported results do not necessarily provide definitive findings of a causal inference due to the randomized study design. All the included studies were observational in design." With this caution, they could only conclude that "the results of this meta-analysis showed that there might be a link between maternal PCOS and the risk of developing ASD and ADHD in the offspring."
After adjusting for genetic and environmental risk factors, meta-analysis shows Caesarean delivery does not appear to be an ADHD risk factor.
Previous meta-analyses have found an association between cesarean delivery (CD) and subsequent ADHD in children delivered in that manner. Some have theorized that by bypassing the birth canal, children delivered via CD may acquire their first microbiota from the hospital environment rather than from their mothers, which could disturb the normal development of the nervous system, including the brain.
Nevertheless, earlier studies have not fully explored the role of confounding factors.
A team of Swedish researchers availed themselves of the country's all-encompassing system of national population and health care registers to examine a cohort of over a 1.1 million single births from 1990 through 2003 and followed up through 2013.
They distinguished between planned CD and intrapartum (i.e., during the act of birth) CD. The latter is performed in response to complications with childbirth. This distinction could matter both because of different levels of exposure to the maternal gut microbiota, and because "intrapartum CD is often the result of complications during pregnancy (e.g., preeclampsia) or delivery (e.g., fetal distress), which could affect brain development."
Of 1,179,341 individuals, 1,048,838 were delivered vaginally, 59,514 were delivered by planned CD, and 70,989 were delivered by intrapartum CD.
After adjusting for the child's year of birth, gestational age, age of mother and father at birth, parity, mother's highest education level at birth, maternal smoking during pregnancy, maternal and paternal history of psychiatric disorders, maternal hypertension, maternal diabetes, maternal infections during pregnancy, fetal MAL presentation, large for gestational age, polyhydramnios, oligohydramnios, preeclampsia, and pelvic disproportion, children born by planned CD were 17% more likely to have ADHD.
After adjusting for all previously listed variables plus placenta disorders, dystocia failed induction, and fetal distress, children born by intrapartum CD were 10% more likely to have ADHD.
So far, the analysis confirmed results from previous meta-analyses.
But by exploring such a large cohort, it also became possible to compare ADHD prevalence, not only among unrelated individuals, but also among siblings and cousins, and thereby assess the role of confounders arising from genetics or shared environment.
Whether between full siblings or full maternal cousins, the associations between both types of CD and subsequent ADHD became weak and statistically non-significant.
The authors concluded, "The findings of this study suggest that the association between CD and increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in the children was most likely explained by unmeasured familial confounding."
ADHD aggregates with Alzheimer's disease and any dementia within families
Alzheimer's disease is characterized by an aging-related progressive deterioration in cognition and ability for independent living. It is the most common form of dementia. Few studies, with limited sample sizes, have probed the relationship between ADHD and dementia, with conflicting results.
A Swedish study team used the country's universal system of population and health registers' linked through unique personal identification numbers - to examine patterns among the more than 2.1 million Swedes born between 1980 and 2001.
Each of these individuals was then linked to their biological relatives, parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts through the Medical Birth Register and Multi-generation Register.
This generated three cohorts of relatives representing different levels of genetic relatedness: parents sharing half of their genes; grandparents sharing a quarter of their genes; and uncles and aunts who also share a quarter of their genes with index persons. After linking index persons to their biological relatives, the study cohorts contained more than 2.2 million parents, over 2.5 million grandparents, and almost a million uncles/aunts.
By the end of follow-up, 3,042 (0.13%) parents, 171,732 (6.82%) grandparents, and 1,369 (0.15%) uncles/aunts had a diagnosis of Alzheimer's. The numbers for any dementia were 3,792 (0.17%) for parents, 197,843 (7.86%) for grandparents, and 1,697 (0.18%) for uncles/aunts.
Parents of persons with ADHD were 34% more likely to have any dementia, and 55% more likely to have Alzheimer's. Among grandparents of persons with ADHD, the association dropped to 10-11% more likely for any kind of dementia. Among aunts and uncles, it dropped to a 14% greater likelihood of Alzheimer's(similar to grandparents) and a 4% greater chance of any dementia. In this case, however, the results were not statistically significant, probably due in part to the much smaller sample size
Both with parents and grandparents of persons with ADHD, the risk of early onset of any kind of dementia was well over twice as high as the risk of late-onset.
"We found that ADHD aggregated with AD [Alzheimer's disease] and any dementia within families, and the strength of association attenuated with decreasing degree of genetic relatedness," the authors concluded, and called for further studies to identify genetic variants and family-wide environmental risk factors contributing to both conditions. If verified by such studies, that would indicate a need for "investigation of early-life psychiatric prevention on the development of neurodegenerative diseases in older age."
Individuals who are prescribed ADHD medications are much more likely to also be prescribed other medications both for psychiatric and non-psychiatric disorders.
Persons with ADHD have known to have high rates of psychiatric comorbidities. There is also growing evidence of somatic (non-psychiatric) comorbid disorders among youths with ADHD, such as metabolic syndrome (which can lead to type 2 diabetes) and chronic inflammation (such as asthma and allergic rhinitis). Much less is known, however, about comorbid conditions in adults with ADHD.
An international team of researchers looked for indicators of comorbid conditions in a nationwide cohort study using Swedish national registers. The target population was Swedish residents between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2013 and more specifically those who had been prescribed ADHD medication. They identified over 41,000 individuals who met these criteria, including over twenty thousand young adults aged 18-29 years, over sixteen thousand middle-aged adults aged 30-49 years, and over four thousand older adults aged 50-64. The remainder of the overall cohort were used as controls.
Young adults receiving ADHD medications were four times as likely to also be receiving somatic medications, and older adults were seven times as likely. The highest rate of co-medication -roughly five times more frequent than among controls - was for respiratory system medications. The second most common was for alimentary tract and metabolic system medications, with odds over four times higher than for controls. Cardiovascular system medications were the next most common, with odds among young adults receiving ADHD medications over four times those of controls, though reducing with age to being twice as common in older adults with ADHD. Patterns were similar among men and women.
Adults receiving ADHD medications were far more likely to also be receiving other psychotropic medications. Middle-aged adults were 21 times as likely to be dispensed such medications as controls, older adults eighteen times more likely, and younger adults fifteen times more likely.
For young adults prescribed ADHD medications, the most prevalent co-prescriptions were for addictive disorders, which were dispensed at over 26 times the rate for controls. For middle-aged and older adults, on the other hand, the most prevalent co-prescriptions were for antipsychotics, which were likewise dispensed at over 26 times the rate for controls. Results remained consistent for individuals who had an ADHD diagnosis in addition to an ADHD prescription.
In addition, individuals receiving ADHD medications were also on average taking more types of prescriptions, rising from 2.5 classes of medications at age 18 to five classes at age 64. For controls, the equivalent numbers were 0.9 types of medications at age 18, rising to 2.7 at age 64.
Looking at specific somatic medications prescribed, those for respiratory conditions were ones typically prescribed for asthma and allergic reactions, reinforcing a previously known association. Insulin preparations also had high rates of co-prescription, again further confirming the known association with obesity and diabetes.
On the other hand, the most commonly dispensed alimentary tract and metabolic system medications included proton pump inhibitors, typically prescribed for gastric/duodenal ulcers and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Sodium fluoride, prescribed to prevent dental caries, was also prominent. Neither of these is an established association and warrants further exploration.
Turning to psychotropic medications, the most frequent prescriptions were with drugs used to treat addictive disorders and with antipsychotics. Rates of opioid co-prescription were also notably high, a source of concern given the higher proclivity of persons with ADHD to substance use disorders.