The prevalence of psychotropic medication treatment for children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders has significantly increased in the United States during the last few decades, particularly in the last 15 years. Specifically, the 5 through 14-year-old age group has experienced a great increase in stimulant treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and the 15 through 19-year-old age group has had sizable increases in the use of antidepressant medications.^1,2

Objective To examine changes in the full spectrum of psychotropic medication treatment for youths from 1987 to 1996. Methods A population-based analysis of community treatment data on nearly 900 000 youths enrolled in 2 US health care systems included (1) computerized Medicaid data from 2 states (a midwestern state and a mid-Atlantic state) composed of outpatient prescription claims and enrollment records and (2) computerized prescription dispensing records from a group-model health maintenance organization. Ten 1-year cross-sectional data sets from 1987 through 1996 were analyzed. Results Total psychotropic medication prevalence for youths increased 2- to 3-fold and included most classes of medication. The rapid growth since 1991 of α-agonists, neuroleptics, and "mood stabilizer" anticonvulsants was particularly notable. The 1996 prevalence of any psychotropic medication among youths younger than 20 years was remarkably similar (5.9%-6.3%) across all 3 sites, with stimulants and antidepressants consistently ranked first and second. Medicaid rates almost always exceeded health maintenance organization rates by large margins, particularly for α-agonists, neuroleptics, "mood stabilizer" anticonvulsants, and lithium. Youths in health maintenance organizations had rates similar to Medicaid-insured youths for antidepressants and hypnotics. Over the decade, there was a proportional increase in females receiving stimulants and in males receiving antidepressants, particularly for the 10- to 14-year-old group. The prevalence ratios of whites to African Americans narrowed substantially in 1 Medicaid site. Conclusions Youth psychotropic treatment utilization during the 1990s nearly reached adult utilization rates. Youth findings can be used to accurately assess the duration of treatment and unforeseen practice pattern changes, and to identify safety concerns.

CONTEXT. Studies have revealed that youth in foster care covered by Medicaid insurance receive psychotropic medication at a rate >3 times that of Medicaid-insured youth who qualify by low family income. Systematic data on patterns of medication treatment, particularly concomitant drugs, for youth in foster care are limited. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this work was to describe and quantify patterns of psychotropic monotherapy and concomitant therapy prescribed to a randomly selected, 1-month sample of youth in foster care who had been receiving psychotropic medication. METHODS. Medicaid data were accessed for a July 2004 random sample of 472 medicated youth in foster care aged 0 through 19 years from a southwestern US state. Psychotropic medication treatment data were identified by concomitant pattern, frequency, medication class, subclass, and drug entity and were analyzed in relation to age group; gender; race or ethnicity; International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, psychiatric diagnosis; and physician specialty. RESULTS. Of the foster children who had been dispensed psychotropic medication, 41.3% received ≥3 different classes of these drugs during July 2004, and 15.9% received ≥4 different classes. The most frequently used medications were antidepressants (56.8%), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs (55.9%), and antipsychotic agents (53.2%). The use of specific psychotropic medication classes varied little by diagnostic grouping. Psychiatrists prescribed 93% of the psychotropic medication dispensed to youth in foster care. The use of ≥2 drugs within the same psychotropic medication class was noted in 22.2% of those who were given prescribed drugs concomitantly. CONCLUSIONS. Concomitant psychotropic medication treatment is frequent for youth in foster care and lacks substantive evidence as to its effectiveness and safety.

The study aims to compare cross-national prevalence of psychotropic medication use in youth.

Objective. To examine changes in antidepressant (ATD) prevalence and the sociodemographic and clinical correlates of ATD use among youths who are treated in community practice settings. Methods. A retrospective study was undertaken using large data sets from 3 US sites. Outpatient prescription and clinical service records of youths who were aged 2 to 19 and enrolled in Midwestern Medicaid (MWM) and mid-Atlantic Medicaid (MAM) state programs and a group-model health maintenance organization (HMO) were organized into seven 1-year cross-sectional data sets from 1988 through 1994 to evaluate ATD utilization patterns. Results. In 1994, ATD prevalence per 1000 youths was 19.10 (MWM), 17.78 (MAM), and 12.85 (HMO), which represented a consistent increase in prevalence from 1988–1994: 2.9-fold (MWM), 4.6-fold (MAM), and 3.6-fold (HMO). Despite the rapidly expanding use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors prescribed mainly for depression, more than half of ATD use in 1994 was still attributable to tricyclic antidepressants prescribed mainly for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. ATD prevalence was generally predominant among 10- to 14-year-old boys and among 15- to 19-year-old girls. In the Medicaid populations, 42% (MAM) and 72% (MWM) of ATD-treated youths had primary care services, whereas the bulk of the remainder had psychiatric services. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder followed by depression led the physician-reported primary care diagnoses associated with ATD use, whereas that diagnostic rank order was reversed for youths who received psychiatric services. Conclusions. ATD treatments among youths substantially increased in the 1990s. This was generated primarily by primary care providers, and thus evaluations of the outcome of ATD treatment need to target primary care in addition to psychiatric providers. Longitudinal study designs are needed to evaluate the use of ATDs in youths in regard to the duration of treatment, combination medications, and the reasons for treatment.

Objectives (1) To describe temporal patterns of office visits for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and stimulant treatment for 5- to 14-year-old US youths; (2) to compare youth visits for ADHD with and without medication according to patient demographics, physician specialty, reimbursement source, and comorbid diagnoses; and (3) to compare office visits for youths with ADHD in relation to common medication patterns (stimulants alone, stimulants with other psychotherapeutic medication, and nonstimulant psychotherapeutic medications alone). Design Survey based on a national probability sample of office-based physicians in the United States. Setting Physician offices. Participants A systematically sampled group of office-based physicians. Main Outcome Measures National estimates of office visits for ADHD and psychotherapeutic drug visits for ADHD for each year and for a combined 8-year period. Results Youth visits for ADHD as a percentage of total physician visits had a 90% increase, from 1.9% in 1989 to 3.6% in 1996. Stimulant therapy within ADHD youth visits rose from 62.6% in 1989 to 76.6% in 1996. While the majority of non-ADHD youth visits were conducted by primary care physicians, one third of ADHD youth visits were managed by psychiatry and neurology specialists. Health maintenance organization insurance was the reimbursement source for 17.9% of non-ADHD youth visits but only 11.7% of ADHD youth visits. Complex medication therapy was more likely to be prescribed by psychiatrists and less likely to be related to visits with health maintenance organization reimbursement. Conclusions National survey estimates in the 1990s confirm the substantial increase in visits for youths diagnosed as having ADHD, with more than three quarters of these visits associated with psychotherapeutic medication treatment. Physician specialty and reimbursement source variables identify distinct patient populations with a gradient in psychotherapeutic medication patterns from single-drug standard (stimulant) therapy to complex multidrug treatment regimens for which evidence-based scientific information is lacking.