Pharmacological treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with co-morbid drug dependence

AUD in perspective

Alcohol is a major cause of pre-mature death and individual suffering worldwide, and the importance of diagnosing and treating AUD cannot be overstated. Given the global burden and the high attributable factor of alcohol in a vast number of diseases, the need for additional interventions and the development of new medicines is considered a priority by the World Health Organization (WHO). As of today, AUD is severely under-treated with a treatment gap nearing 90%, strikingly higher than that for other psychiatric disorders. Patients often seek treatment late in the progress of the disease and even among those who seek treatment only a minority receive medication, mirroring the still-prevailing stigma of the disease, and a lack of access to effective treatments, as well as a reluctance to total abstinence. To increase adherence, treatment goals should focus not only on maintaining abstinence, but also on harm reduction and psychosocial functioning. A personalised approach to AUD treatment, with a holistic view, and tailored therapy has the potential to improve AUD treatment outcomes by targeting the heterogeneity in genetics and pathophysiology, as well as reason for, and reaction to drinking. Also, the psychiatric co-morbidity rates are high in AUD and dual diagnosis can worsen symptoms and influence treatment response and should be considered in the treatment strategies.

Challenges of Treating ADHD with Comorbid Substance Use Disorder: Considerations for the Clinician

Adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often present psychiatric comorbidities and, in particular, substance use disorder (SUD). ADHD-SUD comorbidity is characterized by greater severity of both disorders, earlier age of onset, higher likelihood of polydrug-abuse and suicidal behaviors, more hospitalizations, and lower treatment adherence. At the present stage, research focused on the pharmacological management of ADHD with comorbid SUD in both adolescents and adults is still lacking. Furthermore, while the short-term effects of stimulants are well studied, less is known about the chronic effects of these drugs on dopamine signaling. Current available evidence is consistent in reporting that high doses of stimulant medications in ADHD-SUD subjects have a mild to moderate efficacy on ADHD symptoms. Some data suggest that pharmacological treatment with stimulants may be beneficial for both ADHD symptoms and comorbid cocaine or amphetamine use. However, in the long run, stimulant medications may have a potential risk for misuse. For the absence of potential misuse, atomoxetine is often recommended for ADHD with comorbid cocaine or amphetamine use disorder. However, its efficacy in reducing addictive behavior is not demonstrated. In subjects with other subtypes of SUD, both atomoxetine and stimulant drugs seem to have scarce impact on addictive behavior, despite the improvement in ADHD symptomatology. In this population, ADHD treatment should be combined with SUD-specific strategies.

Identification and treatment of individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance use disorder: An expert consensus statement

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often co-occurs with substance use (SU) and/or substance use disorder (SUD). Individuals with concurrent ADHD and SU/SUD can have complex presentations that may complicate diagnosis and treatment. This can be further complicated by the context in which services are delivered. Also, when working with young people and adults with co-existing ADHD and SU/SUD, there is uncertainty among healthcare practitioners on how best to meet their needs. In February 2022, the United Kingdom ADHD Partnership hosted a meeting attended by multidisciplinary experts to address these issues. Following presentations providing attendees with an overview of the literature, group discussions were held synthesizing research evidence and clinical experience. Topics included: (1) A review of substances and reasons for use/misuse; (2) identification, assessment and treatment of illicit SU/SUD in young people and adults with ADHD presenting in community services; and (3) identification, assessment and treatment of ADHD in adults presenting in SU/SUD community and inpatient services. Dis-cussions highlighted inter-service barriers and fragmentation of care. It was concluded that a multimodal and multi-agency approach is needed. The consensus group generated a table of practice recommendations providing guidance on: identification and assessment; pharmacological and psychological treatment; and multi-agency interventions.

Prevalence of ADHD in a Sample of Heroin Addicts Receiving Agonist Treatment-Study Conducted in a Public Addiction Service

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood neurodevelopmental disorder that can persist into adulthood. The co-occurrence of ADHD and substance use disorders is very frequent and has received considerable attention in recent clinical/scientific investigations. However, few studies have investigated the prevalence of ADHD in heroin addicts. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a sample of heroin addicts treated with opioid agonists and to report this clinical experience in a public service for addiction. Outpatients over 18 years old and being treated with opioid agonists for heroin addiction were enrolled. Each patient took part in a psychiatric examination and completed an ASRS (Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale) self-assessment. Subjects with positive results were called in for another psychiatric visit, and the Brown ADD scale was used as a second-level test for ADHD; furthermore, the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and Hypomania/Mania Checklist (HCL-32) were used for differential diagnoses and to assess comorbidities. In total, 111 patients were enrolled. All were followed up by the psychiatrist, who is also the author of this report and the person who formulated the diagnoses. The prevalence of ADHD in this sample was 18%. Among the 20 patients diagnosed with ADHD, 5 (25%) were female and 15 (75%) were male. The most frequent psychiatric comorbidity was major depression, found in 11 patients (55%), of which 4 presented with hypomania (bipolar disorder). In this sample, making diagnoses was very difficult. Frequently, multiple comorbidities further complicated these cases. In conclusion, the results of this study are consistent with the literature: There seems to be a significant prevalence of ADHD even among heroin addicts, and often, the diagnosis is difficult to make. We also do not know the exact effect of opioid agonist therapy on ADHD symptoms. Hypotheses have been put forward, but studies are needed.

Randomised controlled trial of the short-term effects of osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate on symptoms and behavioural outcomes in young male prisoners with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: CIAO-II study

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that 20-30% of prisoners meet the diagnostic criteria for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methylphenidate reduces ADHD symptoms, but effects in prisoners are uncertain because of comorbid mental health and substance use disorders.

AIMS

To estimate the efficacy of an osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-methylphenidate) in reducing ADHD symptoms in young adult prisoners with ADHD.

METHOD

We conducted an 8-week parallel-arm, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial of OROS-methylphenidate versus placebo in male prisoners (aged 16-25 years) meeting the DSM-5 criteria for ADHD. Primary outcome was ADHD symptoms at 8 weeks, using the investigator-rated Connors Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS-O). Thirteen secondary outcomes were measured, including emotional dysregulation, mind wandering, violent attitudes, mental health symptoms, and prison officer and educational staff ratings of behaviour and aggression.

RESULTS

In the OROS-methylphenidate arm, mean CAARS-O score at 8 weeks was estimated to be reduced by 0.57 points relative to the placebo arm (95% CI -2.41 to 3.56), and non-significant. The responder rate, defined as a 20% reduction in CAARS-O score, was 48.3% for the OROS-methylphenidate arm and 47.9% for the placebo arm. No statistically significant trial arm differences were detected for any of the secondary outcomes. Mean final titrated dose was 53.8 mg in the OROS-methylphenidate arm.

CONCLUSIONS

ADHD symptoms did not respond to OROS-methylphenidate in young adult prisoners. The findings do not support routine treatment with OROS-methylphenidate in this population. Further research is needed to evaluate effects of higher average dosing and adherence to treatment, multi-modal treatments and preventative interventions in the community.

Gaps in Evidence-based Treatment of Concurrent Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Opioid Use Disorder: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

To describe the effectiveness of medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

DATA SOURCES

Literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar was performed for studies published from inception to October 25, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Studies were included if patients were diagnosed with OUD and ADHD and had pharmacotherapy for either condition. Abstracts, commentaries, reviews, case reports, case series, non-English articles, and animal studies were omitted.

DATA SYNTHESIS

This review found 18 studies. Treatment of ADHD was evaluated for impact on ADHD and OUD outcomes, while treatment of OUD was evaluated for OUD-related outcomes. Outcomes assessed included markers for symptom intensity, adherence, and treatment failure. While results were mixed, treatment of ADHD was largely associated with improvements in ADHD severity and retention in OUD treatment programs. ADHD severity was associated with higher rates of illicit substance abuse and worse OUD-related outcomes. It could not be determined which medications for treatment of OUD should be prioritized.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review summarized key findings from studies that treated ADHD or OUD among dually diagnosed patients and highlighted methodological considerations for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of ADHD is warranted among patients with OUD and ADHD to improve retention in OUD treatment programs and reduce illicit substance abuse. Pharmacotherapy for the treatment of ADHD or OUD should continue to be determined based on patients' characteristics and the capabilities of the treatment program.

The clinical course of comorbid substance use disorder and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: protocol and clinical characteristics of the INCAS study

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorders (SUD) often co-occur with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Although the short-term effects of some specific interventions have been investigated in randomized clinical trials, little is known about the long-term clinical course of treatment-seeking SUD patients with comorbid ADHD.

AIMS

This paper presents the protocol and baseline clinical characteristics of the International Naturalistic Cohort Study of ADHD and SUD (INCAS) designed and conducted by the International Collaboration on ADHD and Substance Abuse (ICASA) foundation. The overall aim of INCAS is to investigate the treatment modalities provided to treatment-seeking SUD patients with comorbid ADHD, and to describe the clinical course and identify predictors for treatment outcomes. This ongoing study employs a multicentre observational prospective cohort design. Treatment-seeking adult SUD patients with comorbid ADHD are recruited, at 12 study sites in nine different countries. During the follow-up period of nine months, data is collected through patient files, interviews, and self-rating scales, targeting a broad range of cognitive and clinical symptom domains, at baseline, four weeks, three months and nine months.

RESULTS

A clinically representative sample of 578 patients (137 females, 441 males) was enrolled during the recruitment period (June 2017-May 2021). At baseline, the sample had a mean age (SD) of 36.7 years (11.0); 47.5% were inpatients and 52.5% outpatients; The most prevalent SUDs were with alcohol 54.2%, stimulants 43.6%, cannabis 33.1%, and opioids 14.5%. Patients reported previous treatments for SUD in 71.1% and for ADHD in 56.9%. Other comorbid mental disorders were present in 61.4% of the sample: major depression 31.5%, post-traumatic stress disorder 12.1%, borderline personality disorder 10.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The first baseline results of this international cohort study speak to its feasibility. Data show that many SUD patients with comorbid ADHD had never received treatment for their ADHD prior to enrolment in the study. Future reports on this study will identify the course and potential predictors for successful pharmaceutical and psychological treatment outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN15998989 20/12/2019.

ADHD and Substance Use Disorders in Young People: Considerations for Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Pharmacotherapy

Co-occurring ADHD and substance use disorder (SUD) is a common clinical presentation associated with significant impairment requiring careful evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment. Treatment with medication, along with cognitive behavioral therapy, is generally regarded as effective in addressing symptoms and impairments associated with both disorders. Options for pharmacotherapy include stimulant and nonstimulant therapies administered with careful monitoring of dosage and compliance to optimize efficacy. In high-risk groups such as college students and/or those with SUD, prescribers should address risks of stimulant misuse and diversion through patient and family education, medication monitoring, and other risk-reducing practices.

Analysis of Stimulant Prescriptions and Drug-Related Poisoning Risk Among Persons Receiving Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

IMPORTANCE

Stimulant medication use is common among individuals receiving buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). Associations between prescription stimulant use and treatment outcomes in this population have been understudied.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether use of prescription stimulants was associated with (1) drug-related poisoning and (2) buprenorphine treatment retention.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, recurrent-event cohort study with a case-crossover design used a secondary analysis of administrative claims data from IBM MarketScan Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid databases from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2016. Primary analyses were conducted from March 1 through August 31, 2021. Individuals aged 12 to 64 years with an OUD diagnosis and prescribed buprenorphine who experienced at least 1 drug-related poisoning were included in the analysis. Unit of observation was the person-day.

EXPOSURES

Days of active stimulant prescriptions.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were drug-related poisoning and buprenorphine treatment retention. Drug-related poisonings were defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, codes; treatment retention was defined by continuous treatment claims until a 45-day gap was observed.

RESULTS

There were 13 778 567 person-days of observation time among 22 946 individuals (mean [SD] age, 32.8 [11.8] years; 50.3% men) who experienced a drug-related poisoning. Stimulant treatment days were associated with 19% increased odds of drug-related poisoning (odds ratio [OR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.06-1.34]) compared with nontreatment days; buprenorphine treatment days were associated with 38% decreased odds of poisoning (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.59-0.65]). There were no significant interaction effects between use of stimulants and buprenorphine. Stimulant treatment days were associated with decreased odds of attrition from buprenorphine treatment (OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.59-0.70]), indicating that stimulants were associated with 36% longer mean exposure to buprenorphine and its concomitant protection.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among persons with OUD, use of prescription stimulants was associated with a modest increase in per-day risk of drug-related poisoning, but this risk was offset by the association between stimulant use and improved retention to buprenorphine treatment, which is associated with protection against overdose.

Pharmacotherapy interventions for adolescent co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Co-occurring mental health and substance use (SU) disorders among adolescents are common, with two-thirds of adolescents who seek SU treatment also requiring support for mental health. Primary care physicians play a key role in the pharmacological treatment of mental health disorders among adolescents, however, little is known about the impact of these treatments on SU outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review summarizes the evidence regarding commonly used pharmacotherapy interventions for mental health and their impact on adolescent SU.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted across five databases as part of a larger systematic review of adolescent SU interventions. Studies were screened for eligibility by two researchers, and study data were extracted regarding study design, patient and treatment characteristics and results. Risk of bias analyses and qualitative syntheses were completed to evaluate the strength of the evidence and the impact of pharmacotherapy on SU outcomes.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials exploring seven pharmacotherapies met criteria for inclusion. All studies had low to moderate risk of bias. Four studies evaluated pharmacotherapy for co-occurring depression and SU, three evaluated attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and SU, and three evaluated bipolar disorder and SU. Five of the 10 studies also included a behavioural intervention. We found no evidence that pharmacotherapy for co-occurring mental health diagnoses impacted SU.

CONCLUSION

Family medicine clinicians prescribing pharmacotherapy for mental health should be aware that additional interventions will likely be needed to address co-occurring SU.

Prevalence of cocaine use and cocaine use disorder among adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis (registered with PROSPERO CRD42020142039) of the literature to estimate the lifetime prevalence of cocaine use and cocaine use disorder among adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The literature search was performed on the electronic databases PubMed and PsychINFO without date or language restrictions. Additional studies were identified by hand searching of citations. Inclusion criteria were: studies involving adult patients with ADHD and reporting cocaine use and/or cocaine use disorders. Data were pooled in the meta-analyses using a generalized linear mixed model with random effects. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. Twelve studies were included in the review: six in the meta-analysis of cocaine use and nine in the meta-analysis of cocaine use disorder. The estimated prevalence of cocaine use was 26.0% (95% CI 0.18-0.35) and the estimated prevalence of cocaine use disorder was 10.0% (95% CI 0.08-0.13). Heterogeneity in both meta-analyses was high but decreased to non-significance in the meta-analysis on cocaine use disorder after excluding the outlier study. In conclusion, one out of four adult patients with ADHD use cocaine and one out of ten develop a lifetime cocaine use disorder. Since cocaine use can lead to more severe and complex disorders of impaired systemic functioning, adult patients with ADHD should be assessed for cocaine use disorder and promptly referred for treatment.

Psychiatric Drug Prescription and Temporal Associations with a First Diagnosis of Gambling Disorder—Results from a National Register Study

Psychiatric comorbidity is common in gambling disorder (GD), but there are few studies on larger nationwide samples of treatment-seeking patients. Also, temporal associations between GD and other psychiatric disorders are often difficult to study. To address the prevalence and the temporal associations of prescriptions for psychiatric disorders — both in specialized care and primary care — in patients with a GD diagnosis (ICD-10 F63.0). Data was derived from national health registers in Sweden. All patients who were diagnosed with GD in specialized health care in 2005–2016 were included and run against the nationwide database on prescription of pharmaceuticals aimed for psychiatric disorders (n = 2018). Prevalence of psychiatric drug prescription was used as a proxy for psychiatric comorbidity and studied for two 2-year periods (period 1 and 2) prior to GD and one 2-year period (period 3) after the diagnosis. Controlling for gender, age, and time periods, for eight drug categories (anti- epileptics, anti-psychotics, benzodiazepine derivatives, anxiolytics, hypnotics, anti- depressants and drugs used in addictive disorders), significant increases in drug prescription were seen. For central stimulants, a significant increase was seen upon receiving the GD diagnosis (from period 2 to 3), and for benzodiazepines, an increase was seen prior to the GD diagnosis (from period 1 to 2), but not upon diagnosis (from period 2 to 3). Psychiatric comorbidity in GD is common. Drug prescription for psychiatric problems increased markedly in the years temporarily associated with a first diagnosis of GD. The findings may call for early screening for problem gambling in patients with treatment contacts for increasingly poor mental health.

Treatment of Adolescents with Concurrent Substance Use Disorder and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review

Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a risk factor for the development of substance abuse and substance use disorders (SUD) in adolescence and (early) adulthood. ADHD and SUD also frequently co-occur in treatment-seeking adolescents, which complicates diagnosis and treatment, and is associated with poor treatment outcomes. In this study, we provide a systematic review of controlled studies on the effectiveness of pharmacological, psychosocial, and complementary treatments of ADHD in adolescents with and without comorbid SUD. In addition, we review the longitudinal association between pharmacotherapy for childhood ADHD and the development of SUD in adolescence and early adulthood. We conducted a systematic review of the research literature published since 2000 using Medline, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases to select randomized clinical trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence from each study was rated using the SIGN grading system. Based on the limited evidence available, strong clinical recommendations are not justified, but provisionally, we conclude that stimulant treatment in children with ADHD may prevent the development of SUD in adolescence or young adulthood, that high-dose stimulant treatment could be an effective treatment for adolescents with ADHD and SUD comorbidity, that cognitive behavior therapy might have a small beneficial effect in these patients, and that alternative treatments are probably not effective. More studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions that will allow for strong clinical recommendations.

[International Consensus Statement for the Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Adolescents with Concurrent Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Substance Use Disorder]

International Consensus Statement for the Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Adolescents with Concurrent Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Substance Use Disorder Abstract. Background: Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a risk factor for substance misuse and substance use disorder (SUD) in adolescence and (early) adulthood. ADHD and SUD also frequently co-occur in treatment-seeking adolescents, which complicates diagnosis and treatment and is associated with poor treatment outcomes. Research on the effect of treatment of childhood ADHD on the prevention of adolescent SUD is inconclusive, and studies on the diagnosis and treatment of adolescents with ADHD and SUD are scarce. Thus, the available evidence is generally not sufficient to justify robust treatment recommendations. Objective: The aim of the study was to obtain a consensus statement based on a combination of scientific data and clinical experience. Method: A modified Delphi study to reach consensus based upon the combination of scientific data and clinical experience with a multidisciplinary group of 55 experts from 17 countries. The experts were asked to rate a set of statements on the effect of treatment of childhood ADHD on adolescent SUD and on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of adolescents with comorbid ADHD and SUD. Results: After 3 iterative rounds of rating and adapting 37 statements, consensus was reached on 36 of these statements representing 6 domains: general (n = 4), risk of developing SUD (n = 3), screening and diagnosis (n = 7), psychosocial treatment (n = 5), pharmacological treatment (n = 11), and complementary treatments (n = 7). Routine screening is recommended for ADHD in adolescent patients in substance abuse treatment and for SUD in adolescent patients with ADHD in mental healthcare settings. Long-acting stimulants are recommended as the first-line treatment of ADHD in adolescents with concurrent ADHD and SUD, and pharmacotherapy should preferably be embedded in psychosocial treatment. The only remaining no-consensus statement concerned the requirement of abstinence before starting pharmacological treatment in adolescents with ADHD and concurrent SUD. In contrast to the majority, some experts required full abstinence before starting any pharmacological treatment, some were against the use of stimulants in the treatment of these patients (independent of abstinence), while some were against the alternative use of bupropion. Conclusion: This international consensus statement can be used by clinicians and patients together in a shared decision-making process to select the best interventions and to reach optimal outcomes in adolescent patients with concurrent ADHD and SUD.

Influence of Substance Use Disorder on Treatment Retention of Adult-Attention-Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder Patients. A 5-Year Follow-Up Study

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is the most widespread neurodevelopmental disorder, and it still persists into adulthood in 2–6% of the population. Psychiatric comorbidities are very common in adult ADHD (A-ADHD) patients; in particular, Substance Use Disorder (SUD) is found in 40% of these patients. Co-occurrence of ADHD and SUD is described as detrimental to clinical outcome by many authors, while only a few studies describe good clinical results in A-ADHD-SUD patients when they were treated for ADHD, both for the efficacy and the compliance of patients. In this study we tested to determine whether SUD can influence the treatment outcome of A-ADHD patients by correlating lifetime, past and current substance use in A-ADHD patients with their outcome (retention rate) during a 5-year follow-up of patients treated with stimulant and non-stimulant medications, using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis with overall and pairwise comparison. The association between demographic, symptomatological and clinical aspects with retention in treatment, adjusting for potential confounding factors, was summarized using Cox regression. After 5 years of observation, the cumulative treatment retention was 49.0%, 64.3% and 41.8% for A-ADHD patients without lifetime SUD (NSUD/A-ADHD), A-ADHD with past SUD (PSUD/A-ADHD) and A-ADHD with current SUD (CSUD/A-ADHD), respectively. Overall comparisons were not significant (Wilcoxon Rank-Sum (statistical) Test = 1.48; df = 2; p = 0.477). The lack of differences was confirmed by a Cox regression demonstrating that the ADHD diagnosis according to DIVA, gender, education, civil status, presence of psychiatric comorbidity, and psychiatric and ADHD familiarity; severity of symptomatological scales as evaluated by WHODAS, BPRS, BARRAT, DERS, HSRS, and ASRS did not influence treatment drop-out (χ2 22.30; df = 20 p = 0.324). Our A-ADHD-SUD patients have the same treatment retention rate as A-ADHD patients without SUD, so it seems that substance use comorbidity does not influence this clinical parameter.

Open-label pilot study of lisdexamfetamine for cocaine use disorder

Background: Cocaine use disorder (CUD) is a substantial public health problem with no FDA-approved medication treatments. Psychostimulants have shown promise as pharmacotherapy for CUD. Lisdexamfetamine, a novel prodrug psychostimulant, is roughly 40-50% as potent as dextroamphetamine.Objectives: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and optimal dosing of lisdexamfetamine for treating CUD.Methods: Open-label, 8-week trial of 17 CUD adults. Participants were titrated to the maximum tolerated dose of 140 mg over 2-week period and maintained for 4 weeks, followed by a two-week taper period. The primary outcome measures were the maximum daily dose achieved during the study period and tolerability as measured by medication-related study drop-out.Results: Among the 16 participants with post-enrollment data, the mean dose of lisdexamfetamine achieved was 118.1 mg (standard deviation (SD) = 40.4), mean retention was 6.5 weeks (SD = 2.0), and no participants discontinued study medication due to adverse effects. Four participants had dose reductions due to adverse effects and continued in the trial. Six participants (37.5%) were abstinent for the last 3 weeks of their study participation. Mean dollars of cocaine spent per day significantly decreased from $19.72 at baseline to $7.57 during the last 3 weeks of study participation (t₁₅ = 3.60, p = .003). The mean percent of using days significantly decreased from 25% at baseline to 12% during the last 3 weeks of study participation (t₁₅ = 3.33, p = .005).Conclusion: The use of lisdexamfetamine for CUD in doses ranging to 140 mg daily was safe and generally well tolerated.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Treatment of Substance Use Disorder in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Treating substance use disorder (SUD) in patients with co-occurring attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and SUD may lower medical, psychiatric, and social complications. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to investigate the clinical benefits of pharmacological interventions to treat SUD in patients with ADHD.

METHODS

Articles were searched on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EBSCO, Google Scholar, Embase, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE from 1971 to 2020. Data for SUD treatment as primary study endpoints and ADHD symptoms management as secondary outcomes were synthesized using random-effects model meta-analysis. Studies (N = 17) were included. The principal measure of effect size was the standardized mean difference (SMD). PROSPERO registration: CRD42020171646.

RESULTS

The pooled effect of pharmacological interventions compared with placebo was small for the reduction in substance use (SMD = 0.405, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.252, 0.557], P < .001), abstinence (SMD = 0.328, 95% CI: [0.149, 0.507], P < .001), craving (SMD = 0.274, 95% CI: [0.103, 0.446], P = .002), and the reduction in the frequency of ADHD symptoms (SMD = 0.420, 95% CI: [0.259, 0.582], P < .001). The pooled effect was moderate for the management of withdrawal symptoms (SMD = 0.577, 95% CI: [0.389, 0.764], P = .001]) and the decrease in the severity of ADHD symptoms (SMD = 0.533, 95% CI: [0.393, 0.672], P < .001).

CONCLUSION AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

The magnitude of benefits for pharmacological interventions varies. Despite some limitations, it was positive. This meta-analysis is the first to appraise the benefits of medications to treat SUD in ADHD. It is the groundwork for treatment and risk mitigation. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00-00).

Co-occurring mental disorder and substance use disorder in young people: aetiology, assessment and treatment

Dual diagnosis is one of several terms used to identify individuals diagnosed with a co-occurring mental disorder and substance use disorder. The existence of a dual diagnosis in adolescents is often associated with functional impairment in various life domains, causing physical health problems, relational conflicts, educational/vocational underachievement and legal problems. Dual diagnosis is difficult to treat and can result in tremendous economic burden on healthcare, education and justice systems. It is essential for clinicians caring for young people to be knowledgeable about dual diagnosis to ensure that it is identified early and treated. This article aims to provide an overview of dual diagnosis, increase its awareness and promote a realistic treatment approach.

Microdosing psychedelics: Demographics, practices, and psychiatric comorbidities

RATIONALE

Microdosing psychedelics - the practice of consuming small, sub-hallucinogenic doses of substances such as LSD or psilocybin - is gaining attention in popular media but remains poorly characterized. Contemporary studies of psychedelic microdosing have yet to report the basic psychiatric descriptors of psychedelic microdosers.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the practices and demographics of a population of psychedelic microdosers - including their psychiatric diagnoses, prescription medications, and recreational substance use patterns - to develop a foundation on which to conduct future clinical research.

METHODS

Participants (n = 909; M_age = 26.9, SD = 8.6; male = 83.2%; White/European = 79.1%) recruited primarily from the online forum Reddit completed an anonymous online survey. Respondents who reported using LSD, psilocybin, or both for microdosing were grouped and compared with non-microdosing respondents using exploratory odds ratio testing on demographic variables, rates of psychiatric diagnoses, and past-year recreational substance use.

RESULTS

Of microdosers, most reported using LSD (59.3%; M_dose = 13 mcg, or 11.3% of one tab) or psilocybin (25.9%; M_dose = 0.3 g of dried psilocybin mushrooms) on a one-day-on, two-days-off schedule. Compared with non-microdosers, microdosers were significantly less likely to report a history of substance use disorders (SUDs; OR = 0.17 (95% CI: 0.05-0.56)) or anxiety disorders (OR = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.41-0.91)). Microdosers were also more likely to report recent recreational substance use compared with non-microdosers (OR = 5.2 (95% CI: 2.7-10.8)).

CONCLUSIONS

Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of this practice in clinical populations and to test claims about potential benefits.

The neurobehavioral mechanisms of motivational control in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) poses debilitating impairments in the neurobehavioral systems governing reward-related processes-key to the control of motivated behaviors. Individuals with ADHD may rely on a motivational control system that favors cue-driven habits-rooted in the posterior putamen-over caudate and prefrontal cortex-driven goal-directed behaviors. We examined the neurobehavioral correlates of motivational control in ADHD. Twenty-five adults with ADHD and 25 neurotypicals underwent fMRI while training on two stimulus-response-outcome associations. A devaluation procedure followed, whereby they were selectively satiated on one of the snack outcomes, decreasing its value. A subsequent extinction test determined outcome-sensitivity (i.e., whether responses towards devalued snack diminished). Despite behavioral similarities, the ADHD group displayed a distinct neural signature marked by enhanced posterior putamen activation as a function of training. This region also displayed diminished functional connectivity with the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, which is associated with top-down control. Our whole-brain analysis yielded ADHD-specific posterior putamen and opercular/insular cortex activity over the course of training-regions associated with stimulus-sensitivity and maladaptively rigid behaviors, respectively. Neural comparisons also identified hyper-recruitment of the hippocampus in the ADHD group. These results highlight corticostriatal discrepancies in ADHD, possibly serving as a biomarker of the disorder.

International Consensus Statement for the Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Adolescents with Concurrent Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Substance Use Disorder

BACKGROUND

Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a risk factor for substance misuse and substance use disorder (SUD) in adolescence and (early) adulthood. ADHD and SUD also frequently co-occur in treatment-seeking adolescents, which complicates diagnosis and treatment and is associated with poor treatment outcomes. Research on the effect of treatment of childhood ADHD on the prevention of adolescent SUD is inconclusive, and studies on the diagnosis and treatment of adolescents with ADHD and SUD are scarce. Thus, the available evidence is generally not sufficient to justify robust treatment recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to obtain a consensus statement based on a combination of scientific data and clinical experience.

METHOD

A modified Delphi study to reach consensus based upon the combination of scientific data and clinical experience with a multidisciplinary group of 55 experts from 17 countries. The experts were asked to rate a set of statements on the effect of treatment of childhood ADHD on adolescent SUD and on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of adolescents with comorbid ADHD and SUD.

RESULTS

After 3 iterative rounds of rating and adapting 37 statements, consensus was reached on 36 of these statements representing 6 domains: general (n = 4), risk of developing SUD (n = 3), screening and diagnosis (n = 7), psychosocial treatment (n = 5), pharmacological treatment (n = 11), and complementary treatments (n = 7). Routine screening is recommended for ADHD in adolescent patients in substance abuse treatment and for SUD in adolescent patients with ADHD in mental healthcare settings. Long-acting stimulants are recommended as the first-line treatment of ADHD in adolescents with concurrent ADHD and SUD, and pharmacotherapy should preferably be embedded in psychosocial treatment. The only remaining no-consensus statement concerned the requirement of abstinence before starting pharmacological treatment in adolescents with ADHD and concurrent SUD. In contrast to the majority, some experts required full abstinence before starting any pharmacological treatment, some were against the use of stimulants in the treatment of these patients (independent of abstinence), while some were against the alternative use of bupropion.

CONCLUSION

This international consensus statement can be used by clinicians and patients together in a shared decision-making process to select the best interventions and to reach optimal outcomes in adolescent patients with concurrent ADHD and SUD.

The International Collaboration on ADHD and Substance Abuse (ICASA): Mission, Results, and Future Activities

BACKGROUND

The International Collaboration on ADHD and Substance Abuse (ICASA) is a network of 28 centers from 16 countries initiated to investigate the link between attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance use disorder (SUD). In this article, we present the mission, the results of finished studies, and the current and future research projects of ICASA.

METHODS

During the past 10 years, 3 cross-sectional studies were conducted: two International ADHD in Substance use disorders Prevalence (IASP-1 and IASP-2) studies, directed at the screening, diagnosis, and the prevalence of adult ADHD in treatment-seeking patients with SUD, and the Continuous performance test for ADHD in SUD Patients (CASP) study, testing a novel continuous performance test in SUD patients with and without adult ADHD. Recently, the prospective International Naturalistic Cohort Study of ADHD and Substance Use Disorders (INCAS) was initiated, directed at treatment provision and treatment outcome in SUD patients with adult ADHD.

RESULTS

The IASP studies have shown that approximately 1 in 6 adult treatment-seeking SUD patients also have ADHD. In addition, those SUD patients with adult ADHD compared to SUD patients without ADHD report more childhood trauma exposure, slower infant development, greater problems controlling their temperament, and lower educational attainment. Comorbid patients also reported more risk-taking behavior, and a higher rate of other psychiatric disorders compared to SUD patients without ADHD. Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of this patient group are possible even before abstinence has been achieved. The results of the CASP study are reported separately in this special issue.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICASA research to date has demonstrated a high prevalence of comorbid ADHD and SUD, associated with elevated rates of additional comorbidities and risk factors for adverse outcomes. More research is needed to find the best way to treat these patients, which is the main topic of the ongoing INCAS study.

Onset and Severity of Early Disruptive Behavioral Disorders in Treatment-Seeking Substance Use Disorder Patients with and without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

AIMS

This study addressed the age of onset of conduct disorder (CD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in treatment-seeking substance use disorder (SUD) patients with and without adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and its association with early onset of SUD.

METHODS

We examined data from the 2nd International ADHD in Substance Use Disorders Prevalence Study, including 400 adults in SUD treatment from Puerto Rico, Hungary, and Australia. ADHD, SUD, and CD/ODD were assessed with the Conners Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV, the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview, and the K-SADS, respectively. Cox regression analyses modeled time to emergence of CD/ODD separately for SUD patients with and without adult ADHD. Linear regression models examined associations between age of onset of SUD and presence of ADHD and adjusted for sex, age, and country. To assess the mediating role of CD/ODD on the association of ADHD with onset of SUD, adjusted regression models were estimated.

RESULTS

Treatment-seeking SUD patients with ADHD presented an earlier onset of CD/ODD compared with those without ADHD. CD/ODD symptom loads were higher among the SUD and ADHD group. Age of first substance use and SUD were significantly earlier in SUD patients with ADHD, and these findings remained significant after adjustment for demographics and coexisting CD/ODD.

CONCLUSIONS

ADHD is associated with earlier onset of SUD as well as with an earlier onset of more frequent and more severe disruptive behavioral disorders. These findings may inform preventive interventions to mitigate adverse consequences of ADHD.

Integrated cognitive behavioral therapy for ADHD in adult substance use disorder patients: Results of a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) frequently co-occurs with Substance Use Disorders (SUDs). Standard ADHD pharmacotherapies are not effective in patients with this comorbidity and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has not been tested in this population. This RCT aimed to compare the efficacy of Integrated CBT (CBT/Integrated) directed at adult ADHD and SUD with CBT directed at SUD only (CBT/SUD) in patients with SUD and ADHD (SUD + ADHD).

METHODS

Randomized clinical trial among 119 SUD + ADHD patients in a SUD treatment center. CBT/Integrated consisted of 15 individual sessions of motivational therapy, coping skills training and relapse prevention for SUD, and training of planning skills, problem-solving skills and dealing with emotions for ADHD. CBT/SUD consisted of 10 individual SUD treatment sessions only. Primary outcome was ADHD symptom severity according to the ADHD rating scale (ARS) at post-treatment. Secondary outcomes included ADHD symptom severity after two-month follow-up, and treatment response (≥30% ADHD symptom reduction), substance use, depressive or anxiety symptoms, and quality of life at post-treatment and follow-up.

RESULTS

CBT/Integrated was more effective than CBT/SUD in the reduction of ADHD symptoms post-treatment: ARS = 28.1 (SD 9.0) vs. 31.5 (SD 11.4) (F = 4.739, df = 1, 282, p = .030; d = 0.34). At follow-up, CBT/Integrated still resulted in lower ARS scores than CBT/SUD, but the difference was not significant at the 0.05 level. For other secondary outcomes, including substance use, no significant between-group differences were present.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to regular SUD cognitive behavioral therapy, integrated cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in a significant extra improvement in ADHD symptoms in SUD + ADHD patients.

Treatment strategies for ADHD: an evidence-based guide to select optimal treatment

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common and impairing disorder affecting children, adolescents, and adults. Several treatment strategies are available that can successfully ameliorate symptoms, ranging from pharmacological to dietary interventions. Due to the increasing range of available options, an informed selection or prioritization of treatments is becoming harder for clinicians. This review aims to provide an evidence-based appraisal of the literature on ADHD treatment, supplemented by expert opinion on plausibility. We outline proposed mechanisms of action of established pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments, and we review targets of novel treatments. The most relevant evidence supporting efficacy and safety of each treatment strategy is discussed. We review the individualized features of the patient that should guide the selection of treatments in a shared decision-making continuum. We provide guidance for optimizing initiation of treatment and follow-up of patients in clinical settings.

Pharmacotherapeutic strategies for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity (ADHD) disorder with comorbid substance-use disorder (SUD)

INTRODUCTION

Substance use disorder (SUD) is very common amongst patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The two disorders share partially overlapping features and SUD in ADHD is characterized by an early age of onset, high likelihood of poly-substance use, increased risk of suicide attempts, more hospitalizations, and scarce treatment adherence.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews randomized active comparator-controlled or placebo-controlled trials evaluating the use of pharmacotherapy in patients with ADHD and SUD. The authors include open label and observational studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Stimulant and non-stimulant treatments should be used to aid ADHD symptomatology in patients with SUD. SUD seems to be less responsive, suggesting a relative independence of the two conditions. For this reason, the association of ADHD-specific drugs and SUD-treatments should be recommended in a large proportion of patients suffering from both disorders. The rate and the quality of ADHD response to specific pharmacological treatments is highly variable, depending on the dose and the duration of the treatment, the age of the patient, and the severity and the chronicity of addiction. Further research is necessary to explore the divergences in treatment response of different ADHD subtypes in different subtypes of SUD.

Amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into adulthood and can affects individuals' social and occupational functioning, as well as their quality of life and health. ADHD is frequently associated with other mental disorders such as substance use disorders and anxiety and affective disorders. Amphetamines are used to treat adults with ADHD, but uncertainties about their efficacy and safety remain.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for adults with ADHD.

SEARCH METHODS

In August 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and two trials registers, and we ran citation searches for included studies. We also contacted the corresponding authors of all included studies, other experts in the field, and the pharmaceutical company, Shire, and we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews for other published, unpublished, or ongoing studies. For each included study, we performed a citation search in Web of Science to identify any later studies that may have cited it.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of amphetamines (at any dose) for ADHD in adults aged 18 years and over against placebo or an active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data from each included study. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) to assess continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We conducted a stratified analysis to determine the influence of moderating variables. We assessed trials for risk of bias and drew a funnel plot to investigate the possibility of publication bias. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, which yielded high, moderate, low, or very low quality ratings based on evaluation of within-trial risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity of data; precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies that investigated three types of amphetamines: dexamphetamine (10.2 mg/d to 21.8 mg/d), lisdexamfetamine (30 mg/d to 70 mg/d), and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS; 12.5 mg/d to 80 mg/d). These studies enrolled 2521 participants; most were middle-aged (35.3 years), Caucasian males (57.2%), with a combined type of ADHD (78.8%). Eighteen studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was conducted in both Canada and the USA. Ten were multi-site studies. All studies were placebo-controlled, and three also included an active comparator: guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine. Most studies had short-term follow-up and a mean study length of 5.3 weeks.We found no studies that had low risk of bias in all domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, mainly because amphetamines have powerful subjective effects that may reveal the assigned treatment, but also because we noted attrition bias, and because we could not rule out the possibility of a carry-over effect in studies that used a cross-over design.Sixteen studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, one study was publicly funded, and two studies did not report their funding sources.Amphetamines versus placeboSeverity of ADHD symptoms: we found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians (SMD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to -0.75; 13 studies, 2028 participants) and patients (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.28; six studies, 120 participants).Retention: overall, we found low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines did not improve retention in treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; 17 studies, 2323 participants).Adverse events: we found that amphetamines were associated with an increased proportion of patients who withdrew because of adverse events (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 4.45; 17 studies, 2409 participants).Type of amphetamine: we found differences between amphetamines for the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians. Both lisdexamfetamine (SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.85; seven studies, 896 participants; low-quality evidence) and MAS (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.66; five studies, 1083 participants; low-quality evidence) reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms. In contrast, we found no evidence to suggest that dexamphetamine reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.32; one study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence). In addition, all amphetamines were efficacious in reducing the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients (dexamphetamine: SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.40; two studies, 35 participants; low-quality evidence; lisdexamfetamine: SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01; three studies, 67 participants; low-quality evidence; MAS: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.12; one study, 18 participants; very low-quality evidence).Dose at study completion: different doses of amphetamines did not appear to be associated with differences in efficacy.Type of drug-release formulation: we investigated immediate- and sustained-release formulations but found no differences between them for any outcome.Amphetamines versus other drugsWe found no evidence that amphetamines improved ADHD symptom severity compared to other drug interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amphetamines improved the severity of ADHD symptoms, as assessed by clinicians or patients, in the short term but did not improve retention to treatment. Amphetamines were associated with higher attrition due to adverse events. The short duration of studies coupled with their restrictive inclusion criteria limits the external validity of these findings. Furthermore, none of the included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Overall, the evidence generated by this review is of low or very low quality.

Predictors of discontinuation, efficacy, and safety of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 18 randomized clinical trials involving 5004 patients

BACKGROUND

The risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear. In addition, variability between the results of clinical trials has been observed. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment in patients with AD and to determine the predictor effect of patient, intervention, and study design related covariates.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trials was performed. Primary outcomes were all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events (AE) and efficacy on cognitive function. Odds ratio (OR) and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Meta-regression was conducted to identify related covariates. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included trials.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies involving 5004 patients were included. No differences between memantine and placebo were found for all-cause treatment discontinuation (OR=0.97 [0.82, 1.14]) and discontinuation due to AE (OR=1.18 [0.91, 1.53]). Memantine showed small improvement on cognitive function (SMD=0.15 [0.08, 0.22]). Baseline functional ability was positively associated with all-cause treatment discontinuation and discontinuation due to AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that memantine has a very small efficacy on AD symptomatology and its safety profile is similar to that of placebo. No evidence of treatment discontinuation improvement with memantine is found, indicating a dubious risk-benefit relationship. No intervention characteristic or subgroup of patients clearly shows a significantly better risk-benefit relationship.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42014015696 .

Patterns and profiles of methylphenidate use both in children and adults

AIM

The aim of the present study was to characterize patterns of use of methylphenidate (MPH), a prescription stimulant medication recommended in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and of narcolepsy, in France, both in children and adults, over a 3-year period.

METHODS

Using the French General Health Insurance database, limited to two areas covering approximately 4 million individuals, we made up a cohort of incident MPH users between July 2010 and June 2013. Splitting them into distinct age groups (18-24, 25-49 and ≥50 years of age for adults and <6, 6-11 and 12-17 years of age for children), we established the characteristics of these populations at MPH initiation and during follow-up according to the duration of treatment, quantities dispensed and coprescription with central nervous system (CNS) drugs.

RESULTS

We included a cohort of 3534 incident users, involving 30 238 dispensings of MPH, leading to an annual rate of 29 incident users per 100 000 in 2013. Children (66% of new users) were characterized by long-term use of MPH with few comedications. The group of 25-49-year-old patients were dispensed MPH more frequently than other groups, had the highest mean dose and were more often coprescribed other CNS drugs. The ≥50 year-old group was more often coprescribed antidepressants and antiparkinsonian drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our pharmacoepidemiological study involving incident MPH users with a large number of characteristics showed different patterns of MPH use among children and adults. The results from the 25-49-year-old group suggested that MPH might be being used for medical conditions other than ADHD or narcolepsy in adults, and that it might be subject to misuse and/or abuse.

International Consensus Statement on Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment of Substance Use Disorder Patients with Comorbid Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often co-occurs with substance use disorders (SUD) and is associated with early onset and more severe development of SUD and with reduced treatment effectiveness. Screening tools allow for a good recognition of possible ADHD in adults with SUD and should be used routinely, followed by an ADHD diagnostic process initiated as soon as possible. Simultaneous and integrated treatment of ADHD and SUD, using a combination of pharmaco- and psychotherapy, is recommended. Long-acting methylphenidate, extended-release amphetamines, and atomoxetine with up-titration to higher dosages may be considered in patients unresponsive to standard doses. This paper includes evidence- and consensus-based recommendations developed to provide guidance in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of patients with ADHD-SUD comorbidity.

Methylphenidate doses in Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and comorbid substance use disorders

Patients with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and comorbid Substance Use Disorders (SUD) are increasingly being treated with central stimulant medication despite limited evidence for its effectiveness. Lack of longitudinal follow-up studies of dosing and adverse effects has resulted in conflicting treatment guidelines. This study aims to explore whether individuals with ADHD and comorbid SUD are treated with higher stimulant doses than individuals with ADHD only, and whether doses increase over time as a sign of tolerance, a core symptom of addiction. Information on methylphenidate doses for 14 314 Swedish adults, including 4870 individuals with comorbid SUD was obtained through linkages of Swedish national registers between 2006 and 2009. Differences in doses between patients with and without SUD were estimated using logistic regression while a linear regression model calculated time trends in mean doses. Individuals with SUD were prescribed higher methylphenidate doses than those without (OR_day365; 2.12, 95% CI 1.81-2.47: OR_day730 2.65, 95% CI 2.13-3.30). Patients with SUD were, two years after initiating stimulant treatment, prescribed approximately 40% higher doses compared to individuals with ADHD only. The results may suggest a need for increased doses in this population to achieve optimal ADHD symptom control. A tendency towards increasing doses during the first years of treatment, more pronounced in individuals with comorbid SUD, may reflect a reluctance to prescribe adequate doses due to lack of clinical guidelines. Mean doses stabilized after about two years in both groups, which does not lend support to continuously increasing tolerance over time.

Bupropion for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent neurobiological condition, characterised by behavioral and cognitive symptoms such as inattention, impulsivity and/or excessive activity. The syndrome is commonly accompanied by psychiatric comorbidities and is associated with educational and occupational underachievement.Although psychostimulant medications are the mainstay of treatment for ADHD, not all adults respond optimally to, or can tolerate, these medicines. Thus, alternative non-stimulant treatment approaches for ADHD have been explored. One of these alternatives is bupropion, an aminoketone antidepressant and non-competitive antagonism of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Bupropion is registered for the treatment of depression and smoking cessation, but is also used off-label to treat ADHD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and safety of bupropion for the treatment of adults with ADHD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases in February 2017. We also searched three trials registers and three online theses portals. In addition, we checked references of included studies and contacted study authors to identify potentially relevant studies that were missed by our search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects (including adverse effects) of bupropion compared to placebo in adults with ADHD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (WV, GB) independently screened records and extracted data using a data extraction sheet that we tested in a pilot study. We extracted all relevant data on study characteristics and results. We assessed risks of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used a fixed-effect model to pool the results across studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies with a total of 438 participants. Five studies were conducted in the USA, and one in Iran. All studies evaluated a long-acting version of bupropion, with the dosage ranging from 150 mg up to 450 mg daily. Study intervention length varied from six to 10 weeks. Four studies explicitly excluded participants with psychiatric comorbidity and one study included only participants with opioid dependency. Four studies were funded by industry, but the impact of this on study results is unknown. Two studies were publicly funded and in one of these studies, the lead author was a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies and also received investigator-driven funding from two companies, however none of these companies manufacture bupropion. We judged none of the studies to be free of bias because for most risk of bias domains the study reports failed to provide sufficient details. Using the GRADE approach, we rated the overall quality of evidence as low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence because of serious risk of bias and serious imprecision due to small sample sizes.We found low-quality evidence that bupropion decreased the severity of ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.86 to -0.15, 3 studies, 129 participants), and increased the proportion of participants achieving clinical improvement (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.99, 4 studies, 315 participants), and reporting an improvement on the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement scale (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.50, 5 studies, 337 participants). There was low-quality evidence that the proportion of participants who withdrew due to any adverse effect was similar in the bupropion and placebo groups (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.10, 3 studies, 253 participants). The results were very similar when using a random-effects model and when we analysed only studies that excluded participants with a psychiatric comorbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review, which compared bupropion to placebo for adult ADHD, indicate a possible benefit of bupropion. We found low-quality evidence that bupropion decreased the severity of ADHD symptoms and moderately increased the proportion of participants achieving a significant clinical improvement in ADHD symptoms. Furthermore, we found low-quality evidence that the tolerability of bupropion is similar to that of placebo. In the pharmacological treatment of adults with ADHD, extended- or sustained-release bupropion may be an alternative to stimulants. The low-quality evidence indicates uncertainty with respect to the pooled effect estimates. Further research is very likely to change these estimates. More research is needed to reach more definite conclusions as well as clarifying the optimal target population for this medicine. Treatment response remains to be reported in a DSM5-diagnosed population. There is also a lack of knowledge on long-term outcomes.

Managing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults using illicit psychostimulants: A systematic review

CONTEXT

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and stimulant use disorder commonly co-exist, and appropriate treatments have not been well established.

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance for treatment of co-existing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and stimulant use disorder.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of published English articles using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane, utilising consistent search terms.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials, comparing any treatment arm with a control group, for participants meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or equivalent criteria for both attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and stimulant use disorder.

RESULTS

Eight trials were identified for inclusion in this review. Four of eight studies showed improvement in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder outcome measures compared with placebo. Two of six studies that reported substance use outcomes showed improvement in treatment arms compared with placebo. Studies to show effect tended to be those with the highest treatment dosage.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for the efficacy of treatment of patients with comorbid stimulant use disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is limited. Promising outcomes need replication in further studies utilising higher treatment dosage.

ADHD Medication and Substance-Related Problems

OBJECTIVE

Substance use disorders are major contributors to excess mortality among individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), yet associations between pharmacological ADHD treatment and substance-related problems remain unclear. This study investigated concurrent and long-term associations between ADHD medication treatment and substance-related events.

METHOD

The authors analyzed 2005-2014 commercial health care claims from 2,993,887 (47.2% female) adolescent and adult ADHD patients. Within-individual analyses compared the risk of substance-related events (i.e., emergency department visits related to substance use disorders) during months in which patients received prescribed stimulant medication or atomoxetine relative to the risk during months in which they did not.

RESULTS

In adjusted within-individual comparisons, relative to periods in which patients did not receive ADHD medication, male patients had 35% lower odds of concurrent substance-related events when receiving medication (odds ratio=0.65, 95% CI=0.64-0.67), and female patients had 31% lower odds of concurrent substance-related events (odds ratio=0.69, 95% CI=0.67-0.71). Moreover, male patients had 19% lower odds of substance-related events 2 years after medication periods (odds ratio=0.81, 95% CI=0.78-0.85), and female patients had 14% lower odds of substance-related events 2 years after medication periods (odds ratio=0.86, 95% CI= 0.82-0.91). Sensitivity analyses supported most findings but were less consistent for long-term associations among women.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide evidence that receiving ADHD medication is unlikely to be associated with greater risk of substance-related problems in adolescence or adulthood. Rather, medication was associated with lower concurrent risk of substance-related events and, at least among men, lower long-term risk of future substance-related events.

Discontinuation of pharmacological treatment of children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: meta-analysis of 63 studies enrolling 11,788 patients

BACKGROUND

The risk-benefit balance of pharmacological treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD and the factors that moderate this relationship are unclear.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RPCCTs) investigating the efficacy of pharmacological treatment in children or adolescents with ADHD was carried out. Meta-analysis of treatment discontinuation, clinician-, parent- and teacher-rated efficacy and adverse events was performed. The effect of covariates was studied.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies were included. Ten drugs were investigated, with atomoxetine and methylphenidate the most frequently studied. RPCCTs had mostly a short duration (7.9 weeks). All-cause treatment discontinuation was lower with pharmacological treatment than placebo (OR = 0.68). Pharmacological treatment was more efficacious than placebo independently of the rater (clinician, standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.74; parent, SMD = 0.63; or teacher, SMD = 0.75). Evidence of publication bias was found for clinician-rated efficacy, especially in industry-sponsored RPCCT. Psychostimulants showed a higher efficacy and were associated with a better outcome on treatment discontinuation than non-stimulant drugs. Efficacy was smaller in RPCCTs for which a psychiatric comorbid disorder was an inclusion criterion, was larger in studies with a commercial sponsorship and showed a negative association with treatment length.

CONCLUSIONS

In the short term, pharmacological treatment provides moderate-high symptom relief, is safe and shows lower treatment discontinuation than placebo, suggesting a suitable risk-benefit balance, particularly with psychostimulants. The efficacy is lower in patients with a comorbid psychiatric disorder and should be assessed periodically, as it appears to reduce over time. Publication bias of clinician-rated efficacy in studies with a commercial sponsor is suggested.

Discontinuation, Efficacy, and Safety of Cholinesterase Inhibitors for Alzheimer's Disease: a Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of 43 Randomized Clinical Trials Enrolling 16 106 Patients

Background

We investigated the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on all-cause discontinuation, efficacy and safety, and the effects of study design-, intervention-, and patient-related covariates on the risk-benefit of cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials comparing cholinesterase inhibitors and placebo was performed. The effect of covariates on study outcomes was analysed by means of meta-regression using a Bayesian framework.

Results

Forty-three randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials involving 16106 patients were included. All-cause discontinuation was higher with cholinesterase inhibitors (OR = 1.66), as was discontinuation due to adverse events (OR=1.75). Cholinesterase inhibitors improved cognitive function (standardized mean difference = 0.38), global symptomatology (standardized mean difference=0.28) and functional capacity (standardized mean difference=0.16) but not neuropsychiatric symptoms. Rivastigmine was associated with a poorer outcome on all-cause discontinuation (Diff OR = 1.66) and donepezil with a higher efficacy on global change (Diff standardized mean difference = 0.41). The proportion of patients with serious adverse events decreased with age (Diff OR = -0.09). Mortality was lower with cholinesterase inhibitors than with placebo (OR = 0.65).

Conclusion

While cholinesterase inhibitors show a poor risk-benefit relationship as indicated by mild symptom improvement and a higher than placebo all-cause discontinuation, a reduction of mortality was suggested. Intervention- and patient-related factors modify the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

An update on the safety of psychostimulants for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

INTRODUCTION

Methylphenidate is the first-line pharmacological treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Although methylphenidate has a well-established evidence base for treating ADHD, its long-term benefits are unclear. Areas covered: Physical adverse effects, psychiatric adverse events and brain development Expert opinion: Some physical adverse events have been described (e.g. sleep disturbances, growth reduction, loss of appetite), although most are of transient nature. Psychiatric adverse events seem more related to the diagnosis ADHD itself, and not stimulant treatment. Concluding, short-to-mid-term use (i.e., up to 2 years) stimulants are relatively safe, but much less is known about longer-term efficacy and safety of these drugs.

Towards Precision Addiction Treatment: New Findings in Co-morbid Substance Use and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance use disorders (SUDs) may have common etiologies. ADHD is more prevalent in patients with substance use disorders, and this pattern is consistent across different substances of abuse. Individuals with SUDs and ADHD exhibit significant variations in their clinical presentations. The developmental trajectory of ADHD to SUDs is complex: ADHD symptoms appear first in some patients but not in others. Many patients present with a heterogeneous collection of psychiatric and substance use co-morbidities, and these symptoms change over time. ADHD symptom severity is also highly variable, and more severe ADHD symptoms worsen co-morbid SUDs and complicate treatment. New longitudinal studies with innovative methods in high-risk populations and in community-based samples may clarify issues related to patient-treatment matching. When closely monitored, psychostimulant and other adjunct medications can be safely used to treat ADHD in this population, and such treatment may also improve outcome of SUDs. In particular, emerging evidence suggests individual-level tailoring ("precision medicine") approaches may represent a key pathway to improve clinical outcome.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of adults with ADHD: a meta-review

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterised by a persistent and impairing pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity/impulsivity and it is one of the most common neuropsychiatric conditions. Evidence about interventions of adults with ADHD is growing rapidly and clinicians need a reliable summary of all the best available information in order to better inform their daily practice. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO and Cochrane databases until 31 May 2016 for systematic reviews about pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in adults with ADHD and carried out a meta-review to address clinically relevant questions. We identified a total of 40 papers. Psychostimulants-such as methylphenidate, dexamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts and lisdexamfetamine-and non-psychostimulants-such as atomoxetine-were the most studied agents. Overall, pharmacological treatments were significantly more efficacious than placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52), albeit less well accepted (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.36) and tolerated (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.97 to 2.66). The effects of pharmacological treatment for individuals with co-occurring ADHD and substance use disorder are still uncertain. The evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments of ADHD in adults, as well as the combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies, is only preliminary. In conclusion, while available evidence addressed mainly the efficacy and tolerability of psychostimulants and non-psychostimulants for ADHD core symptoms in the short term, we still need further empirical support for the non-pharmacological and multimodal treatments. A comprehensive evidence-informed hierarchy of ADHD drugs based on their efficacy and tolerability is not yet available but it should be the next research priority in the field.

Pharmacological Treatment of ADHD in Addicted Patients: What Does the Literature Tell Us?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After participating in this activity, learners should be better able to:• Evaluate pharmacologic treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in patients with substance use disorder (SUD) • Assess the causes of the diminished efficacy of ADHD medication in patients with comorbid SUD OBJECTIVE: Substance use disorder (SUD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) frequently co-occur, and the presence of ADHD complicates the treatment of the addiction. Pharmacotherapy is a potent intervention in childhood and adult ADHD, but findings have been mixed in adolescent and adult ADHD patients with SUDs. This review focuses on several contributing factors and possible explanations, with implications both for future research and for clinical practice.

METHOD

This systematic review examined all randomized, placebo-controlled trials of pharmacotherapy for ADHD in adult and adolescent SUD patients.

RESULTS

The number of studies is limited, and several studies are hampered by qualitative flaws. The results, in general, are inconclusive for most medications studied, but more recent trials using psychostimulants in robust dosing have demonstrated significantly positive results.

CONCLUSION

In reviewing these trials, possible explanations relating to the particular characteristics and problems of this complex patient group are discussed. Several factors, including ADHD symptom severity, psychiatric comorbidity, persistent drug use, choice of medication, and concomitant psychosocial intervention, influence study results. Taking these factors into account may improve the likelihood of detecting significant effects in future research, as the recent positive trials have indicated, and may help in the appropriate selection of pharmacotherapy in clinical practice.

Psychostimulant drugs for cocaine dependence

BACKGROUND

Cocaine dependence is a severe disorder for which no medication has been approved. Like opioids for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulants could be an effective therapy for treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychostimulants for cocaine abuse and dependence. Specific outcomes include sustained cocaine abstinence and retention in treatment. We also studied the influence of type of drug and comorbid disorders on psychostimulant efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of the review previously published in 2010. For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO up to 15 February 2016. We handsearched references of obtained articles and consulted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised parallel group controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of a psychostimulant drug versus placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies involving 2366 participants. The included studies assessed nine drugs: bupropion, dexamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil, mazindol, methamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts and selegiline. We did not consider any study to be at low risk of bias for all domains included in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Attrition bias was the most frequently suspected potential source of bias of the included studies. We found very low quality evidence that psychostimulants improved sustained cocaine abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.77, P = 0.02), but they did not reduce cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.33) among participants who continued to use it. Furthermore, we found moderate quality evidence that psychostimulants did not improve retention in treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06). The proportion of adverse event-induced dropouts and cardiovascular adverse event-induced dropouts was similar for psychostimulants and placebo (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, respectively). When we included the type of drug as a moderating variable, the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine abstinence was higher with bupropion and dexamphetamine than with placebo. Psychostimulants also appeared to increase the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine and heroin abstinence amongst methadone-maintained, dual heroin-cocaine addicts. Retention to treatment was low, though, so our results may be compromised by attrition bias. We found no evidence of publication bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found mixed results. Psychostimulants improved cocaine abstinence compared to placebo in some analyses but did not improve treatment retention. Since treatment dropout was high, we cannot rule out the possibility that these results were influenced by attrition bias. Existing evidence does not clearly demonstrate the efficacy of any pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence, but substitution treatment with psychostimulants appears promising and deserves further investigation.

Factors Associated With Adherence to Methylphenidate Treatment in Adult Patients With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Substance Use Disorders

Adherence to treatment is one of the most consistent factors associated with a favorable addiction treatment outcome. Little is known about factors associated with treatment adherence in individuals affected with comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance use disorders (SUD). This study aimed to explore whether treatment-associated factors, such as the prescribing physician's (sub)specialty and methylphenidate (MPH) dose, or patient-related factors, such as sex, age, SUD subtype, and psychiatric comorbidity, were associated with adherence to MPH treatment. Swedish national registers were used to identify adult individuals with prescriptions of MPH and medications specifically used in the treatment of SUD or a diagnosis of SUD and/or coexisting psychiatric diagnoses. Primary outcome measure was days in active MPH treatment in stratified dose groups (≤36 mg, ≥37 mg to ≤54 mg, ≥55 mg to ≤72 mg, ≥73 mg to ≤90 mg, ≥91 mg to ≤108 mg, and ≥109 mg). Lower MPH doses (ie, ≤36 mg day 100) were associated with treatment discontinuation between days 101 and 830 (HR≤36 mg, 1.67; HR37-54mg, 1.37; HR55-72mg, 1.36; HR73-90mg, 1.19; HR≥108mg, 1.09). The results showed a linear trend (P < 0.0001) toward decreased risk of treatment discontinuation along with increase of MPH doses. In conclusion, this study shows that higher MPH doses were associated with long-term treatment adherence in individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and SUD.

Substance use in young adults with ADHD: Comorbidity and symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity

Young adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are at high risk of substance use (SU). The aims of the current study were: 1) to examine the use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and other illegal drugs by adults with and without ADHD; 2) to compare the oppositional, conduct, anxiety, depression, sleep and antisocial personality symptoms of ADHD adults with SU and ADHD adults without SU; 3) to examine the ability of ADHD symptoms and conduct problems to predict SU. A total of 93 young adults, 43 without ADHD and 50 with a childhood diagnosis of ADHD, who were part of the Spanish sample of the Multicenter ADHD Genetics (IMAGE) study, collaborated in a follow-up evaluation 10.1 years later. ADHD participants were divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of SU. Statistically significant differences were found between young adults with and without ADHD in their use of tobacco, marijuana and alcohol. A statistically significant association was also shown between externalization problems and a greater risk of SU. Conduct problems, to a greater degree than ADHD symptoms, affect SU in ADHD adults.