ADHD

As at-home, do-it-yourself (DIY) brain stimulation devices like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) gain popularity for common psychiatric conditions like depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), questions arise about their safety and efficacy.

However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to “fully” clear any of these devices and has only granted breakthrough device designation to a few. In addition, most of the portable products don’t market themselves as medical interventions, putting them into a regulatory “gray area” that has little oversight.

This has led to a free-for-all environment, allowing individuals to purchase these products online and self-administer “treatment” — often without the guidance or even knowledge of their healthcare providers.

So how effective and safe are these noninvasive brain stimulators, and what guidance, if any, should clinicians provide to patients who are or are contemplating using them at home; what does the research show, and what are the ethical considerations?
 

What the Research Shows

Data from studies examining unsupervised at-home and use under medical supervision are mixed. Results from a recent randomized trial of more than 200 participants showed no significant difference in safety or efficacy between adjunctive at-home tDCS and at-home sham tDCS for depressive symptoms.

“To be fair, they did not find any unexpected safety issues. What they did find was that there was no clear signal that it worked,” said Noah S. Philip, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

Philip, who is also lead for mental health research at Brown’s Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Providence, Rhode Island, and was not involved in the study, noted that while other research papers have shown more promising results for depression and other conditions such as adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and pain, they often are not placebo controlled or include large numbers of patients.

Still, he added the growing use of these devices reflects the fact that standard treatment often doesn’t meet patients’ needs.

“Broadly speaking, part of the hope with brain stimulation is that instead of taking a pill, we’re trying to more directly affect the brain tissues involved — and therefore, avoid the issue of having systemic side effects that you get from the meds. There’s certainly a hunger” for better interventions, Philip said.

tDCS involves a low-intensity electrical current applied through electrodes on the scalp in order to influence brain activity. Generally speaking, it emits less energy than other types of noninvasive brain stimulation, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. “The trade-off is that’s it also a little harder to find a clear signal about how it works,” Philip said.

As such, he added, it’s important for clinicians to familiarize themselves with these devices, to ask about patient use, and to set up structured assessments of efficacy and adverse events.

Results from a randomized trial published last year in The Lancet showed no significant benefit for in-office use of tDCS plus a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor vs sham tDCS for major depression.

On the other hand, a randomized trial published earlier this year in Brain Stimulation showed that older adults who received active tDCS had greater reductions in depressive and anxiety symptoms than those in the sham group.

In addition, results from a small study of eight participants published last year in SAGE Open Medicine showed adjuvant tDCS helped patients with refractory PTSD. Finally, a randomized trial of 54 veterans from Philip’s own team showed tDCS plus virtual reality was effective for combat-related PTSD.

Although there have also been several studies showing possible benefit of tDCS for Alzheimer’s disease, Gayatri Devi, MD, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, noted in a Medscape Neurology Decision Point that “the problem with all these studies is that they’re all very small, and there [are] so many different variables in terms of how you interpret response.”
 

On-Demand Brain Stim

As for at-home use, there’s now a wide offering of these types of devices available online, allowing an individual to apply daily brain stimulation via headsets, dispensing with the need to consult a clinician. Most are battery-powered and emit a low-level current.

Philip noted that there are essentially two ways to obtain such devices. Some are readily available from online stores, while others require a prescription, which typically includes guidelines on how to use the device.

So far, none of these portable products have been fully cleared by the FDA — although the agency did grant Breakthrough Device designation to Sooma Medical for its device to treat depression in 2023 and to Flow Neuroscience in 2022.

In August 2023, Flow announced that its device is now being reviewed for full FDA clearance on the basis of trial results showing at-home tDCS was “twice as effective” as antidepressants. The company received regulatory approval in Europe in 2019.

Other research has shown “encouraging” results for these at-home devices for conditions such as adult ADHD and pain relief with remote supervision.

Philip noted that more high-quality randomized controlled trials are definitely needed, with “a number of companies probably getting close to releasing data sometime soon.”

Is it possible that a placebo effect is at work here? “Yes, partially,” said Philip. Users often become more mindful of managing their depression and other conditions, which leads to behavior change, he said.
 

A Quick Fix for a Broken System?

Joseph J. Fins, MD, The E. William Davis Jr, MD, professor of Medical Ethics and chief of the Division of Medical Ethics at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, also believes there could be a placebo effect at play.

“It’s important that we don’t ascribe efficacy to a device without being aware of the placebo effect,” he said. That’s why more and larger, placebo-controlled trials are needed, he added.

There’s a multitude of reasons why patients may turn to at-home devices on their own, including drug shortages and the inability to see a psychiatrist in a timely manner.

“I think it speaks to the isolation of these folks that leads to them doing this on their own. These devices become a technological quick fix for a system that’s desperately broken. There’s nothing wrong with being a consumer, but at a certain point they need to be a patient, and they need to have a clinician there to help them,” he said.

Fins said that he also worries about regulatory oversight because of the way the devices are classified. He likened them to supplements, which, because they don’t make certain claims, are not regulated with the same stringency as other products and fall into an area “in between regulatory spheres.”

“I think we’re trying to take old regulatory frameworks and jerry-rig it to accommodate new and evolving technologies. And I think we need to have serious study of how we protect patients as they become consumers — to make sure there’s enough safety and enough efficacy and that they don’t get ripped off out of desperation,” Fins said.

As for safety, at-home devices are unlikely to cause physical harm — at least when used as intended. “The riskier situations happen when people build their own, overuse it, or use it in combination with drugs or alcohol or other factors that can produce unpredictable results,” Philip said.

He added that DIY-built products carry a higher risk for burns or excessive energy output. A 2016 “open letter” from a group of neurologists, published in Annals of Neurology, warned about the dangers of DIY tDCS.

In addition, Philip noted that he has seen instances where patients become manic after using at-home tDCS, especially when trying to improve cognition.

“We have seen a number of peculiar side effects emerge in those situations. Typically, it’s anxiety, panic attacks, and sensitivity to bright lights, in addition to the emergence of mania, which would require major psychiatric intervention,” he said.

“So, it’s important that if folks do engage with these sorts of things, it’s with some degree of medical involvement,” Philip added.
 

Ethical Considerations

Roy Hamilton, MD, professor of neurology, psychiatry, and physical medicine & rehabilitation at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, said that in the setting of proper training, proper clinician communication, and proper oversight, he doesn’t view at-home tDCS as ethically problematic.

“For individuals who have conditions that are clearly causing them remarkable detriment to quality of life or to their health, it seems like the risk-benefit ratio with respect to the likelihood of harm is quite good,” said Hamilton, who is also the director of the Penn Brain Science, Translation, Innovation, and Modulation Center.

In addition, tDCS and other transcranial electrical stimulation techniques seem to have a better safety profile than “many of the other things we send patients home with to treat their pain,” he said.

On the other hand, this risk calculus changes in a scenario where patients are neurologically intact, he said.

The brain, Hamilton noted, exhibits functional differences based on the region undergoing stimulation. This means users should follow a specific, prescribed method. However, he pointed out that those using commercially available devices often lack clear guidance on where to place the electrodes and what intensity to use.

“This raises concerns because the way you use the device is important,” he said.

Hamilton also highlighted important ethical considerations regarding enhanced cognition through technology or pharmaceutical interventions. The possibility of coercive use raises questions about equity and fairness, particularly if individuals feel pressured to use such devices to remain competitive in academic or professional settings.

This mirrors the current issues surrounding the use of stimulants among students, where those without ADHD may feel compelled to use these drugs to improve performance. In addition, there is the possibility that the capacity to access devices that enhance cognition could exacerbate existing inequalities.

“Any time you introduce a technological intervention, you have to worry about discriminative justice. That’s where only people who can afford such devices or have access to specialists who can give them such devices get to receive improvements in their cognition,” Hamilton said.

Neither the American Academy of Neurology nor the American Psychiatric Association has established practice guidelines for tDCS, either for use in clinical settings or for use at home. Hamilton believes this is due to the current lack of data, noting that organizations likely want to see more approvals and widespread use before creating guidelines.

Fins emphasized the need for organized medicine to sponsor research, noting that the use of these devices is becoming a public health issue. He expressed concern that some devices are marketed as nonmedical interventions, despite involving medical procedures like brain stimulation. He concluded that while scrutiny is necessary, the current landscape should be approached without judgment.

Fins reported no relevant financial relationships. Philip reported serving on a scientific advisory board for Pulvinar Neuro and past involvement in clinical trials related to these devices and their use as home. Hamilton reported he is on the board of trustees for the McKnight Brain Research Foundation, which is dedicated to advancing healthy cognitive aging.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As at-home, do-it-yourself (DIY) brain stimulation devices like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) gain popularity for common psychiatric conditions like depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), questions arise about their safety and efficacy.

However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to “fully” clear any of these devices and has only granted breakthrough device designation to a few. In addition, most of the portable products don’t market themselves as medical interventions, putting them into a regulatory “gray area” that has little oversight.

This has led to a free-for-all environment, allowing individuals to purchase these products online and self-administer “treatment” — often without the guidance or even knowledge of their healthcare providers.

So how effective and safe are these noninvasive brain stimulators, and what guidance, if any, should clinicians provide to patients who are or are contemplating using them at home; what does the research show, and what are the ethical considerations?
 

What the Research Shows

Data from studies examining unsupervised at-home and use under medical supervision are mixed. Results from a recent randomized trial of more than 200 participants showed no significant difference in safety or efficacy between adjunctive at-home tDCS and at-home sham tDCS for depressive symptoms.

“To be fair, they did not find any unexpected safety issues. What they did find was that there was no clear signal that it worked,” said Noah S. Philip, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

Philip, who is also lead for mental health research at Brown’s Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Providence, Rhode Island, and was not involved in the study, noted that while other research papers have shown more promising results for depression and other conditions such as adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and pain, they often are not placebo controlled or include large numbers of patients.

Still, he added the growing use of these devices reflects the fact that standard treatment often doesn’t meet patients’ needs.

“Broadly speaking, part of the hope with brain stimulation is that instead of taking a pill, we’re trying to more directly affect the brain tissues involved — and therefore, avoid the issue of having systemic side effects that you get from the meds. There’s certainly a hunger” for better interventions, Philip said.

tDCS involves a low-intensity electrical current applied through electrodes on the scalp in order to influence brain activity. Generally speaking, it emits less energy than other types of noninvasive brain stimulation, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. “The trade-off is that’s it also a little harder to find a clear signal about how it works,” Philip said.

As such, he added, it’s important for clinicians to familiarize themselves with these devices, to ask about patient use, and to set up structured assessments of efficacy and adverse events.

Results from a randomized trial published last year in The Lancet showed no significant benefit for in-office use of tDCS plus a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor vs sham tDCS for major depression.

On the other hand, a randomized trial published earlier this year in Brain Stimulation showed that older adults who received active tDCS had greater reductions in depressive and anxiety symptoms than those in the sham group.

In addition, results from a small study of eight participants published last year in SAGE Open Medicine showed adjuvant tDCS helped patients with refractory PTSD. Finally, a randomized trial of 54 veterans from Philip’s own team showed tDCS plus virtual reality was effective for combat-related PTSD.

Although there have also been several studies showing possible benefit of tDCS for Alzheimer’s disease, Gayatri Devi, MD, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, noted in a Medscape Neurology Decision Point that “the problem with all these studies is that they’re all very small, and there [are] so many different variables in terms of how you interpret response.”
 

On-Demand Brain Stim

As for at-home use, there’s now a wide offering of these types of devices available online, allowing an individual to apply daily brain stimulation via headsets, dispensing with the need to consult a clinician. Most are battery-powered and emit a low-level current.

Philip noted that there are essentially two ways to obtain such devices. Some are readily available from online stores, while others require a prescription, which typically includes guidelines on how to use the device.

So far, none of these portable products have been fully cleared by the FDA — although the agency did grant Breakthrough Device designation to Sooma Medical for its device to treat depression in 2023 and to Flow Neuroscience in 2022.

In August 2023, Flow announced that its device is now being reviewed for full FDA clearance on the basis of trial results showing at-home tDCS was “twice as effective” as antidepressants. The company received regulatory approval in Europe in 2019.

Other research has shown “encouraging” results for these at-home devices for conditions such as adult ADHD and pain relief with remote supervision.

Philip noted that more high-quality randomized controlled trials are definitely needed, with “a number of companies probably getting close to releasing data sometime soon.”

Is it possible that a placebo effect is at work here? “Yes, partially,” said Philip. Users often become more mindful of managing their depression and other conditions, which leads to behavior change, he said.
 

A Quick Fix for a Broken System?

Joseph J. Fins, MD, The E. William Davis Jr, MD, professor of Medical Ethics and chief of the Division of Medical Ethics at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, also believes there could be a placebo effect at play.

“It’s important that we don’t ascribe efficacy to a device without being aware of the placebo effect,” he said. That’s why more and larger, placebo-controlled trials are needed, he added.

There’s a multitude of reasons why patients may turn to at-home devices on their own, including drug shortages and the inability to see a psychiatrist in a timely manner.

“I think it speaks to the isolation of these folks that leads to them doing this on their own. These devices become a technological quick fix for a system that’s desperately broken. There’s nothing wrong with being a consumer, but at a certain point they need to be a patient, and they need to have a clinician there to help them,” he said.

Fins said that he also worries about regulatory oversight because of the way the devices are classified. He likened them to supplements, which, because they don’t make certain claims, are not regulated with the same stringency as other products and fall into an area “in between regulatory spheres.”

“I think we’re trying to take old regulatory frameworks and jerry-rig it to accommodate new and evolving technologies. And I think we need to have serious study of how we protect patients as they become consumers — to make sure there’s enough safety and enough efficacy and that they don’t get ripped off out of desperation,” Fins said.

As for safety, at-home devices are unlikely to cause physical harm — at least when used as intended. “The riskier situations happen when people build their own, overuse it, or use it in combination with drugs or alcohol or other factors that can produce unpredictable results,” Philip said.

He added that DIY-built products carry a higher risk for burns or excessive energy output. A 2016 “open letter” from a group of neurologists, published in Annals of Neurology, warned about the dangers of DIY tDCS.

In addition, Philip noted that he has seen instances where patients become manic after using at-home tDCS, especially when trying to improve cognition.

“We have seen a number of peculiar side effects emerge in those situations. Typically, it’s anxiety, panic attacks, and sensitivity to bright lights, in addition to the emergence of mania, which would require major psychiatric intervention,” he said.

“So, it’s important that if folks do engage with these sorts of things, it’s with some degree of medical involvement,” Philip added.
 

Ethical Considerations

Roy Hamilton, MD, professor of neurology, psychiatry, and physical medicine & rehabilitation at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, said that in the setting of proper training, proper clinician communication, and proper oversight, he doesn’t view at-home tDCS as ethically problematic.

“For individuals who have conditions that are clearly causing them remarkable detriment to quality of life or to their health, it seems like the risk-benefit ratio with respect to the likelihood of harm is quite good,” said Hamilton, who is also the director of the Penn Brain Science, Translation, Innovation, and Modulation Center.

In addition, tDCS and other transcranial electrical stimulation techniques seem to have a better safety profile than “many of the other things we send patients home with to treat their pain,” he said.

On the other hand, this risk calculus changes in a scenario where patients are neurologically intact, he said.

The brain, Hamilton noted, exhibits functional differences based on the region undergoing stimulation. This means users should follow a specific, prescribed method. However, he pointed out that those using commercially available devices often lack clear guidance on where to place the electrodes and what intensity to use.

“This raises concerns because the way you use the device is important,” he said.

Hamilton also highlighted important ethical considerations regarding enhanced cognition through technology or pharmaceutical interventions. The possibility of coercive use raises questions about equity and fairness, particularly if individuals feel pressured to use such devices to remain competitive in academic or professional settings.

This mirrors the current issues surrounding the use of stimulants among students, where those without ADHD may feel compelled to use these drugs to improve performance. In addition, there is the possibility that the capacity to access devices that enhance cognition could exacerbate existing inequalities.

“Any time you introduce a technological intervention, you have to worry about discriminative justice. That’s where only people who can afford such devices or have access to specialists who can give them such devices get to receive improvements in their cognition,” Hamilton said.

Neither the American Academy of Neurology nor the American Psychiatric Association has established practice guidelines for tDCS, either for use in clinical settings or for use at home. Hamilton believes this is due to the current lack of data, noting that organizations likely want to see more approvals and widespread use before creating guidelines.

Fins emphasized the need for organized medicine to sponsor research, noting that the use of these devices is becoming a public health issue. He expressed concern that some devices are marketed as nonmedical interventions, despite involving medical procedures like brain stimulation. He concluded that while scrutiny is necessary, the current landscape should be approached without judgment.

Fins reported no relevant financial relationships. Philip reported serving on a scientific advisory board for Pulvinar Neuro and past involvement in clinical trials related to these devices and their use as home. Hamilton reported he is on the board of trustees for the McKnight Brain Research Foundation, which is dedicated to advancing healthy cognitive aging.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As at-home, do-it-yourself (DIY) brain stimulation devices like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) gain popularity for common psychiatric conditions like depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), questions arise about their safety and efficacy.

However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to “fully” clear any of these devices and has only granted breakthrough device designation to a few. In addition, most of the portable products don’t market themselves as medical interventions, putting them into a regulatory “gray area” that has little oversight.

This has led to a free-for-all environment, allowing individuals to purchase these products online and self-administer “treatment” — often without the guidance or even knowledge of their healthcare providers.

So how effective and safe are these noninvasive brain stimulators, and what guidance, if any, should clinicians provide to patients who are or are contemplating using them at home; what does the research show, and what are the ethical considerations?
 

What the Research Shows

Data from studies examining unsupervised at-home and use under medical supervision are mixed. Results from a recent randomized trial of more than 200 participants showed no significant difference in safety or efficacy between adjunctive at-home tDCS and at-home sham tDCS for depressive symptoms.

“To be fair, they did not find any unexpected safety issues. What they did find was that there was no clear signal that it worked,” said Noah S. Philip, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

Philip, who is also lead for mental health research at Brown’s Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Providence, Rhode Island, and was not involved in the study, noted that while other research papers have shown more promising results for depression and other conditions such as adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and pain, they often are not placebo controlled or include large numbers of patients.

Still, he added the growing use of these devices reflects the fact that standard treatment often doesn’t meet patients’ needs.

“Broadly speaking, part of the hope with brain stimulation is that instead of taking a pill, we’re trying to more directly affect the brain tissues involved — and therefore, avoid the issue of having systemic side effects that you get from the meds. There’s certainly a hunger” for better interventions, Philip said.

tDCS involves a low-intensity electrical current applied through electrodes on the scalp in order to influence brain activity. Generally speaking, it emits less energy than other types of noninvasive brain stimulation, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. “The trade-off is that’s it also a little harder to find a clear signal about how it works,” Philip said.

As such, he added, it’s important for clinicians to familiarize themselves with these devices, to ask about patient use, and to set up structured assessments of efficacy and adverse events.

Results from a randomized trial published last year in The Lancet showed no significant benefit for in-office use of tDCS plus a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor vs sham tDCS for major depression.

On the other hand, a randomized trial published earlier this year in Brain Stimulation showed that older adults who received active tDCS had greater reductions in depressive and anxiety symptoms than those in the sham group.

In addition, results from a small study of eight participants published last year in SAGE Open Medicine showed adjuvant tDCS helped patients with refractory PTSD. Finally, a randomized trial of 54 veterans from Philip’s own team showed tDCS plus virtual reality was effective for combat-related PTSD.

Although there have also been several studies showing possible benefit of tDCS for Alzheimer’s disease, Gayatri Devi, MD, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, noted in a Medscape Neurology Decision Point that “the problem with all these studies is that they’re all very small, and there [are] so many different variables in terms of how you interpret response.”
 

On-Demand Brain Stim

As for at-home use, there’s now a wide offering of these types of devices available online, allowing an individual to apply daily brain stimulation via headsets, dispensing with the need to consult a clinician. Most are battery-powered and emit a low-level current.

Philip noted that there are essentially two ways to obtain such devices. Some are readily available from online stores, while others require a prescription, which typically includes guidelines on how to use the device.

So far, none of these portable products have been fully cleared by the FDA — although the agency did grant Breakthrough Device designation to Sooma Medical for its device to treat depression in 2023 and to Flow Neuroscience in 2022.

In August 2023, Flow announced that its device is now being reviewed for full FDA clearance on the basis of trial results showing at-home tDCS was “twice as effective” as antidepressants. The company received regulatory approval in Europe in 2019.

Other research has shown “encouraging” results for these at-home devices for conditions such as adult ADHD and pain relief with remote supervision.

Philip noted that more high-quality randomized controlled trials are definitely needed, with “a number of companies probably getting close to releasing data sometime soon.”

Is it possible that a placebo effect is at work here? “Yes, partially,” said Philip. Users often become more mindful of managing their depression and other conditions, which leads to behavior change, he said.
 

A Quick Fix for a Broken System?

Joseph J. Fins, MD, The E. William Davis Jr, MD, professor of Medical Ethics and chief of the Division of Medical Ethics at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, also believes there could be a placebo effect at play.

“It’s important that we don’t ascribe efficacy to a device without being aware of the placebo effect,” he said. That’s why more and larger, placebo-controlled trials are needed, he added.

There’s a multitude of reasons why patients may turn to at-home devices on their own, including drug shortages and the inability to see a psychiatrist in a timely manner.

“I think it speaks to the isolation of these folks that leads to them doing this on their own. These devices become a technological quick fix for a system that’s desperately broken. There’s nothing wrong with being a consumer, but at a certain point they need to be a patient, and they need to have a clinician there to help them,” he said.

Fins said that he also worries about regulatory oversight because of the way the devices are classified. He likened them to supplements, which, because they don’t make certain claims, are not regulated with the same stringency as other products and fall into an area “in between regulatory spheres.”

“I think we’re trying to take old regulatory frameworks and jerry-rig it to accommodate new and evolving technologies. And I think we need to have serious study of how we protect patients as they become consumers — to make sure there’s enough safety and enough efficacy and that they don’t get ripped off out of desperation,” Fins said.

As for safety, at-home devices are unlikely to cause physical harm — at least when used as intended. “The riskier situations happen when people build their own, overuse it, or use it in combination with drugs or alcohol or other factors that can produce unpredictable results,” Philip said.

He added that DIY-built products carry a higher risk for burns or excessive energy output. A 2016 “open letter” from a group of neurologists, published in Annals of Neurology, warned about the dangers of DIY tDCS.

In addition, Philip noted that he has seen instances where patients become manic after using at-home tDCS, especially when trying to improve cognition.

“We have seen a number of peculiar side effects emerge in those situations. Typically, it’s anxiety, panic attacks, and sensitivity to bright lights, in addition to the emergence of mania, which would require major psychiatric intervention,” he said.

“So, it’s important that if folks do engage with these sorts of things, it’s with some degree of medical involvement,” Philip added.
 

Ethical Considerations

Roy Hamilton, MD, professor of neurology, psychiatry, and physical medicine & rehabilitation at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, said that in the setting of proper training, proper clinician communication, and proper oversight, he doesn’t view at-home tDCS as ethically problematic.

“For individuals who have conditions that are clearly causing them remarkable detriment to quality of life or to their health, it seems like the risk-benefit ratio with respect to the likelihood of harm is quite good,” said Hamilton, who is also the director of the Penn Brain Science, Translation, Innovation, and Modulation Center.

In addition, tDCS and other transcranial electrical stimulation techniques seem to have a better safety profile than “many of the other things we send patients home with to treat their pain,” he said.

On the other hand, this risk calculus changes in a scenario where patients are neurologically intact, he said.

The brain, Hamilton noted, exhibits functional differences based on the region undergoing stimulation. This means users should follow a specific, prescribed method. However, he pointed out that those using commercially available devices often lack clear guidance on where to place the electrodes and what intensity to use.

“This raises concerns because the way you use the device is important,” he said.

Hamilton also highlighted important ethical considerations regarding enhanced cognition through technology or pharmaceutical interventions. The possibility of coercive use raises questions about equity and fairness, particularly if individuals feel pressured to use such devices to remain competitive in academic or professional settings.

This mirrors the current issues surrounding the use of stimulants among students, where those without ADHD may feel compelled to use these drugs to improve performance. In addition, there is the possibility that the capacity to access devices that enhance cognition could exacerbate existing inequalities.

“Any time you introduce a technological intervention, you have to worry about discriminative justice. That’s where only people who can afford such devices or have access to specialists who can give them such devices get to receive improvements in their cognition,” Hamilton said.

Neither the American Academy of Neurology nor the American Psychiatric Association has established practice guidelines for tDCS, either for use in clinical settings or for use at home. Hamilton believes this is due to the current lack of data, noting that organizations likely want to see more approvals and widespread use before creating guidelines.

Fins emphasized the need for organized medicine to sponsor research, noting that the use of these devices is becoming a public health issue. He expressed concern that some devices are marketed as nonmedical interventions, despite involving medical procedures like brain stimulation. He concluded that while scrutiny is necessary, the current landscape should be approached without judgment.

Fins reported no relevant financial relationships. Philip reported serving on a scientific advisory board for Pulvinar Neuro and past involvement in clinical trials related to these devices and their use as home. Hamilton reported he is on the board of trustees for the McKnight Brain Research Foundation, which is dedicated to advancing healthy cognitive aging.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new analysis of a national dataset of children in the United States shows that there were roughly one million more children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 2022 than in 2016.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used 2022 data from the National Survey of Children’s Health to estimate the prevalence of ever-diagnosed and current ADHD among US children between the ages of 3 and 18 years.
• They also estimated, among children with current ADHD, the severity of the condition and the presence of current co-occurring disorders and the receipt of medication and behavioral treatments.
• The researchers calculated overall weighted estimates as well as estimates for specific demographic and clinical subgroups (n = 45,169).

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of children who had ever received an ADHD diagnosis increased from 6.1 million in 2016 to 7.1 million in 2022, and the number with current ADHD increased from 5.4 million to 6.5 million.
• Of those with current ADHD in 2022, 58.1% had moderate or severe ADHD, and 77.9% had at least one co-occurring disorder.
• A total of 53.6% had received ADHD medication, 44.4% had received behavioral treatment in the past year, and 30.1% had received no ADHD-specific treatment.
• A similar percentage of children with ADHD were receiving behavioral treatment in 2022 as in 2016 (44.4% vs 46.7%, respectively), but treatment with ADHD medication was lower in 2022 than in 2016 (53.6% vs 62.0%, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

The estimates “can be used by clinicians to understand current ADHD diagnosis and treatment utilization patterns to inform clinical practice, such as accounting for the frequency and management of co-occurring conditions and considering the notable percentage of children with ADHD not currently receiving ADHD treatment,” and can be used by policymakers, practitioners, and others “to plan for the needs of children with ADHD, such as by ensuring access to care and services for ADHD,” investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

Melissa L. Danielson, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led the study, which was published online in the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology.

LIMITATIONS:

Indicators reported in the analysis were on the basis of the parent report, which may be limited by recall and reporting decisions and were not validated against medical records or clinical judgment. Moreover, details about the types of treatment were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was authorized as part of the contributor’s official duties as an employee of the US Government, and therefore is a work of the US Government. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new analysis of a national dataset of children in the United States shows that there were roughly one million more children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 2022 than in 2016.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used 2022 data from the National Survey of Children’s Health to estimate the prevalence of ever-diagnosed and current ADHD among US children between the ages of 3 and 18 years.
• They also estimated, among children with current ADHD, the severity of the condition and the presence of current co-occurring disorders and the receipt of medication and behavioral treatments.
• The researchers calculated overall weighted estimates as well as estimates for specific demographic and clinical subgroups (n = 45,169).

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of children who had ever received an ADHD diagnosis increased from 6.1 million in 2016 to 7.1 million in 2022, and the number with current ADHD increased from 5.4 million to 6.5 million.
• Of those with current ADHD in 2022, 58.1% had moderate or severe ADHD, and 77.9% had at least one co-occurring disorder.
• A total of 53.6% had received ADHD medication, 44.4% had received behavioral treatment in the past year, and 30.1% had received no ADHD-specific treatment.
• A similar percentage of children with ADHD were receiving behavioral treatment in 2022 as in 2016 (44.4% vs 46.7%, respectively), but treatment with ADHD medication was lower in 2022 than in 2016 (53.6% vs 62.0%, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

The estimates “can be used by clinicians to understand current ADHD diagnosis and treatment utilization patterns to inform clinical practice, such as accounting for the frequency and management of co-occurring conditions and considering the notable percentage of children with ADHD not currently receiving ADHD treatment,” and can be used by policymakers, practitioners, and others “to plan for the needs of children with ADHD, such as by ensuring access to care and services for ADHD,” investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

Melissa L. Danielson, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led the study, which was published online in the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology.

LIMITATIONS:

Indicators reported in the analysis were on the basis of the parent report, which may be limited by recall and reporting decisions and were not validated against medical records or clinical judgment. Moreover, details about the types of treatment were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was authorized as part of the contributor’s official duties as an employee of the US Government, and therefore is a work of the US Government. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new analysis of a national dataset of children in the United States shows that there were roughly one million more children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 2022 than in 2016.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used 2022 data from the National Survey of Children’s Health to estimate the prevalence of ever-diagnosed and current ADHD among US children between the ages of 3 and 18 years.
• They also estimated, among children with current ADHD, the severity of the condition and the presence of current co-occurring disorders and the receipt of medication and behavioral treatments.
• The researchers calculated overall weighted estimates as well as estimates for specific demographic and clinical subgroups (n = 45,169).

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of children who had ever received an ADHD diagnosis increased from 6.1 million in 2016 to 7.1 million in 2022, and the number with current ADHD increased from 5.4 million to 6.5 million.
• Of those with current ADHD in 2022, 58.1% had moderate or severe ADHD, and 77.9% had at least one co-occurring disorder.
• A total of 53.6% had received ADHD medication, 44.4% had received behavioral treatment in the past year, and 30.1% had received no ADHD-specific treatment.
• A similar percentage of children with ADHD were receiving behavioral treatment in 2022 as in 2016 (44.4% vs 46.7%, respectively), but treatment with ADHD medication was lower in 2022 than in 2016 (53.6% vs 62.0%, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

The estimates “can be used by clinicians to understand current ADHD diagnosis and treatment utilization patterns to inform clinical practice, such as accounting for the frequency and management of co-occurring conditions and considering the notable percentage of children with ADHD not currently receiving ADHD treatment,” and can be used by policymakers, practitioners, and others “to plan for the needs of children with ADHD, such as by ensuring access to care and services for ADHD,” investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

Melissa L. Danielson, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led the study, which was published online in the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology.

LIMITATIONS:

Indicators reported in the analysis were on the basis of the parent report, which may be limited by recall and reporting decisions and were not validated against medical records or clinical judgment. Moreover, details about the types of treatment were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was authorized as part of the contributor’s official duties as an employee of the US Government, and therefore is a work of the US Government. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Onyda XR (clonidine hydrochloride) for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), drug manufacturer Tris Pharma announced in a statement.

The drug is the first approved liquid nonstimulant ADHD medication. The once-daily extended-release oral suspension, with nighttime dosing, can be used alone or as an adjunctive therapy to FDA-approved stimulant medications in pediatric patients 6 years of age or older.

“People with ADHD require a range of therapeutic options that are designed for their individual needs, because not every medication or type of therapy works for every patient,” Ann Childress, MD, a psychiatrist and president of the Las Vegas–based Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, said in the release. 

“The approval of Onyda XR, the only liquid non-stimulant ADHD medication, with nighttime dosing that shifts the release profile, is a convenient option for patients needing better ADHD control,” she added.

The approval was based on “adequate and well-controlled studies” of the company’s extended-release tablets.

Onyda XR is contraindicated in patients with a history of a hypersensitivity reaction to clonidine. 

The medication can cause dose-related decreases in blood pressure and heart rate. Vital signs should be monitored frequently in at-risk patients. In studies with the extended-release tablets, somnolence and sedation were commonly reported adverse reactions. The sympatholytic action of clonidine may worsen sinus node dysfunction and atrioventricular block, especially in patients taking other sympatholytic drugs, the company noted.

Onyda XR should be available in pharmacies in the second half of 2024.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Onyda XR (clonidine hydrochloride) for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), drug manufacturer Tris Pharma announced in a statement.

The drug is the first approved liquid nonstimulant ADHD medication. The once-daily extended-release oral suspension, with nighttime dosing, can be used alone or as an adjunctive therapy to FDA-approved stimulant medications in pediatric patients 6 years of age or older.

“People with ADHD require a range of therapeutic options that are designed for their individual needs, because not every medication or type of therapy works for every patient,” Ann Childress, MD, a psychiatrist and president of the Las Vegas–based Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, said in the release. 

“The approval of Onyda XR, the only liquid non-stimulant ADHD medication, with nighttime dosing that shifts the release profile, is a convenient option for patients needing better ADHD control,” she added.

The approval was based on “adequate and well-controlled studies” of the company’s extended-release tablets.

Onyda XR is contraindicated in patients with a history of a hypersensitivity reaction to clonidine. 

The medication can cause dose-related decreases in blood pressure and heart rate. Vital signs should be monitored frequently in at-risk patients. In studies with the extended-release tablets, somnolence and sedation were commonly reported adverse reactions. The sympatholytic action of clonidine may worsen sinus node dysfunction and atrioventricular block, especially in patients taking other sympatholytic drugs, the company noted.

Onyda XR should be available in pharmacies in the second half of 2024.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Onyda XR (clonidine hydrochloride) for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), drug manufacturer Tris Pharma announced in a statement.

The drug is the first approved liquid nonstimulant ADHD medication. The once-daily extended-release oral suspension, with nighttime dosing, can be used alone or as an adjunctive therapy to FDA-approved stimulant medications in pediatric patients 6 years of age or older.

“People with ADHD require a range of therapeutic options that are designed for their individual needs, because not every medication or type of therapy works for every patient,” Ann Childress, MD, a psychiatrist and president of the Las Vegas–based Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, said in the release. 

“The approval of Onyda XR, the only liquid non-stimulant ADHD medication, with nighttime dosing that shifts the release profile, is a convenient option for patients needing better ADHD control,” she added.

The approval was based on “adequate and well-controlled studies” of the company’s extended-release tablets.

Onyda XR is contraindicated in patients with a history of a hypersensitivity reaction to clonidine. 

The medication can cause dose-related decreases in blood pressure and heart rate. Vital signs should be monitored frequently in at-risk patients. In studies with the extended-release tablets, somnolence and sedation were commonly reported adverse reactions. The sympatholytic action of clonidine may worsen sinus node dysfunction and atrioventricular block, especially in patients taking other sympatholytic drugs, the company noted.

Onyda XR should be available in pharmacies in the second half of 2024.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Targeted video games could help reduce symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression in children and adolescents, results of a new review and meta-analysis suggested.

Although the video game–based or “gamified” digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) were associated with modest improvements in ADHD symptoms and depression, investigators found no significant benefit in the treatment of anxiety.

“The studies are showing these video games really do work, at least for ADHD and depression but maybe not for anxiety,” said Barry Bryant, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

“The results may assist clinicians as they make recommendations to patients and parents regarding the efficacy of using these video games to treat mental health conditions.”

The findings were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 Annual Meeting.
 

A Major Problem

Childhood mental illness is a “big problem,” with about 20% of children facing some mental health challenge such as ADHD, anxiety, or depression, said Dr. Bryant. Unfortunately, these youngsters typically have to wait a while to see a provider, he added.

DMHIs may be an option to consider in the meantime to help meet the increasing demand for treatment, he said.

Gamified DMHIs are like other video games, in that players advance in levels on digital platforms and are rewarded for progress. But they’re created specifically to target certain mental health conditions.

An ADHD game, for example, might involve users completing activities that require an increasing degree of attention. Games focused on depression might incorporate mindfulness and meditation practices or cognitive behavioral elements.

Experts in child psychiatry are involved in developing such games along with professionals in business and video game technology, said Dr. Bryant.

But the question is: Do these games really work?
 

Effective for ADHD, Depression

Investigators reviewed nearly 30 randomized controlled trials of gamified DMHIs as a treatment for anxiety, depression, and/or ADHD in people younger than 18 years that were published from January 1, 1990, to April 7, 2023.

The trials tested a wide variety of gamified DMHIs that fit the inclusion criteria: A control condition, a digital game intervention, sufficient data to calculate effect size, and available in English.

A meta-analysis was performed to examine the therapeutic effects of the gamified DMHIs for ADHD, depression, and anxiety. For all studies, the active treatment was compared with the control condition using Hedges’ g to measure effect size and 95% CIs.

Dr. Bryant noted there was significant heterogeneity of therapeutic effects between the studies and their corresponding gamified interventions.

The study found gamified DMHIs had a modest therapeutic effect for treating ADHD (pooled g = 0.280; P = .005) and depression (pooled g = 0.279; P = .005) in children and adolescents.

But games targeting anxiety didn’t seem to have the same positive impact (pooled g = 0.074; P = .197).

The results suggest the games “show potential and promise” for certain mental health conditions and could offer a “bridge” to accessing more traditional therapies, Dr. Bryant said.

“Maybe this is something that can help these children until they can get to see a psychiatrist, or it could be part of a comprehensive treatment plan,” he said.

The goal is to “make something that kids want to play and engage with” especially if they’re reluctant to sit in a therapist’s office.

The results provide clinicians with information they can actually use in their practices, said Dr. Bryant, adding that his team hopes to get their study published.
 

Gaining Traction

Commenting on the research, James Sherer, MD, medical director, Addiction Psychiatry, Overlook Medical Center, Atlantic Health System, said the study shows the literature supports video games, and these games “are gaining traction” in the field.

He noted the app for one such game, EndeavorRx, was one of the first to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat ADHD in young people aged 8-17 years.

EndeavorRx challenges players to chase mystic creatures, race through different worlds, and use “boosts” to problem-solve while building their own universe, according to the company website.

By being incentivized to engage in certain activities, “there’s a level of executive functioning that’s being exercised and the idea is to do that repetitively,” said Dr. Sherer.

Users and their parents report improved ADHD symptoms after playing the game. One of the studies included in the review found 73% of children who played EndeavorRx reported improvement in their attention.

The company says there have been no serious adverse events seen in any clinical trial of EndeavorRx.

Dr. Sherer noted that many child psychiatrists play some sort of video game with their young patients who may be on the autism spectrum or have a learning disability.

“That may be one of the few ways to communicate with and effectively bond with the patient,” he said.

Despite their reputation of being violent and associated with “toxic subcultures,” video games can do a lot of good and be “restorative” for patients of all ages, Dr. Sherer added.

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Targeted video games could help reduce symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression in children and adolescents, results of a new review and meta-analysis suggested.

Although the video game–based or “gamified” digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) were associated with modest improvements in ADHD symptoms and depression, investigators found no significant benefit in the treatment of anxiety.

“The studies are showing these video games really do work, at least for ADHD and depression but maybe not for anxiety,” said Barry Bryant, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

“The results may assist clinicians as they make recommendations to patients and parents regarding the efficacy of using these video games to treat mental health conditions.”

The findings were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 Annual Meeting.
 

A Major Problem

Childhood mental illness is a “big problem,” with about 20% of children facing some mental health challenge such as ADHD, anxiety, or depression, said Dr. Bryant. Unfortunately, these youngsters typically have to wait a while to see a provider, he added.

DMHIs may be an option to consider in the meantime to help meet the increasing demand for treatment, he said.

Gamified DMHIs are like other video games, in that players advance in levels on digital platforms and are rewarded for progress. But they’re created specifically to target certain mental health conditions.

An ADHD game, for example, might involve users completing activities that require an increasing degree of attention. Games focused on depression might incorporate mindfulness and meditation practices or cognitive behavioral elements.

Experts in child psychiatry are involved in developing such games along with professionals in business and video game technology, said Dr. Bryant.

But the question is: Do these games really work?
 

Effective for ADHD, Depression

Investigators reviewed nearly 30 randomized controlled trials of gamified DMHIs as a treatment for anxiety, depression, and/or ADHD in people younger than 18 years that were published from January 1, 1990, to April 7, 2023.

The trials tested a wide variety of gamified DMHIs that fit the inclusion criteria: A control condition, a digital game intervention, sufficient data to calculate effect size, and available in English.

A meta-analysis was performed to examine the therapeutic effects of the gamified DMHIs for ADHD, depression, and anxiety. For all studies, the active treatment was compared with the control condition using Hedges’ g to measure effect size and 95% CIs.

Dr. Bryant noted there was significant heterogeneity of therapeutic effects between the studies and their corresponding gamified interventions.

The study found gamified DMHIs had a modest therapeutic effect for treating ADHD (pooled g = 0.280; P = .005) and depression (pooled g = 0.279; P = .005) in children and adolescents.

But games targeting anxiety didn’t seem to have the same positive impact (pooled g = 0.074; P = .197).

The results suggest the games “show potential and promise” for certain mental health conditions and could offer a “bridge” to accessing more traditional therapies, Dr. Bryant said.

“Maybe this is something that can help these children until they can get to see a psychiatrist, or it could be part of a comprehensive treatment plan,” he said.

The goal is to “make something that kids want to play and engage with” especially if they’re reluctant to sit in a therapist’s office.

The results provide clinicians with information they can actually use in their practices, said Dr. Bryant, adding that his team hopes to get their study published.
 

Gaining Traction

Commenting on the research, James Sherer, MD, medical director, Addiction Psychiatry, Overlook Medical Center, Atlantic Health System, said the study shows the literature supports video games, and these games “are gaining traction” in the field.

He noted the app for one such game, EndeavorRx, was one of the first to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat ADHD in young people aged 8-17 years.

EndeavorRx challenges players to chase mystic creatures, race through different worlds, and use “boosts” to problem-solve while building their own universe, according to the company website.

By being incentivized to engage in certain activities, “there’s a level of executive functioning that’s being exercised and the idea is to do that repetitively,” said Dr. Sherer.

Users and their parents report improved ADHD symptoms after playing the game. One of the studies included in the review found 73% of children who played EndeavorRx reported improvement in their attention.

The company says there have been no serious adverse events seen in any clinical trial of EndeavorRx.

Dr. Sherer noted that many child psychiatrists play some sort of video game with their young patients who may be on the autism spectrum or have a learning disability.

“That may be one of the few ways to communicate with and effectively bond with the patient,” he said.

Despite their reputation of being violent and associated with “toxic subcultures,” video games can do a lot of good and be “restorative” for patients of all ages, Dr. Sherer added.

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Targeted video games could help reduce symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression in children and adolescents, results of a new review and meta-analysis suggested.

Although the video game–based or “gamified” digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) were associated with modest improvements in ADHD symptoms and depression, investigators found no significant benefit in the treatment of anxiety.

“The studies are showing these video games really do work, at least for ADHD and depression but maybe not for anxiety,” said Barry Bryant, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

“The results may assist clinicians as they make recommendations to patients and parents regarding the efficacy of using these video games to treat mental health conditions.”

The findings were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 Annual Meeting.
 

A Major Problem

Childhood mental illness is a “big problem,” with about 20% of children facing some mental health challenge such as ADHD, anxiety, or depression, said Dr. Bryant. Unfortunately, these youngsters typically have to wait a while to see a provider, he added.

DMHIs may be an option to consider in the meantime to help meet the increasing demand for treatment, he said.

Gamified DMHIs are like other video games, in that players advance in levels on digital platforms and are rewarded for progress. But they’re created specifically to target certain mental health conditions.

An ADHD game, for example, might involve users completing activities that require an increasing degree of attention. Games focused on depression might incorporate mindfulness and meditation practices or cognitive behavioral elements.

Experts in child psychiatry are involved in developing such games along with professionals in business and video game technology, said Dr. Bryant.

But the question is: Do these games really work?
 

Effective for ADHD, Depression

Investigators reviewed nearly 30 randomized controlled trials of gamified DMHIs as a treatment for anxiety, depression, and/or ADHD in people younger than 18 years that were published from January 1, 1990, to April 7, 2023.

The trials tested a wide variety of gamified DMHIs that fit the inclusion criteria: A control condition, a digital game intervention, sufficient data to calculate effect size, and available in English.

A meta-analysis was performed to examine the therapeutic effects of the gamified DMHIs for ADHD, depression, and anxiety. For all studies, the active treatment was compared with the control condition using Hedges’ g to measure effect size and 95% CIs.

Dr. Bryant noted there was significant heterogeneity of therapeutic effects between the studies and their corresponding gamified interventions.

The study found gamified DMHIs had a modest therapeutic effect for treating ADHD (pooled g = 0.280; P = .005) and depression (pooled g = 0.279; P = .005) in children and adolescents.

But games targeting anxiety didn’t seem to have the same positive impact (pooled g = 0.074; P = .197).

The results suggest the games “show potential and promise” for certain mental health conditions and could offer a “bridge” to accessing more traditional therapies, Dr. Bryant said.

“Maybe this is something that can help these children until they can get to see a psychiatrist, or it could be part of a comprehensive treatment plan,” he said.

The goal is to “make something that kids want to play and engage with” especially if they’re reluctant to sit in a therapist’s office.

The results provide clinicians with information they can actually use in their practices, said Dr. Bryant, adding that his team hopes to get their study published.
 

Gaining Traction

Commenting on the research, James Sherer, MD, medical director, Addiction Psychiatry, Overlook Medical Center, Atlantic Health System, said the study shows the literature supports video games, and these games “are gaining traction” in the field.

He noted the app for one such game, EndeavorRx, was one of the first to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat ADHD in young people aged 8-17 years.

EndeavorRx challenges players to chase mystic creatures, race through different worlds, and use “boosts” to problem-solve while building their own universe, according to the company website.

By being incentivized to engage in certain activities, “there’s a level of executive functioning that’s being exercised and the idea is to do that repetitively,” said Dr. Sherer.

Users and their parents report improved ADHD symptoms after playing the game. One of the studies included in the review found 73% of children who played EndeavorRx reported improvement in their attention.

The company says there have been no serious adverse events seen in any clinical trial of EndeavorRx.

Dr. Sherer noted that many child psychiatrists play some sort of video game with their young patients who may be on the autism spectrum or have a learning disability.

“That may be one of the few ways to communicate with and effectively bond with the patient,” he said.

Despite their reputation of being violent and associated with “toxic subcultures,” video games can do a lot of good and be “restorative” for patients of all ages, Dr. Sherer added.

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults is independently associated with an increased risk for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), dementia, and nonamnestic mild cognitive impairment (naMCI), results of a new study showed.

“Determining whether there is an association between ADHD and subsequent conversion to a specific type of dementia is important. This information could generate opportunities for prevention and early treatment, as well as initiate research into the pathophysiological processes involved in understanding the process of cognitive decline,” the researchers, led by Ángel Golimstok, MD, of Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina, wrote.

The findings were published online in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Seeking Confirmation

The researchers first identified a link between DLB and ADHD in 2011. Since then, there have been eight additional studies from other groups also showing a possible link between ADHD and DLB.

To confirm the relationship, the researchers recruited 270 individuals between the ages of 45 and 70 years between 2007 and 2012. Of these, 161 had ADHD, and 109 were healthy controls.

Participants with ADHD met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, text revision criteria for a diagnosis in the past and had a chronic course of ADHD symptoms from adolescence to adulthood that caused mild to severe impairment.

Investigators excluded participants who had been taking ADHD medications for 6 months or more, those with MCI at study initiation, and those with other comorbid psychiatric disorders.

At baseline, all participants received a physical exam, an MRI, and a neuropsychological exam to test for any type of dementia-related impairment.

Study participants were followed for an average of 12 years. A total of 27 individuals with ADHD developed dementia versus four patients in the control group (17% vs 4%, respectively), and 19 of those also had DLB (P = .002 for both).

Of those who developed any type of dementia, 87% were from the ADHD group. The most frequent type of dementia was DLB, 95% of which occurred in the ADHD group. Overall, DLB represented 70% of the dementia cases among participants with ADHD.

A total of 108 participants with ADHD were subsequently diagnosed with naMCI versus 19 healthy controls (67% vs 17%; P < .001).

“Although this pattern of deficits is reasonably expected in early DLB, these results should be interpreted with caution because they may be related to the overlap of symptoms and cognitive deficits between ADHD and naMCI, which may lead to an overestimation of the degenerative phenomenon. Thus, our cases of naMCI could correspond to the natural aging of ADHD patients and not to pathological deterioration,” the authors wrote.

The researchers pointed out that the sample of patients with ADHD originally sought evaluation because of a cognitive complaint or their own motivation. Therefore, the study results are not generalizable to all patients with ADHD. Another limitation was the relatively small number of patients included in the sample.

There was no reported source of funding, and there were no relevant disclosures reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults is independently associated with an increased risk for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), dementia, and nonamnestic mild cognitive impairment (naMCI), results of a new study showed.

“Determining whether there is an association between ADHD and subsequent conversion to a specific type of dementia is important. This information could generate opportunities for prevention and early treatment, as well as initiate research into the pathophysiological processes involved in understanding the process of cognitive decline,” the researchers, led by Ángel Golimstok, MD, of Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina, wrote.

The findings were published online in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Seeking Confirmation

The researchers first identified a link between DLB and ADHD in 2011. Since then, there have been eight additional studies from other groups also showing a possible link between ADHD and DLB.

To confirm the relationship, the researchers recruited 270 individuals between the ages of 45 and 70 years between 2007 and 2012. Of these, 161 had ADHD, and 109 were healthy controls.

Participants with ADHD met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, text revision criteria for a diagnosis in the past and had a chronic course of ADHD symptoms from adolescence to adulthood that caused mild to severe impairment.

Investigators excluded participants who had been taking ADHD medications for 6 months or more, those with MCI at study initiation, and those with other comorbid psychiatric disorders.

At baseline, all participants received a physical exam, an MRI, and a neuropsychological exam to test for any type of dementia-related impairment.

Study participants were followed for an average of 12 years. A total of 27 individuals with ADHD developed dementia versus four patients in the control group (17% vs 4%, respectively), and 19 of those also had DLB (P = .002 for both).

Of those who developed any type of dementia, 87% were from the ADHD group. The most frequent type of dementia was DLB, 95% of which occurred in the ADHD group. Overall, DLB represented 70% of the dementia cases among participants with ADHD.

A total of 108 participants with ADHD were subsequently diagnosed with naMCI versus 19 healthy controls (67% vs 17%; P < .001).

“Although this pattern of deficits is reasonably expected in early DLB, these results should be interpreted with caution because they may be related to the overlap of symptoms and cognitive deficits between ADHD and naMCI, which may lead to an overestimation of the degenerative phenomenon. Thus, our cases of naMCI could correspond to the natural aging of ADHD patients and not to pathological deterioration,” the authors wrote.

The researchers pointed out that the sample of patients with ADHD originally sought evaluation because of a cognitive complaint or their own motivation. Therefore, the study results are not generalizable to all patients with ADHD. Another limitation was the relatively small number of patients included in the sample.

There was no reported source of funding, and there were no relevant disclosures reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults is independently associated with an increased risk for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), dementia, and nonamnestic mild cognitive impairment (naMCI), results of a new study showed.

“Determining whether there is an association between ADHD and subsequent conversion to a specific type of dementia is important. This information could generate opportunities for prevention and early treatment, as well as initiate research into the pathophysiological processes involved in understanding the process of cognitive decline,” the researchers, led by Ángel Golimstok, MD, of Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina, wrote.

The findings were published online in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Seeking Confirmation

The researchers first identified a link between DLB and ADHD in 2011. Since then, there have been eight additional studies from other groups also showing a possible link between ADHD and DLB.

To confirm the relationship, the researchers recruited 270 individuals between the ages of 45 and 70 years between 2007 and 2012. Of these, 161 had ADHD, and 109 were healthy controls.

Participants with ADHD met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, text revision criteria for a diagnosis in the past and had a chronic course of ADHD symptoms from adolescence to adulthood that caused mild to severe impairment.

Investigators excluded participants who had been taking ADHD medications for 6 months or more, those with MCI at study initiation, and those with other comorbid psychiatric disorders.

At baseline, all participants received a physical exam, an MRI, and a neuropsychological exam to test for any type of dementia-related impairment.

Study participants were followed for an average of 12 years. A total of 27 individuals with ADHD developed dementia versus four patients in the control group (17% vs 4%, respectively), and 19 of those also had DLB (P = .002 for both).

Of those who developed any type of dementia, 87% were from the ADHD group. The most frequent type of dementia was DLB, 95% of which occurred in the ADHD group. Overall, DLB represented 70% of the dementia cases among participants with ADHD.

A total of 108 participants with ADHD were subsequently diagnosed with naMCI versus 19 healthy controls (67% vs 17%; P < .001).

“Although this pattern of deficits is reasonably expected in early DLB, these results should be interpreted with caution because they may be related to the overlap of symptoms and cognitive deficits between ADHD and naMCI, which may lead to an overestimation of the degenerative phenomenon. Thus, our cases of naMCI could correspond to the natural aging of ADHD patients and not to pathological deterioration,” the authors wrote.

The researchers pointed out that the sample of patients with ADHD originally sought evaluation because of a cognitive complaint or their own motivation. Therefore, the study results are not generalizable to all patients with ADHD. Another limitation was the relatively small number of patients included in the sample.

There was no reported source of funding, and there were no relevant disclosures reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first peer-reviewed consensus statement on healthcare for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is meant to start correcting the inequitable access to appropriate care that these children experience compared with their peers without NDDs. The statement was published in Pediatrics.

The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’

“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.

The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
 

Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’

One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
 

Examples of ‘Ableism’

The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.

The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.

Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.

The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.

But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.

“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “

Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”

This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

The first peer-reviewed consensus statement on healthcare for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is meant to start correcting the inequitable access to appropriate care that these children experience compared with their peers without NDDs. The statement was published in Pediatrics.

The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’

“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.

The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
 

Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’

One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
 

Examples of ‘Ableism’

The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.

The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.

Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.

The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.

But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.

“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “

Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”

This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

The first peer-reviewed consensus statement on healthcare for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is meant to start correcting the inequitable access to appropriate care that these children experience compared with their peers without NDDs. The statement was published in Pediatrics.

The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’

“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.

The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
 

Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’

One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
 

Examples of ‘Ableism’

The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.

The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.

Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.

The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.

But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.

“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “

Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”

This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

The first US clinical guidelines to diagnose and treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults are expected to be released this fall, providing patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers with a long overdue and much-needed standardized framework.

The initiative comes under the auspices of the American Professional Society of ADHD and Related Disorders (APSARD). David Goodman, MD, a member of the APSARD guidelines executive committee and assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, noted that the US lags behind several other nations, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand who already have guidelines in place.

Dr. Goodman would not go into any detail as to why the country has been so slow off the mark but told this news organization that in part it has been due to a lack of specific funding. In addition, he said, “adult psychiatry abdicated responsibility for ADHD in adults.”

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) would not comment, although a spokesperson said two of its members are working with APSARD on the guidelines.

Estimates show that there are 10-11 million American adults (4.4%) with ADHD, making it the second most common psychiatric disorder in adults.

Surveys show that mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, report a lack of familiarity with ADHD in adults, said Margaret Sibley, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle and chair of the APSARD guidelines diagnostic and screening committee.

Many don’t consider an ADHD diagnosis in adults “because they were always trained to conceptualize it as something that’s relevant only in childhood,” Dr. Sibley told this new organization. However, research shows that people with ADHD do not outgrow the disorder.

“ADHD itself is still present and has unique problems associated with it in adults,” Dr. Sibley said.
 

Filling the Leadership Gap

Laurie Kulikosky, CEO of the advocacy group CHADD, said that the organization views the development of guidelines “as a huge step forward in the ability for more people to understand ADHD, particularly on the adult side.”

Oren Mason, MD, a primary care physician who specializes in ADHD at his Grand Rapids, Michigan-based practice, said “there hasn’t been a single specialty that has taken lead responsibility in adult ADHD,” which has contributed to the lag in guideline development.

In addition, Dr. Mason said, “trying to come up with adult guidelines even 5 or 10 years ago wouldn’t have yielded nearly as robust a set of guidelines because it’s taken awhile to have the evidence base to be able to make a few pronouncements really confidently.”

Not only has the evidence base grown but so has telehealth, especially during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. That led to concerns that ADHD was not rigorously evaluated and that stimulants were prescribed too easily, said Dr. Goodman.

Several telehealth providers came under federal scrutiny, with the DEA accusing Cerebral’s pharmacy of dispensing stimulants for nonmedical reasons. The agency said that some 72,000 prescriptions for controlled substances, mostly stimulants, were written between 2020 and 2022.

APSARD felt it was time to act, said Dr. Goodman.

“We could not allow entrepreneurs who felt there was a business opportunity here to, under the auspices of advocating for mental health, increase the distribution of potentially addictive medications in the community,” he said
 

Ensuring Psychiatrist Buy-In

Development of the APSARD guidelines is led by Thomas Spencer, MD, a retired associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and Frances Rudnick Levin, MD, the Kennedy-Leavy Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, both of whom have decades of experience and clinical work in adults with ADHD.

Dr. Goodman is joined on the executive committee by Lenard Adler, MD (NYU Grossman School of Medicine), and Stephen Faraone, PhD (SUNY Upstate Medical University), along with 30 others who have expertise in psychiatry, psychology, primary care, and other health professions.

To participate in the development of the guidelines, experts had to agree to disengage from any potential conflicts and devote themselves — unpaid — to the process, said Dr. Goodman. The goal is to head off any charges of conflicts or biases, he said.

Three subcommittees — diagnosis and assessment, medical treatment, and nonmedical treatment — will review the literature, grade the evidence base, and use the Delphi consensus method to write the draft guidelines.

The draft will go out to the public and to medical specialties for comment, which will be considered for inclusion in the final publication, said Dr. Goodman.

The guidelines panel has been working closely with the APA and following the APA guideline development process in an effort to get buy-in from psychiatrists, he said.
 

Critical Educational Tool

“Doctors are often surprised to hear that there are no guidelines for adult ADHD in the US,” said Ann Childress, MD, APSARD president, when the group announced its effort in 2023. “Whether diagnosis and treatment are provided in office or online, the standard of care should be the same throughout the country,” she said.

Guidelines will “reduce mythology and error or at least when we run into mythology and error we can say no, there’s a giant consensus with hundreds of experts that disagree with that and so if you want to counter that you better bring some heavy machinery, you can’t just throw out an opinion and leave it unsupported,” said Dr. Mason.

Dr. Sibley said that, although there are no good data, anecdotally it appears many clinicians rely on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) when treating adults with ADHD.

The DSM “tells people what they should do but it doesn’t exactly tell them what’s the best way to do it,” she said, adding that often physicians follow what they learned from whoever they were trained by.

“Some people have been trained by people who are well versed in best practices and so they might be doing things that we would say have a research support to them, and other people might be doing things based on people who developed their own opinions about the best way to diagnose ADHD based on lived experience which may or may not be best practices,” Dr. Sibley said.

Her subcommittee aims to offer guidance on screening “that will be helpful in primary care, in terms of what are the most efficient ways to do it” and to help with accuracy, she said. Currently, there are likely some clinicians who are making too liberal a diagnosis and others who are making too conservative a diagnosis, she said.

With so many clinicians — especially in primary care — having a lack of experience, the guidelines could increase “the ability for more different kinds of providers to help,” said Dr. Kulikosky.

Guidelines should also provide a template for ongoing education, especially for clinicians who have never received any training in ADHD.

Dr. Goodman said it is increasingly likely that primary care physicians will be writing more prescriptions for ADHD medications than psychiatrists. “If that is the trajectory, the education of those providers seeing these patients is critical,” he said.
 

Offering Standards, Dispelling Myths

Guidelines can also help “shorten the learning curve,” said Dr. Mason, who said that he’s had to piece together evidence over the last few decades. Once published, the standards can be used in residency, for board exams, and continuing medical education, he said.

Not only do they offer a “kind of a shortcut to what we all know and agree on,” they also specify where the edges of knowledge are, he said.

Guidelines can also dissuade clinicians from practices that have no evidence to support them, such as “medication holidays,” said Dr. Mason. That has been employed to give children, especially, a break from side effects, but studies have shown that it actually increases side effects, he said.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Sibley expect the guidelines to help with the challenge of diagnosis. Approximately 38% of adults with ADHD have a mood disorder and 48% have anxiety, said Dr. Goodman. Many others have coexisting posttraumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, or medical illnesses that compound cognitive problems.

If an individual has several psychiatric conditions, “the question is how do you diagnostically prioritize which you treat first, second, and third, with the goal of treating one without making the others worse,” said Dr. Goodman.

“ADHD takes more detective work than other disorders,” said Dr. Sibley, adding that without an objective diagnostic and with overlaps with other comorbid disorders, “there are very complex issues that all of us wrestle with.”

While the guidelines will not provide algorithms, they will provide information that “will help guide them in the tougher diagnostic context,” she said.

Dr. Mason agreed. “It’s a complicated disorder to diagnose and treat. It’s hard for somebody to jump into it. [The guidelines] are going to give us — here’s what you really have to know, here’s what you have to do,” he said.

And it won’t just be clinicians who look to the guidelines. Calls to National Resource Center on ADHD — which CHADD runs for the federal government — from adults wanting to know more about their own condition “have increased exponentially” in the last few years, said Dr. Kulikosky. “We know adults are seeking out information, they are seeking out diagnosis and treatment,” she said.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Sibley reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mason reported that he consults for Otsuka and is a speaker for Iron Shore.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first US clinical guidelines to diagnose and treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults are expected to be released this fall, providing patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers with a long overdue and much-needed standardized framework.

The initiative comes under the auspices of the American Professional Society of ADHD and Related Disorders (APSARD). David Goodman, MD, a member of the APSARD guidelines executive committee and assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, noted that the US lags behind several other nations, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand who already have guidelines in place.

Dr. Goodman would not go into any detail as to why the country has been so slow off the mark but told this news organization that in part it has been due to a lack of specific funding. In addition, he said, “adult psychiatry abdicated responsibility for ADHD in adults.”

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) would not comment, although a spokesperson said two of its members are working with APSARD on the guidelines.

Estimates show that there are 10-11 million American adults (4.4%) with ADHD, making it the second most common psychiatric disorder in adults.

Surveys show that mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, report a lack of familiarity with ADHD in adults, said Margaret Sibley, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle and chair of the APSARD guidelines diagnostic and screening committee.

Many don’t consider an ADHD diagnosis in adults “because they were always trained to conceptualize it as something that’s relevant only in childhood,” Dr. Sibley told this new organization. However, research shows that people with ADHD do not outgrow the disorder.

“ADHD itself is still present and has unique problems associated with it in adults,” Dr. Sibley said.
 

Filling the Leadership Gap

Laurie Kulikosky, CEO of the advocacy group CHADD, said that the organization views the development of guidelines “as a huge step forward in the ability for more people to understand ADHD, particularly on the adult side.”

Oren Mason, MD, a primary care physician who specializes in ADHD at his Grand Rapids, Michigan-based practice, said “there hasn’t been a single specialty that has taken lead responsibility in adult ADHD,” which has contributed to the lag in guideline development.

In addition, Dr. Mason said, “trying to come up with adult guidelines even 5 or 10 years ago wouldn’t have yielded nearly as robust a set of guidelines because it’s taken awhile to have the evidence base to be able to make a few pronouncements really confidently.”

Not only has the evidence base grown but so has telehealth, especially during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. That led to concerns that ADHD was not rigorously evaluated and that stimulants were prescribed too easily, said Dr. Goodman.

Several telehealth providers came under federal scrutiny, with the DEA accusing Cerebral’s pharmacy of dispensing stimulants for nonmedical reasons. The agency said that some 72,000 prescriptions for controlled substances, mostly stimulants, were written between 2020 and 2022.

APSARD felt it was time to act, said Dr. Goodman.

“We could not allow entrepreneurs who felt there was a business opportunity here to, under the auspices of advocating for mental health, increase the distribution of potentially addictive medications in the community,” he said
 

Ensuring Psychiatrist Buy-In

Development of the APSARD guidelines is led by Thomas Spencer, MD, a retired associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and Frances Rudnick Levin, MD, the Kennedy-Leavy Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, both of whom have decades of experience and clinical work in adults with ADHD.

Dr. Goodman is joined on the executive committee by Lenard Adler, MD (NYU Grossman School of Medicine), and Stephen Faraone, PhD (SUNY Upstate Medical University), along with 30 others who have expertise in psychiatry, psychology, primary care, and other health professions.

To participate in the development of the guidelines, experts had to agree to disengage from any potential conflicts and devote themselves — unpaid — to the process, said Dr. Goodman. The goal is to head off any charges of conflicts or biases, he said.

Three subcommittees — diagnosis and assessment, medical treatment, and nonmedical treatment — will review the literature, grade the evidence base, and use the Delphi consensus method to write the draft guidelines.

The draft will go out to the public and to medical specialties for comment, which will be considered for inclusion in the final publication, said Dr. Goodman.

The guidelines panel has been working closely with the APA and following the APA guideline development process in an effort to get buy-in from psychiatrists, he said.
 

Critical Educational Tool

“Doctors are often surprised to hear that there are no guidelines for adult ADHD in the US,” said Ann Childress, MD, APSARD president, when the group announced its effort in 2023. “Whether diagnosis and treatment are provided in office or online, the standard of care should be the same throughout the country,” she said.

Guidelines will “reduce mythology and error or at least when we run into mythology and error we can say no, there’s a giant consensus with hundreds of experts that disagree with that and so if you want to counter that you better bring some heavy machinery, you can’t just throw out an opinion and leave it unsupported,” said Dr. Mason.

Dr. Sibley said that, although there are no good data, anecdotally it appears many clinicians rely on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) when treating adults with ADHD.

The DSM “tells people what they should do but it doesn’t exactly tell them what’s the best way to do it,” she said, adding that often physicians follow what they learned from whoever they were trained by.

“Some people have been trained by people who are well versed in best practices and so they might be doing things that we would say have a research support to them, and other people might be doing things based on people who developed their own opinions about the best way to diagnose ADHD based on lived experience which may or may not be best practices,” Dr. Sibley said.

Her subcommittee aims to offer guidance on screening “that will be helpful in primary care, in terms of what are the most efficient ways to do it” and to help with accuracy, she said. Currently, there are likely some clinicians who are making too liberal a diagnosis and others who are making too conservative a diagnosis, she said.

With so many clinicians — especially in primary care — having a lack of experience, the guidelines could increase “the ability for more different kinds of providers to help,” said Dr. Kulikosky.

Guidelines should also provide a template for ongoing education, especially for clinicians who have never received any training in ADHD.

Dr. Goodman said it is increasingly likely that primary care physicians will be writing more prescriptions for ADHD medications than psychiatrists. “If that is the trajectory, the education of those providers seeing these patients is critical,” he said.
 

Offering Standards, Dispelling Myths

Guidelines can also help “shorten the learning curve,” said Dr. Mason, who said that he’s had to piece together evidence over the last few decades. Once published, the standards can be used in residency, for board exams, and continuing medical education, he said.

Not only do they offer a “kind of a shortcut to what we all know and agree on,” they also specify where the edges of knowledge are, he said.

Guidelines can also dissuade clinicians from practices that have no evidence to support them, such as “medication holidays,” said Dr. Mason. That has been employed to give children, especially, a break from side effects, but studies have shown that it actually increases side effects, he said.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Sibley expect the guidelines to help with the challenge of diagnosis. Approximately 38% of adults with ADHD have a mood disorder and 48% have anxiety, said Dr. Goodman. Many others have coexisting posttraumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, or medical illnesses that compound cognitive problems.

If an individual has several psychiatric conditions, “the question is how do you diagnostically prioritize which you treat first, second, and third, with the goal of treating one without making the others worse,” said Dr. Goodman.

“ADHD takes more detective work than other disorders,” said Dr. Sibley, adding that without an objective diagnostic and with overlaps with other comorbid disorders, “there are very complex issues that all of us wrestle with.”

While the guidelines will not provide algorithms, they will provide information that “will help guide them in the tougher diagnostic context,” she said.

Dr. Mason agreed. “It’s a complicated disorder to diagnose and treat. It’s hard for somebody to jump into it. [The guidelines] are going to give us — here’s what you really have to know, here’s what you have to do,” he said.

And it won’t just be clinicians who look to the guidelines. Calls to National Resource Center on ADHD — which CHADD runs for the federal government — from adults wanting to know more about their own condition “have increased exponentially” in the last few years, said Dr. Kulikosky. “We know adults are seeking out information, they are seeking out diagnosis and treatment,” she said.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Sibley reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mason reported that he consults for Otsuka and is a speaker for Iron Shore.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first US clinical guidelines to diagnose and treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults are expected to be released this fall, providing patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers with a long overdue and much-needed standardized framework.

The initiative comes under the auspices of the American Professional Society of ADHD and Related Disorders (APSARD). David Goodman, MD, a member of the APSARD guidelines executive committee and assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, noted that the US lags behind several other nations, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand who already have guidelines in place.

Dr. Goodman would not go into any detail as to why the country has been so slow off the mark but told this news organization that in part it has been due to a lack of specific funding. In addition, he said, “adult psychiatry abdicated responsibility for ADHD in adults.”

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) would not comment, although a spokesperson said two of its members are working with APSARD on the guidelines.

Estimates show that there are 10-11 million American adults (4.4%) with ADHD, making it the second most common psychiatric disorder in adults.

Surveys show that mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, report a lack of familiarity with ADHD in adults, said Margaret Sibley, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle and chair of the APSARD guidelines diagnostic and screening committee.

Many don’t consider an ADHD diagnosis in adults “because they were always trained to conceptualize it as something that’s relevant only in childhood,” Dr. Sibley told this new organization. However, research shows that people with ADHD do not outgrow the disorder.

“ADHD itself is still present and has unique problems associated with it in adults,” Dr. Sibley said.
 

Filling the Leadership Gap

Laurie Kulikosky, CEO of the advocacy group CHADD, said that the organization views the development of guidelines “as a huge step forward in the ability for more people to understand ADHD, particularly on the adult side.”

Oren Mason, MD, a primary care physician who specializes in ADHD at his Grand Rapids, Michigan-based practice, said “there hasn’t been a single specialty that has taken lead responsibility in adult ADHD,” which has contributed to the lag in guideline development.

In addition, Dr. Mason said, “trying to come up with adult guidelines even 5 or 10 years ago wouldn’t have yielded nearly as robust a set of guidelines because it’s taken awhile to have the evidence base to be able to make a few pronouncements really confidently.”

Not only has the evidence base grown but so has telehealth, especially during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. That led to concerns that ADHD was not rigorously evaluated and that stimulants were prescribed too easily, said Dr. Goodman.

Several telehealth providers came under federal scrutiny, with the DEA accusing Cerebral’s pharmacy of dispensing stimulants for nonmedical reasons. The agency said that some 72,000 prescriptions for controlled substances, mostly stimulants, were written between 2020 and 2022.

APSARD felt it was time to act, said Dr. Goodman.

“We could not allow entrepreneurs who felt there was a business opportunity here to, under the auspices of advocating for mental health, increase the distribution of potentially addictive medications in the community,” he said
 

Ensuring Psychiatrist Buy-In

Development of the APSARD guidelines is led by Thomas Spencer, MD, a retired associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and Frances Rudnick Levin, MD, the Kennedy-Leavy Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, both of whom have decades of experience and clinical work in adults with ADHD.

Dr. Goodman is joined on the executive committee by Lenard Adler, MD (NYU Grossman School of Medicine), and Stephen Faraone, PhD (SUNY Upstate Medical University), along with 30 others who have expertise in psychiatry, psychology, primary care, and other health professions.

To participate in the development of the guidelines, experts had to agree to disengage from any potential conflicts and devote themselves — unpaid — to the process, said Dr. Goodman. The goal is to head off any charges of conflicts or biases, he said.

Three subcommittees — diagnosis and assessment, medical treatment, and nonmedical treatment — will review the literature, grade the evidence base, and use the Delphi consensus method to write the draft guidelines.

The draft will go out to the public and to medical specialties for comment, which will be considered for inclusion in the final publication, said Dr. Goodman.

The guidelines panel has been working closely with the APA and following the APA guideline development process in an effort to get buy-in from psychiatrists, he said.
 

Critical Educational Tool

“Doctors are often surprised to hear that there are no guidelines for adult ADHD in the US,” said Ann Childress, MD, APSARD president, when the group announced its effort in 2023. “Whether diagnosis and treatment are provided in office or online, the standard of care should be the same throughout the country,” she said.

Guidelines will “reduce mythology and error or at least when we run into mythology and error we can say no, there’s a giant consensus with hundreds of experts that disagree with that and so if you want to counter that you better bring some heavy machinery, you can’t just throw out an opinion and leave it unsupported,” said Dr. Mason.

Dr. Sibley said that, although there are no good data, anecdotally it appears many clinicians rely on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) when treating adults with ADHD.

The DSM “tells people what they should do but it doesn’t exactly tell them what’s the best way to do it,” she said, adding that often physicians follow what they learned from whoever they were trained by.

“Some people have been trained by people who are well versed in best practices and so they might be doing things that we would say have a research support to them, and other people might be doing things based on people who developed their own opinions about the best way to diagnose ADHD based on lived experience which may or may not be best practices,” Dr. Sibley said.

Her subcommittee aims to offer guidance on screening “that will be helpful in primary care, in terms of what are the most efficient ways to do it” and to help with accuracy, she said. Currently, there are likely some clinicians who are making too liberal a diagnosis and others who are making too conservative a diagnosis, she said.

With so many clinicians — especially in primary care — having a lack of experience, the guidelines could increase “the ability for more different kinds of providers to help,” said Dr. Kulikosky.

Guidelines should also provide a template for ongoing education, especially for clinicians who have never received any training in ADHD.

Dr. Goodman said it is increasingly likely that primary care physicians will be writing more prescriptions for ADHD medications than psychiatrists. “If that is the trajectory, the education of those providers seeing these patients is critical,” he said.
 

Offering Standards, Dispelling Myths

Guidelines can also help “shorten the learning curve,” said Dr. Mason, who said that he’s had to piece together evidence over the last few decades. Once published, the standards can be used in residency, for board exams, and continuing medical education, he said.

Not only do they offer a “kind of a shortcut to what we all know and agree on,” they also specify where the edges of knowledge are, he said.

Guidelines can also dissuade clinicians from practices that have no evidence to support them, such as “medication holidays,” said Dr. Mason. That has been employed to give children, especially, a break from side effects, but studies have shown that it actually increases side effects, he said.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Sibley expect the guidelines to help with the challenge of diagnosis. Approximately 38% of adults with ADHD have a mood disorder and 48% have anxiety, said Dr. Goodman. Many others have coexisting posttraumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, or medical illnesses that compound cognitive problems.

If an individual has several psychiatric conditions, “the question is how do you diagnostically prioritize which you treat first, second, and third, with the goal of treating one without making the others worse,” said Dr. Goodman.

“ADHD takes more detective work than other disorders,” said Dr. Sibley, adding that without an objective diagnostic and with overlaps with other comorbid disorders, “there are very complex issues that all of us wrestle with.”

While the guidelines will not provide algorithms, they will provide information that “will help guide them in the tougher diagnostic context,” she said.

Dr. Mason agreed. “It’s a complicated disorder to diagnose and treat. It’s hard for somebody to jump into it. [The guidelines] are going to give us — here’s what you really have to know, here’s what you have to do,” he said.

And it won’t just be clinicians who look to the guidelines. Calls to National Resource Center on ADHD — which CHADD runs for the federal government — from adults wanting to know more about their own condition “have increased exponentially” in the last few years, said Dr. Kulikosky. “We know adults are seeking out information, they are seeking out diagnosis and treatment,” she said.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Sibley reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mason reported that he consults for Otsuka and is a speaker for Iron Shore.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Certain stimulants prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are associated with a decreased risk for psychiatric and nonpsychiatric hospitalization and suicide, new data from a national cohort study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used various medical and administrative databases in Sweden to identify individuals aged 16-65 years who were diagnosed with ADHD between January 2006 and December 2021.
• Participants were followed for up to 15 years (mean duration, 7 years) from date of diagnosis until death, emigration, or end of data linkage in December 2021.
• Researchers wanted to explore the link between ADHD meds and psychiatric hospitalization, nonpsychiatric hospitalization, and suicidal behavior.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cohort included 221,700 individuals with ADHD (mean age, 25 years; 54% male), and 56% had a psychiatric comorbidity such as an anxiety or stress-related disorder (24%), and depression or bipolar disorder (20%).
• Investigators found significantly lower risk for psychiatric hospitalization for the several medications. These included amphetamine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.74), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.80), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.88), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.93), and polytherapy (aHR, 0.85). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• ADHD medications associated with a significantly lower risk for nonpsychiatric hospitalization included amphetamine (aHR, 0.62), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.64), polytherapy (aHR, 0.67), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.72), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.80), and atomoxetine (aHR, 0.84). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• Use of dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.69; P < .001), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.76; P = .43), polytherapy (aHR, 0.85; P = .02), and methylphenidate (aHR, 0.92; P = .007) were associated with a significantly lower risk for suicidal behavior.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although concerns have been raised about the potential of amphetamines and methylphenidate for increasing the risk of adverse psychiatric outcomes, such as psychosis and mania, our results show that overall, the net effect on psychiatric outcomes is positive,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Heidi Taipale, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Due to the use of nationwide registers, there was a lack of detailed clinical data, including type and severity of symptoms. There was also no data on nonpharmacologic treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the AFA Insurance Agency. Dr. Taipale reported receiving personal fees from Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grants from Janssen and Eli Lilly outside of the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Certain stimulants prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are associated with a decreased risk for psychiatric and nonpsychiatric hospitalization and suicide, new data from a national cohort study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used various medical and administrative databases in Sweden to identify individuals aged 16-65 years who were diagnosed with ADHD between January 2006 and December 2021.
• Participants were followed for up to 15 years (mean duration, 7 years) from date of diagnosis until death, emigration, or end of data linkage in December 2021.
• Researchers wanted to explore the link between ADHD meds and psychiatric hospitalization, nonpsychiatric hospitalization, and suicidal behavior.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cohort included 221,700 individuals with ADHD (mean age, 25 years; 54% male), and 56% had a psychiatric comorbidity such as an anxiety or stress-related disorder (24%), and depression or bipolar disorder (20%).
• Investigators found significantly lower risk for psychiatric hospitalization for the several medications. These included amphetamine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.74), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.80), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.88), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.93), and polytherapy (aHR, 0.85). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• ADHD medications associated with a significantly lower risk for nonpsychiatric hospitalization included amphetamine (aHR, 0.62), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.64), polytherapy (aHR, 0.67), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.72), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.80), and atomoxetine (aHR, 0.84). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• Use of dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.69; P < .001), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.76; P = .43), polytherapy (aHR, 0.85; P = .02), and methylphenidate (aHR, 0.92; P = .007) were associated with a significantly lower risk for suicidal behavior.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although concerns have been raised about the potential of amphetamines and methylphenidate for increasing the risk of adverse psychiatric outcomes, such as psychosis and mania, our results show that overall, the net effect on psychiatric outcomes is positive,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Heidi Taipale, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Due to the use of nationwide registers, there was a lack of detailed clinical data, including type and severity of symptoms. There was also no data on nonpharmacologic treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the AFA Insurance Agency. Dr. Taipale reported receiving personal fees from Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grants from Janssen and Eli Lilly outside of the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Certain stimulants prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are associated with a decreased risk for psychiatric and nonpsychiatric hospitalization and suicide, new data from a national cohort study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used various medical and administrative databases in Sweden to identify individuals aged 16-65 years who were diagnosed with ADHD between January 2006 and December 2021.
• Participants were followed for up to 15 years (mean duration, 7 years) from date of diagnosis until death, emigration, or end of data linkage in December 2021.
• Researchers wanted to explore the link between ADHD meds and psychiatric hospitalization, nonpsychiatric hospitalization, and suicidal behavior.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cohort included 221,700 individuals with ADHD (mean age, 25 years; 54% male), and 56% had a psychiatric comorbidity such as an anxiety or stress-related disorder (24%), and depression or bipolar disorder (20%).
• Investigators found significantly lower risk for psychiatric hospitalization for the several medications. These included amphetamine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.74), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.80), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.88), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.93), and polytherapy (aHR, 0.85). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• ADHD medications associated with a significantly lower risk for nonpsychiatric hospitalization included amphetamine (aHR, 0.62), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.64), polytherapy (aHR, 0.67), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.72), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.80), and atomoxetine (aHR, 0.84). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• Use of dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.69; P < .001), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.76; P = .43), polytherapy (aHR, 0.85; P = .02), and methylphenidate (aHR, 0.92; P = .007) were associated with a significantly lower risk for suicidal behavior.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although concerns have been raised about the potential of amphetamines and methylphenidate for increasing the risk of adverse psychiatric outcomes, such as psychosis and mania, our results show that overall, the net effect on psychiatric outcomes is positive,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Heidi Taipale, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Due to the use of nationwide registers, there was a lack of detailed clinical data, including type and severity of symptoms. There was also no data on nonpharmacologic treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the AFA Insurance Agency. Dr. Taipale reported receiving personal fees from Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grants from Janssen and Eli Lilly outside of the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Methylphenidate was associated with a small increased risk for cardiovascular events in individuals taking the drug for more than 6 months in a new cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective, population-based cohort study was based on national Swedish registry data and included 26,710 patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) aged 12-60 years (median age 20) who had been prescribed methylphenidate between 2007 and 2012. They were each matched on birth date, sex, and county with up to 10 nonusers without ADHD (a total of 225,672 controls).
• Rates of cardiovascular events, including ischemic heart disease, venous thromboembolism, heart failure, or tachyarrhythmias 1 year before methylphenidate treatment and 6 months after treatment initiation were compared between individuals receiving methylphenidate and matched controls using a Bayesian within-individual design.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall incidence of cardiovascular events was 1.51 per 10,000 person-weeks for individuals receiving methylphenidate and 0.77 for the matched controls.
• Individuals treated with methylphenidate had an 87% posterior probability of having a higher rate of cardiovascular events after treatment initiation (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.41) than matched controls (IRR, 1.18).
• Individuals taking methylphenidate had a 70% posterior probability for a greater than 10% increased risk for cardiovascular events than controls and a 49% posterior probability for an increased risk larger than 20%.
• No difference was found in this risk between individuals with and without a history of cardiovascular disease.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers concluded that these results support a small (10%) increased risk for cardiovascular events in individuals receiving methylphenidate compared with matched controls after 6 months of treatment. The probability of finding a difference in risk between users and nonusers decreased when considering risk for 20% or larger, with no evidence of differences between those with and without a history of cardiovascular disease. They said the findings suggest the decision to initiate methylphenidate should incorporate considerations of potential adverse cardiovascular effects among the broader benefits and risks for treatment for individual patients.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Miguel Garcia-Argibay, PhD, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open on March 6.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were observational, and thus, causality could not be inferred. Lack of information on methylphenidate dose meant that it was not possible to assess a dose effect. Compliance with the medication was also not known, and the association may therefore have been underestimated. The findings of this study were based on data collected from a Swedish population, which may not be representative of other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Methylphenidate was associated with a small increased risk for cardiovascular events in individuals taking the drug for more than 6 months in a new cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective, population-based cohort study was based on national Swedish registry data and included 26,710 patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) aged 12-60 years (median age 20) who had been prescribed methylphenidate between 2007 and 2012. They were each matched on birth date, sex, and county with up to 10 nonusers without ADHD (a total of 225,672 controls).
• Rates of cardiovascular events, including ischemic heart disease, venous thromboembolism, heart failure, or tachyarrhythmias 1 year before methylphenidate treatment and 6 months after treatment initiation were compared between individuals receiving methylphenidate and matched controls using a Bayesian within-individual design.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall incidence of cardiovascular events was 1.51 per 10,000 person-weeks for individuals receiving methylphenidate and 0.77 for the matched controls.
• Individuals treated with methylphenidate had an 87% posterior probability of having a higher rate of cardiovascular events after treatment initiation (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.41) than matched controls (IRR, 1.18).
• Individuals taking methylphenidate had a 70% posterior probability for a greater than 10% increased risk for cardiovascular events than controls and a 49% posterior probability for an increased risk larger than 20%.
• No difference was found in this risk between individuals with and without a history of cardiovascular disease.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers concluded that these results support a small (10%) increased risk for cardiovascular events in individuals receiving methylphenidate compared with matched controls after 6 months of treatment. The probability of finding a difference in risk between users and nonusers decreased when considering risk for 20% or larger, with no evidence of differences between those with and without a history of cardiovascular disease. They said the findings suggest the decision to initiate methylphenidate should incorporate considerations of potential adverse cardiovascular effects among the broader benefits and risks for treatment for individual patients.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Miguel Garcia-Argibay, PhD, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open on March 6.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were observational, and thus, causality could not be inferred. Lack of information on methylphenidate dose meant that it was not possible to assess a dose effect. Compliance with the medication was also not known, and the association may therefore have been underestimated. The findings of this study were based on data collected from a Swedish population, which may not be representative of other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Methylphenidate was associated with a small increased risk for cardiovascular events in individuals taking the drug for more than 6 months in a new cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective, population-based cohort study was based on national Swedish registry data and included 26,710 patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) aged 12-60 years (median age 20) who had been prescribed methylphenidate between 2007 and 2012. They were each matched on birth date, sex, and county with up to 10 nonusers without ADHD (a total of 225,672 controls).
• Rates of cardiovascular events, including ischemic heart disease, venous thromboembolism, heart failure, or tachyarrhythmias 1 year before methylphenidate treatment and 6 months after treatment initiation were compared between individuals receiving methylphenidate and matched controls using a Bayesian within-individual design.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall incidence of cardiovascular events was 1.51 per 10,000 person-weeks for individuals receiving methylphenidate and 0.77 for the matched controls.
• Individuals treated with methylphenidate had an 87% posterior probability of having a higher rate of cardiovascular events after treatment initiation (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.41) than matched controls (IRR, 1.18).
• Individuals taking methylphenidate had a 70% posterior probability for a greater than 10% increased risk for cardiovascular events than controls and a 49% posterior probability for an increased risk larger than 20%.
• No difference was found in this risk between individuals with and without a history of cardiovascular disease.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers concluded that these results support a small (10%) increased risk for cardiovascular events in individuals receiving methylphenidate compared with matched controls after 6 months of treatment. The probability of finding a difference in risk between users and nonusers decreased when considering risk for 20% or larger, with no evidence of differences between those with and without a history of cardiovascular disease. They said the findings suggest the decision to initiate methylphenidate should incorporate considerations of potential adverse cardiovascular effects among the broader benefits and risks for treatment for individual patients.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Miguel Garcia-Argibay, PhD, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open on March 6.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were observational, and thus, causality could not be inferred. Lack of information on methylphenidate dose meant that it was not possible to assess a dose effect. Compliance with the medication was also not known, and the association may therefore have been underestimated. The findings of this study were based on data collected from a Swedish population, which may not be representative of other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.