7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Cardiovascular Effects of ADHD Therapies

      , , ,
      Journal of the American College of Cardiology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d15841299e103">Although the prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been stable over the past 3 decades, prescriptions of sympathomimetic stimulants have steadily increased in the United States. This study consisted of a systematic review of PubMed articles screened for ADHD medications and potential cardiovascular toxicity as well as nondrug strategies for managing ADHD. The cumulative body of data showed that ADHD medications cause modest elevations in resting heart rate and blood pressure. Other adverse effects reported with ADHD stimulants included arrhythmia, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, and sudden death. However, such reports did not imply causation, and there was a paucity of randomized trial evidence addressing long-term safety of ADHD medications, particularly among adults. Further studies are essential to clarify the risks and benefits of ADHD stimulant medications and to explore nonpharmacological options, including regular exercise and omega-3 fatty acids, which could be helpful for improving ADHD symptoms. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          ADHD prevalence estimates across three decades: an updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

          Previous studies have identified significant variability in attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) prevalence estimates worldwide, largely explained by methodological procedures. However, increasing rates of ADHD diagnosis and treatment throughout the past few decades have fuelled concerns about whether the true prevalence of the disorder has increased over time. We updated the two most comprehensive systematic reviews on ADHD prevalence available in the literature. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to test the effect of year of study in the context of both methodological variables that determined variability in ADHD prevalence (diagnostic criteria, impairment criterion and source of information), and the geographical location of studies. We identified 154 original studies and included 135 in the multivariate analysis. Methodological procedures investigated were significantly associated with heterogeneity of studies. Geographical location and year of study were not associated with variability in ADHD prevalence estimates. Confirming previous findings, variability in ADHD prevalence estimates is mostly explained by methodological characteristics of the studies. In the past three decades, there has been no evidence to suggest an increase in the number of children in the community who meet criteria for ADHD when standardized diagnostic procedures are followed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

            Summary Background The benefits and safety of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remain controversial, and guidelines are inconsistent on which medications are preferred across different age groups. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of oral medications for ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults. Methods We did a literature search for published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing amphetamines (including lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with each other or placebo. We systematically contacted study authors and drug manufacturers for additional information. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in severity of ADHD core symptoms based on teachers' and clinicians' ratings) and tolerability (proportion of patients who dropped out of studies because of side-effects) at timepoints closest to 12 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and confidence of estimates with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for network meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014008976. Findings 133 double-blind randomised controlled trials (81 in children and adolescents, 51 in adults, and one in both) were included. The analysis of efficacy closest to 12 weeks was based on 10 068 children and adolescents and 8131 adults; the analysis of tolerability was based on 11 018 children and adolescents and 5362 adults. The confidence of estimates varied from high or moderate (for some comparisons) to low or very low (for most indirect comparisons). For ADHD core symptoms rated by clinicians in children and adolescents closest to 12 weeks, all included drugs were superior to placebo (eg, SMD −1·02, 95% CI −1·19 to −0·85 for amphetamines, −0·78, −0·93 to −0·62 for methylphenidate, −0·56, −0·66 to −0·45 for atomoxetine). By contrast, for available comparisons based on teachers' ratings, only methylphenidate (SMD −0·82, 95% CI −1·16 to −0·48) and modafinil (−0·76, −1·15 to −0·37) were more efficacious than placebo. In adults (clinicians' ratings), amphetamines (SMD −0·79, 95% CI −0·99 to −0·58), methylphenidate (−0·49, −0·64 to −0·35), bupropion (−0·46, −0·85 to −0·07), and atomoxetine (−0·45, −0·58 to −0·32), but not modafinil (0·16, −0·28 to 0·59), were better than placebo. With respect to tolerability, amphetamines were inferior to placebo in both children and adolescents (odds ratio [OR] 2·30, 95% CI 1·36–3·89) and adults (3·26, 1·54–6·92); guanfacine was inferior to placebo in children and adolescents only (2·64, 1·20–5·81); and atomoxetine (2·33, 1·28–4·25), methylphenidate (2·39, 1·40–4·08), and modafinil (4·01, 1·42–11·33) were less well tolerated than placebo in adults only. In head-to-head comparisons, only differences in efficacy (clinicians' ratings) were found, favouring amphetamines over modafinil, atomoxetine, and methylphenidate in both children and adolescents (SMDs −0·46 to −0·24) and adults (−0·94 to −0·29). We did not find sufficient data for the 26-week and 52-week timepoints. Interpretation Our findings represent the most comprehensive available evidence base to inform patients, families, clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the choice of ADHD medications across age groups. Taking into account both efficacy and safety, evidence from this meta-analysis supports methylphenidate in children and adolescents, and amphetamines in adults, as preferred first-choice medications for the short-term treatment of ADHD. New research should be funded urgently to assess long-term effects of these drugs. Funding Stichting Eunethydis (European Network for Hyperkinetic Disorders), and the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prevalence of Parent-Reported ADHD Diagnosis and Associated Treatment Among U.S. Children and Adolescents, 2016

              The purpose of this study is to estimate the national prevalence of parent-reported attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis and treatment among U.S. children 2–17 years of age using the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH). The NSCH is a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of parents regarding their children’s health that underwent a redesign before the 2016 data collection. It included indicators of lifetime receipt of an ADHD diagnosis by a health care provider, whether the child currently had ADHD, and receipt of medication and behavioral treatment for ADHD. Weighted prevalence estimates were calculated overall and by demographic and clinical subgroups ( n = 45,736). In 2016, an estimated 6.1 million U.S. children 2–17 years of age (9.4%) had ever received an ADHD diagnosis. Of these, 5.4 million currently had ADHD, which was 89.4% of children ever diagnosed with ADHD and 8.4% of all U.S. children 2–17 years of age. Of children with current ADHD, almost two thirds (62.0%) were taking medication and slightly less than half (46.7%) had received behavioral treatment for ADHD in the past year; nearly one fourth (23.0%) had received neither treatment. Similar to estimates from previous surveys, there is a large population of U.S. children and adolescents who have been diagnosed with ADHD by a health care provider. Many, but not all, of these children received treatment that appears to be consistent with professional guidelines, though the survey questions are limited in detail about specific treatment types received. The redesigned NSCH can be used to annually monitor diagnosis and treatment patterns for this highly prevalent and high-impact neurodevelopmental disorder.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of the American College of Cardiology
                Journal of the American College of Cardiology
                Elsevier BV
                07351097
                August 2020
                August 2020
                : 76
                : 7
                : 858-866
                Article
                10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.081
                32792083
                5b551d54-60c7-4402-a1b5-dfef66bfb271
                © 2020

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article