Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
July 8, 2021
Few studies have examined the safety and tolerability of ADHD medications (stimulants and atomoxetine) extending beyond six months, and none beyond a few years. A pair of Swedish neuroscientists at Uppsala University Hospital set out to explore longer-term outcomes. They conducted a six-year prospective study of 112 adults diagnosed with ADHD who were being treated with ADHD medications (primarily MPH, but also dexamphetamine and atomoxetine).
They found that at the end of that period, roughly half were still on medication, and half had discontinued treatment. There were no significant differences between the two groups in age, sex, ADHD severity, or comorbidity. The average ADHD score for the entire cohort declined to vary significantly, from a mean of 37 to a mean of 26, with less than one in a thousand odds of that being due to chance. There was also no sign of drug tolerance or a need to increase the dosage over time.
All 55 adults who discontinued treatment had taken MPH for at least part of the time. Eleven had also been treated with dexamphetamine(DEX) and 15 with atomoxetine (ATX). The average time on treatment was just under two years. Almost a third quit MPH because they perceived no beneficial effect. Since they were on average taking higher doses at discontinuation than initiation, that is unlikely to have been due to suboptimal dosage. Almost another third was discontinued for various adverse mental effects, including hyperactivity, elation, depressive moods, aggression, insomnia, fatigue, and lethargy. Another one in eleven quit when they lost contact with the prescribing physician. In the case of ATX, almost half quit because of what they perceived as adverse mental effects.
Among the 57 adults who remained on medication, four out of five reported a strong beneficial effect. Only two reported minimal or no effect. Compared with the group that discontinued, the group that remained on medication was far more likely to agree with the statements, "My quality of life has improved," and "My level of functioning has improved." Yet, as the authors caution, it is possible "that the subjects' subjective ratings contained a placebo-related mechanism in those who are compliant with the medication and pursue treatment over time." The authors reported that there were no significant differences in ADHD scores or ADHD severity between the group that quit and the group that remained on medication, even though, on average, the group that quit had been off medication for four years at follow-up.
We cannot explain why the patients who quit treatment showed similar levels of ADHD symptoms to those who continued treatment. It is possible that some patients remit symptoms over time and do not require sustained treatment. But we must keep in mind that there was a wide range of outcomes in both groups. Future work needs to find predictors of those who will do well after treatment withdrawal and those who do not.
Any decision on whether to maintain a course of medication should always weigh expected gains against adverse side effects. Short of hard evidence of continuing efficacy beyond two years, adverse events gain in relative importance. With that in mind, it is worth noting that this study reports that among those who remained on MPH, many reported side effects. More than a quarter complained of decreased appetite, one in four of dry mouth, one in five of anxiousness and increased heart rate, one in six of decreased sexual desire, one in nine of depressed mood, and one in eleven of insomnia.
This study breaks important ground in looking at the long-term effects of medication. It reaffirms findings elsewhere of the efficacy of ADHD medications. But contrary to the authors' conclusion, the data they present suggests the possibility that permanently medicating ADHD patients may not be more efficacious than discontinuation beyond a certain point, especially when balanced against adverse side effects.
But this is just one study with a relatively small sample size. This suggests a need for additional studies with larger sample sizes to pursue these questions with greater statistical reliability.
Dan Edvinsson and Lisa Ekselius, "Long-Term Tolerability and safety of Pharmacological Treatment of Adult Attention-Deficit/hyperactivity disorder," Journal of clinical psychopharmacology, vol. 38, no. 4(2018).
Background:
Recent progress in reproductive medicine has increased the number of children conceived via assisted reproductive techniques (ART). These include:
Although ART helps with infertility, there are concerns about its long-term effects on offspring, especially regarding neurodevelopment. Factors such as hormonal treatments, gamete manipulation, altered embryonic environments, as well as parental age and infertility, may influence brain development and raise the risk of neurodevelopmental and mental health disorders.
With previous studies finding conflicting results on a possible association between ART and increased risk of mental health disorders, an Indian research team has just published a new meta-analysis exploring this topic.
The Study:
Studies were eligible if they were observational (cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional), reported confounder-adjusted effect sizes for ADHD, and were published in English in peer-reviewed journals.
A meta-analysis of eight studies encompassing nearly twelve million individuals indicated a 7% higher prevalence of ADHD in offspring conceived via IVF/ICSI compared to those conceived naturally. The heterogeneity among studies was minimal, and no evidence of publication bias was observed.
The study’s 95% confidence interval ranged from 4% to 10%. Further analysis of five studies comprising almost nine million participants that distinguished outcomes by sex revealed that the increase in ADHD risk among female offspring was not statistically significant. In contrast, the elevated risk in male offspring persisted, though it was marginally significant, with the lower bound of the confidence limit at only 1%.
Results:
A meta-analysis of three studies (1.4 million participants) found a 13% higher rate of ADHD in children conceived via ovulation induction/intrauterine insemination (OI/IUI) compared to natural conception. The effect size, though doubled, remains small. Minimal heterogeneity and no publication bias were observed.
The team concluded, “The review found a small but statistically significant moderate certainty evidence of an increased risk of ADHD in those conceived through ART, compared to spontaneous conception. The magnitude of observed risk is small and is reassuring for parents and clinicians.”
Our Take-Away:
Overall, the meta-analysis points to a small, but measurable increase in ADHD diagnoses among children conceived through ART, but the effect sizes are modest and supported by moderate-certainty evidence. And we must always keep in mind that the researchers who wrote the original articles could not correct for all possible confounds. These findings suggest that while reproductive technologies may introduce slight variation in neurodevelopmental outcomes, the effects are small and uncertain. For families and clinicians, the results are generally reassuring: ART remains a safe and effective avenue to parenthood, and the results of this study should not be viewed as a prohibitive concern. Thoughtful developmental monitoring and open, evidence-based counseling can help ensure that ART-conceived children receive support that caters to their individual needs.
The Background:
Myopia is a growing global health concern linked to conditions like macular degeneration, glaucoma, and retinal detachment. Its prevalence has surged in recent decades; by 2050, an estimated 5 billion people will have myopia. The increase is especially marked in Asia – a survey in Taiwan reports that 84% of students aged 15 to 18 are myopic, with 24% severely affected.
Dopamine is an important neurotransmitter in the retina, involved in eye development, visual signaling, and refractive changes. The dopamine hypothesis, suggesting that retinal dopamine release helps prevent myopia, has emerged as a leading theory of myopia control.
Most studies show ADHD is highly heritable, often involving dopamine system genes. ADHD is strongly associated with dopaminergic abnormalities, especially in dopamine transporter function and release dynamics.
Medications for ADHD, like methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine, help regulate dopamine to reduce symptoms.
The Study:
Given dopamine’s critical involvement in both ADHD and myopia, a Taiwanese research team hypothesized that medications for ADHD that influence dopaminergic pathways may have a significant effect on myopia risk.
To evaluate this hypothesis, the team conducted a nationwide cohort study using data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI) program, which covers 99% of the nation’s 23 million residents and provides access to comprehensive eye care and screenings. Taiwan requires visual acuity screenings beginning at age four, with annual examinations for school-aged children to promote the early detection of visual anomalies such as myopia.
Furthermore, ADHD medication and diagnosis are tracked through compulsory diagnostic codes. This permits an accurate assessment of the effects of dopaminergic medications on myopia risk.
Propensity score allocation using a multivariable logistic regression model was applied to reduce bias from confounding influences, pairing cohorts based on similar scores.
The Results:
Comparing 133,945 individuals with ADHD with an equal number without ADHD, untreated ADHD was associated with a 22% greater risk of myopia.
However, after adjusting for covariates (gender, age, insured premium, comorbidities, location, and urbanization level), the ADHD cohort receiving medication treatment showed a 39% decreased risk of myopia relative to the untreated ADHD cohort.
Narrowing this further to the ADHD cohort receiving dopaminergic medications reduced the risk of myopia by more than half (52%) relative to the untreated ADHD cohort.
Treatment with two dopaminergic medications reduced the risk by well over two-thirds (72%) relative to the untreated ADHD cohort.
There were no significant differences between methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine. Each reduced risk by about 50%.
The team did not directly compare the ADHD cohort receiving dopaminergic medications with the non-ADHD cohort. But if there were 122 cases of myopia in the ADHD cohort for every 100 cases in the non-ADHD cohort, and dopaminergic medications halved the cases in the ADHD cohort to about 60, that would represent a roughly 40% reduction in myopia risk relative to the non-ADHD cohort.
The team concluded, “our research indicates that pharmacologically treated ADHD children have a reduced risk of myopia. Conversely, untreated ADHD children are at a heightened risk relative to those without ADHD. Moreover, the cumulative effects of ADHD medications were found to notably decrease myopia incidence, emphasizing the protective influence of dopaminergic modulation in these interventions.”
The Take-Away:
Children with untreated ADHD are more likely to develop myopia, but those receiving dopaminergic medications had a substantially lower risk. The findings suggest that ADHD medications may help protect against myopia by boosting dopamine signaling. More research is needed before firmly drawing this conclusion, but this research could open the door to new approaches for preventing myopia in at-risk children.
Background:
ADHD treatment includes medication, behavioral therapy, dietary changes, and special education. Stimulants are usually the first choice but may cause side effects like appetite loss and stomach discomfort, leading some to stop using them. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective but not always sufficient on its own. Research is increasingly exploring non-drug options, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which may boost medication effectiveness and improve results.
What is tDCS?
tDCS delivers a weak electric current (1.0–2.0 mA) via scalp electrodes to modulate brain activity, with current flowing from anode to cathode. Anodal stimulation increases neuronal activity, while cathodal stimulation generally inhibits it, though effects vary by region and neural circuitry. The impact of tDCS depends on factors such as current intensity, duration, and electrode shape. It targets cortical areas, often stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for ADHD due to its role in cognitive control. Stimulation of the inferior frontal gyrus has also been shown to improve response inhibition, making it another target for ADHD therapy.
There is an ongoing debate about how effective tDCS is for individuals with ADHD. One study found that applying tDCS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex can help reduce impulsivity symptoms in ADHD, whereas another study reported that several sessions of anodic tDCS did not lead to improvements in ADHD symptoms or cognitive abilities.
New Research:
Two recent meta-analyses have searched for a resolution to these conflicting findings. Both included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using either sham stimulation or a waitlist for controls.
Each team included seven studies in their respective meta-analyses, three of which appeared in both.
Both Wang et al. (three RCTs totaling 97 participants) and Wen et al. (three RCTs combining 121 participants) reported very large effect size reductions in inattention symptoms from tDCS versus controls. There was only one RCT overlap between them. Wang et al. had moderate to high variation (heterogeneity) in individual study outcomes, whereas Wen et al. had virtually none. There was no indication of publication bias.
Whereas Wen et al.’s same three RCTs found no significant reduction in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms, Wang et al. combined five RCTs with 221 total participants and reported a medium effect size reduction in impulsivity symptoms. This time, there was an overlap of two RCTs between the studies. Wen et al. had no heterogeneity, while Wang et al. had moderate heterogeneity. Neither showed signs of publication bias.
Turning to performance-based tasks, Wang et al. reported a medium effect size improvement in attentional performance from tDCS over controls (three RCTs totaling 136 participants), but no improvement in inhibitory control (five RCTs combining 234 persons).
Wang et al. found no significant difference in adverse events (four RCTs combining 161 participants) between tDCS and controls, with no heterogeneity. Wen et al. found no significant difference in dropout rates (4 RCTs totaling 143 individuals), again with no heterogeneity.
Wang et al. concluded, “tDCS may improve impulsive symptoms and inattentive symptoms among ADHD patients without increasing adverse effects, which is critical for clinical practice, especially when considering noninvasive brain stimulation, where patient safety is a key concern.”
Wen et al. further concluded, “Our study supported the use of tDCS for improving the self-reported symptoms of inattention and objective attentional performance in adults diagnosed with ADHD. However, the limited number of available trials hindered a robust investigation into the parameters required for establishing a standard protocol, such as the optimal location of electrode placement and treatment frequency in this setting. Further large-scale double-blind sham-controlled clinical trials that include assessments of self-reported symptoms and performance-based tasks both immediately after interventions and during follow-up periods, as well as comparisons of the efficacy of tDCS targeting different brain locations, are warranted to address these issues.”
The Take-Away:
Previous studies have shown mixed results on the benefits of this therapy on ADHD. These new findings suggest that tDCS may hold some real promise for adults with ADHD. While the technique didn’t meaningfully shift hyperactivity or impulsivity, it was well-tolerated and showed benefit, especially in self-reported symptoms. However, with only a handful of trials to draw from, it would be a mistake to suggest tDCS as a standard treatment protocol. Larger, well-designed studies are the next essential step to clarify where, how, and how often tDCS works best.
_logo%201.svg)
