Importance Depressive disorders (DDs), anxiety disorders (ADs), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are common mental disorders in children and adolescents. Objective To examine the relative efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and placebo for the treatment of DD, AD, OCD, and PTSD in children and adolescents. Data Sources PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database from inception through August 7, 2016. Study Selection Published and unpublished randomized clinical trials of SSRIs or SNRIs in youths with DD, AD, OCD, or PTSD were included. Trials using other antidepressants (eg, tricyclic antidepressants, monoamine oxidase inhibitors) were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis Effect sizes, calculated as standardized mean differences (Hedgesg) and risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events, were assessed in a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes, as defined by authors on preintervention and postintervention data, mean change data, and adverse event data, were extracted independently by multiple observers following PRISMA guidelines. Results Thirty-six trials were eligible, including 6778 participants (3484 [51.4%] female; mean [SD] age, 12.9 [5.1] years); 17 studies for DD, 10 for AD, 8 for OCD, and 1 for PTSD. Analysis showed that SSRIs and SNRIs were significantly more beneficial compared with placebo, yielding a small effect size (g = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.25-0.40;P < .001). Anxiety disorder (g = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.72;P < .001) showed significantly larger between-group effect sizes than DD (g = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.13-0.27;P < .001). This difference was driven primarily by the placebo response: patients with DD exhibited significantly larger placebo responses (g = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.36-1.78;P < .001) compared with those with AD (g = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.84-1.21;P < .001). The SSRIs produced a relatively large effect size for ADs (g = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45-0.97;P < .001). Compared with participants receiving placebo, patients receiving an antidepressant reported significantly more treatment-emergent adverse events (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12;P = .01 or RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.22-1.82;P < .001, depending on the reporting method), severe adverse events (RR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.34-2.32;P < .001), and study discontinuation due to adverse events (RR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.32;P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance Compared with placebo, SSRIs and SNRIs are more beneficial than placebo in children and adolescents; however, the benefit is small and disorder specific, yielding a larger drug-placebo difference for AD than for other conditions. Response to placebo is large, especially in DD. Severe adverse events are significantly more common with SSRIs and SNRIs than placebo.

Importance Migraine is one of the most common neurologic disorders in children and adolescents. However, a quantitative comparison of multiple preventive pharmacologic treatments in the pediatric population is lacking. Objective To examine whether prophylactic pharmacologic treatments are more effective than placebo and whether there are differences between drugs regarding efficacy, safety, and acceptability. Data Sources Systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PsycINFO published through July 2, 2018. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials of prophylactic pharmacologic treatments in children and adolescents diagnosed as having episodic migraine were included. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 4 reviewers. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data extraction was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis network meta-analysis guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect sizes, calculated as standardized mean differences for primary outcomes and risk ratios for discontinuation rates, were assessed in a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, migraine frequency, number of migraine days, number of headache days, headache frequency, or headache index), safety (ie, treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events), and acceptability (ie, treatment discontinuation for any reason). Results Twenty-three studies (2217 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments included antiepileptics, antidepressants, calcium channel blockers, antihypertensive agents, and food supplements. In the short term (<5 months), propranolol (standard mean difference, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (standard mean difference, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15) were significantly more effective than placebo. However, the 95% prediction intervals for these medications contained the null effect. No significant long-term effects for migraine prophylaxis relative to placebo were found for any intervention. Conclusions and Relevance Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments have little evidence supporting efficacy in pediatric migraine. Future research could (1) identify factors associated with individual responses to pharmacologic prophylaxis, (2) analyze fluctuations of migraine attack frequency over time and determine the most clinically relevant length of probable prophylactic treatment, and (3) identify nonpharmacologic targets for migraine prophylaxis.

Summary: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence should revise their recent guideline to take into account all the available evidence on the treatment of chronic primary pain.

Chronic pain in children and adolescents is a common and debilitating health problem. This narrative review will give a brief overview on what pediatric chronic pain is and what treatment options there are for children and adolescents. The specific emphasis will be on pediatric chronic pain education and communication: this narrative review aims to show how important a good patient–health care provider relationship is—it builds the foundation for successful communication—and how this relationship can be established. In addition, we will present five steps that health care providers can perform to explain pediatric chronic pain to patients and their parents and what to keep in mind in their clinical routine. Our review is intended for pediatricians and other health care providers who treat pediatric patients with chronic pain but might feel uncertain on how to best communicate with them.