What would you like to find today?

The US Center for Disease Control's (CDC)review of ADHD starts with the statement: "Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a serious public health problem affecting many children and adults" (http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/research.html). My colleagues and I recently reviewed the ADHD literature. That let us describe ADHD as "... a seriously impairing, often persistent neurobiological disorder of high prevalence..." (Faraone et al., 2015). The figure 1, which comes from that paper, provides an overview of the lifetime trajectory of ADHD-associated morbidity.

Especially compelling data about ADHD and injuries comes from a recent paper, in Lancet Psychiatry, which used the Danish national registers to follow a cohort of 710,120 children (Dalsgaard et al., 2015a).   Compared with children not having ADHD, those with ADHD were 30% more likely to sustain injuries than other children.  Pharmacotherapy for ADHD reduced the risk for injuries by 32% from 5 to 10 years of age. Pharmacotherapy for ADHD reduced emergency room visits by 28.2% at age 10and 45.7% at age 12.    

These results are shown in Figure 2, taken from the publication.

Especially compelling data about ADHD and injuries comes from a recent paper, in Lancet Psychiatry, which used the Danish national registers to follow a cohort of 710,120 children (Dalsgaard et al., 2015a).   Compared with children not having ADHD, those with ADHD were 30% more likely to sustain injuries than other children.  Pharmacotherapy for ADHD reduced the risk for injuries by 32% from 5 to 10 years of age. Pharmacotherapy for ADHD reduced emergency room visits by 28.2%at age 10and 45.7% at age 12.    

These results are shown in Figure2, taken from the publication.  The Figure compares the prevalence of injuries among three groups.  ADHD children treated with medication, ADHD children not treated with medication, and children without ADHD.  The Figure shows how ADHD risk for injuries occurs for all age groups. It also shows how the risk for injuries drops with treatment so that by age 12, the prevalence of injuries among treated ADHD children is the same as the prevalence of injuries for children without ADHD.

Documented examples of ADHD-associated injuries which impact day-to-day functioning include severe burns (Fritz and Butz, 2007), dental injuries (Sabuncuoglu, 2007), penetrating eye injuries (Bayar et al., 2015), the hospital treated injuries (Hurtig et al., 2013), and head injuries (DiScala et al., 1998).  In one study (DiScala et al., 1998), when compared to other children admitted to the hospital for injuries, ADHD children were more likely to sustain injuries in multiple body regions (57.1% vs 43%), sustain head injuries (53% vs 41%), and to be severely injured as measured by the Injury Severity Score (12.5% vs5.4%) and the Glasgow Coma Scale (7.5% vs 3.4%).

Injuries are a substantial cause of ADHD-associated premature death.  This assertion comes from the work of Dalsgaard et al. (2015b)based on the same Danish registry discussed above.   In this second study, ADHD was associated with an increased risk for premature death and 53% of those deaths were due to injuries.  They reported the risk for premature death in three age groups: 1-5, 6-17, and >17.  For all three age groups, they found a greater risk for death in the ADHD group. For ages 6 to 17 and greater than 17. The ADHD-associated risk for mortality remained significant after excluding individuals with antisocial or substance use disorders.

There are currently no data about the effect of ADHD treatment on ADHD-associated premature death.  We do, however, know from the data reviewed above that ADHD treatment reduces injuries and that half the deaths in the ADHD group were due to injuries.  From this, we infer that ADHD treatments could reduce the risk of ADHD-associated premature death.

Two other ADHD-associated mobilities, obesity and cigarette smoking, have clear medical consequences.  In a meta-analysis of 42 cross-sectional studies comprising 48,161 people with ADHD and 679,975 controls, my colleagues and I reported that the pooled prevalence of obesity was increased by about 40% in ADHD children compared with non-ADHD children and by about 70% in ADHD adults compared with non-ADHD adults(Cortese et al.,2015). The association between ADHD and obesity was significant for ADHD medication-naïve subjects but not for those medicated for ADHD, which suggests that medication reduces the risk for obesity.  

Likewise, a meta-analysis of 27 longitudinal studies assessed the risk for several addictive disorders with sample sizes ranging from 4142 to 4175 for ADHD and 6835 to 6880 for non-ADHD controls (Lee et al., 2011).  Children with ADHD were at higher risk for disorders of abuse or dependence on nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and other unspecified substances.  Another meta-analysis (42 studies totaling, 2360 participants) showed that medications for ADHD reduced the ADHD-associated risk for smoking (Schoenfelder et al., 2014).   The authors concluded that, for ADHD patients, "Consistent stimulant treatment for ADHD may reduce the risk of smoking". This finding is especially notable given that, for ADHD youth, cigarette smoking is a gateway drug to more serious addictions (Biederman et al., 2006).

 Yes, ADHD is a serious disorder.  Although most ADHD people will be spared the worst of these outcomes, they must be considered by parents and patients when weighing the pros and cons of treatment options.

A recent paper by Margaret Sibley and colleagues addresses a key issue in the diagnosis of adult ADHD. Is it sufficient to only collect data from the patient being diagnosed or are informants useful or, perhaps, essential, for diagnosing ADHD in adults? Dr. Sibley presented a systematic review of twelve studies that prospectively followed ADHD children into adulthood. Each of these studies asked a simple question: What fraction of ADHD youth continued to have ADHD in adulthood. Surprisingly, the estimates of ADHD's persistence ranged from a low of4% to a high of 77%. They found two study features that accounted for much of this wide range. The first was the nature of the informant; did the study rely only on the patient's report, or were other informants consulted. The second was the use of a strict diagnostic threshold of six symptoms. When they limited the analysis to studies that used informants and eliminated the six symptom threshold, the range of estimates was much narrower, 40% to 77%. From studies that computed multiple measures of persistence using different criteria, the authors concluded: "(1) requiring impairment to be present for diagnosis reduced persistence rates; (2) a norm-based symptom threshold led to higher persistence than a strict six-symptom DSM-based symptom count criterion; and (3) informant reports tended to show a higher number of symptoms than self-reports." These data have clear implications for what clinicians can do to avoid false positive and false negative diagnoses when diagnosing adult ADHD. It is reassuring that the self-reports of ADHD patients tend to underestimate the number and severity of ADHD symptoms. This means that your patients are not typically exaggerating their symptoms. Put differently, self-reports will not lead you to over-diagnose adult ADHD. Instead, reliance on self-reports can lead to false-negative diagnoses, i.e., concluding that someone does not have ADHD when, in fact, they do. You can avoid false negatives by doing a thorough assessment, which is facilitated by some tools available at www. ADHD in adults. Command described in CME videos there. If you think a patient might have ADHD but are not certain, it would be helpful to collect data from an informant, i.e., someone who knows the patient well such as a spouse, partner, roommate, or parent. You can collect such data by sending home a rating scale or by having the patient bring an informant to a subsequent visit. Dr. Sibley's paper also shows that you can avoid false-negative diagnoses by using a lower symptom threshold than what is required in the diagnostic manual. The new DSM 5 lowered the symptom threshold for adults from six to five. Can you go lower? Yes, but it is essential to show that these symptoms lead to clear impairments in living. Importantly, this symptom threshold refers to the number of symptoms documented in adulthood, not to the number of symptoms retrospectively reported in childhood. To be diagnosed with ADHD in adulthood, one must document that the patient had at least six impairing symptoms of ADHD before the age of 12.

ADHD is a serious disorder that requires treatment to prevent many adverse outcomes. But, because the diagnosis of ADHD is based on how the patient responds to questions, people can pretend that they have ADHD when they do not. If you Google "fake ADHD" you'll get many pages of links, including a Psychology Today article on the topic and bloggers describing how they were able to fool doctors into giving them ADHD medications. Is fake ADHD a serious problem? Not really. The Internetseems to be faking an epidemic of fake ADHD.I say that because we have decades of research that show many objective measures of abnormality and impairment in people who say they have ADHD. These include traffic accidents, abnormalities in brain imaging, and molecular genetic differences. Some studies even suggest that ADHD adults downplay their ADHD symptoms. For example, one study diagnosed ADHD in children and then contacted them many years later when they were young adults.When they were interviewed as young adults, their responses to questions about ADHD suggested that they did not have the disorder. But when the same questions about the patient were asked to someone who lived with the patient as a young adult, it was clear that they still had ADHD. So rather than faking ADHD, many ADHD adults do not recognize that they have symptoms of the disorder. That said, we also know from research studies that, when asked to pretend that they have ADHD, adults can fake the disorder. That means that they can learn about the symptoms of the disorder and makeup examples of how they have had them when they have not. The research discussed above suggests that this is not common, but we do know that some people have motives for faking ADHD.For example, some college students seek special accommodations for taking tests; others may want stimulants for abuse, misuse, or diversion. Fortunately, doctors can detect fake ADHD in several ways. If an adult itself-referred for ADHD and asks specifically for stimulant medication, that raises the possibility of fake ADHD and drug-seeking. Because the issue of stimulant misuse has been mostly a concern on college campuses, many doctors treating college students will require independent verification of the patient's ADHD symptoms by speaking with a parent, even over the phone if an in-person visit is not possible. Using ADHD rating scales will not detect fake ADHD, and it is easy to fake poor performance on tests of reading or math ability. Neuropsychological tests can sometimes be used to detect malingering, but require referral to a specialist. Researchers are developing methods to detect faking ADHD symptoms. These have shown some utility in studies of young adults, but are not ready for clinical practice. So, currently, doctors concerned about fake ADHD should look for objective indicators of impairment (e.g., documented traffic accidents; academic performance below expectation) and speak to a parent of the patient to document that impairing symptoms of the disorder were present before the age of twelve. Because the issue of fake ADHD is of most concern on college campuses, it can also be helpful to speak with a teacher who has had frequent contact with the patient. In an era of large lecture halls and broadcast lectures, that may be difficult. And don't be fooled by the Internet. We don't want to deny treatment to ADHD patients out of undocumented reports of an epidemic of fake ADHD.

Many myths have been manufactured about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).  Facts that are clear and compelling to most scientists and doctors have been distorted or discarded from popular media discussions of the disorder.   Sometimes, the popular media seems motivated by the maxim "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."  That's fine for storytellers, but it is not acceptable for serious and useful discussions about ADHD.

Myths about ADHD are easy to find.  These myths have confused patients and parents and undermined the ability of professionals to appropriately treat the disorder.   When patients or parents get the idea that the diagnosis of ADHD is a subjective invention of doctors, or that ADHD medications cause drug abuse, that makes it less likely they will seek treatment and will increase their chances of having adverse outcomes. 

Fortunately, as John Adams famously said of the Boston Massacre, "Facts are stubborn things."  And science is a stubborn enterprise; it does not tolerate shoddy research or opinions not supported by fact.   ADHD scientists have addressed many of the myths about the disorder in the International Consensus Statement on ADHD, a published summary of scientific facts about ADHD endorsed by 75 international ADHD scientists in2002.  The statement describes evidence for the validity of ADHD, the existence of genetic and neurobiological causes for the disorder, and the range and severity of impairments caused by the disorder.   

The Statement makes several key points:

• The     U.S. Surgeon General, the American Medical Association, the American     Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the     American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recognize ADHD as a valid disorder.
• ADHD     involves a serious deficiency in a set of psychological abilities, and these deficiencies pose serious harm to most individuals possessing the disorder.
• Many studies show that the psychological deficits in people with ADHD are associated with abnormalities in several specific brain regions.
• The genetic contribution to ADHD is routinely found to be among the highest for any psychiatric disorder.
• ADHD     is not a benign disorder. For those it afflicts, it can cause devastating problems.

The facts about ADHD will prevail if you take the time to learn about them. This can be difficult when faced with a media blitz of information and misinformation about the disorder. In future blogs, I'll separate the fact from the fiction by addressing several popular myths about ADHD.

With the growth of the Internet, we are flooded with information about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from many sources, most of which aim to provide useful and compelling "facts" about the disorder.  But, for the cautious reader, separating fact from opinion can be difficult when writers have not spelled out how they have come to decide that the information they present is factual. 

My blog has several guidelines to reassure readers that the information they read about ADHD is up-to-date and dependable. They are as follows:

Nearly all the information presented is based on peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature about ADHD. "Peer-reviewed" means that other scientists read the article and made suggestions for changes and approved that it was of sufficient quality for publication. I say "nearly all" because in some cases I've used books or other information published by colleagues who have a reputation for high-quality science.

When expressing certainty about putative facts, I am guided by the principles of evidence-based medicine, which recognizes that the degree to which we can be certain about the truth of scientific statements depends on several features of the scientific papers used to justify the statements, such as the number of studies available and the quality of the individual studies. For example, compare these two types of studies.  One study gives drug X to 10 ADHD patients and reported that 7 improved.  Another gave drug Y to 100 patients and a placebo to 100 other patients and used statistics to show that the rate of improvement was significantly greater in the drug-treated group. The second study is much better and much larger, so we should be more confident in its conclusions. The rules of evidence are fairly complex and can be viewed at the Oxford Center for Evidenced Based Medicine (OCEBM;http://www.cebm.net/).

‍
The evidenced-based approach incorporates two types of information: a) the quality of the evidence and b) the magnitude of the treatment effect. The OCEBM levels of evidence quality are defined as follows (higher numbers are better:

1. Mechanism-based reasoning.  For example, some data suggest that oxidative stress leads to ADHD, and we know that omega-3 fatty acids reduce oxidative stress. So there is a reasonable mechanism whereby omega-3 therapy might help ADHD people.
2. Studies of one or a few people without a control group, or studies that compare treated patients to those that were not treated in the past.

Non-randomized, controlled studies.    In these studies, the treatment group is compared to a group that receives a placebo treatment, which is a fake treatment not expected to work.  

1. Non-randomized means that the comparison might be confounded by having placed different types of patients in the treatment and control groups.
2. A single randomized trial.  This type of study is not confounded.
3. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. This means that many randomized trials have been completed and someone has combined them to reach a more accurate conclusion.

It is possible to have high-quality evidence proving that a treatment works but the treatment might not work very well. So it is important to consider the magnitude of the treatment effect, also called the "effect size" by statisticians. For ADHD, it is easiest to think about ranking treatments on a ten-point scale. The stimulant medications have a quality rating of 5 and also have the strongest magnitude of effect, about 9 or 10.Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation 'works' with a quality rating of 5, but the score for the magnitude of the effect is only 2, so it doesn't work very well. We have to take into account patient or parent preferences, comorbid conditions, prior response to treatment, and other issues when choosing a treatment for a specific patient, but we can only use an evidence-based approach when deciding which treatments are well-supported as helpful for a disorder.

The stimulants methylphenidate and amphetamine are well known for their efficacy in treating symptoms of ADHD in both youth and adults.   Although these medications have been used for several decades, relatively little is known about the mechanisms of action that lead to their therapeutic effect.    

New data about the mechanism comes from a meta-analysis by Katya Rubia and colleagues. They analyzed 14 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data sets comprising 212 youth with ADHD.  Each of these data sets assessed the short-term effects of stimulants on fMRI-assessed brain activations. In the fMRI paradigm, ADHD and control participants are asked to do a neurocognitive task while the activity of their brains is being measured. Dr. Rubia and colleagues analyzed data from fMRI assessments of time discrimination, inhibition, and working memory, each of which is known to be deficient in ADHD patients.    

The meta-analysis found that the most consistent brain activations were seen in a region comprising the right inferior frontal cortex(IFC) and insula, even when the analysis was limited to previously medication-naïve patients. The implicated region of the brain is known to mediate cognitive control, time estimation, and attention.  Dr.Rubia also notes that other studies show that the IFC/Insula is needed for updating information and allocating attention to relevant stimuli.  

Another region implicate by the meta-analysis was the right putamen, a region that is rich in dopamine transporters. This finding is consistent with the fact that the dopamine transporter is the main target of stimulant medications.    

What is the potential clinical implication of these findings?  As Dr. Rubia and colleagues note, it is possible that the fMRI anomalies they identified could be used as a biomarker for ADHD or a biomarker to select patients who should respond optimally to stimulant medication. Although fMRI cannot be used as a clinical tool at this time, research of this sort is opening up new horizons for how we understand the etiology of ADHD and the mechanisms whereby medications exert their effects.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a one-to-one therapy, for adolescents or adults, where a therapist teaches an ADHD patient how thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are all interrelated and how each of these elements affects the others.  CBT emphasizes cognition or thinking because a major goal of this therapy is to help patients identify thinking patterns that lead to problem behaviors.  For example, the therapist might discover that the patient frequently has negative automatic thoughts such as "I'm stupid" in challenging situations. We call the thought 'automatic' because it invades the patient's consciousness without any effort. Thinking "I'm stupid" can cause anxiety and depression, which leads to failure. Thus, stopping the automatic thought will modify this chain of events and, hopefully, improve the outcome from failure to success.

CBT also educates patients about their ADHD and how it affects them in important daily activities.

‍
For example, most ADHD patients need help with activity schedules, socializing, organizing their workspace, and controlling their distractibility. By teaching specific cognitive and behavioral skills, the therapist helps the patient deal with their ADHD symptoms productively. For example, some ADHD patients are very impulsive when conversing with others. They don't wait their turn during conversations and may blurt out irrelevant ideas. This can be annoying to others, especially in the context of school or business relationships. The CBT therapist helps the patient identify these behaviors and creates strategies for avoiding them.

So, does CBT work for ADHD? The evidence base is small, but when CBT has been used for adult ADHD, it has produced positive results in well-designed studies.   These studies typically compare patients taking ADHD medications with those taking ADHD medications and receiving CBT.  

So for now, it is best to consider CBT as an adjunct rather than a replacement for medication. There are even fewer studies of CBT for adolescents with ADHD.  These initial studies also suggest that CBT will be useful for adolescents with ADHD who are also taking ADHD medications.  Some data suggest that CBT can be successfully applied in the classroom, but the evidence base is very small.

How can this information be used by doctors and patients for treatment planning?  Current treatment guidelines suggest starting with an ADHD medication.  After a suitable medication and dose are found, the patient and doctor should determine if any problems remain.  If so, CBT should be considered an adjunct to ADHD medications.

The term "cognitive behavior therapy (CBT)" refers to a type of talk therapy that seeks to change the way patients think about themselves, their disorder, and the world around them in a manner that will help them overcome symptoms and achieve life goals.

Because CBT is typically administered by a psychologist or other mental health professionals, CBT services are not available in primary care. Nonetheless, it is useful for primary care practitioners to know about CBT so that they can refer appropriately as needed. So, what can we say about the efficacy of CBT for treating adults with ADHD?

Based on a meta-analysis by Young and colleagues, we know for certain that the number of published trials of CBT for adult ADHD is small; only nine trials are available. Five of these compared CBT with waiting list controls; three compared CBT with appropriate placebo control groups. In all of these studies, patients in the CBT and control groups were also being treated with ADHD medications.

Thus, they speak to the efficacy of CBT when given as an adjunctive treatment. The meta-analysis examined the waiting list controlled studies and the placebo-controlled studies separately. For both types of study, the effect of CBT in reducing ADHD symptoms was statistically significant, with a standardized mean effect size of 0.4.

This effect size, albeit modest, is large enough to conclude that CBT will be useful for some patients being treated with ADHD medications. Given these results, a reasonable guideline would be to refer adults with ADHD to a CBT therapist if they are being maintained on an ADHD medication, but that medication is not leading to a complete remission of their symptoms and impairments. So listen to your patients. If, while on an appropriately titrated medication regime, they still complain about unresolved symptoms or impairments, you need to take action.  In some cases, changing their dose or shifting to another medication will be useful. If such approaches fail or are not feasible, you should consider referral to a CBT therapist.

In the world of research, it is unusual for a single study to be definitive. A possible exception is a recent report in the highly esteemed Lancet, which concluded that people diagnosed with ADHD were about two times more likely to die early than people without ADHD. The data came from the medical registers of Denmark that include1.92 a million people, of which 32,061 have ADHD. The registers included the times and causes of deaths spanning 32 years.

It is a remarkable resource. We know that people with very severe ADHD are at high risk for substance use disorders and antisocial behaviors. In the Danish study, these disorders also increased the risk for premature death, but the risk was even higher if people with those disorders also had ADHD. ADHD also increased the risk for early death among people without these extra problems. This latter finding points to an ADHD-specific pathway to premature death. What is it?  Well, we know that ADHD people are at risk for injuries, traffic accidents, and traumatic brain injury.  We don't know for certain why, but two symptom clusters of ADHD, inattention, and impulsivity, would be expected to increase the risk for accidents and injuries. For example, adults who are distracted while driving are clearly at risk for accidents. Accidents accounted for most of the early deaths in the Danish study. But the study also found an increase in natural causes of death due to having ADHD. This may be due to the well-replicated association between ADHD and obesity, or the possibility that ADHD symptoms lead to poor health habits.

In the Danish study, the mean age at diagnosis was 12.3, which means that many of the ADHD people in the study were not treated for many years after the onset of symptoms. The risk for early death increased with the age at diagnosis. This suggests that failing to diagnose and treat ADHD early makes the disorder worse and increases the risk for the types of behaviors that lead to premature death. Will these data change public policy or clinician behavior? I hope so. Perhaps the media will stop trivializing ADHD and accept it as a bona fide disorder in need of early identification and treatment.  Policymakers should allocate ADHD people their fair share of healthcare and research resources. For clinicians, early identification and treatment should become the rule rather than the exception.

Talk of premature death will worry parents and patients. That is understandable, but such worries can be alleviated by focusing on two facts: the absolute risk for premature death is low, and this risk can be greatly reduced by seeking and adhering to evidence-based treatments for the disorder.

I have too often seen on the Internet or media the statement that ADHD is a recent invention of psychiatrists and/or pharmaceutical companies. Such statements ignore the long history of ADHD that my colleague and I reviewed in our "Primer" about ADHD.  

ADHD has a long history. The first ADHD syndrome was described in a German medical textbook by Weikard in 1775. That's not a typo. The ADHD syndrome had been identified before the birth of the USA. Dr.Weikard did not use the term ADD or ADHD, yet he described a syndrome of hyperactivity and inattention that corresponds to what we call ADHD today.  

ADHD-like syndromes were described in Scotland in 1798 and in France in the late 19th century. The first description of an ADHD-like syndrome in a medical journal was by Dr. George Still in 1901 who described what he called a 'defect of moral control' in The Lancet. The discovery that stimulant drugs are effective in treating ADHD occurred in 1937 when Dr. Charles Bradley discovered that Benzedrine (an amphetamine compound) improved the behavior of children diagnosed with behavioral disorders. In subsequent years, several terms were used to describe children with ADHD symptoms. Examples are Kramer-Pollnow syndrome, minimal brain damage, minimal brain dysfunction, and hyperkinetic reaction.  

,It was not until the 1980s that the term Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) came into widespread use with the publication of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).   During the ensuing decades, several changes were made to the diagnostic criteria and the term ADD was replaced with ADHD so as not to overemphasize either inattention or hyperactivity when diagnosing the disorder. And, as the graphic below describes, these new and better diagnostic criteria led to many breakthroughs in our understanding of the nature of the disorder and the efficacy of treatments. So, if you think that ADHD is an invention of contemporary society, think again. It has been with us for quite some time.