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.
August 15, 2024
A placebo is a pill that does not contain any active medication. It is given to patients who form the control group in clinical trials. Comparing the effects of a treatment with placebo is essential because some patients will improve with the passage of time and some will get better due to the expectation of benefit they have from being enrolled in a clinical trial.
In studies of psychiatric conditions, patients in placebo groups typically show improvement. This can be induced by combinations of hope, suggestion, expectation, and consumption of what are presented as medications. It is reinforced by the context of receiving compassionate care from others, with supportive conversations.
A 2005 study found that placebo response is unequally distributed across psychiatric disorders, but did not address several disorders (including bipolar disorder) examined in the present meta-analysis conducted by a German research team.
Using only high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) across major psychiatric diagnoses, the team quantified differences in the change of disorder symptoms within placebo groups.
They selected nine common and clinically significant psychiatric conditions: major depressive disorder (MDD), mania (bipolar disorder), schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and social phobia. For each of these, they selected the ten most recent high-quality RCTs of medicationsfor meta-analysis.
Of the ninety included RCTs, the team only looked at placebo groups. Because RCTs for the different diagnoses used differing established psychopathology rating scales, standardized pre-post effect sizes were used to compare outcomes across diagnoses.
Meta-analysis of the ten ADHD RCTs with a combined total of 1,189 participants reported large effect size improvements in symptoms, with no variation (heterogeneity) across RCTs and no sign of publication bias.
By contrast, the placebo effect size improvements in symptoms of major depressive disorder (10 RCTs, 1,598 participants) and generalized anxiety disorder (10 RCTs, 1,457 participants) were very large, well above those for ADHD, and with no overlap of 95% confidence intervals.
At the other end of the spectrum, the placebo effect size improvements in symptoms of schizophrenia (10 RCTs, 888 participants) were moderate, well below those for ADHD, and with no overlap of 95% confidence intervals.
There were absolutely no indications of publication bias.
The team noted, “In all diagnoses, there were improvements in symptom severity during placebo treatment (ie, the lower limit of the 95% CIs of the pooled pre-post placebo effect sizes were >0).” Although they stated, “The large and robust improvements observed in ADHD studies have not been reported to our knowledge.” they seemed to have missed this article by me and my colleagues: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34232582/.
They also concluded, “Comparing the courses of different disorders under placebo indirectly may assist in understanding disease etiology, possibly providing insights into the proportionate influence of organic and psychogenic factors. Conditions with presumed substantial hereditary and biological components, such as schizophrenia, exhibited modest placebo responses in our analysis. Conversely, disorders with potentially less biological contribution, eg, depression and GAD, showed stronger responses. Our study may serve as an initial framework for incorporating the comprehensive insights derived from placebo groups of controlled trials into the etiopathogenetic exploration of mental illnesses.”
Yanli Zhang-James, John W.S. Clay, Rachel B. Aber, Hilary M. Gamble, Stephen V. Faraone,
Post–COVID-19 Mental Health Distress in 13 Million Youth: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Electronic Health Records,
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescen
Tom Bschor, Lea Nagel, Josephine Unger, Guido Schwarzer, and Christopher Baethge, “Differential Outcomes of Placebo Treatment Across 9 Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” JAMA Psychiatry (2024), https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.0994.
Faraone, S. V., Newcorn, J. H., Cipriani, A., Brandeis, D., Kaiser, A., Hohmann, S., Haege, A. & Cortese, S. (2021). Placebo and nocebo responses in randomised, controlled trials of medications for ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry 27, 212-219.
The Background:
Management of ADHD relies on both medications and non-medication approaches. Clinical guidelines often recommend medication as the first-line treatment for adults, while non-medication interventions are often preferred for children. Medicines fall into two main groups: stimulants (for example, methylphenidate and amphetamines), which have strong and well-established evidence and are generally considered first choice, and non-stimulants (such as atomoxetine), which are typically used when stimulants are contraindicated, not tolerated, or ineffective.
How many people with ADHD receive medication is an important indicator of care quality and can be tracked at the national level. Untreated ADHD can affect many areas of life, from physical health, to school and work performance, to relationships emotional well-being. ADHD is associated with poorer quality of life, higher risk of accidents, substance use issues, criminal behavior, educational underachievement, and even increased premature mortality. The condition also places a substantial burden on families and caregivers, so understanding treatment rates matters for individuals and society.
Most epidemiological research has measured how common diagnosed ADHD is, but the share of those diagnosed who actually receive medication can vary a lot. That variation reflects differences in how ADHD is diagnosed, how easy it is to get treatment, what clinical guidelines recommend, and cultural attitudes toward using medication.
The Study:
This paper presents the first comprehensive meta-analysis to estimate how common pharmacological treatment is among children, adolescents, and adults with clinically confirmed ADHD. The analysis included only register-based population studies where diagnoses were confirmed by a qualified healthcare professional. Twelve studies meeting these criteria from Europe (the UK, Sweden, Denmark), Asia (Taiwan, South Korea), and North America (Canada, the United States) were used. Notably, these are all high-income areas, and thus unrepresentative of populations in lower-income countries.
The pooled estimate showed that about 73 percent of diagnosed individuals in prosperous parts of the world with well-developed health care systems were receiving medication, but there was very high variation between studies.
The Results:
The authors conclude there is substantial global variation in ADHD medication use. Overall, a relatively high proportion of people diagnosed with ADHD are treated with medication, which may reflect improved recognition and access to care. The large differences between studies probably reflect differing health systems, diagnostic rules, treatment definitions, study populations, and reporting practices, and they underline the need for more standardized definitions and reporting to make comparisons more meaningful.
There is also a need for information from lower-income regions, but that is complicated by an absence of register-based population studies in countries with more limited health care access.
.png)
The Background:
Because impulsivity is a core feature of ADHD, researchers have suggested it may raise the likelihood that someone will use psychoactive substances (including alcohol) and go on to develop a substance use disorder (SUD). When ADHD and SUD occur together in adolescents, treating one disorder alone usually has little or no positive effect on the other; current guidance therefore recommends treating both conditions at the same time using evidence-based approaches for each.
Given how much ADHD can worsen outcomes for people with primary SUDs, it is important to identify ADHD in people who are being treated for substance problems.
The Study:
A recent systematic meta-review found that, by current official criteria, ADHD affects about 7.2% of children and adolescents and about 2.6% of adults (Chaulagain et al., 2023). When adult ADHD is defined without the requirement that symptoms began by age 11, roughly 6.8% of adults meet criteria. A large body of research links ADHD to higher rates of medical problems, poorer quality of life, greater risk of suicide, more accidental injuries, worse educational outcomes, and increased involvement with the criminal justice system.
The present study is the first meta-analysis to estimate how common clinically diagnosed ADHD is among adults (age 18+) who are in treatment for psychoactive substance use disorders, and to provide those estimates by sex and by the specific substance used.
The authors included only studies of adults treated for a SUD (including alcohol). Eighty-four studies met the criteria, representing more than 34,000 people. Across all studies, the pooled prevalence of clinically diagnosed ADHD was 22%.
To put that in context, 22% is about eight times higher than the 2.6% adult prevalence using the stricter official definition, and about three times higher than the 6.8% rate when the childhood-onset requirement is relaxed. By substance, the prevalence was similar for alcohol (24%) and opioids (22%), with no significant difference between males and females. Prevalence among people treated for cocaine use was somewhat lower overall (18%), driven largely by lower rates among women, for whom the rate was no higher than in the general population. Estimates were higher for people using benzodiazepines and cannabis, but those figures are based on a very small number of users (256 and 249 people, respectively) and are therefore less certain.
The Results:
The authors conclude: “These findings underscore the need for early identification and treatment of ADHD as most substance use disorders develop in adolescence and young adulthood. While in treatment for ADHD, appropriate screening and management of substance use is possible.”
The Background:
Stimulant medications (like methylphenidate and amphetamines) and non-stimulants (like atomoxetine and guanfacine) remain the first-line treatments for ADHD, but their long-term use is often constrained by parental concerns, side effects (reduced appetite, sleep disruption, cardiovascular effects), and the fact that roughly 30% of children respond only partially or not at all. These medications tend to help with attention and behavior, but they do less to address emotional regulation or broader physical health, leaving some parents to seek other safe, complementary treatments.
Nutritional approaches, including omega-3 fatty acids, are one such avenue. Oily fish is the natural source, but clinical trials typically rely on supplements instead, since they allow for precise dosing, avoid the heavy-metal exposure that can come with high fish intake, and sidestep the problem of inconsistent dietary habits. Two omega-3s stand out as particularly relevant: DHA, which supports brain structure and cell-to-cell communication, and EPA, which helps reduce brain inflammation and improve blood flow. Both influence the dopamine and serotonin systems implicated in ADHD.
The Study:
Previous meta-analyses have generally found only modest overall benefits with mixed results. This mixed-results pattern may reflect the fact that children who had low omega-3 levels to begin with stand to benefit more than those whose levels are already adequate. This meta-analysis set out to test that idea directly, asking whether a child's baseline omega-3 status predicts how well they respond to supplementation.
To be included, studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving children diagnosed with ADHD who did not have major coexisting medical conditions. Trials that used broad multinutrient interventions, where the effect of omega-3s specifically couldn't be isolated, were excluded.
The resulting analysis of seven RCTs covering 654 children found small overall improvements in ADHD symptoms with omega-3 supplementation, consistent with earlier meta-analyses. There was little variation across studies, but a clear signal of publication bias, which the authors did not attempt to statistically correct for.
Among four RCTs involving 369 children with low baseline omega-3 levels, supplementation produced a moderate improvement in ADHD symptoms, with consistent results across studies. By contrast, the six RCTs covering 559 children with normal or high baseline omega-3 levels showed no improvement at all, again with consistent results across studies.
The Results:
The authors concluded: this systematic review and meta-analysis offers preliminary evidence that children’s response to long-chain omega-3 supplementation for ADHD may depend on their starting omega-3 nutritional status. Larger effects emerged in the subgroups defined by individual studies as having low baseline levels, while normal, high, or unstratified groups showed little evidence of benefit. In other words, there may be a benefit to children with ADHD taking omega-3 supplements, but only if they are already deficient.
Even still, a sensitivity analysis limited to ADHD symptom-rating scales found only a numerically higher effect in the low-baseline group. This means that these results, though positive, are not considered statistically significant.
The Take-Away:
Given that the evidence rests on just seven trials, that “low baseline” was defined differently across studies (using different biological markers and thresholds), and that several subgroup comparisons were not planned in advance, the authors caution that these findings should be treated as hypothesis-generating rather than conclusive.
_logo%201.svg)
