OBJECTIVE: To determine whether children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and learning disabilities respond differently to methylphenidate (MPH) compared with children with ADHD only. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, 2-week crossover trial of MPH, during which response to MPH was assessed. Learning ability was appraised using the Wide Range Achievement Test, Revised (WRAT-R), for English-speaking students and the Test de rendement pour francophones for French-speaking students. The study was conducted at the Douglas Hospital, a McGill University-affiliated teaching hospital in Montréal. Ninety-five children, aged 6-12 years, who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), criteria for ADHD participated in the study, which ran from 2001 to 2004. The outcome measure used was the Consensus Clinical Response, an indicator of the degree of clinical improvement shown when taking MPH. RESULTS: The proportion of children with learning disabilities who responded to MPH (55%) was significantly smaller (chi(2)1 = 4.5, p = 0.034) than the proportion of children without learning disabilities who responded adequately to MPH (75%). This difference was mainly because of children with mathematics disability being particularly unresponsive to MPH (chi(2)1 = 4.5, p = 0.034). Children with reading disability did not show this pattern of poor response (chi(2)1 = 1.0, p = 0.33). CONCLUSION:Children with ADHD and comorbid learning disability tended to respond more poorly to MPH. In particular, children with disability in mathematics responded less to MPH than those without disability in mathematics. Additional therapy may be indicated for this group of patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and learning disabilities respond differently to methylphenidate (MPH) compared with children with ADHD only. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, 2-week crossover trial of MPH, during which response to MPH was assessed. Learning ability was appraised using the Wide Range Achievement Test, Revised (WRAT-R), for English-speaking students and the Test de rendement pour francophones for French-speaking students. The study was conducted at the Douglas Hospital, a McGill University-affiliated teaching hospital in Montréal. Ninety-five children, aged 6-12 years, who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), criteria for ADHD participated in the study, which ran from 2001 to 2004. The outcome measure used was the Consensus Clinical Response, an indicator of the degree of clinical improvement shown when taking MPH. RESULTS: The proportion of children with learning disabilities who responded to MPH (55%) was significantly smaller (chi(2)1 = 4.5, p = 0.034) than the proportion of children without learning disabilities who responded adequately to MPH (75%). This difference was mainly because of children with mathematics disability being particularly unresponsive to MPH (chi(2)1 = 4.5, p = 0.034). Children with reading disability did not show this pattern of poor response (chi(2)1 = 1.0, p = 0.33). CONCLUSION:Children with ADHD and comorbid learning disability tended to respond more poorly to MPH. In particular, children with disability in mathematics responded less to MPH than those without disability in mathematics. Additional therapy may be indicated for this group of patients.
Authors: Erik G Willcutt; Bruce F Pennington; Richard K Olson; Nomita Chhabildas; Jacqueline Hulslander Journal: Dev Neuropsychol Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.253
Authors: J M Swanson; S B Wigal; D Udrea; M Lerner; D Agler; D Flynn; E Fineberg; M Davies; D Kardatzke; A Ram; S Gupta Journal: Psychopharmacol Bull Date: 1998
Authors: Deborah A Pearson; Cynthia W Santos; Charles D Casat; David M Lane; Susan W Jerger; John D Roache; Katherine A Loveland; David Lachar; Laura P Faria; Christa D Payne; Lynne A Cleveland Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Heather M Conklin; Susan Helton; Jason Ashford; Raymond K Mulhern; Wilburn E Reddick; Ronald Brown; Melanie Bonner; Bruce W Jasper; Shengjie Wu; Xiaoping Xiong; Raja B Khan Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2009-05-22
Authors: Tanya E Froehlich; Jason Fogler; William J Barbaresi; Nada A Elsayed; Steven W Evans; Eugenia Chan Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Leanne Tamm; Carolyn A Denton; Jeffery N Epstein; Christopher Schatschneider; Heather Taylor; L Eugene Arnold; Oscar Bukstein; Julia Anixt; Anson Koshy; Nicholas C Newman; Jan Maltinsky; Patricia Brinson; Richard E A Loren; Mary R Prasad; Linda Ewing-Cobbs; Aaron Vaughn Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2017-03-23
Authors: Joshua M Langberg; L Eugene Arnold; Amanda M Flowers; Mekibib Altaye; Jeff N Epstein; Brooke S G Molina Journal: School Ment Health Date: 2010-03-01
Authors: Calvin R Sumner; Susan Gathercole; Michael Greenbaum; Richard Rubin; David Williams; Millie Hollandbeck; Linda Wietecha Journal: Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 3.033