Background Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is among the most common psychiatric disorders of childhood that often persists into adulthood and old age. Yet ADHD is currently underdiagnosed and undertreated in many European countries, leading to chronicity of symptoms and impairment, due to lack of, or ineffective treatment, and higher costs of illness.Methods The European Network Adult ADHD and the Section for Neurodevelopmental Disorders Across the Lifespan (NDAL) of the European Psychiatric Association (EPA), aim to increase awareness and knowledge of adult ADHD in and outside Europe. This Updated European Consensus Statement aims to support clinicians with research evidence and clinical experience from 63 experts of European and other countries in which ADHD in adults is recognized and treated.Results Besides reviewing the latest research on prevalence, persistence, genetics and neurobiology of ADHD, three major questions are addressed: (1) What is the clinical picture of ADHD in adults? (2) How should ADHD be properly diagnosed in adults? (3) How should adult ADHDbe effectively treated?Conclusions ADHD often presents as a lifelong impairing condition. The stigma surrounding ADHD, mainly due to lack of knowledge, increases the suffering of patients. Education on the lifespan perspective, diagnostic assessment, and treatment of ADHD must increase for students of general and mental health, and for psychiatry professionals. Instruments for screening and diagnosis of ADHD in adults are available, as are effective evidence-based treatments for ADHD and its negative outcomes. More research is needed on gender differences, and in older adults with ADHD.

Our objective was to summarise systematically all research evidence related to how patients value outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).We conducted a systematic review (systematic review registration number CRD42015015206) by searching PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL, and included reports that assessed the relative importance of outcomes from COPD patients' perspective. Two authors independently determined the eligibility of studies, abstracted the eligible studies and assessed risk of bias. We narratively summarised eligible studies, meta-analysed utilities for individual outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach.We included 217 quantitative studies. Investigators most commonly used utility measurements of outcomes (n=136), discrete choice exercises (n=13), probability trade-off (n=4) and forced choice techniques (n=46). Patients rated adverse events as important but on average, less so than symptom relief. Exacerbation and hospitalisation due to exacerbation are the outcomes that COPD patients rate as most important. This systematic review provides a comprehensive registry of related studies.

No abstract

The aim of this paper was to review the up-to-date evidence base on pharmacology and clinical properties of vortioxetine. Vortioxetine is a novel antidepressant, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Because vortioxetine exhibits both an antidepressant and anxiolytic effect, it may be effective in treating both depressive and anxiety disorders, such as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Based on its pharmacodynamics profile and preclinical studies, it is believe that the drug's clinical action is mediated mainly by selective blockade of serotonin reuptake (by inhibiting the serotonin transporter [SERT]) and direct modulation of 5-HT receptors activity (such as 5-HT, 5-HT, 5-HT and 5-HT). In patients with MDD the recommended doses range is 5-20mg/day. Vortioxetine was shown to be more effective than placebo both in MDD and GAD. In terms of side effects, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and dry mouth were most commonly observed in individuals receiving vortioxetine. In direct comparison to duloxetine, vortioxetine is found to have a smaller efficacy but had a lower risk of developing the common antidepressant-induced adverse effects.

BackgroundPediatric Phase I cancer trials are critical for establishing the safety and dosing of anti-cancer treatments in children. Their implementation, however, must contend with the rarity of many pediatric cancers and limits on allowable risk in minors. The aim of this study is to describe the risk and benefit for pediatric cancer Phase I trials.Methods and findingsOur protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015015961). We systematically searched Embase and PubMed for solid and hematological malignancy Phase I pediatric trials published between 1 January 2004 and 1 March 2015. We included pediatric cancer Phase I studies, defined as “small sample size, non‑randomized, dose escalation studies that defined the recommended dose for subsequent study of a new drug in each schedule tested.” We measured risk using grade 3, 4, and 5 (fatal) drug-related adverse events (AEs) and benefit using objective response rates. When possible, data were meta-analyzed. We identified 170 studies meeting our eligibility criteria, accounting for 4,604 patients. The pooled overall objective response rate was 10.29% (95% CI 8.33% to 12.25%), and was lower in solid tumors, 3.17% (95% CI 2.62% to 3.72%), compared with hematological malignancies, 27.90% (95% CI 20.53% to 35.27%); p < 0.001. The overall fatal (grade 5) AE rate was 2.09% (95% CI 1.45% to 2.72%). Across the 4,604 evaluated patients, there were 4,675 grade 3 and 4 drug-related AEs, with an average grade 3/4 AE rate per person equal to 1.32. Our study had the following limitations: trials included in our review were heterogeneous (to minimize heterogeneity, we separated types of therapy and cancer types), and we relied on published data only and encountered challenges with the quality of reporting.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests that, on the whole, AE and response rates in pediatric Phase I trials are similar to those in adult Phase I trials. Our findings provide an empirical basis for the refinement and review of pediatric Phase I trials, and for communication about their risk and benefit.