August 12, 2024
Quality of life (QoL) is defined as a person’s satisfaction with their life, measured across several dimensions including psychological, social, health, biological, and economic well-being. For adults, these are usually self-reported. QoL for children and adolescents is usually reported by parents.
Medications for ADHD include stimulants (methylphenidate and amphetamines) and non-stimulants (e.g., atomoxetine, clonidine, guanfacine, viloxazine). As QoL is related to ADHD symptoms’ severity, management of ADHD via medication could improve not only core symptoms but also QoL in people with ADHD.
Noting the absence of meta-analytic evidence on the effects of ADHD medications on QoL, an international research team conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of parallel or cross-over randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to estimate the effects of ADHD medication on QoL. They also performed secondary analyses to see if these effects differed in children and adolescents versus adults, as well as by class of medications, and if they were moderated by length of treatment.
Meta-analyses of four RCTs with a combined total of 950 participants with ADHD (45% adults) found a medium effect size improvement among those receiving amphetamines by comparison with those receiving placebo. There was no sign of publication bias, but there was wide variation (heterogeneity) in effect size estimated among the studies.
Meta-analysis of four RCTs with a combined total of 1,094 participants with ADHD (57% adults) found a small-to-medium effect size improvement among those receiving methylphenidate by comparison with those receiving placebo. Again, there was no sign of publication bias, but wide variation in effect sizes among the studies.
Due to lack of sufficient data, the team could not explore whether length of treatment affected the results, or if there were differences between children/adolescents and adults.
Finally, a meta-analysis of eleven RCTs with a combined total of 3,344 participants with ADHD (63% adults) likewise found a small effect size improvement among those taking atomoxetine compared with those receiving placebo. Once again, there was no sign of publication bias, but wide variation in effect sizes among the studies.
The team was able to establish that for atomoxetine treatment, length of intervention – the studies ranged from 6 to 24 weeks – had no significant moderating effect. Similarly, they found no significant differences in effect on children and adolescents versus adults.
A single RCT evaluating modafinil treatment in adults found no improvements at any dose, whereas a single RCT testing non-stimulant guanfacine reported a medium effect size improvement in QoL. Modafinil is not FDA approved for ADHD but is sometimes used as a last resort if other treatments fail.
The team concluded that the FDA approved medications for ADHD were significantly more efficacious than placebo in improving QoL in people with ADHD. The improvements in Q0L were, however, smaller than what has been found for improvements is the symptoms of ADHD (inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity). More work is needed to detect differences by age and length of treatment.
Alessio Bellato, Nadia J. Perrott, Lucia Marzulli, Valeria Parlatini, David Coghill, and Samuele Cortese, “Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Effects of Pharmacological Treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder on Quality of Life,” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2024.05.023.
A Chinese research team performed two types of meta-analyses to compare the risk of suicide for ADHD patients taking ADHD medication as opposed to those not taking medication.
The first type of meta-analysis combined six large population studies with a total of over 4.7 million participants. These were located on three continents - Europe, Asia, and North America - and more specifically Sweden, England, Taiwan, and the United States.
The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be about a quarter less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p = 0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). There were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications produced divergent outcomes. A meta-analysis of four population studies covering almost 900,000 individuals found stimulant medications to be associated with a 28 percent reduced risk of suicide. On the other hand, a meta-analysis of three studies with over 62,000 individuals found no significant difference in suicide risk for non-stimulant medications. The benefit, therefore, seems limited to stimulant medication.
The second type of meta-analysis combined three within-individual studies with over 3.9 million persons in the United States, China, and Sweden. The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be almost a third less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were again barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p =0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). Once again, there were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced the sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications once again produced divergent outcomes. Meta-analysis of the same three studies found a 25 percent reduced risk of suicide among those taking stimulant medications. But as in the population studies, a meta-analysis of two studies with over 3.9 million persons found no reduction in risk among those taking non-stimulant medications.
A further meta-analysis of two studies with 3.9 million persons found no reduction in suicide risk among persons taking ADHD medications for 90 days or less, "revealing the importance of duration and adherence to medication in all individuals prescribed stimulants for ADHD."
The authors concluded, "exposure to non-stimulants is not associated with a higher risk of suicide attempts. However, a lower risk of suicide attempts was observed for stimulant drugs. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to the evidence of heterogeneity ..."
Older adults are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease. Psychostimulants may contribute to that risk through side effects, such as elevation of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate.
On the other hand, smoking, substance abuse, obesity, and chronic sleep loss - all of which are associated with ADHD - are known to increase cardiovascular risk, and stimulant medications are an effective treatment for ADHD.
So how does this all shake out? A Dutch team of researchers sets out to explore this. Using electronic health records, they compared all 139 patients 55 years and older at PsyQ outpatient clinic, Program Adult ADHD, in The Hague. Because a principal aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of medication on cardiovascular functioning after first medication use, the 26 patients who had previously been prescribed ADHD medication were excluded from the study, leaving a sample size of 113.
The ages of participants ranged from 55 from 79, with a mean of 61. Slightly over half were women. At the outset, 13 percent had elevated systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure, 2 percent had an irregular heart rate, 15 percent had an abnormal electrocardiogram, and 29 percent had some combination of these (a "cardiovascular risk profile"), and 21 percent used antihypertensive medication.
Three out of four participants had at least e comorbid disorder. The most common are sleep disorders, affecting a quarter of participants, and unipolar mood disorders (depressive or more rarely manic episodes, but not both), also affecting a quarter of participants.
Twenty-four patients did not initiate pharmacological treatment. Of the 89 who received ADHD medication, 58 (65%) reported positive effects, and five experienced no effect. Thirty-eight (43%) discontinued ADHD medication while at the clinic due to lack of effect or to side effects. The most commonly reported positive effects were enhanced concentration, more overview, less restlessness, more stable mood, and having more energy. The principal reasons for discontinuing medication were anxiety/depression, cardiovascular complaints, and lack of effect.
Methylphenidate raised heart rate and lowered weight, but had no significant effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Moreover, there was no significant correlation between methylphenidate dosage and any of these variables, nor between methylphenidate users taking hypertensive medication and those not taking such medication. There was no significant difference in systolic or diastolic blood pressure and heart rate before and after the use of methylphenidate among patients with the cardiovascular risk profiles.
Systolic blood pressure rose in ten out of 64 patients, with two experiencing an increase of at least 20 mmHg. It descended in five patients, with three having a decrease of at least 20 mmHg. Diastolic blood pressure rose by at least 10 mmHg in four patients, while dropping at least 10 mmHg in five others.
The authors concluded "that the use of a low dose of ADHD-medication is well tolerated and does not cause clinically significant cardiovascular changes among older adults with ADHD, even among those with an increased cardiovascular risk profile. Furthermore, our older patients experienced significant and clinically relevant improvement of their ADHD symptoms using stimulants, comparable with what is found among the younger age group," and that "the use of methylphenidate may be a relatively safe and effective treatment for older adults with ADHD, under the condition that all somatic complaints and especially cardiovascular parameters are monitored before and during pharmacological treatment."
Yet they cautioned that "due to the observational nature of the study and the lack of a control group, no firm conclusions can be drawn as to the effectiveness of the stimulants used. ... Important factors that were not systematically reported were the presence of other risk factors, such as smoking, substance (ab)use, aspirin use, and level of physical activity. In addition, the response to medication was not systematically measured"
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.
There has been consistent evidence of an association between ADHD and subjectively reported sleep problems even in patients not medicated for the disorder. There have also been studies using wrist-worn actigraphy (a wrist watch-like device that measures gross motor activity) and sleep lab-based polysomnography that measure objective sleep parameters.
What has been missing are large population-based cohort studies to explore the prevalence rates of different sleep disorders and medical prescriptions in ADHD.
Methods Used:
Sweden has a single-payer health insurance system and a series of national population registers that track virtually its entire population. Using the Swedish Total Population Register, a local research team created a cohort of all 6,470,658 persons born between 1945 and 2008. They linked this to the Swedish National Patient Register, which includes inpatient hospitalizations from 1975 to 2013, and outpatient specialist diagnoses from 2001 to 2013, to identify diagnoses of sleep disorders. They also linked to the Prescribed Drug Register, covering 2005 to 2013, to identify prescriptions for sleep medications.
Summary of Findings:
Overall, persons with ADHD were eight times more likely to be diagnosed with any sleep disorder relative to normally developing peers. Broken down by age, adolescents with ADHD were 16 times more likely to receive such diagnoses, young adults (18-30) twelve times more likely, children and mid-age adults (31-45) eight times more likely, and older adults six times more likely.
Broken down by specific sleep disorder diagnoses, relative to normally developing peers, persons with ADHD were:
As for sleep medication, relative to normally developing peers, persons with ADHD were:
Conclusion:
The team concluded, “Our findings also suggest that greater clinical attention should be directed towards addressing sleep problems in individuals with ADHD. This entails implementing proactive measures through sleep education programmes and providing both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches such as cognitive behavioural therapy and parental sleep training.”
Attention is a critical determinant of academic achievement, influencing domains such as language, literacy, and mathematics. To explore whether physical activity can improve attention in children with ADHD, an international team conducted a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies. The goal was to evaluate the impact of various physical activity regimens on attention-related outcomes in this population.
The researchers performed a comprehensive search of the medical literature to identify studies examining the effects of physical activity on attention in schoolchildren with ADHD. They included 10 studies with a total of 474 participants in their meta-analysis. The studies evaluated two main types of physical activity:
Additionally, they examined variations based on the frequency, duration, and type of control groups used in the studies. To assess consistency, they also analyzed heterogeneity (variability of outcomes) and checked for potential publication bias.
Key findings from the meta-analysis include:
The authors concluded that mentally engaging exercise is more effective than aerobic exercise in improving attention problems in schoolchildren with ADHD. Furthermore, higher frequency and longer duration of physical activity do not necessarily yield better outcomes.
This research underscores the importance of tailoring physical activity interventions to emphasize cognitive engagement over intensity or duration. By refining strategies, educators and parents can better support children with ADHD in achieving academic success. But take note: given the results from controlled studies, it seems clear that if there is a positive effect of exercise, it is very small so should not replace standard treatments for ADHD.
.png)
Previous studies have examined how stimulant medications affect the brain in controlled settings, but less is known about their impact in real-world conditions, where children may not always take their medication consistently or may combine it with other treatments. A new study leverages data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study to explore how real-world stimulant use impacts brain connectivity and ADHD symptoms over two years.
Changes in Brain Connectivity Researchers used brain imaging data from the ABCD study to examine the functional connectivity—communication between brain areas—of six regions within the striatum, a brain area involved in motivation and movement control. They focused on how stimulant use influenced connectivity between the striatum and other networks involved in executive functioning and visual-motor control.
The study found that stimulant exposure was linked to reduced connectivity between key striatal areas (such as the caudate and putamen) and large brain networks, including the frontoparietal and visual networks. These changes were more pronounced in children taking stimulants compared to those who were not medicated, as well as compared to typically developing children. Importantly, this reduction in connectivity seemed to regulate certain brain networks that are typically altered in children with ADHD.
Symptom Improvement In addition to brain changes, 14% of children taking stimulants experienced a significant reduction in ADHD symptoms over the two-year period. These children showed the strongest connectivity reductions between the right putamen and the visual network, suggesting that stimulant-induced connectivity changes may contribute to improvements in visual attentional control, which is a common challenge for children with ADHD.
Why This Matters This study is one of the first to examine how stimulant use in real-world conditions affects brain networks in children with ADHD over time. The findings suggest that stimulants may help normalize certain connectivity patterns associated with ADHD, particularly in networks related to attention and control. These insights could help clinicians better understand the potential long-term effects of stimulant treatment and guide personalized approaches to ADHD management.
Conclusion Stimulant medications appear to alter striatal-cortical connectivity in children with ADHD, with some changes linked to symptom improvement. This research highlights the potential for stimulant medications to impact brain networks in ways that support attention and control, highlighting the importance of understanding how real-world medication use influences ADHD treatment outcomes.
_logo%201.svg)
