Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-jbjwg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-12T07:26:02.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Atomoxetine as an Alternative Therapy for Adolescent Adhd With Comorbid Cerebral Palsy: A Case Report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Dominique Calilung
Affiliation:
Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, United Kingdom
Busra Yaman*
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

The prevalence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children with Cerebral Palsy (CP) is 19%. Whilst there is evidence that methylphenidate is an efficacious first line therapy for patients with ADHD, there is a lack of literature describing atomoxetine use in ADHD with comorbid CP.

Methods

Here we report the case of a 17-year old Caucasian female with ADHD and CP. The patient was referred to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) for ongoing anxiety following extensive orthopaedic surgery, which was managed with sertraline and concurrent Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

A CAMHS assessment led to her subsequent diagnosis of ADHD resulting in an initial treatment of low-dose methylphenidate (Ritalin). This was discontinued after four days due to progressive headache, tachycardia, and unilateral leg restlessness. The patient was hesitant to commence lisdexamfetamine, a second line stimulant medication, due to the possibility of similar adverse side effects.

Atomoxetine (20mg/day) was commenced for a month then increased to 30mg/day. After five months, it was discontinued. The patient reported no significant improvements to attention or concentration, but reported a later onset of escalating anxiety prior to discontinuation. Consultation revealed that the patient's anxiety may be attributed to biopsychosocial factors unrelated to pharmacotherapy, but could not discount the possibility that this was a side effect of atomoxetine. Following the discontinuation of atomoxetine, the patient and her carer were amenable to trialling lisdexamfetamine.

Results

Previous data have demonstrated that patients with CP have lower tolerance to particular pharmacological agents, therefore atomoxetine was started at a low dose (20mg/day) to permit a gradual titration up to the recommended therapeutic dose. Worsening anxiety whilst on atomoxetine (30mg/day) may be a result of one or a combination of the following: (1) long-term side effect, (2) subtherapeutic dose response, (3) identified precipitating and perpetuating psychosocial factors, particularly in the school setting.

Conclusion

The case report demonstrated an acceptable safety profile for the use of atomoxetine in a young person with ADHD and comorbid CP. The expected therapeutic benefits of atomoxetine for ADHD may have been offset by extenuating biopsychosocial factors. Further research is needed to determine whether there exists a causal relationship between atomoxetine therapy and worsened anxiety within this patient group. Furthermore, this case highlights the importance of understanding the complexities of ADHD treatment in patients with confounding environmental factors and comorbid neurological disorders.

Type
Case Study
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.