Early identification of stimulant treatment responders, partial responders and non-responders using objective measures in children and adolescents with hyperkinetic disorder
Article first published online: 17 JAN 2011
© 2011 The Authors. Child and Adolescent Mental Health © 2011 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health
Child and Adolescent Mental Health
Volume 16, Issue 3, pages 144–149, September 2011
How to Cite
Vogt, C. and Williams, T. (2011), Early identification of stimulant treatment responders, partial responders and non-responders using objective measures in children and adolescents with hyperkinetic disorder. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 16: 144–149. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2010.00593.x
- Issue published online: 1 AUG 2011
- Article first published online: 17 JAN 2011
- Accepted for publication: 5 August 2010 Published online: 17 January 2011
- Hyperkinetic disorders;
- Computerised testing;
- Drug effects
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate stimulant medication response following a single dose of methylphenidate (MPH) in children and young people with hyperkinetic disorder using infrared motion analysis combined with a continuous performance task (QbTest system) as objective measures. The hypothesis was put forward that a moderate testdose of stimulant medication could determine a robust treatment response, partial response and non-response in relation to activity, attention and impulse control measures.
Methods: The study included 44 children and young people between the ages of 7–18 years with a diagnosis of hyperkinetic disorder (F90 & F90.1). A single dose-protocol incorporated the time course effects of both immediate release MPH and extended-release MPH (Concerta XL, Equasym XL) to determine comparable peak efficacy periods post intake.
Results: A robust treatment response with objective measures reverting to the population mean was found in 37 participants (84%). Three participants (7%) demonstrated a partial response to MPH and four participants (9%) were determined as non-responders due to deteriorating activity measures together with no improvements in attention and impulse control measures.
Conclusion: Objective measures provide early into prescribing the opportunity to measure treatment response and monitor adverse reactions to stimulant medication. Most treatment responders demonstrated an effective response to MPH on a moderate testdose facilitating a swift and more optimal titration process.