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.
October 17, 2024
A recent U.S. study challenges assumptions about the link between prescription stimulant use for ADHD and later substance abuse. Adolescents who used prescription stimulants under a physician’s supervision did not exhibit increased rates of non-medical stimulant use or cocaine use as they transitioned into young adulthood. However, other factors, like binge drinking and cannabis use, showed significant associations with later substance misuse, suggesting that the landscape of risk is more complex than previously understood.
Prescription stimulants are considered one of the most effective treatments for ADHD. While these medications can significantly improve focus and behavior, concerns have persisted that using stimulants during adolescence might predispose individuals to substance use disorder (SUD). Some theories suggest that early exposure to stimulants could increase the likelihood of cocaine use, as both substances affect the brain's dopamine pathways similarly.
Yet, previous research often lacked large, longitudinal studies focusing on adolescents with ADHD who had never been treated with stimulants. To fill this gap, a research team followed a nationally representative cohort of 11,905 high school seniors (12th graders, mostly aged 18) for six years, tracking their substance use behaviors.
At the start of the study, participants completed surveys regarding their ADHD treatment history—whether they had used stimulant therapy, non-stimulant therapy, or no medication at all. This formed three groups:
Participants then completed follow-up surveys every two years, reporting on their use of substances like prescription stimulants and cocaine, as well as their engagement in behaviors like binge drinking and cannabis use.
The study found no significant differences in the rates of non-medical stimulant use or cocaine use among the three groups. Adolescents who had been prescribed stimulant medications were not more likely to misuse prescription stimulants or cocaine as young adults than those who had not received such medications.
However, other behaviors at age 18 showed strong associations with later substance use:
The study’s findings have important implications for both clinicians and families managing ADHD. Although ADHD is associated with an increased risk of SUD, the researchers observed no higher risk of nonmedical stimulant use among adolescents who had taken stimulant therapy compared to those who hadn’t. Additionally, there was no evidence that stimulant medications posed a greater risk than non-stimulant medications for subsequent misuse.
The findings also highlight the need for more robust screening for alcohol and other drug use among adolescents. As the study notes, current guidelines do not recommend routine screening for substance misuse in adolescents due to limited evidence. However, given the associations found between binge drinking, cannabis use, and later substance misuse, such preventive measures could play a key role in reducing risks during this vulnerable period of development.
Ultimately, the study sheds light on the multifaceted nature of substance use risks in adolescents and young adults, suggesting that while prescription stimulant use for ADHD under medical supervision may not directly contribute to substance abuse, the broader context of an adolescent’s behaviors and environment is crucial in shaping future outcomes.
Vita V. McCabe, Philip T. Veliz, Timothy E. Wilens, Ty S. Schepis, Emily Pasman, Rebecca J. Evans-Polce, and Sean Esteban McCabe, “Adolescents’ Use of Medications for Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder and Subsequent Risk of Nonmedical Stimulant Use,” Journal of Adolescent Health (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2024.01.024.
The persistent shortage of ADHD medications has been more than a simple annoyance for patients at the pharmacy; the inconsistent availability of these medications has had deep impacts on the daily lives of those struggling without them. While public discourse has pointed fingers at over-prescribing or at restrictive DEA quotas, a recent economic evaluation in JAMA Health Forum suggests we’ve been looking in the wrong direction for an answer to what is causing this.
The reality of the shortage is less about increased demand and more about a fragile, globalized supply chain that snapped at a critical link.
Debunking the "Quota Myth":
The prevailing narrative suggested that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was stifling production by refusing to raise quotas. However, the data tells a different story. In 2022, manufacturers collectively met only about 70% of their allotted production quotas.
So we know that the problem wasn't that this DEA quota ceiling was too low. In fact, most manufacturers couldn't even reach it. Even when accounting for exports and domestic retail, production remained significantly below the legal limit. Even if the DEA had doubled its quotas, these medications still likely wouldn't have magically appeared on pharmacy shelves.
The most striking finding in the study is the correlation between the shortage and a sharp decline in the import of raw Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). For the past decade, Germany has accounted for over 85% of US amphetamine imports. In 2022, these imports dropped by approximately 36.7%. When the API doesn't arrive at the factory, production for medium and small manufacturers grinds to a halt. Unlike larger pharmaceutical giants, these smaller players often lack the inventory cushion or flexibility to quickly pivot to a new supplier.
When the primary supply of amphetamine-based stimulants (like Adderall) faltered, it triggered a secondary crisis. Patients and clinicians, seeking alternatives, shifted toward lisdexamfetamine (Vyvanse) and methylphenidate (Ritalin/Concerta).
If we view this shortage purely through a regulatory or clinical lens, we miss the underlying cause of the crisis. The pharmaceutical industry has become a victim of its reliance on "just-in-time manufacturing” and highly concentrated sourcing. Because over 30% of APIs for the US market are produced in just one or two facilities globally, the system isn't just inefficient; it’s brittle. We are, in a sense, trapped in a system that prioritizes cost-reduction over the resilience required for public health.
The researchers suggest several policy shifts to prevent a repeat of this supply chain failure:
The ADHD medication shortage wasn't a failure of clinical oversight or a sudden surge in "TikTok-driven diagnoses”, as many have suggested. It was a failure of logistics. It reminds us that the path from a lab in Germany to a patient's hand in the US is far more precarious than we realized.
ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition rooted in delayed or atypical maturation of the prefrontal cortex (the brain region that governs self-regulation). This maturational lag underlies the hallmark difficulties with attention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, and also impairs what researchers call executive function: the cognitive toolkit we rely on for working memory, impulse control, mental flexibility, emotional regulation, and the ability to tolerate delays in reward.
The Background:
Standard treatments work through two main routes. Stimulant and non-stimulant medications are considered very safe and effective treatments, but are not without risk of side effects and are not appropriate for every ADHD patient. Behavioral and psychosocial interventions can improve self-regulation and social functioning, but they require sustained effort and produce variable results. These limitations have kept the search for better alternatives active.
One candidate that has drawn growing attention is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). The technique is appealingly simple: a weak electrical current is applied to the scalp through small electrodes, modulating the excitability of neurons in the underlying cortex without requiring surgery, anesthesia, or significant discomfort. Its safety profile and ease of use have made it attractive to researchers.
The Study:
A newly published meta-analysis set out to give the technique its most rigorous test yet, pooling results from randomized controlled trials, including crossover designs, that compared active tDCS against sham stimulation in people with ADHD across all age groups.
The Results:
The findings were consistently null. Across seven trials enrolling 303 participants, tDCS produced no significant reduction in overall ADHD symptom severity compared with sham. Breaking symptoms into their components made no difference: neither hyperactivity/impulsivity nor inattention improved. Turning to executive function, 18 studies with 872 participants found no meaningful gain in inhibitory control, and 12 studies with 506 participants found the same for working memory. Smaller bodies of evidence, including three studies on cognitive flexibility (122 participants) and two on hot executive function, the motivational and emotional dimension of self-regulation (86 participants), similarly came up empty. Variation in outcomes across studies was small to moderate, and there was no evidence of publication bias skewing the picture.
The authors’ conclusion was succinct: tDCS was well tolerated but “did not demonstrate significant overall efficacy for core ADHD symptoms or executive functions.”
.png)
Disordered eating (a broad category of persistent, harmful patterns in eating or weight control) affects between 5% and 22% of children and adolescents worldwide, with similar rates seen in the United States. The consequences are far-reaching: these conditions are linked to bone fractures, anemia, malnutrition, dental erosion, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and elevated cholesterol and triglycerides. They also carry one of the highest mortality rates of any psychiatric illness.
Eating disorders rarely occur in isolation. They frequently arise alongside other psychiatric and neurological conditions. Yet, until now, no large-scale study had examined these co-occurrences in a nationally representative U.S. sample. A new study addresses that gap, focusing on children and adolescents aged 6–17 and the conditions most commonly associated with disordered eating, including ADHD.
The Study:
Researchers drew on data from the 2022–2023 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH), a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey covering all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Households were selected using stratified, address-based sampling, and parents or guardians completed surveys about one randomly selected child per household. The final sample included 68,000 children and adolescents.
Results:
After accounting for factors including sex, age, race and ethnicity, household income, educational attainment, insurance status, and household language, children and adolescents with ADHD were 2.6 times more likely to have some form of disordered eating compared to their typically developing peers.
The elevated risk appeared across a range of specific behaviors:
A greater tendency toward using diet pills, laxatives, or diuretics was also observed in the ADHD group, though this finding did not reach statistical significance.
The Take-Away:
These findings underscore a need to improve both prevention and treatment strategies for disordered eating, particularly in children and adolescents who have ADHD. Clinicians working with this population are advised to screen for a wide spectrum of disordered eating behaviors.
_logo%201.svg)
