Antipsychotic Treatment Duration in Children and Adolescents: A Register-Based Nationwide Study

Author(s):  
Eveliina Varimo ◽  
Eeva T. Aronen ◽  
Hannu Mogk ◽  
Hanna Rättö ◽  
Leena K. Saastamoinen
Author(s):  
Aleksi Hamina ◽  
Marte Handal ◽  
Olav Fredheim ◽  
Thomas Clausen ◽  
Li‐Chia Chen ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciara Campbell ◽  
Declan Millett ◽  
Niamh Kelly ◽  
Marie Cooke ◽  
Michael Cronin

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare Phase 1 treatment, using the Frankel 2 (FR2) or the modified Twin Block (MTB), for Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents with respect to: treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives. Materials and Methods: Sixty participants with a Class II division 1 malocclusion were randomly assigned to either the FR2 or MTB appliance in a two-armed parallel randomized clinical trial with an allocation ratio of 1 to 1. Time to achieve a Class I incisor relationship was the primary outcome. The number of appliance breakages was recorded. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was used to evaluate pre- and post-treatment occlusal outcome on study models. Participants completed the child OHRQoL (oral health-related quality of life), Piers-Harris, Standard Continuum of Aesthetic Need (SCAN), and Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score (OASIS) questionnaires pre- and post-treatment; parents completed a SCAN questionnaire. Results: Forty-two participants completed treatment (FR2: 20; MTB: 22). Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data for noncompleters. Mean treatment duration was similar for the two appliances (FR2: 376 days [SD 101]; MTB: 340 days [SD 102]; P = .41). There were no significant differences in mean number of appliance breakages (FR2: 0.3 SD 0.7; MTB: 0.4 SD 0.8; P = .67 or mean PAR score P = .48). Patient and parent perspectives did not differ between appliances (P > .05). Conclusions: Phase 1 treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives were similar in 11–14 year olds with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated using the FR2 or MTB appliance.


2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S174-S175
Author(s):  
Jose Rubio ◽  
Heidi Taipale ◽  
Christoph U Correll ◽  
Antti Tanskanen ◽  
John Kane ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 381-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
María J. de Castro ◽  
David Fraguas ◽  
Paula Laita ◽  
Dolores Moreno ◽  
Mara Parellada ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose M. Rubio ◽  
Heidi Taipale ◽  
Antti Tanskanen ◽  
Christoph Correll ◽  
John M. Kane ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S2) ◽  
pp. 324-324
Author(s):  
M. Marin Mayor ◽  
N. Martinez Martin ◽  
E. Verdura Vizcaino ◽  
R.A. Codesal Julian

IntroductionChildhood or Early Onset Schizophrenia (EOS), defined as the onset of psychotic symptoms before the thirteenth birthday, represents a rare, clinically severe variant, associated with significant chronic functional impairment and poor response to antipsychotic treatment. Despite of that, in clinical practice, atypical agents have become the treatment of choice in patients with EOS.AimsTo review the different pharmacological strategies, in which an atypical antipsychotic was used in the management of EOS in childhood and adolescence.MethodsWe conducted a literature search of articles related to the use of atypical antipsychotics in children and adolescents with EOS in the last 20 years from the Medline database.ResultsSeveral atypical antipsychotics, such as Risperidone, Olanzapine, Quetiapine, Aripiprazol and Clozapine were consistently found to reduce the severity of psychotic symptoms in EOS when compared to placebo. Although Clozapine has demonstrated to be more efficacious than other atypical and typical antipsychotics, it remains the medication of last resort due to its profile of side effects. Finally, in general, children and adolescent have a higher risk of extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, prolactin elevation, sedation and metabolic effects of atypical antipsychotics than adults.ConclusionsAntipsychotics are the mainstay of treatment of EOS. Randomized controlled trials suggest a trend to superior efficacy for atypical antipsychotics over classic antipsychotic. Children and adolescents trend to be more sensible to antipsychotic side effects. Clinicians should be aware of this problem and be careful when monitoring this type of treatment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document