<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Primary care pediatricians increasingly care for children's mental health problems, but little is known about practice-level variation in diagnosis and psychotropic medication prescribing practices.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>This retrospective review of electronic heath records from 43 US primary care practices included children aged 4 to 18 years with ≥1 office visit from January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2014. We examined variability in diagnosis and psychotropic prescribing across practices using logistic regression with practice fixed effects and evaluated associations of the availability of colocated or community-based mental health providers or the proportion of children in foster care with diagnosis and prescribing using generalized linear mixed models.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Among 294 748 children, 40 932 (15%) received a mental health diagnosis and 39 695 (14%) were prescribed psychotropic medication. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder was most commonly diagnosed (1%-16% per practice). The proportion of children receiving any psychotropic medication (4%-26%) and the proportion receiving ≥2 medication classes (1%-12%) varied across practices. Prescribing of specific medication classes also varied (stimulants, 3%-18%; antidepressants, 1%-12%; α-agonists, 0%-8%; second-generation antipsychotics, 0%-5%). Variability was partially explained by community availability of psychiatrists (significantly higher odds of a diagnosis or prescription when not available) but not by colocation of mental health professionals or percentage of children in foster care.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>The prevalence of mental health diagnosis and psychotropic medication prescribing varies substantially across practices and is only partially explained by psychiatrist availability. Research is needed to better define the causes of variable practice-level diagnosis and prescribing and implications for child mental health outcomes.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>The purpose of this study was to describe rates and patterns of long- and short-acting alpha agonist use for behavioral problems in a primary care population following Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the long-acting alpha agonists guanfacine and clonidine.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>Children and adolescents 4-18 years of age, who received an alpha agonist prescription between 2009 and 2011, were identified from a sample of 45 United States primary care practices in two electronic health record-based research networks. Alpha agonist receipt was identified using National Drug Codes and medication names. The proportion of subjects receiving long- and short-acting prescriptions in each year was calculated and examined with respect to reported mental health diagnoses, and whether indications for use were on-label, had evidence from clinical trials, or had no trial evidence.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>In a cohort of 282,875 subjects, 27,671 (10%) received any psychotropic medication and only 4,227 subjects (1.5%) received at least one prescription for an alpha agonist, most commonly a short-acting formulation (83%). Only 20% of alpha agonist use was on-label (use of long-acting formulations for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]). Most subjects (68%) received alpha agonists for indications with evidence of efficacy from clinical trials but no FDA approval, primarily short-acting formulations for ADHD and autism; 12% received alpha agonists for diagnoses lacking randomized clinical trial evidence in children, including sleep disorders and anxiety, or for which there was no documented mental health diagnosis. Rates of long-acting alpha agonist use increased more than 20-fold from 0.2% to 4%, whereas rates of short-acting alpha agonist use grew only slightly between 2009 and 2011 from 10.6% to 11.3%.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Alpha agonist use was uncommon in this population, and most subjects received short-acting forms for conditions that were off-label, but with clinical trial evidence. The safety and efficacy of use for conditions, including sleep disorders and anxiety, lacking evidence from randomized trials, warrant further investigation.</p>