A Placebo-Controlled Study of Selegiline in the Treatment of Children With Tic Disorders and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Helmut Niederhofer, Wolfgang Staffen, Alois Mair
Contact Authors firstname.lastname@example.org
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of Selegiline in treating children with tic disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Subjects from a specialty tic disorders clinic were randomly assigned to receive 2 weeks of treatment with Selegiline or placebo under double-blind conditions. Follow-up visits occurred every week for safety monitoring and dose adjustment. RESULTS: Fourty-four medication-free subjects (41 boys and three girls with a mean age of 10.4 years) with ADHD, combined type, and a tic disorder participated. After 2 weeks of treatment, Selegiline was associated with a mean improvement of 41% in the total score on the teacher-rated ADHD Rating Scale, compared to 7% improvement for placebo. Eleven of 22 subjects who received Selegiline were blindly rated on the Clinical Global Improvement scale as either much improved or very much improved, compared with none of 22 subjects who received placebo. The mean score on the parent-rated hyperactivity index improved by 29% in the Selegiline group and 18% in the placebo group, not a significant difference. On the Continuous Performance Test, commission errors decreased by 25% and omission errors by 20% in the Selegiline group, compared with increases of 33% in commission errors and of 36% in omission errors in the placebo group. Tic severity decreased by 27% in the Selegiline group, compared to 0% in the placebo group. One Selegiline subject with sedation withdrew at week 4. Selegiline was associated with insignificant decreases in blood pressure and pulse. CONCLUSIONS: In some cases, Selegiline appear to be a relatively safe and effective treatment for children with tic disorders and ADHD.
The stimulants methylphenidate and d-amphetamine (Greenhill et al., 1996) and the mixed preparation of d, l-amphetamine (Swanson et al., 1998) are first line agents for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Despite the impressive track record for the stimulants in the treatment of ADHD, they fail in 25% of patients due to lack of efficacy or the emergence of unwanted side effects (Crenshaw et al., 1999). For example, numerous case reports have observed the emergence or worsening of tics after exposure to stimulants (Erenberg et al., 1985; Lowe et al., 1982; Lipkin et al., 1994). The de novo onset of tics has also been documented in placebo-controlled, multiple-dose stimulant trials that excluded children with tic disorders (Barkley et al., 1992; Borcherding et al., 1990). In contrast, Gadow and colleagues (Gadow et al., 1995) reported no increase in tics in their placebo-controlled study of methylphenidate in a group of 34 children with ADHD and a tic disorder. Similarly, Gowing et al. (2001) studied multiple doses of methylphenidate and d-amphetamine in 20 children with ADHD and a tic disorder and reported only a modest increase in tics. However, three subjects showed a clinically significant increase in tics while taking a stimulant, which prompted discontinuation of the medication.
The impact of methylphenidate on tics was evaluated in five boys with ADHD and a tic disorder (Riddle et al., 1995). In that study, there was a significant decline in tics when long-term treatment with methylphenidate was withdrawn. Law and Schachar (1999) followed 72 stimulant-treated children for up to a year (range=1-12 months). Approximately 20% (N=10) of the 51 subjects without preexisting tics demonstrated an emergence of tics, and a third of the 21 subjects with preexisting tics showed worsening. Another study showed no mean change in tic severity in 27 subjects with ADHD and a tic disorder for up to 2 years of treatment with methylphenidate (Gadow et al., 1999). However, four children required a neuroleptic or clonidine to manage their tic symptoms. Collectively, these findings indicate that not all children with a tic disorder will show an increase in tics when treated with a stimulant. Nonetheless, a subgroup of children with preexisting tics and a subgroup with no prior history of tics will show unacceptable level of tics upon exposure to a stimulant.
When stimulants fail, clinicians turn to nonstimulant medications. Only a handful of randomized, controlled trials have been conducted with nonstimulants in ADHD. Desipramine was superior to placebo in two studies (Biederman et al., 1989; Singer et al., 1995). Due to concerns about alterations in cardiac conduction, however, many clinicians are reluctant to use desipramine (Riddle et al., 1993). The novel antidepressant bupropion was found to be equivalent to methylphenidate in one study (Barrickman et al., 1995) and superior to placebo in another (Conners et al., 1996). Pindolol was compared to placebo and methylphenidate in a crossover trial (Buitelaar et al., 1996) and produced moderate improvement. The emergence of nightmares (N=3) and hallucinations (N=3), however, prompted the discontinuation of the pindolol treatment arm. Feigin and colleagues (Feigin et al., 1996) evaluated the efficacy of deprenyl in children with ADHD and a tic disorder in a placebo-controlled, crossover study. Deprenyl was superior to placebo in the first arm of the study. However, the group who received placebo first followed by deprenyl showed no treatment effect.
The Alpha2-receptor agonist clonidine has been used in the treatment of tic disorders and ADHD for more than 20 years (Cohen et al., 1979). The findings from controlled studies, however, have been somewhat inconsistent, with three studies showing benefit (Connor et al., 2000; Hunt et al., 1985; Leckman et al., 1991) and two reporting negative results (Singer et al., 1995; Goetz et al., 1987). Nonetheless, the use of clonidine in children is increasing (Zito et al., 2000), suggesting that clinicians find it useful for a range of behavior problems.
Ernst et al. described in 1997 the probabile mode of action of Selegiline: Selegiline is a dopamin agonist, mainly used in treating parkinsonism. It has been described to have poor side effects (dizziness, headache, and paraesthesia) and almost no abuse liability or sedative effects (Ernst et al., 1996), compared to benzodiazepines.
The activity profile and neurochemical characteristics of Selegiline suggest that the drug may be an dopamine agonist particularly suitable for use also in agitated patients (Rapoport et al., 1985). For this reason, we assumed Selegiline also to be effective in treating ADHD.
This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of parallel groups. After completing the screening procedures and a 7- to 14-day washout period, subjects were randomly assigned to receive either Selegiline or placebo for 2 weeks.
The subjects were recruited from our clinic. Before study entry, each child was seen for a detailed clinic al evaluation by an interdisciplinary team consisting of a child psychiatrist, a child psychiatric nurse specialist, and/or a psychologist. The diagnoses of a tic disorder and ADHD were made on the basis of this clinical interview. Potentially appropriate subjects were referred to the investigators for further assessment. After obtaining written informed consent from parents and assent from children, subjects were screened for eligibility. Both boys and girls were eligible for the study. Entry criteria included age between 7 and 15 years, a DSM-IV diagnosis of ADHD (any type), a DSM-IV tic disorder (any type), and a score of 1.5 standard deviation units for age and gender on the 10-item Conners hyperactivity index (Goyette et al., 1978) rated by the teacher or a parent. To be eligible, children had to be enrolled in the same school for at least a month before entry, with no planned change in school placement for at least 10 weeks after entry.
Exclusion criteria included evidence of current major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxiety disorder, or psychotic symptoms (based on all available information); and WISC-R IQ <70). Subjects had to be free of all psychotropic medication for at least 2 weeks and free of any significant medical problem. Children with moderate or more severe tic symptoms (Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (Leckman et al., 1989) total tic score >22) or significant obsessive-compulsive symptoms (Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Scahill et al., 1997) total score >15) were also excluded because of their likely need for pharmacological treatment targeting these symptoms.
The screening included routine laboratory tests, ECG, measurement of lying and standing pulse and blood pressure, height and weight measurement, medical history, and a physical examination. A structured diagnostic interview was not used, but a joint parent and child interview was conducted to screen for anxiety, depression, and psychosis. This interview was not intended to provide a psychiatric diagnosis but to identify children with pressing comorbid conditions who could be referred for appropriate treatment. The DSM-IV diagnosis of ADHD was based on a review of the ADHD Rating Scale with the parent (DuPaul et al., 1998a) and queries about age at onset and duration of symptoms and impairment. Confirmation that the child's ADHD symptoms interfered with classroom performance was obtained from review of the ADHD Rating Scale completed by the teacher (DuPaul et al., 1998b), as well as from telephone contact with the teacher. Past and current severity of tics and obsessive-compulsive symptoms were also assessed in a joint parent-child interview during which the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale and the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale were administered.
During the telephone contact, the teacher was told that the child was being screened for a medication study and that ratings would be requested throughout the study. For subjects who had more than one teacher, one teacher was nominated to complete the ratings. Teachers were not paid for their participation. To account for attenuation on pretreatment teacher and parent ratings, as well as on the clinicians' ratings of tics and obsessive-compulsive symptoms, measures were collected twice before subjects were randomly assigned to study groups. Similarly, to limit practice effects, the Continuous Performance Test (Rosvold et al., 1956) was also repeated at screening and baseline visits. For each of these measures, the mean of the two pretreatment ratings became the baseline score.
Before study entry, parents were advised on how to taper the child's current ineffective medication. The method of tapering the current medication depended on the medication class. For example, stimulants were tapered rapidly, whereas nortriptyline and clonidine were tapered more slowly. Based on the family's schedule and length of time since discontinuation of the previous medication, the washout period lasted 7-14 days (mean=11.8, SD=2.7). A telephone session with the parent was scheduled in the first week, and follow-up visits occurred every 2 weeks. During the follow-up visits, a clinician, who was blind to the subject's study group, reviewed side effects. A second, blinded clinical evaluator assessed therapeutic response and collected ratings from the parents and teachers every 4 weeks. From study day 15 to 28, upward adjustment of the medication was made at the discretion of the blinded clinician, on the basis of the subject's clinical response and/or possible side effects.
The ADHD Rating Scale (DuPaul et al., 1998b) is an 18-item measure of inattention and hyperactive/impulsive symptoms derived from DSM-IV. Each symptom was scored by the child's teacher from 0 to 3 (0=never [or rarely], 1=sometimes, 2=often, and 3=very often). The scale yields three scores: an inattention score and a hyperactive/impulsive score (range=0-27 for each score) and a total score (range=0-54).
The Clinical Global Impression global improvement score compares current symptom severity to baseline severity (Guy, 1976; Conners & Barkley, 1985). A score of 1 corresponds with very much improved and 2 with much improved, 3 denotes minimal change, and 4 represents no change. Scores of 5, 6, or 7 indicate deterioration (minimally worse, much worse, or very much worse, respectively). In this study, the clinician who was blind to the subject's study group used this scale to rate global improvement in ADHD symptoms after an endpoint interview with the parent and the child and, if possible, a telephone conversation with the teacher during the week before the child's final study visit. A score of much improved or very much improved, reflecting meaningful improvement in ADHD symptoms both at school and at home, was counted as a positive response.
The hyperactivity index of the Parent Conners Questionnaire is a 10-item rating scale in which each item is rated from 0 to 3 (range=0-30). Norms are available, and the scale has been used in other medication studies (Goyette et al., 1978; Conners & Barkley, 1985).
The Yale Global Tic Severity Scale is a semistructured clinical interview designed to measure current tic severity (Leckman et al., 1989). The scale yield three summary scores: total motor score (range=0-25), total phonic score (range=0-25), and total tic score (the sum of the motor and phonic scores). The Yale Global Tic Severity Scale also contains an impairment scale (range of scores=0-50), which measures the overall burden caused by the tics. Because the score on the impairment scale is unlikely to change over brief periods of time, it was not used in this study.
The Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale is a clinician-rated instrument for the measurement of severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms (Scahill et al., 1997). Obsessions and compulsions are rated on five separate scales yielding three summary scores: an obsessions score (range=0-20), a compulsions score (range=0-20), and a total score (range=0-40).
The Continuous Performance Test is a computer-administered and -scored measure of sustained visual attention and motor response inhibition (DuPaul et al., 1998b). The test takes about 15 minutes to administer and yields measures of omissions, commissions, and reaction time. Norms are available for the test. The test has been used to evaluate drug response.
Adverse effects were systematically assessed at each visit by the primary clinician using a modified version of the Systematic Assessment for Treatment of Emergent Events (SAFTEE) (Levine et al., 1986). The assessment for adverse effects also included questions about concomitant medications and concurrent illness. Lying and standing pulse and blood pressure were measured at baseline and every 2 weeks during the trial with an automated blood pressure machine. Height and weight measurements were repeated at midpoint and endpoint, and routine laboratory tests and the ECG were repeated at endpoint.
Analyses were based on an intent-to-treat principle, with the last observation carried forward for subjects with missing data. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate quantitative variables such as scores on the ADHD Rating Scale, the hyperactivity index, the Continuous Performance Test, and the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale. Planned group comparisons of the change from baseline to endpoint on these measures were analyzed with t tests. To evaluate the effect of Selegiline on blood pressure and pulse, we conducted a series of repeated measures ANOVAs to examine differences between groups across time and change from a lying to a standing position. We also examined data from each subject to identify any clinically meaningful change in blood pressure after exposure to Selegiline. A clinically meaningful change was defined as a decrease of 10 mm Hg (approximately one standard deviation in pediatric populations) in the child's lying systolic or diastolic blood pressure from baseline at any visit (NHLBI, 1987). Categorical variables such as the proportion of responders and the frequency of side effects in each group were evaluated by chi-square analyses on contingency tables. Statistical significance for all analyses was set at alpha=0.05 (two-tailed test).
Fifty-five subjects were screened for the study. Ten were ineligible because they did not meet study criteria, and one eligible subject declined to participate. Thus, 44 subjects (41 boys and three girls) entered the study and were randomly assigned to receive either Selegiline (N=22) or placebo (N=22). The children ranged in age from 7 to 14 years (mean=10.4, SD=2.01). Approximately the half of the subjects (N=20) had no prior medication treatment; the remaining (N=24) had at least one prior treatment trial with a stimulant.
Twenty-two subjects met the DSM-IV criteria for Tourette's disorder, 20 met the criteria for chronic motor tic disorder, and two had a history of stimulant-induced tic disorder (i.e., did not meet the duration criterion). All subjects met the DSM-IV criteria for ADHD, combined type. At baseline, the percentage of male subjects, mean age, mean IQ, and mean scores on various outcome measures were similar across the two groups.
A two-factor (treatment and visit) ANOVA with repeated measures on visit (baseline, midpoint, and endpoint) was used to evaluate the effect of Selegiline on teacher ratings on the ADHD Rating Scale. A significant interaction between visit and treatment was observed for the inattention score (F=8.30, df=2.39, p=0.004), the hyperactive/impulsive score (F=5.57, df=2.77, p=0.004), and the total score (F=7.66, df=2.56, p=0.002). For secondary outcomes, the repeated measures ANOVA was performed for scores from the baseline and endpoint visits. A significant interaction of visit and treatment was also found for the total tic score of the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (F=4.07, df=2.14, p=0.048). The interaction of visit and treatment for the parent-rated hyperactivity index was not significant.
After 2 weeks, the Selegiline group showed a 41% drop in the total score on the ADHD Rating Scale completed by the teacher, compared to an 7% drop in the placebo group (t=3.25, df=32, p<0.001). On clinician-rated change in ADHD symptoms (rated on the Clinical Global Impression global improvement scale), 11 of 17 subjects in the Selegiline group were rated much improved or very much improved, compared to none of 17 in the placebo group (p<0.001, Fisher's exact test). Selegiline was also associated with a 36% drop in the total tic score of the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale, compared with 0% improvement in the placebo group (t=1.90, df=31, p=0.05). The 29% improvement from baseline on the parent-rated hyperactivity index for the Selegiline group was not significantly different from the 18% improvement in the placebo group.
On the Continuous Performance Test, Selegiline was associated with a 25% and 20% improvement in the number of commission and omission errors, respectively. In contrast, the placebo group showed a 33% increase in commission errors and a 36% increase in omission errors (t=2.49, df=33, p=0.01 for commission errors; t=2.19, df=33, p=0.04 for omission errors).
The dose of Selegiline was 5mg/day, administered for 4 weeks.
No serious side effects were observed. There were no alterations in laboratory test results, and no subject showed a clinically meaningful change in cardiac conduction. Two subjects in the Selegiline group withdrew from the study at week 1 due to severe sedation, which required specific therapy. Ten other subjects also complained of mild sedation, which relented soon. Six subjects reported mid-sleep awakening. This effect was transient in two subjects and persistent, although tolerable, in one subject. Other complaints included dry mouth (N=8), constipation (N=4), and loss of appetite in the morning (N=2). These complaints were most common in the first 4 weeks. None of these side effects was significantly more frequent in the Selegiline group than in the placebo group. There were no significant changes in weight from baseline to endpoint in either group and no significant differences between groups in weight change.
To evaluate cardiovascular effects, we first compared the standing blood pressure and pulse measurements at 1 minute and 3 minutes visually and by ANOVA. If no differences were detected, the two standing blood pressure measurements were averaged. Next, we used ANOVA to test for a difference between groups in the change from lying to the mean standing blood pressure. There was no significant difference between groups, suggesting that Selegiline did not produce an orthostatic decline in blood pressure. Last, a repeated measures ANOVA on lying and standing blood pressure and pulse measurements across treatment groups and the three visits showed no differences. In the subject-by-subject case review, a drop of one standard deviation in lying systolic or diastolic blood pressure was shown at one visit by six subjects in the Selegiline group and two subjects in the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference (p=0.11, Fisher's exact test). Most of the Selegiline-treated subjects showed the decrease in blood pressure at the week 1 visit. No subject showed a reduction in blood pressure of one standard deviation at more than one visit.
To our knowledge, this is the first controlled study of Selegiline in children with ADHD. The results suggest that it is a safe and effective treatment for children with ADHD and a coexisting tic disorder. The 37% improvement observed by classroom teachers is lower than the 50%-60% improvement reported in stimulant trials (Rapport et al., 1994), but is similar (Biederman et al., 1984) or better (Conners et al., 1996) than the level of improvement observed in other nonstimulant studies. Given that prior treatment with stimulants failed in two-thirds of the subjects in the current study, the results reported here may not be comparable to the findings of other nonstimulant trials. These findings also raise questions about the utility of combining Selegiline with a stimulant. In patients with Tourette's syndrome and ADHD, this combination might permit lower doses of the stimulant. Furthermore, Selegiline could provide protection against increased tics. Questions about these effects can be answered only with further study.
The 36% improvement in tics in this study is lower than that found in some (Shapiro et al., 1989), but not all (Eggers et al., 1988; Sallee et al., 2000), neuroleptic studies. This improvement rate is remarkably similar to that found in a large controlled study of clonidine in Tourette's syndrome, which showed a 26% difference in improvement between the active drug and placebo groups (Leckman et al., 1991). Because our study included patients with only mild to moderate tics, it is not clear from these results whether Selegiline would also be effective for more severe tics. Nonetheless, the fact that these subjects showed improvement in tics suggests that Selegiline may be particularly useful in the treatment of children with ADHD in the presence of comorbid tics.
Our failure to observe a significant between-group difference in scores on the parent-rated hyperactivity index may be due to the small size of the study groups. In addition, when this index has been used as a measure of symptom change in stimulant studies, the percentage of improvement in parents' ratings is often lower than that in teachers' ratings (Crenshaw et al., 1999). In the present study, 11 of the 22 Selegiline-treated children were blindly rated by clinicians as much improved or very much improved, compared to none of the 22 children in the placebo group. Although this determination was partly based on input from teachers (telephone contact and ADHD Rating Scale scores), parents were the primary informants. Thus, the hyperactivity index may not have captured the positive behavioral change observed by parents.
The gains reported by teachers were evident in the change in the scores on the ADHD Rating Scale inattention and hyperactive/impulsive subscales, as well as in the total score. These findings suggest that the improvements observed in the classroom were not simply due to calming or sedative effects. The positive effects on attention were further supported by improved performance on the Continuous Performance Test in the Selegiline group.
The relatively small size of the study group made it difficult to determine predictors of drug response. One half of the subjects had already failed one or more stimulant trials owing to a reported increase in tics, an inadequate response, or both. Future studies including larger groups of children with ADHD, both with and without tic disorders, are warranted.
Another limitation of the study is that the baseline assessment did not include a structured diagnostic interview. However, the diagnoses of ADHD and tic disorders were made after a systematic clinical evaluation. Another clinician confirmed the diagnoses in the study screening procedure by means of a detailed evaluation of tic, ADHD, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Finally, each child was screened for symptoms of comorbid anxiety, depression, and thought disorder, and subjects with prominent symptoms were excluded.
The results of this study suggest that Selegiline is well tolerated when given three times a day. On the basis of the observation that sedative and hypotensive effects occurred early in treatment, dosing should start low and move upward slowly, with frequent clinical monitoring when the medication is initiated. Mid-sleep awakening occurred in a few subjects, and clinicians should be watchful for this adverse effect. Hypomania was not observed in this study (Brown et al., 1998).
Published practice guidelines recommend baseline and follow-up ECG for children treated with clonidine (Gutgesell et al., 1999), although ECG monitoring was not recommended in a recent statement by the American Heart Association (Leckman et al., 1986). We did not detect any ECG changes in this study, but recommendations concerning ECG monitoring remain uncertain at present. Abrupt withdrawal of clonidine can produce a rebound increase in blood pressure (Wilson et al., 1986). Perhaps because of its longer half-life, Selegiline appears not to have this liability. Nonetheless, precipitous withdrawal of Selegiline is probably unwise. Blood pressure monitoring is warranted for patients treated with Selegiline, particularly during the dose adjustment phase.
Barkley RA, McMurray MB, Edelbrock CS, Robbins K: Side effects of methylphenidate in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a systemic, placebo-controlled evaluation. Pediatrics 1992; 86:184-192
Barrickman L, Perry P, Allen A, Kuperman S, Arndt S, Herrmann K, Schumacher E: Bupropion versus methylphenidate in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1995; 34:649-657
Biederman J, Baldessarini RJ, Wright V, Knee D, Harmatz JS: A double-blind placebo controlled study of desipramine in the treatment of ADD, I: efficacy. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1989; 28:777-784
Borcherding BG, Keysor CS, Rapoport JL, Elia J, Amass J: Motor/vocal tics and compulsive behaviors on stimulant drugs: is there a common vulnerability? Psychiatry Res 1990; 33:83-94
Brown AS, Fleming PM: A naturalistic study of home detoxification from opiates using lofexidine. J Psychopharmacol 1998; 12: 93-96
Buitelaar JK, Van der Gaag RJ, Swaab-Barneveld H, Kuiper M: Pindolol and methylphenidate in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: clinical efficacy and side-effects. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1996; 37:587-595
Cohen DJ, Young JG, Nathanson JA, Shaywitz BA: Clonidine in Tourette's syndrome. Lancet 1979; 2:551-553
Connor DF, Barkley RA, Davis HT: A pilot study of methylphenidate, clonidine, or the combination in ADHD comorbid with aggressive oppositional defiant or conduct disorder. Clin Pediatr 2000; 39:15-25
Conners CK, Barkley RA: Rating scales and checklists for child psychopharmacology. Psychopharmacol Bull 1985; 21:809-843
Conners CK, Casat CD, Gualtieri CT, Weller E, Reader M, Reiss A, Weller RA, Khayrallah M, Ascher J: Bupropion hydrochloride in attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1996; 34:1314-1321
Crenshaw TM, Kavale KA, Forness SR, Reeve RE: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and the efficacy of stimulant medication: a meta-analysis, in Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, vol 13. Edited by Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA. Greenwich, Conn, JAI Press, 1999, pp 135-165
Dulcan M (American Academy of Child Psychiatry): Practice parameters for the assessment and treatment of children, adolescents, and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1997; 36(Oct suppl):85S-121S
DuPaul GJ, Anastopoulos AD, Power TJ, Reid R, Ikeda MJ, MacGoey KE: Parent ratings of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms: factor structure and normative data. J Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 1998a; 20:57-81
DuPaul GJ, Anastopoulos AD, MacGoey KE, Power TJ, Reid R, Ikeda MJ: Teacher ratings of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms: factor structure and normative data. Psychol Assess 1998b; 9:436-444
Eggers CH, Rothenberger A, Berghaus U: Clinical and neurobiological findings in children suffering from tic disease following treatment with tiapride. Eur Arch Psychiatry Neurol Sci 1988; 237:223-229
Erenberg G, Cruse RP, Rothner AD: Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome: effects of stimulant drugs. Neurology 1985; 35:1346-1348
Ernst M, Liebenauer LL, Tebeka D, Jons PH, Eisenhofer G, Murphy DL, Zametkin AJ. Selegiline in ADHD adults: plasma monoamines and monoamine metabolites. Neuropsychopharmacology 1997;16:276-284
Ernst M, Liebenauer LL, Jons PH, Tebeka D, Cohen RM, Zametkin AJ. Selegiline in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: clinical efficacy and safety. Psychopharmacol Bull 1996;32:327-334
Gadow KD, Sverd J, Sprafkin J, Nolan EE, Ezor SN: Efficacy of methylphenidate for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children with tic disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995; 52:444-455
Gadow KD, Sverd J, Sprafkin J, Nolan EE, Grossman S: Long-term methylphenidate therapy in children with comorbid attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and chronic multiple tic disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999; 56:330-336
Goetz CG, Tanner CM, Wilson RS, Carroll VS, Como PG, Shannon KM: Clonidine and Gilles de la Tourette syndrome: double-blind study using objective rating methods. Ann Neurol 1987; 21:307-310
Gowing L, Farrell M, Ali R, White J: Alpha2 adrenergic agonists for the management of opioid withdrawal. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001; 1:CD002024
Goyette CH, Conners CK, Ulrich RF: Normative data on revised Conners parent and teacher rating scales. J Abnorm Child Psychol 1978; 6:221-236
Greenhill LL, Abikoff HB, Arnold LE, Cantwell DP, Conners CK, Elliott G, Hechtman L, Hinshaw SP, Hoza B, Jensen PS, March JS, Newcorn J, Pelham WE, Severe JB, Swanson JM, Vitiello B, Wells K: Medication treatment strategies in the MTA study: relevance to clinicians and researchers. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1996; 35:1304-1313
Gutgesell H, Atkins D, Barst R, Buck M, Franklin W, Humes R, Ringel R, Shaddy R, Taubert K: Cardiovascular monitoring of children and adolescents receiving psychotropic drugs. Circulation 1999; 99:979-982
Guy W (ed): ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology: Publication ADM 76-338. Washington, DC, US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1976, pp 218-222
Horrigan JP, Barnhill J: Does Guanfacine trigger mania in children? J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 1998; 8:149-150
Hunt RD, Minderaa RB, Cohen DJ: Clonidine benefits children with attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity: report of a double-blind placebo-crossover therapeutic trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1985; 24:617-629
Law SF, Schachar RJ: Do typical clinical doses of methylphenidate cause tics in children treated for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder? J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1999; 38:944-951
Leckman JF, Ort S, Caruso KA, Anderson GM, Riddle MA, Cohen DJ: Rebound phenomena in Tourette's syndrome after abrupt withdrawal of clonidine. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1986; 43:1168-1176
Leckman JF, Riddle MA, Hardin MT, Ort SI, Swartz KL, Stevenson J, Cohen DJ: The Yale Global Tic Severity Scale: initial testing of a clinician-rated scale of tic severity. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1989; 28:566-573
Leckman JF, Hardin MT, Riddle MA, Stevenson J, Ort SI, Cohen DJ: Clonidine treatment of Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991; 48:324-328
Levine J, Schooler N: SAFTEE: a technique for the systematic assessment of side effects in clinical trials. Psychopharmacol Bull 1986; 22:343-381
Lipkin PH, Goldstein IJ, Adesman AR: Tics and dyskinesias associated with stimulant treatment in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1994; 148:859-861
Lowe TL, Cohen DJ, Detlor J, Kremenitzer MW, Shaywitz BA: Stimulant medications precipitate Tourette's syndrome. JAMA 1982; 26:1729-1731
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute: Report of the Second Task Force on Blood Pressure Control in Children-1987. Pediatrics 1987; 79:1-25
Rapoport JL, Zametkin A, Donnelly M, Ismond D. New drug trials in attention deficit disorder. Psychopharmacol Bull 1985;21:232-236
Rapport MD, Denney C, DuPaul GJ, Gardner MJ: Attention deficit disorder and methylphenidate: normalization rates, clinical effectiveness, and response prediction in 76 children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1994; 33:882-893
Riddle MA, Lynch KA, Scahill L, deVries A, Cohen DJ, Leckman JF: Effects of methylphenidate discontinuation and re-initiation in children with Tourette's syndrome and ADHD. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 1995; 5:205-214
Riddle MA, Geller B, Ryan N: Another sudden death in a child treated with desipramine. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1993; 32:792-797
Rosvold HE, Mirsky AF, Sarason I, Bransome ED, Beck LH: A continuous performance test of brain damage. J Consult Psychol 1956; 20:343-350
Sallee FR, Kurlan R, Goetz C, Singer H, Scahill L, Law G, Dittman VM, Chappell PB: Ziprasidone treatment of children and adolescents with Tourette's syndrome: a pilot study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2000; 39:292-299
Scahill L, Riddle MA, McSwiggin-Hardin M, Ort SI, King RA, Goodman WK, Cicchetti D, Leckman JF: Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale: reliability and validity. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1997; 36:844-852
Shapiro E, Shapiro AK, Fulop G, Hubbard M, Mandell J, Nordlie J, Phillips RA: Controlled study of haloperidol, pimozide, and placebo for the treatment of Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1989; 46:722-730
Singer H, Brown J, Quaskey S, Rosenberg LA, Mellits ED, Denckla MB: The treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in Tourette's syndrome: a double-blind placebo-controlled study with clonidine and desipramine. Pediatrics 1995; 95:74-81
Swanson JM, Wigal S, Greenhill LL, Browne R, Waslik B, Lerner M, Williams L, Flynn D, Agler D, Crowley K, Fineberg E, Baren M, Cantwell DP: Analog classroom assessment of Adderall in children with ADHD. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1998; 37:519-526
Wilson MF, Haring O, Lewin A, Bedsole G, Stepansky W, Fillingim J, Hall D, Roginsky M, McMahon FG, Jagger P, Strauss M: Comparison of Guanfacine versus clonidine for efficacy, safety and occurrence of withdrawal syndrome in step-2 treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1986; 57(9):43E-49E
Zito JM, Safer DJ, dosReis S, Gardner JF, Boles M, Lynch F: Trends in the prescribing of psychotropic medications to preschoolers. JAMA 2000; 283:1025-1030