Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
X
April 24, 2024
Are attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications associated with risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)?
An international study team has just explored this question with a meta-analysis of nineteen studies with a total of almost four million participants of all ages. It included 3,931,532 participants from six countries or regions: United States, South Korea, Canada, Denmark, Spain, and Hong Kong.
Overall, using the entire data set, it found no significant association between any ADHD medication use and any cardiovascular event.
The same held true when breaking this down by children and adolescents (twelve studies with over 1.7 million participants), young and middle-aged adults (seven studies with over 850,000 participants), and older adults (six studies with over a quarter million participants).
The team then compared the data for stimulant medications with data for non-stimulant medications. A meta-analysis of 17 studies with over 3.8 million participants found no significant association between stimulant medications and cardiovascular risk. Similarly, a meta-analysis of three studies with over 670,000 participants found no significant association between non-stimulant medications and cardiovascular risk.
Distinguishing between types of cardiovascular risk made no difference. For instance, a meta-analysis of nine studies with over 900,000 participants found no effect of stimulant medications on risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack), and a meta-analysis of six studies, also with over 900,000 participants, found no effect of stimulant medications on risk of cerebrovascular disease, including stroke, brain aneurysm, brain bleed, and carotid artery disease. A meta-analysis of eight studies with over 1.1 million participants did find an increase in the occurrence of cardiac arrest and tachyarrhythmias (racing heart rate accompanied by arrhythmias), but it was not statistically significant.
A meta-analysis of eleven studies with over 3.1 million persons with no prior history of cardiovascular disease found absolutely no effect of ADHD medications on subsequent risk for any cardiovascular event. Another meta-analysis, of eight studies encompassing over 1.8 million individuals with a prior history of cardiovascular disease, reported a higher rate of subsequent occurrence, but it was not considered statistically significant.
The team concluded, “Overall, our meta-analysis provides reassuring data on the putative cardiovascular risk with ADHD medications.” An international team of researchers recently investigated whether medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). They conducted a comprehensive review, known as a meta-analysis, which included 19 studies with nearly four million participants from six countries or regions: the United States, South Korea, Canada, Denmark, Spain, and Hong Kong.
The findings from the entire data set showed no significant link between the use of any ADHD medications and the occurrence of cardiovascular events. This lack of association was consistent across all age groups: children and adolescents (12 studies with over 1.7 million participants), young and middle-aged adults (7 studies with over 850,000 participants), and older adults (6 studies with over 250,000 participants).
The researchers also compared the effects of stimulant medications against non-stimulant medications on cardiovascular risk. Both categories showed no significant risks in a meta-analysis of 17 studies with more than 3.8 million participants for stimulants, and three studies with over 670,000 participants for non-stimulants.
Further analysis differentiated between types of cardiovascular risks, such as myocardial infarction (heart attack) and cerebrovascular diseases (like stroke, brain aneurysm, and carotid artery disease). Again, stimulant medications showed no significant impact on these conditions in studies involving over 900,000 participants each. However, a review of eight studies with over 1.1 million participants suggested a slight increase in incidents of cardiac arrest and tachyarrhythmias (a racing heart rate with irregular rhythms), but these findings were not statistically significant.
Additionally, an analysis of 11 studies involving more than 3.1 million people without a prior history of cardiovascular disease found no effect of ADHD medications on the risk of developing cardiovascular events. Likewise, an analysis of eight studies with over 1.8 million individuals who had a history of cardiovascular disease showed a higher occurrence rate of events, but this increase was also not statistically significant.
The conclusion of the research team was clear: the data is reassuring and does not suggest a substantial cardiovascular risk associated with ADHD medications. Keep in mind that this reflects current standards of care. Most guidelines call for monitoring of pulse and blood pressure during treatment so that adverse cardiovascular outcomes can be avoided.
Le Zhang, Honghui Yao, Lin Li, Ebba Du Rietz, Pontus Andell, Miguel Garcia-Argibay, Brian M. D’Onofrio, Samuele Cortese, Henrik Larsson, Zheng Chang, “Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases Associated With Medications Used in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” JAMA Network Open (2022) 5(11), e2243597, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.43597.
Methylphenidate, a psychostimulant, is among the drugs most frequently prescribed to children with ADHD.
Using magnetic resonance imaging(MRI), studies have shown that as children mature, those with ADHD differ from controls in developing regionally thinner cortices (the folded outer layer of the cerebrum that is essential to rational thought) and smaller lower basal ganglia(structures linked to the thalamus in the base of the brain and involved in the coordination of movement). The cortical differences were found in the right medial frontal motor region, the left middle/inferior frontal gyrus, and the right posterior parieto-occipital region in children with ADHD who were not taking psychostimulants.
A Dutch/Norwegian team of researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 96 males recruited from Dutch clinical programs. 48 were boys aged 10-12 years, and 47 were men between the ages of 23 and 40. None had previously been on methylphenidate. There were no significant differences in baseline age, ADHD symptom severity, estimated intelligence quotient, the proportion of right-handedness, or region of interest brain characteristics between the placebo and medication groups.
The trial was carried out during the standard 17-week waiting list time for evaluation and treatment to begin so that those receiving a placebo during the trial would not ultimately be at a disadvantage. The same MRI scanner was used for all measurements, both before and after treatment.
Among the boys, the methylphenidate group showed increased thickness in the right medial cortex, while the placebo group showed cortical thinning. In adults, both groups showed cortical thinning. When converted into an estimated mean rate of change in cortical thickness for the right medial cortex, boys taking methylphenidate could expect to lose about 0.01 mm per year, versus about 0.14 mm for boys not on methylphenidate.
In the right posterior cortex, scans also showed reduced thinning in the methylphenidate treatment group, though to a lesser extent. But there was no reduced thinning in the left frontal cortex.
The authors noted several limitations. The sample size was small. Second, "because we did not detect significant relationships between changes in cortical [regions of interest] and changes in symptom severity, the functional significance remains uncertain." Third, the follow-up period was relatively short, not allowing any assessment of the longer-term effects of the medication. Fourth, the differences in effects on the three brain regions examined were uneven, contrary to what had been expected from previous studies. They recommended replication with larger groups and longer follow-ups.
A Chinese research team performed two types of meta-analyses to compare the risk of suicide for ADHD patients taking ADHD medication as opposed to those not taking medication.
The first type of meta-analysis combined six large population studies with a total of over 4.7 million participants. These were located on three continents - Europe, Asia, and North America - and more specifically Sweden, England, Taiwan, and the United States.
The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be about a quarter less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p = 0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). There were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications produced divergent outcomes. A meta-analysis of four population studies covering almost 900,000 individuals found stimulant medications to be associated with a 28 percent reduced risk of suicide. On the other hand, a meta-analysis of three studies with over 62,000 individuals found no significant difference in suicide risk for non-stimulant medications. The benefit, therefore, seems limited to stimulant medication.
The second type of meta-analysis combined three within-individual studies with over 3.9 million persons in the United States, China, and Sweden. The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be almost a third less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were again barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p =0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). Once again, there were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced the sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications once again produced divergent outcomes. Meta-analysis of the same three studies found a 25 percent reduced risk of suicide among those taking stimulant medications. But as in the population studies, a meta-analysis of two studies with over 3.9 million persons found no reduction in risk among those taking non-stimulant medications.
A further meta-analysis of two studies with 3.9 million persons found no reduction in suicide risk among persons taking ADHD medications for 90 days or less, "revealing the importance of duration and adherence to medication in all individuals prescribed stimulants for ADHD."
The authors concluded, "exposure to non-stimulants is not associated with a higher risk of suicide attempts. However, a lower risk of suicide attempts was observed for stimulant drugs. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to the evidence of heterogeneity ..."
Many studies have shown that ADHD is associated with increased risks of suicidal behavior, substance misuse, injuries, and criminality. As we often discuss in our blogs, treatments for ADHD include medication and non-medication options, such as CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy). While non-drug approaches are often used for young children or mild cases of ADHD, medications – both stimulants and non-stimulants – are common for adolescents and adults.
Global prescriptions for ADHD drugs have risen significantly in recent years, raising questions about their safety and effectiveness. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that medication can help reduce the core symptoms of ADHD. However, research from these trials still offers limited or inconclusive insights into wider and more significant clinical outcomes, such as suicidal behavior and substance use disorder.
An international study team conducted a nationwide population study using the Swedish national registers. Sweden has a single-payer national health insurance system, which covers nearly every resident, enabling such studies. The researchers examined all Swedish residents aged 6 to 64 who received their first ADHD diagnosis between 2007 and 2018. Analyses of criminal behavior and transport accidents focused on a subgroup aged 15 to 64, since individuals in Sweden must be at least 15 years old to be legally accountable for crimes or to drive.
The team controlled for confounding factors, including demographics (age at ADHD diagnosis, calendar year, sex, country of birth, highest education (using parental education for those under 25), psychiatric and physical diagnoses, dispensations of psychotropic drugs, and health care use (outpatient visits and hospital admissions for both psychiatric and non-psychiatric reasons).
Time-varying covariates from the previous month covered diagnoses, medication dispensations, and healthcare use. During the study, ADHD treatments licensed in Sweden included amphetamine, atomoxetine, dexamphetamine, guanfacine, lisdexamphetamine, and methylphenidate.
After accounting for covariates, individuals diagnosed with ADHD who received medication treatment showed better outcomes than those who did not. Specifically:
-Suicidal behaviors dropped by roughly 15% in both first-time and recurrent cases.
-Initial criminal activity decreased by 13%, with repeated offences falling by 25%.
-Substance abuse initiation declined by 15%, while recurring substance abuse was reduced
by 25%.
-First automotive crashes were down 12%, and subsequent crashes fell by 16%.
There was no notable reduction in first-time accidental injuries, and only a marginally significant 4% decrease in repeated injuries.
The team concluded, “Drug treatment for ADHD was associated with beneficial effects in reducing the risks of suicidal behaviours, substance misuse, transport accidents, and criminality, but not accidental injuries when considering first event rate. The risk reductions were more pronounced for recurrent events, with reduced rates for all five outcomes.”
.png)
Background:
Pharmacotherapies, such as methylphenidate, are highly effective for short-term ADHD management, but issues remain with medication tolerability and adherence. Some patients experience unwanted side effects from stimulant medications, leaving them searching for alternative ADHD treatments. Alternative treatments such as cognitive training, behavioral therapies, psychological interventions, neurofeedback, and dietary changes have, so far, shown limited success. Thus, there is a critical need for non-pharmacological options that boost neurocognitive performance and address core ADHD symptoms.
First— What Are NIBS (Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation) Techniques?
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are generating growing attention within the scientific community.
NIBS techniques are methods that use external stimulation, such as magnets or electrical currents, to affect brain activity without any invasive procedures. In transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), for example, small electrodes are placed on the scalp of the patient, and a weak electrical current is administered.
The theory behind these techniques is that when a direct current is applied between two or more electrodes placed on specific areas of the head, it makes certain neurons more or less likely to fire. This technique has been successfully used to treat conditions like depression and anxiety, and to aid recovery from stroke or brain injury.
The Study:
Previous meta-analyses have produced conflicting indications of efficacy. A Chinese research team consisting of sports and rehabilitative medicine professionals has just published a network meta-analysis to explore this further, through direct comparison of five critical outcome domains: inhibitory control, working memory, cognitive flexibility, inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity.
To be included, randomized controlled trials needed to have participants diagnosed with ADHD, use sham control groups, and assess ADHD symptoms and executive functions – such as inhibitory control, working memory, cognitive flexibility, inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity – using standardized tests.
A total of thirty-seven studies encompassing 1,615 participants satisfied the inclusion criteria. It is worth noting, however, that the authors did not specify the number of randomized controlled trials nor the number of participants included in each arm of the network meta-analysis.
Furthermore, the team stated, “We checked for potential small study effects and publication bias by conducting comparison-adjusted funnel plots,” but did not share their findings. They also did not provide information on outcome variation (heterogeneity) among the RCTs.
Results:
Ultimately, none of the interventions produced significant improvements in ADHD symptoms, whether in inattention symptoms or hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms. Likewise, none of the interventions produced significant improvements in inhibitory control. Some tDCS interventions enhanced working memory and cognitive flexibility, but details about trial numbers and participants were missing. The team concluded, “none of the NIBS interventions significantly improved inhibitory control compared to sham controls. … In terms of working memory, anodal tDCS over the left DLPFC plus cathodal tDCS over the right DLPFC … and anodal tDCS over the right inferior frontal cortex (rIFC) plus cathodal tDCS over the right supraorbital area ... were associated with significant improvements compared to sham stimulation. For cognitive flexibility, only anodal tDCS over the left DLPFC plus cathodal tDCS over the right supraorbital area demonstrated a statistically significant benefit relative to sham. ... Compared to the sham controls, none of the NIBS interventions significantly improved inattention. ... Compared to the sham controls, none of the NIBS interventions significantly improved hyperactivity and impulsivity.”
How Should We Interpret These Results?
In a word, skeptically.
If one were to read just the study’s abstract, which states, “The dual-tDCS and a-tDCS may be considered among the preferred NIBS interventions for improving cognitive function in ADHD”, it might seem that the takeaway from this study is that this combination of brain stimulation techniques might be a viable treatment option for those with ADHD. Upon closer inspection, however, the results do not suggest that any of these methods significantly improve ADHD symptoms. Additionally, this study suffers from quite a few methodological flaws, so any results should be viewed critically.
Background:
Despite recommendations for combined pharmacological and behavioral treatment in childhood ADHD, caregivers may avoid these options due to concerns about side effects or the stigma that still surrounds stimulant medications. Alternatives like psychosocial interventions and environmental changes are limited by questionable effectiveness for many patients. Increasingly, patients and caregivers are seeking other therapies, such as neuromodulation – particularly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).
tDCS seeks to enhance neurocognitive function by modulating cognitive control circuits with low-intensity scalp currents. There is also evidence that tDCS can induce neuroplasticity. However, results for ADHD symptom improvement in children and adolescents are inconsistent.
The Method:
To examine the evidence more rigorously, a Taiwanese research team conducted a systematic search focusing exclusively on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested tDCS in children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. They included only studies that used sham-tDCS as a control condition – an essential design feature that prevents participants from knowing whether they received the active treatment, thereby controlling for placebo effects.
The Results:
Meta-analysis of five studies combining 141 participants found no improvement in ADHD symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS. That held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex. There was no sign of publication bias, nor of variation (heterogeneity) in outcomes among the RCTs.
Meta-analysis of six studies totaling 171 participants likewise found no improvement in inattention symptoms, hyperactivity symptoms, or impulsivity symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS. Again, this held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, and there was no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
Most of the RCTs also performed follow-ups roughly a month after treatment, on the theory that induced neuroplasticity could lead to later improvements.
Meta-analysis of four RCTs combining 118 participants found no significant improvement in ADHD symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS at follow-up. This held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, with no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
Meta-analysis of five studies totaling 148 participants likewise found no improvement in inattention symptoms or hyperactivity symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS at follow-up. AS before, this was true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, with no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
The only positive results came from meta-analysis of the same five studies, which reported a medium effect size improvement in impulsivity symptoms at follow-up. Closer examination showed no improvement from stimulation of the right prefrontal cortex, but a large effect size improvement from stimulation of the left prefrontal cortex.
Interpretation:
It is important to note that the one positive result was from three RCTs combining only 90 children and adolescents, a small sample size. Moreover, when only one of sixteen combinations yields a positive outcome, that begins to look like p-hacking for a positive result.
In research, scientists use something called a “p-value” to determine if their findings are real or just due to chance. A p-value below 0.05 (or 5%) is considered “statistically significant,” meaning there's less than a 5% chance the result happened by pure luck.
When testing twenty outcomes by this standard, one would expect one to test positive by chance even if there is no underlying association. In this case, one in 16 comes awfully close to that.
To be sure, the research team straightforwardly reported all sixteen outcomes, but offered an arguably over-positive spin in their conclusion: “Our study only showed tDCS-associated impulsivity improvement in children/adolescents with ADHD during follow-ups and anode placement on the left PFC. ... our findings based on a limited number of available trials warrant further verification from large-scale clinical investigations.”
_logo%201.svg)
