Fredrick W. Reimherr

Fluoxetine efficacy in menopausal women with and without estrogen replacement

UNLABELLED A gradual decline in estrogen levels after the age of 40 may contribute to a higher rate of depression in women over 45 years of age. Estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) has been shown to produce cognitive and mood-enhancing effects in women and may facilitate antidepressant activity. METHODS We examined the efficacy rates in women on ERT > or = 45 years (n = 40) compared to women > or = 45 years not on ERT (n = 132) and to women < 45 years (n = 396) and to men (n = 262) with major depression during fluoxetine 20 mg daily up to 8 weeks. Remitters with a HAM-D17 score < or = 7 from week 9 to 12 were then treated up to 1-year in a placebo-controlled, relapse-prevention trial. RESULTS Efficacy rates were similar in women > or = 45 years on ERT when compared to women > or = 45 years taking fluoxetine alone, and when compared to women < 45 years and men taking fluoxetine. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis in fluoxetine responders treated up to 26 weeks showed a somewhat greater relapse rate in women > or = 45 years taking ERT compared to other treatment groups (P < 0.06). LIMITATIONS This study was retrospective nature and ERT was given in an uncontrolled fashion: 63% of women received estrogen alone while 37% also took intermittent progesterone. Other variables include the absence of hormonal documentation of menopausal status, no direct assessment of ERT compliance and the use of fixed-dose fluoxetine 20 mg daily. CONCLUSION In contrast to prior reports suggesting that ERT may facilitate antidepressant activity, we observed similar efficacy in depressed women > or = 45 years taking fluoxetine plus ERT compared to those taking fluoxetine alone.

Borderline personality disorder in patients with bipolar disorder and response to lamotrigine

BACKGROUND Recent reports suggesting lamotrigine as an effective treatment in bipolar disorder, and perhaps borderline personality disorder, a common comorbid personality disorder in bipolar patients, led us to retrospectively examine patients from two bipolar studies to investigate this pattern of comorbidity, and to determine whether lamotrigine effected the dimensions of borderline personality. METHODS Fifteen months following entry into either study, we retrospectively assessed DSM-IV dimensions of borderline personality disorder pre- and post-treatment with lamotrigine in 35 bipolar patients. RESULTS Forty percent met criteria for borderline personality disorder; this subgroup had a more frequent history of substance abuse and childhood symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Dimensions of borderline personality improved significantly with treatment in both patient groups, and corresponded with response of bipolar symptoms. Six (43%) comorbid bipolar patients endorsed three or fewer criteria of borderline personality during treatment with lamotrigine. There was a trend for comorbid bipolar patients to require a second psychoactive medication in addition to lamotrigine during extended treatment. LIMITATIONS Criteria for borderline personality and improvement were assessed retrospectively in an open manner. CONCLUSIONS Dimensions of borderline personality disorder may respond to lamotrigine in comorbid bipolar patients; controlled studies appear warranted. Bipolar studies should assess and specify the number of patients with personality disorders in the trial.

ADHS-Diagnose bei Erwachsenen

We report on a study comparing different systems for the diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adulthood. Recruited for evaluation were 168 patients referred to our ADHD outpatient unit. We used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edn. (DSM-IV), International Classification of Diseases 10th edn. (ICD-10), and Utah criteria for diagnostic assessment and the Wender Utah rating scale, ADHD Self Report (ADHD-SR), and Wender Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Rating Scale as psychopathological assessment tools. We present basic psychometric data of the Wender-Reimherr Interview (WRI). Internal consistency was determined as 0.82 (alpha). The inter-rater reliability was 1.0 (kappa coefficient) regarding ADHD diagnoses, and the ICC was 0.98 referring to the WRI total scores. The convergent validity with the ADHD-SR was 0.65 (Spearman coefficient). In 126 of 168 patients an ADHD diagnosis was made according to at least one of the three systems. The DSM-IV diagnostic set led to 119 ADHD diagnoses. As compared with the two other systems, this is about the minimum level for an ADHD diagnosis. All of the 87 ADHD diagnoses according to ICD-10 were covered by DSM-IV. The ICD-10 had no independent psychopathological items and therefore offered no additional points for the diagnostic procedure than the DSM-IV. The situation regarding Utah criteria is different. These criteria contain seven psychopathological domains: inattention, hyperactivity, disorganisation, impulsivity, affective lability, overreactivity, and hot temper. They can be assessed by use of the WRI. Ninety-three of 168 patients were diagnosed as having ADHD according to the Utah concept, which is much lower than with the DSM-IV. The particular definition of the disorder by the Utah criteria resulted in seven patients having only a Utah diagnosis but no DSM-IV diagnosis. Thus we are in a position to say that the Utah criteria have a relatively high level for making an ADHD diagnosis but in certain cases move beyond the DSM-IV. Of the patients 56% had ADHD diagnoses according to all three classification instruments. Examining the factor structure of the ADHD psychopathology represented by seven WRI and three ADHD-SR subscales, we found a two-factor solution explaining for 63% of the variance. Factor 1 was designated by impulsivity, affective lability, hyperactivity, and hot temper; factor 2 consisted of inattention, disorganisation, and overreactivity.

[Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults. Benchmarking diagnosis using the Wender-Reimherr adult rating scale].

We report on a study comparing different systems for the diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adulthood. Recruited for evaluation were 168 patients referred to our ADHD outpatient unit. We used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edn. (DSM-IV), International Classification of Diseases 10th edn. (ICD-10), and Utah criteria for diagnostic assessment and the Wender Utah rating scale, ADHD Self Report (ADHD-SR), and Wender Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Rating Scale as psychopathological assessment tools. We present basic psychometric data of the Wender-Reimherr Interview (WRI). Internal consistency was determined as 0.82 (alpha). The inter-rater reliability was 1.0 (kappa coefficient) regarding ADHD diagnoses, and the ICC was 0.98 referring to the WRI total scores. The convergent validity with the ADHD-SR was 0.65 (Spearman coefficient). In 126 of 168 patients an ADHD diagnosis was made according to at least one of the three systems. The DSM-IV diagnostic set led to 119 ADHD diagnoses. As compared with the two other systems, this is about the minimum level for an ADHD diagnosis. All of the 87 ADHD diagnoses according to ICD-10 were covered by DSM-IV. The ICD-10 had no independent psychopathological items and therefore offered no additional points for the diagnostic procedure than the DSM-IV. The situation regarding Utah criteria is different. These criteria contain seven psychopathological domains: inattention, hyperactivity, disorganisation, impulsivity, affective lability, overreactivity, and hot temper. They can be assessed by use of the WRI. Ninety-three of 168 patients were diagnosed as having ADHD according to the Utah concept, which is much lower than with the DSM-IV. The particular definition of the disorder by the Utah criteria resulted in seven patients having only a Utah diagnosis but no DSM-IV diagnosis. Thus we are in a position to say that the Utah criteria have a relatively high level for making an ADHD diagnosis but in certain cases move beyond the DSM-IV. Of the patients 56% had ADHD diagnoses according to all three classification instruments. Examining the factor structure of the ADHD psychopathology represented by seven WRI and three ADHD-SR subscales, we found a two-factor solution explaining for 63% of the variance. Factor 1 was designated by impulsivity, affective lability, hyperactivity, and hot temper; factor 2 consisted of inattention, disorganisation, and overreactivity.

ADHD IN ADULTS

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults is a common-and, frequently undiagnosed-psychiatric disorder. This article will focus on the symptoms, associated features, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, prevalence, etiology and treatment of this illness.

ADHS-Diagnose bei Erwachsenen nach DSM-IV, ICD-10 und den UTAH-Kriterien

We report on a study comparing different systems for the diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adulthood. Recruited for evaluation were 168 patients referred to our ADHD outpatient unit. We used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edn. (DSM-IV), International Classification of Diseases 10th edn. (ICD-10), and Utah criteria for diagnostic assessment and the Wender Utah rating scale, ADHD Self Report (ADHD-SR), and Wender Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Rating Scale as psychopathological assessment tools. We present basic psychometric data of the Wender-Reimherr Interview (WRI). Internal consistency was determined as 0.82 (alpha). The inter-rater reliability was 1.0 (kappa coefficient) regarding ADHD diagnoses, and the ICC was 0.98 referring to the WRI total scores. The convergent validity with the ADHD-SR was 0.65 (Spearman coefficient). In 126 of 168 patients an ADHD diagnosis was made according to at least one of the three systems. The DSM-IV diagnostic set led to 119 ADHD diagnoses. As compared with the two other systems, this is about the minimum level for an ADHD diagnosis. All of the 87 ADHD diagnoses according to ICD-10 were covered by DSM-IV. The ICD-10 had no independent psychopathological items and therefore offered no additional points for the diagnostic procedure than the DSM-IV. The situation regarding Utah criteria is different. These criteria contain seven psychopathological domains: inattention, hyperactivity, disorganisation, impulsivity, affective lability, overreactivity, and hot temper. They can be assessed by use of the WRI. Ninety-three of 168 patients were diagnosed as having ADHD according to the Utah concept, which is much lower than with the DSM-IV. The particular definition of the disorder by the Utah criteria resulted in seven patients having only a Utah diagnosis but no DSM-IV diagnosis. Thus we are in a position to say that the Utah criteria have a relatively high level for making an ADHD diagnosis but in certain cases move beyond the DSM-IV. Of the patients 56% had ADHD diagnoses according to all three classification instruments. Examining the factor structure of the ADHD psychopathology represented by seven WRI and three ADHD-SR subscales, we found a two-factor solution explaining for 63% of the variance. Factor 1 was designated by impulsivity, affective lability, hyperactivity, and hot temper; factor 2 consisted of inattention, disorganisation, and overreactivity.

ADHS-Diagnose bei Erwachsenen@@@Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults: Nach DSM-IV, ICD-10 und den UTAH-Kriterien@@@Benchmarking diagnosis using the Wender-Reimherr adult rating scale

We report on a study comparing different systems for the diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adulthood. Recruited for evaluation were 168 patients referred to our ADHD outpatient unit. We used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edn. (DSM-IV), International Classification of Diseases 10th edn. (ICD-10), and Utah criteria for diagnostic assessment and the Wender Utah rating scale, ADHD Self Report (ADHD-SR), and Wender Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Rating Scale as psychopathological assessment tools. We present basic psychometric data of the Wender-Reimherr Interview (WRI). Internal consistency was determined as 0.82 (alpha). The inter-rater reliability was 1.0 (kappa coefficient) regarding ADHD diagnoses, and the ICC was 0.98 referring to the WRI total scores. The convergent validity with the ADHD-SR was 0.65 (Spearman coefficient). In 126 of 168 patients an ADHD diagnosis was made according to at least one of the three systems. The DSM-IV diagnostic set led to 119 ADHD diagnoses. As compared with the two other systems, this is about the minimum level for an ADHD diagnosis. All of the 87 ADHD diagnoses according to ICD-10 were covered by DSM-IV. The ICD-10 had no independent psychopathological items and therefore offered no additional points for the diagnostic procedure than the DSM-IV. The situation regarding Utah criteria is different. These criteria contain seven psychopathological domains: inattention, hyperactivity, disorganisation, impulsivity, affective lability, overreactivity, and hot temper. They can be assessed by use of the WRI. Ninety-three of 168 patients were diagnosed as having ADHD according to the Utah concept, which is much lower than with the DSM-IV. The particular definition of the disorder by the Utah criteria resulted in seven patients having only a Utah diagnosis but no DSM-IV diagnosis. Thus we are in a position to say that the Utah criteria have a relatively high level for making an ADHD diagnosis but in certain cases move beyond the DSM-IV. Of the patients 56% had ADHD diagnoses according to all three classification instruments. Examining the factor structure of the ADHD psychopathology represented by seven WRI and three ADHD-SR subscales, we found a two-factor solution explaining for 63% of the variance. Factor 1 was designated by impulsivity, affective lability, hyperactivity, and hot temper; factor 2 consisted of inattention, disorganisation, and overreactivity.

A controlled study of methylphenidate in the treatment of attention deficit disorder, residual type, in adults

Thirty-seven adult patients meeting the Utah criteria for attention deficit disorder, residual type, were entered into a double-blind crossover trial of methylphenidate and placebo. A moderate-to-marked therapeutic response occurred in 21 (57%) of the patients while receiving methylphenidate and in four (11%) while receiving placebo, a highly significant difference statistically and clinically. The responding patients showed significant improvement in the following areas: attentional difficulty, motor overactivity, affective lability, and impulsivity. The diagnosis of attention deficit disorder, residual type, should be considered in patients with prominent complaints of impulsivity, restlessness, emotional lability, and hot temper who do not suffer from schizophrenia or major mood disorder and do not have symptoms of schizotypal or borderline personality disorders.