None.

BackgroundAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders in childhood. A wide variety of treatments have been used for the management of ADHD. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological, psychological and complementary and alternative medicine interventions for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents.Methods and findingsWe performed a systematic review with network meta-analyses. Randomised controlled trials (≥ 3 weeks follow-up) were identified from published and unpublished sources through searches in PubMed and the Cochrane Library (up to April 7, 2016). Interventions of interest were pharmacological (stimulants, non-stimulants, antidepressants, antipsychotics, and other unlicensed drugs), psychological (behavioural, cognitive training and neurofeedback) and complementary and alternative medicine (dietary therapy, fatty acids, amino acids, minerals, herbal therapy, homeopathy, and physical activity). The primary outcomes were efficacy (treatment response) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). Secondary outcomes included discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), as well as serious adverse events and specific adverse events. Random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to obtain estimates as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credibility intervals. We analysed interventions by class and individually. 190 randomised trials (52 different interventions grouped in 32 therapeutic classes) that enrolled 26114 participants with ADHD were included in complex networks. At the class level, behavioural therapy (alone or in combination with stimulants), stimulants, and non-stimulant seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo. Behavioural therapy in combination with stimulants seemed superior to stimulants or non-stimulants. Stimulants seemed superior to behavioural therapy, cognitive training and non-stimulants. Behavioural therapy, stimulants and their combination showed the best profile of acceptability. Stimulants and non-stimulants seemed well tolerated. Among medications, methylphenidate, amphetamine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and clonidine seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo. Methylphenidate and amphetamine seemed more efficacious than atomoxetine and guanfacine. Methylphenidate and clonidine seemed better accepted than placebo and atomoxetine. Most of the efficacious pharmacological treatments were associated with harms (anorexia, weight loss and insomnia), but an increased risk of serious adverse events was not observed. There is lack of evidence for cognitive training, neurofeedback, antidepressants, antipsychotics, dietary therapy, fatty acids, and other complementary and alternative medicine. Overall findings were limited by the clinical and methodological heterogeneity, small sample sizes of trials, short-term follow-up, and the absence of high-quality evidence; consequently, results should be interpreted with caution.ConclusionsClinical differences may exist between the ph...

BackgroundMedications aimed at inhibiting the renin–angiotensin system (RAS) have been used extensively for preventing cardiovascular and renal complications in patients with diabetes, but data that compare their clinical effectiveness are limited. We aimed to compare the effects of classes of RAS blockers on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in adults with diabetes.Methods and FindingsEligible trials were identified by electronic searches in PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1 January 2004 to 17 July 2014). Interventions of interest were angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and direct renin (DR) inhibitors. The primary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke—singly and as a composite endpoint, major cardiovascular outcome—and end-stage renal disease [ESRD], doubling of serum creatinine, and all-cause mortality—singly and as a composite endpoint, progression of renal disease. Secondary endpoints were angina pectoris and hospitalization for heart failure. In all, 71 trials (103,120 participants), with a total of 14 different regimens, were pooled using network meta-analyses. When compared with ACE inhibitor, no other RAS blocker used in monotherapy and/or combination was associated with a significant reduction in major cardiovascular outcomes: ARB (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.90–1.18), ACE inhibitor plus ARB (0.97; 95% CrI 0.79–1.19), DR inhibitor plus ACE inhibitor (1.32; 95% CrI 0.96–1.81), and DR inhibitor plus ARB (1.00; 95% CrI 0.73–1.38). For the risk of progression of renal disease, no significant differences were detected between ACE inhibitor and each of the remaining therapies: ARB (OR 1.10; 95% CrI 0.90–1.40), ACE inhibitor plus ARB (0.97; 95% CrI 0.72–1.29), DR inhibitor plus ACE inhibitor (0.99; 95% CrI 0.65–1.57), and DR inhibitor plus ARB (1.18; 95% CrI 0.78–1.84). No significant differences were showed between ACE inhibitors and ARBs with respect to all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, hospitalization for heart failure, ESRD, or doubling serum creatinine. Findings were limited by the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies. Potential inconsistency was identified in network meta-analyses of stroke and angina pectoris, limiting the conclusiveness of findings for these single endpoints.ConclusionsIn adults with diabetes, comparisons of different RAS blockers showed similar effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on major cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Compared with monotherapies, the combination of an ACE inhibitor and an ARB failed to provide significant benefits on major outcomes. Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefits, costs, and potential harms with individual diabetes patients before starting treatment.Review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014014404

Our updated meta-analysis suggested that TPOr agonists are associated with a higher risk of thromboemboembolic events compared with controls, and supports the current recommendations included in the European product information on this respect.

IMPORTANCE Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are childhood-onset disorders that may persist into adulthood. Several studies have suggested that they may be associated with an increased risk of mortality; however, the results are inconsistent.OBJECTIVE To assess the risk of mortality among persons with ASD or ADHD and their first-degree relatives.DATA SOURCES A search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO (published from inception to April 1, 2021) was supplemented by searching reference lists of the retrieved articles.STUDY SELECTION Cohort and case-control studies that reported mortality rate ratios (RRs) in persons with ASD or ADHD and/or their first-degree relatives compared with the general population or those without ASD/ADHD were included.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by at least 2 researchers independently. A random-effects model was used to meta-analyze individual studies and assessed heterogeneity (I 2 ). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESAll-cause mortality in association with ASD or ADHD. Secondary outcome was cause-specific mortality.RESULTS Twenty-seven studies were included, with a total of 642 260 individuals. All-cause mortality was found to be higher for persons with ASD (154 238 participants; 12 studies; RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.97-2.85; I 2 , 89%; moderate confidence) and persons with ADHD (396 488 participants; 8 studies; RR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.13-4.02; I 2 , 98%; low confidence) than for the general population. Among persons with ASD, deaths from natural causes (4 studies; RR, 3.80; 95% CI, 2.06-7.01; I 2 , 96%; low confidence) and deaths from unnatural causes were increased (6 studies; RR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.49-4.18; I 2 , 95%; low confidence). Among persons with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (4 studies; RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.89-2.96; I 2 , 88%; low confidence), but deaths from unnatural causes were higher than expected (10 studies; RR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.73-4.55; I 2 , 92%; low confidence).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ASD and ADHD are associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality. Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups. The substantial heterogeneity between studies should be explored further.

A considerable increase in anxiolytics and hypnotics´ consumption has occurred in Spain during the last decade, being the growth higher than that reported in other European countries.

BackgroundAutism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are childhood onset neurodevelopmental disorders that may persist into adulthood. ASD and ADHD tend to run in families and may have a significant negative impact on the health and longevity of those with the disorder and their relatives. The aim of this study will be to analyze the risk of mortality among children, adolescents, and adults with ASD or ADHD and their first-degree relatives.Methods/designWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, and ISI Web of Science will be used to identify epidemiological studies. Eligible studies will be observational studies reporting study-specific data for all-cause mortality or cause-specific mortality in children, adolescents, or adults with ASD or ADHD and/or their first-degree relatives. Cohort studies and case-control studies will be included. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome will be cause-specific mortality. Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles. Data will be abstracted, and study risk of bias/methodological quality will be appraised by two reviewers independently. The methodological quality of epidemiological studies will be appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. Random-effects meta-analyses of primary studies will be conducted where appropriate. Subgroup analyses for exploring statistical heterogeneity, if feasible, will include gender, age group, ethnicity, comorbidities, classification of cause of death, and relevant study characteristics.DiscussionOur study will establish the extent of the epidemiological evidence underlying the risk of mortality among children, adolescents, and adults with ASD or ADHD and their first-degree relatives. We anticipate that our findings will be of interest to patients, their families, caregivers, healthcare professionals, scientists, and policy makers. Implications for future epidemiological research will be discussed.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017059955.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0581-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the association of anorexia nervosa with the cancer incidence and mortality among study populations with anorexia nervosa compared with the general population or those without anorexia nervosa.