Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology

Ketamine has proved effective as a rapid-acting antidepressant agent, but treatment is not effective for everyone (approximately a quarter to a half of patients). Some adult studies have begun to investigate predictors of ketamine's antidepressant response, but no studies have examined this in adolescents with depression.

We conducted a secondary data analysis of adolescents who participated in a randomized, single-dose, midazolam-controlled crossover trial of ketamine for adolescents with treatment-resistant depression. We examined the relationship between 19 exploratory demographic and clinical variables and depression symptom improvement (using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS]) at 1 and 7 days postinfusion.

Subjects who had fewer medication trials of both antidepressant medications and augmentation treatments were more likely to experience depression symptom improvement with ketamine. Subjects with shorter duration of their current depressive episode were more likely to experience depression symptom improvement with ketamine. Subjects currently being treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor medications, and not being treated with serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor medications, also experienced greater symptom improvement with ketamine. When receiving the midazolam control, less severe depressive symptoms, as measured by the Children's Depression Rating Scale (CDRS) (but not MADRS), and a comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnosis were associated with increased response.

Findings should be viewed as preliminary and exploratory given the small sample size and multiple secondary analyses. Identifying meaningful predictors of ketamine response is important to inform future therapeutic use of this compound, however, considerably more research is warranted before such clinical guidance is established. The trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT02579928.

Similar outcomes and remission rates have been found for the treatment of depression in adults in primary and psychiatric care settings. However, comparatively little is known about how pediatric depression is managed across different settings. This study aims to address this gap by comparing depression treatment in pediatric and psychiatric settings. We hypothesized that pediatric care settings would be more likely to treat individuals with lower depression severity and would select pharmacotherapy less frequently as a treatment option.

Patients (n = 3498) were screened for depression at a children's hospital from May 2017 to May 2022 as part of the VitalSign⁶ project, a web-based application for depression management. The two-item patient health questionnaire (PHQ) was used for screening, and the data set contains patient-reported measures and provider-reported diagnoses and treatment selections at each clinic visit. Patients with nine-item PHQ (PHQ-9) scores ≥10 at baseline were included in the analysis to compare diagnosis and treatment recommendations between pediatric and psychiatric settings.

Among the 1323 patients who screened positive for depression, those in psychiatric settings had higher PHQ-9 scores (15.9 ± 5.0 vs. 12.1 ± 5.5; p < 0.0001). Patients with PHQ-9 ≥ 10 in psychiatric settings were more likely to be diagnosed with major depressive disorder (60.6% vs. 24.7%, p < 0.0001) and receive pharmacotherapy (54.8% vs. 6.6%) than those in pediatric settings. Pediatric setting patients were more likely to receive nonpharmacological treatment alone (36.3% vs. 4.3%) or an outside referral (27.7% vs. 5.7%). Remission rates did not significantly differ between the two settings.

Youth in psychiatric settings are more likely to screen positive for depression and to have greater depression severity than those in pediatric settings. Both settings provide treatment recommendations for moderate-to-severe depression, but treatment types vary substantially. Yet, remission rates remain similar. Further research is needed to understand the nuances of treatment differences and their implications.

Previous studies suggest that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may increase the risk of suicide among children and youth, although the association between suicide risk and the combination of SSRIs with other medication such as stimulants in this population remains unclear. This study explored whether the combination of SSRIs with stimulants influenced suicide risk.

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single children's hospital campus-based ambulatory psychiatric clinic between September 1, 2017, and September 30, 2020. Subjects were 6–21 years of age and prescribed either stimulants or stimulants and SSRIs only. The primary outcome was suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB), defined by documented suicidal thoughts, plans, or behaviors. Firth logistic regression evaluated associations between medication class and STB.

Among 349 patients, the prevalence of STB was 5.7% (n = 20). In unadjusted model, patients prescribed SSRIs and stimulants had a 2.9-fold increase of STB compared to patients prescribed stimulants only, along with increasing age, male sex, and the diagnoses of anxiety and/or depression. In the final model adjusted for each of these factors, the observed association of medication regiment with STB was attenuated (odds ratio [OR]: 1.3, confidence interval [CI]: 0.3–4.9, p = 0.7). The magnitude of the adjusted association between depressive diagnosis and STB was notable (OR: 3.6, CI: 1.0–12.6, p = 0.049).

Among patients followed in a children's hospital-based ambulatory psychiatric clinic, a combination medication regimen of SSRIs and stimulants after adjusting for genetic sex, age, anxiety diagnosis, and depression diagnosis, the observed association between STB and combination stimulant and SSRI treatment was attenuated. This finding suggests that other factors, including depression, may have contributed to the association between SSRI treatment and STB. Larger, prospective studies of the relationship between combination pharmacotherapy and suicide risk are warranted to guide clinical/pharmacological decision making and to better clarify these relationships.

Retrospective case series.

The objective of this study was to provide naturalistic data on the use of guanfacine for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a clinically referred sample of youth with Down syndrome (DS).

The medical records of children and adolescents with DS who received guanfacine for the treatment of ADHD from a multidisciplinary neurodevelopmental disorder clinic between September 1, 2011, and September 10, 2021, were reviewed. Demographic and clinical characteristics, guanfacine dose and treatment duration, and adverse effects were recorded. Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) scores for ADHD symptom severity (S) and improvement (I) were retrospectively assigned by a child and adolescent psychiatrist based on review of the clinic notes. Response to guanfacine was defined as completion of at least 12 weeks of treatment and a Clinical Global Impression Improvement subscale rating ≤2 (1 = “very much improved” or 2 = “much improved”).

Twenty-one patients were eligible for inclusion, of whom 17 (81%) completed at least 12 weeks of guanfacine. Ten of the 21 patients (48%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 28%–68%) responded to treatment. The median time on guanfacine treatment covered by the clinic notes was 50.4 weeks, with a range of 0.3 weeks to 7.5 years. Thirteen patients (62%) remained on guanfacine at the time of their most recent clinic note. Nine patients had adverse events documented in their clinic notes (43%; 95% CI: 24%–63%), most commonly sleepiness (n = 7) and constipation (n = 2).

About half of patients with DS responded to guanfacine for the treatment of ADHD and many tolerated long-term use. Study limitations primarily relate to the retrospective nature of the study and small sample size.