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.
September 30, 2024
Congenital heart disease (CHD) is a common birth defect where the heart’s blood vessels don’t develop normally before birth. This condition affects about 9% of all births worldwide, meaning about one in eleven babies is born with CHD. A recent analysis found that children with CHD have three times the risk of developing ADHD compared to children without CHD. However, that study only included five smaller studies, and almost 90% of the results varied between studies, making the findings less reliable. To improve on this, a team of researchers conducted a new, more thorough analysis.
The updated analysis combined eleven studies, involving nearly 300,000 people. This larger study also confirmed that children with CHD are three times more likely to develop ADHD than those without CHD. Importantly, there was no evidence that the results were biased by only including studies that showed stronger results ("publication bias"). The variation between the studies (heterogeneity) was lower in this new analysis, down to a more manageable 60%.
The researchers looked at two types of studies: cohort studies and cross-sectional studies, and found different levels of risk:
While both types of studies suggest a strong link between CHD and ADHD, cohort studies are more reliable because they track children over time, which helps researchers establish that CHD occurred before ADHD, suggesting a stronger cause-and-effect relationship. Both types of studies are observational. In any observational study, researchers look at data without actively changing or controlling anything in the study environment. Because they aren't conducting controlled experiments, it's possible that some important factors, known as "confounding factors," aren't being measured or accounted for. These factors can influence both the exposure (what the study is investigating, like CHD) and the outcome (ADHD) in a way that creates an association that is apparent but not rea.
Nine of the studies, which included almost 300,000 participants, adjusted their findings to account for "confounding factors"—things like age, gender, or other health conditions that could also influence whether a child develops ADHD. Even after making these adjustments, the risk of ADHD in children with CHD was still three times higher.
The researchers also found that the way ADHD was diagnosed—whether through clinical assessments or standardized symptom checklists—didn’t change the results much. Additionally, there was no major difference between studies done in the U.S. and those conducted in other countries, or between higher- and lower-quality studies.
The research team concluded that children born with congenital heart disease are at a much higher risk of developing ADHD than children without CHD. They suggested that children with CHD should be monitored more closely for ADHD as they grow up to ensure early intervention if needed.
Jiapeng Tang, Jun Ou, Yige Chen, Liuxuan Li, Hanjun Liu, Mengting Sun, Manjun Luo, Taowei Zhong, Tingting Wang, Jianhui Wei, Qian Chen, and Jiabi Qin, “The risk of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder among children with congenital heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Child: Care, Health and Development (2024), vol. 50, issue 1, e13174, https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.13174.
Georges Choueiry, “Cohort vs Cross-Sectional Study: Similarities and Differences,” Quantifying Health, https://quantifyinghealth.com/cohort-vs-cross-sectional-study/.
The persistent shortage of ADHD medications has been more than a simple annoyance for patients at the pharmacy; the inconsistent availability of these medications has had deep impacts on the daily lives of those struggling without them. While public discourse has pointed fingers at over-prescribing or at restrictive DEA quotas, a recent economic evaluation in JAMA Health Forum suggests we’ve been looking in the wrong direction for an answer to what is causing this.
The reality of the shortage is less about increased demand and more about a fragile, globalized supply chain that snapped at a critical link.
Debunking the "Quota Myth":
The prevailing narrative suggested that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was stifling production by refusing to raise quotas. However, the data tells a different story. In 2022, manufacturers collectively met only about 70% of their allotted production quotas.
So we know that the problem wasn't that this DEA quota ceiling was too low. In fact, most manufacturers couldn't even reach it. Even when accounting for exports and domestic retail, production remained significantly below the legal limit. Even if the DEA had doubled its quotas, these medications still likely wouldn't have magically appeared on pharmacy shelves.
The most striking finding in the study is the correlation between the shortage and a sharp decline in the import of raw Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). For the past decade, Germany has accounted for over 85% of US amphetamine imports. In 2022, these imports dropped by approximately 36.7%. When the API doesn't arrive at the factory, production for medium and small manufacturers grinds to a halt. Unlike larger pharmaceutical giants, these smaller players often lack the inventory cushion or flexibility to quickly pivot to a new supplier.
When the primary supply of amphetamine-based stimulants (like Adderall) faltered, it triggered a secondary crisis. Patients and clinicians, seeking alternatives, shifted toward lisdexamfetamine (Vyvanse) and methylphenidate (Ritalin/Concerta).
If we view this shortage purely through a regulatory or clinical lens, we miss the underlying cause of the crisis. The pharmaceutical industry has become a victim of its reliance on "just-in-time manufacturing” and highly concentrated sourcing. Because over 30% of APIs for the US market are produced in just one or two facilities globally, the system isn't just inefficient; it’s brittle. We are, in a sense, trapped in a system that prioritizes cost-reduction over the resilience required for public health.
The researchers suggest several policy shifts to prevent a repeat of this supply chain failure:
The ADHD medication shortage wasn't a failure of clinical oversight or a sudden surge in "TikTok-driven diagnoses”, as many have suggested. It was a failure of logistics. It reminds us that the path from a lab in Germany to a patient's hand in the US is far more precarious than we realized.
ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition rooted in delayed or atypical maturation of the prefrontal cortex (the brain region that governs self-regulation). This maturational lag underlies the hallmark difficulties with attention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, and also impairs what researchers call executive function: the cognitive toolkit we rely on for working memory, impulse control, mental flexibility, emotional regulation, and the ability to tolerate delays in reward.
The Background:
Standard treatments work through two main routes. Stimulant and non-stimulant medications are considered very safe and effective treatments, but are not without risk of side effects and are not appropriate for every ADHD patient. Behavioral and psychosocial interventions can improve self-regulation and social functioning, but they require sustained effort and produce variable results. These limitations have kept the search for better alternatives active.
One candidate that has drawn growing attention is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). The technique is appealingly simple: a weak electrical current is applied to the scalp through small electrodes, modulating the excitability of neurons in the underlying cortex without requiring surgery, anesthesia, or significant discomfort. Its safety profile and ease of use have made it attractive to researchers.
The Study:
A newly published meta-analysis set out to give the technique its most rigorous test yet, pooling results from randomized controlled trials, including crossover designs, that compared active tDCS against sham stimulation in people with ADHD across all age groups.
The Results:
The findings were consistently null. Across seven trials enrolling 303 participants, tDCS produced no significant reduction in overall ADHD symptom severity compared with sham. Breaking symptoms into their components made no difference: neither hyperactivity/impulsivity nor inattention improved. Turning to executive function, 18 studies with 872 participants found no meaningful gain in inhibitory control, and 12 studies with 506 participants found the same for working memory. Smaller bodies of evidence, including three studies on cognitive flexibility (122 participants) and two on hot executive function, the motivational and emotional dimension of self-regulation (86 participants), similarly came up empty. Variation in outcomes across studies was small to moderate, and there was no evidence of publication bias skewing the picture.
The authors’ conclusion was succinct: tDCS was well tolerated but “did not demonstrate significant overall efficacy for core ADHD symptoms or executive functions.”
.png)
Disordered eating (a broad category of persistent, harmful patterns in eating or weight control) affects between 5% and 22% of children and adolescents worldwide, with similar rates seen in the United States. The consequences are far-reaching: these conditions are linked to bone fractures, anemia, malnutrition, dental erosion, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and elevated cholesterol and triglycerides. They also carry one of the highest mortality rates of any psychiatric illness.
Eating disorders rarely occur in isolation. They frequently arise alongside other psychiatric and neurological conditions. Yet, until now, no large-scale study had examined these co-occurrences in a nationally representative U.S. sample. A new study addresses that gap, focusing on children and adolescents aged 6–17 and the conditions most commonly associated with disordered eating, including ADHD.
The Study:
Researchers drew on data from the 2022–2023 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH), a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey covering all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Households were selected using stratified, address-based sampling, and parents or guardians completed surveys about one randomly selected child per household. The final sample included 68,000 children and adolescents.
Results:
After accounting for factors including sex, age, race and ethnicity, household income, educational attainment, insurance status, and household language, children and adolescents with ADHD were 2.6 times more likely to have some form of disordered eating compared to their typically developing peers.
The elevated risk appeared across a range of specific behaviors:
A greater tendency toward using diet pills, laxatives, or diuretics was also observed in the ADHD group, though this finding did not reach statistical significance.
The Take-Away:
These findings underscore a need to improve both prevention and treatment strategies for disordered eating, particularly in children and adolescents who have ADHD. Clinicians working with this population are advised to screen for a wide spectrum of disordered eating behaviors.
_logo%201.svg)
