April 29, 2024
Guanfacine is a non-stimulant medication for ADHD. It is an Alpha-2 agonist that targets and excites receptors in the prefrontal cortex of the brain, the region that governs executive functions such as judgment, decision making, planning, and response suppression. These functions tend to be sub-optimal in ADHD.
Most treatment guidelines recommend stimulants as the preferred treatment for ADHD, because they respond faster, and studies show they have higher efficacy in reducing symptoms. But for individuals for whom treatment with stimulants is subpar, guidelines recommend non-stimulants as second-line treatment.
Previous meta-analyses have focused on efficacy among children and adolescents with ADHD. This meta-analysis, by a Chinese study team, expanded its reach to not only update the former, but also include studies of adults.
The team’s systematic search of the medical literature for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified eleven that could be combined for meta-analysis. With only a single study of efficacy for adults, however, no meta-analysis could be performed specific to persons 18 and older.
Meta-analysis of all eleven studies with a combined total of 2,623 participants found guanfacine to be roughly 75% more effective than placebo for reducing ADHD symptoms. Variation between studies (heterogeneity) was low. There was no sign of publication bias.
Breaking that down by length of time on guanfacine found no evidence of a dose-response effect, however. In fact, participants with less than ten weeks of treatment (seven RCTs, 1,771 participants) outperformed those with longer periods of treatment (four RCTs, 852 participants) with a narrow overlap in the 95% confidence limits.
The outcomes were also sensitive to the ADHD symptom scale used. Meta-analysis of RCTs using the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement treatment response score (four studies, 850 participants) reported no significant improvement, while RCTs relying on ADHD-Rating-Scale-IV (six studies, 1,128 participants) reported a significant improvement, but without providing a standardized effect size.
Finally, a meta-analysis of ten RCTs with a combined total of 2,273 persons found a 23% increase in treatment-emergent adverse events for guanfacine relative to placebo. The three most common such events in the guanfacine group were somnolence (38.6%), headache (20.5%), and fatigue (15.2%).
Sijie Yu, Sihao Shen, and Ming Tao, “Guanfacine for the Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology (2023), https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2022.0038.
Background
ADHD (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder) is one of the most studied neurodevelopmental conditions, with many clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness and safety of various medications. These trials, known as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), are considered the gold standard for assessing treatments. However, strict eligibility criteria often exclude many real-world patients, raising questions about whether the findings from these trials apply to everyday clinical settings.
Our latest study sheds light on this issue, revealing just how many individuals with ADHD might be excluded from RCTs and the impact this exclusion has on their treatment outcomes.
Method
Researchers used Swedish national registries to analyze data from 189,699 individuals diagnosed with ADHD who started medication between 2007 and 2019. They applied exclusion criteria from 164 international RCTs to identify who would have been considered ineligible for these trials in order to determine the proportion of individuals with ADHD who would not meet the eligibility criteria for RCTs.
Key Findings
Many Patients Are Ineligible for Clinical Trials:
Ineligible Patients Face Unique Challenges:
Higher Risk of Adverse Outcomes:
What This Means
These findings highlight a major gap between the controlled environments of clinical trials and the realities faced by individuals with ADHD in everyday life. While RCTs provide valuable insights, their restrictive criteria often exclude patients with more complex health profiles or co-existing conditions. This limits the generalisability of trial results, meaning that treatment guidelines based solely on RCTs may not fully address the needs of all patients.
Conclusion
This study demonstrated that a significant proportion of individuals with ADHD, particularly adults, do not meet the eligibility criteria for standard RCTs. These results emphasize the importance of bridging the gap between research settings and real-world applications. By recognizing and addressing the limitations of RCTs, we can work towards more equitable and effective ADHD treatment strategies for everyone.
Background:
Our understanding of Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has grown and evolved considerably since it first appeared in the DSM-II as “Hyperkinetic Reaction of Childhood.” This study aimed to find the disorder’s placement within the modern psychopathology classification systems like the Hierarchical Taxonomy Of Psychopathology (HiTOP).
The HiTOP model aims to address limitations of traditional classification systems for mental illness, such as the DSM-5 and ICD-10, by organizing psychopathology according to evidence from research on observable patterns of mental health problems.. Is ADHD best categorized under externalizing conditions, neurodevelopmental disorders, or something else entirely? A recent study by Zheyue Peng, Kasey Stanton, Beatriz Dominguez-Alvarez, and Ashley L. Watts takes a closer look at this question using a symptom-focused approach.
The Study:
Traditionally, ADHD has been associated with externalizing behaviors, such as impulsivity and hyperactivity, or with neurodevelopmental traits, like cognitive delays. However, this study challenges the idea of placing ADHD into a single category. Instead, it maps ADHD symptoms across three major psychopathology spectra: externalizing, neurodevelopmental, and internalizing.
The findings reveal that ADHD symptoms don’t fit neatly into one box. For example, symptoms like impulsivity, poor school performance, and low perseverance were strongly associated with externalizing behaviors. On the other hand, cognitive disengagement (e.g., daydreaming, blank staring) and immaturity were closely linked to neurodevelopmental challenges. Interestingly, cognitive disengagement also showed ties to internalizing symptoms, such as anxiety or depression.
This research underscores the complexity of ADHD. Rather than treating ADHD as a single, unitary construct, the study advocates for a symptom-based approach to better understand and treat individuals. By acknowledging that ADHD symptoms relate to multiple psychopathology spectra, clinicians and researchers can move toward more nuanced classification systems and targeted interventions.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, this study highlights the need for modern systems to move beyond rigid categories and adopt a more flexible, symptom-focused framework for understanding ADHD’s place in psychopathology.
Exposure to heavy metals like lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and manganese is known to harm developing nervous systems. However, past studies on whether heavy metals specifically increase the risk of ADHD have shown mixed results.
A research team from China (Gu et al., 2024) reviewed medical studies and conducted meta-analyses to better understand this issue.
The team included studies on children and teens, focusing on cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. They only used articles written in English and required validated biomonitoring (like blood tests) to measure heavy metal exposure. ADHD diagnoses had to come from clinical evaluations.
To be included, studies had to report effect sizes such as odds ratios and relative risks with confidence intervals. The team focused on comparisons between groups with high, low, or no exposure, which made it harder to analyze dose-response relationships.
They also evaluated the quality of each study. All cohort studies were rated high-quality. Of the 15 case-control studies, 6 were high-quality, and 9 were moderate-quality. Among cross-sectional studies, only 2 were high-quality, and the rest were moderate-quality.
There was no evidence linking ADHD to other heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, cadmium, or manganese. Both meta-analyses suggest that lead exposure is associated with the risk for ADHD. However, because these studies cannot rule out other explanations, one cannot conclude that lead exposure causes ADHD. For example, other work shows that people with ADHD are likely to have lower incomes than those without ADHD.
_logo%201.svg)
