Although psychostimulants are effective in treating ADHD, they sometimes are associated with irritability, which also can accompany ADHD. Read this article by Stuckelman and colleagues to learn the net effects that different psychostimulant medications have on irritability in patients with ADHD.
What variables might explain the association between antenatal SSRI exposure and autism? This systematic review and meta-analysis will give you some insight on factors that might influence this association.
Neurofeedback has been proposed as a promising intervention for ADHD. In this RCT, Geladé and colleagues compare it with methylphenidate and with physical activity for effects on ADHD symptoms in children 7-13 years of age. Read the article to learn which intervention showed the best results.
With more than 20 different pharmacologic options for the treatment of ADHD, how do you know what will work best for your patients? Read this systematic review to find out the most up-to-date information on treatment formulations for ADHD.
Misuse of stimulants among college students may be associated with a separate psychiatric disorder. Read this cross-sectional study to help identify which of your patients are more likely to misuse stimulants.
Some studies have suggested that ketamine may exert positive benefit in stressed autism spectrum disorder subjects. In his Letter to the Editor, Keith Fluegge, BA, discusses why this might be so, based on ketamine's chemical makeup and a theory on the etiology of ASD.
Baclofen, a French Exception, Seriously Harms Alcohol Use Disorder Patients Without Benefit
To the Editor: Dr Andrade’s analysis of the Bacloville trial in a recent Clinical and Practical Psychopharmacology column, in which he concluded that “individualized treatment with high-dose baclofen (30-300 mg/d) may be a useful second-line approach in heavy drinkers” and that “baclofen may be particularly useful in patients with liver disease,” deserves comment.1
First, Andrade failed to recall that the first pivotal trial of baclofen, ALPADIR (NCT01738282; 320 patients, as with Bacloville), was negative (see Braillon et al2).
Second, Dr Andrade should have warned readers that Bacloville’s results are most questionable, lacking robustness. Although he cited us,3 he overlooked the evidence we provided indicating that the Bacloville article4 was published without acknowledging major changes to the initial protocol, affecting the primary outcome. Coincidentally (although as skeptics, we do not believe in coincidence), the initial statistical team was changed when data were sold to the French pharmaceutical company applying for the marketing authorization in France. As Ronald H. Coase warned, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess.”