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 ..."
Background:
Stimulants, such as methylphenidate and amphetamines, are currently considered effective medications for treating ADHD. However, approximately one-third of patients do not have an adequate response to these treatments. Additionally, long-term adherence is relatively low, with only about half of the patients still using methylphenidate after six years.
Recently, there has been increasing attention to the concept of microdosing with psychedelic drugs such as psilocybin and LSD. A microdose typically ranges from one-tenth to one-twentieth of a recreational dose and does not produce noticeable perceptual effects or interfere with daily activities.
The Study:
A European research team recently published the findings of the first double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial examining the safety and efficacy of repeated low doses of LSD in adults diagnosed with ADHD.
The six-week trial took place at University Hospital in Basel, Switzerland, and Maastricht University, Netherlands. Participants, aged 18 to 65, had clinical diagnoses of ADHD with moderate to severe symptoms.
The team excluded persons with a past or present diagnosis of psychotic disorders, substance use disorders, or other psychiatric or somatic disorders likely to require hospitalization or treatments.
Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LSD or placebo. Neither study staff nor participants were aware of the assignments until the conclusion of the trial.
During the six-week trial, participants received twice-weekly doses on-site, amounting to a total of 12 doses. Following the first and final doses, participants were asked to determine whether they had been administered LSD or a placebo in order to assess blinding. Four weeks after the conclusion of the microdosing period, participants returned for an evaluation of the treatment's safety and efficacy.
Twenty-seven of the 53 participants were randomized to receive the LSD microdosing treatment in a liquid solution, and 26 to receive placebo. Placebo consisted of the same drinking solution, minus the microdose of LSD.
The average age was 37, and 42% of participants were female. Forty-six of the 53 participants completed the study.
Out of 29 participants, 21 from the LSD group and eight from the placebo group correctly guessed their allocation, totaling 63% overall.
As assessed through the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale, ADHD symptoms improved by 7.1 points in the LSD group and 8.9 points in the placebo group, with no significant difference between them.
Regarding safety, the LSD group experienced nearly double the adverse events compared to the placebo group. None of the events in either group were classified as serious. The five most frequent adverse events were headache, nausea, fatigue, insomnia, and visual alterations, occurring around three times more frequently in the LSD group than in the placebo group.
The team concluded, “although repeated low-dose LSD administration was safe in an outpatient setting, it failed to demonstrate efficacy compared with placebo in improving ADHD symptoms among adults.”
Conclusion: Microdosing with LSD did not offer significant advantages over placebo in treating ADHD symptoms, despite being physically safe and well tolerated in the trial setting. This suggests that further research is needed to explore alternative treatments for ADHD.
------
Struggling with side effects or not seeing improvement in your day-to-day life? Dive into a step-by-step journey that starts with the basics of screening and diagnosis, detailing the clinical criteria healthcare professionals use so you can be certain you receive an accurate evaluation. This isn’t just another ADHD guide—it’s your toolkit for getting the care you deserve. This is the kind of care that doesn’t just patch up symptoms but helps you unlock your potential and build the life you want. Whether you’ve just been diagnosed or you’ve been living with ADHD for years, this booklet is here to empower you to take control of your healthcare journey.
Proceeds from the sale of this book are used to support www.ADHDevidence.org.
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common condition affecting children and adolescents worldwide, characterized by symptoms such as hyperactivity, impulsivity, and inattention. While traditional treatments like medication and behavioral therapy are often used, some individuals are turning to complementary and alternative therapies (CAM) for help. One such option gaining attention is acupuncture. But does it really work for ADHD?
A recent comprehensive study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating ADHD symptoms. Here’s a breakdown of the findings, with a focus on the age groups included in the research and what these findings could mean for ADHD treatment options.
The study in question conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) of acupuncture trials for ADHD, comparing its effects to traditional treatments such as pharmacotherapy and behavioral therapy. The researchers focused on acupuncture’s impact on core ADHD symptoms like hyperactivity, impulsivity, inattention, and conduct problems, while also exploring how acupuncture might help with other issues, such as learning difficulties and psychosomatic symptoms.
One key feature of this study was the inclusion of a broad age range of participants, specifically children and adolescents. These two groups are the most commonly diagnosed with ADHD, and their responses to treatments can vary significantly. Understanding how acupuncture works for these age groups is critical for evaluating its effectiveness as an ADHD treatment.
Here’s what the study found across the different age groups:
Despite these promising results, the study also highlighted several limitations:
In short, and as is so often the way of evidence-based medicine, we still can’t say with absolute certainty one way or the other. These studies may show promise in improving hyperactivity, impulsivity, inattention, and conduct problems– in both children and adolescents. However, the evidence is not yet strong enough to recommend it as a primary treatment. While it may serve as a helpful complement to standard therapies, especially for those struggling with medication side effects or access to behavioral therapy, more research is needed to establish its effectiveness.
.png)
This New York Times article, “5 Takeaways from New Research about ADHD”, earns a poor grade for accuracy. Let’s break down their (often misleading and frequently inaccurate) claims about ADHD.
The Claim: A.D.H.D. is hard to define/ No ADHD Biomarkers exist
The Reality: The claim that ADHD is hard to define “because scientists haven’t found a single biological marker” is misleading at best. While it is true that no biomarker exists, decades of rigorous research using structured clinical interviews and standardized rating scales show that ADHD is reliably diagnosed. Decades of validation research consistently show that ADHD is indeed a biologically-based disorder. One does not need a biomarker to draw that conclusion and recent research about ADHD has not changed that conclusion.
Additionally, research has in fact confirmed that genetics do play a role in the development of ADHD and several genes associated with ADHD have been identified.
The Claim: The efficacy of medication wanes over time
The Reality: The article’s statement that medications like Adderall or Ritalin only provide short-term benefits that fade over time is wrong. It relies almost entirely on one study—the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA). In the MTA study, the relative advantage of medication over behavioral treatments diminished after 36 months. This was largely because many patients who had not initially been given medication stopped taking it and many who had only been treated with behavior therapy suddenly began taking medication. The MTA shows that patients frequently switched treatments. It does not overturn other data documenting that these medications are highly effective. Moreover, many longitudinal studies clearly demonstrate sustained benefits of ADHD medications in reducing core symptoms, psychiatric comorbidity, substance abuse, and serious negative outcomes, including accidents, and school dropout rates. A study of nearly 150,000 people with ADHD in Sweden concluded “Among individuals diagnosed with ADHD, medication initiation was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality, particularly for death due to unnatural causes”. The NY Times’ claim that medications lose their beneficial effects over time ignores compelling evidence to the contrary.
The Claim: Medications don’t help children with ADHD learn
The Reality: ADHD medications are proven to reliably improve attention, increase time spent on tasks, and reduce disruptive behavior, all critical factors directly linked to better academic performance.The article’s assertion that ADHD medications improve only classroom behavior and do not actually help students learn also oversimplifies and misunderstands the research evidence. While medication alone might not boost IQ or cognitive ability in a direct sense, extensive research confirms significant objective improvements in academic productivity and educational success—contrary to the claim made in the article that the medication’s effect is merely emotional or perceptual, rather than genuinely educational.
For example, a study of students with ADHD who were using medication intermittingly concluded “Individuals with ADHD had higher scores on the higher education entrance tests during periods they were taking ADHD medication vs non-medicated periods. These findings suggest that ADHD medications may help ameliorate educationally relevant outcomes in individuals with ADHD.”
The Claim: Changing a child’s environment can change his or her symptoms.
The Reality: The Times article asserts that ADHD symptoms are influenced by environmental fluctuations and thus might not have their roots in neurobiology. We have known for many years that the symptoms of ADHD fluctuate with environmental demands. The interpretation of this given by the NY Times is misleading because it confuses symptom variability with underlying causes. Many disorders with well-established biological origins are sensitive to environmental factors, yet their biology remains undisputed.
For example, hypertension is unquestionably a biologically based condition involving genetic and physiological factors. However, it is also well-known that environmental stressors, dietary
habits, and lifestyle factors can significantly worsen or improve hypertension. Similarly, asthma is biologically rooted in inflammation and airway hyper-reactivity, but environmental triggers such as allergens, pollution, or even emotional stress clearly impact symptom severity. Just as these environmental influences on hypertension or asthma do not negate their biological basis, the responsiveness of ADHD symptoms to environmental fluctuations (e.g., improvements in classroom structure, supportive home life) does not imply that ADHD lacks neurobiological roots. Rather, it underscores that ADHD, like many medical conditions, emerges from the interplay between underlying biological vulnerabilities and environmental influences.
Claim: There is no clear dividing line between those who have A.D.H.D. and those who don’t.
The Reality: This is absolutely and resoundingly false. The article’s suggestion that ADHD diagnosis is arbitrary because ADHD symptoms exist on a continuum rather than as a clear-cut, binary condition is misleading. Although it is true that ADHD symptoms—like inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity—do vary continuously across the population, the existence of this continuum does not make the diagnosis arbitrary or invalidate the disorder’s biological basis. Many well-established medical conditions show the same pattern. For instance, hypertension (high blood pressure) and hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) both involve measures that are continuously distributed. Blood pressure and cholesterol levels exist along a continuum, yet clear diagnostic thresholds have been carefully established through decades of clinical research. Their continuous distribution does not lead clinicians to question whether these conditions have biological origins or whether diagnosing an individual with hypertension or hypercholesterolemia is arbitrary. Rather, it underscores that clinical decisions and diagnostic thresholds are established using evidence about what levels lead to meaningful impairment or increased risk of negative health outcomes. Similarly, the diagnosis of ADHD has been meticulously defined and refined over many decades using extensive empirical research, structured clinical interviews, and validated rating scales. The diagnostic criteria developed by experts carefully delineate the point at which symptoms become severe enough to cause significant impairment in an individual’s daily functioning. Far from being arbitrary, these thresholds reflect robust scientific evidence that individuals meeting these criteria face increased risks for the serious impairments in life including accidents, suicide and premature death.
The existence of milder forms of ADHD does not undermine the validity of the diagnosis; rather, it emphasizes the clinical reality that people experience varying degrees of symptom severity.
Moreover, acknowledging variability in severity has always been a core principle in medicine. Clinicians routinely adjust treatments to meet individual patient needs. Not everyone diagnosed with hypertension receives identical medication regimens, nor does everyone with elevated cholesterol get prescribed the same intervention. Similarly, people with ADHD receive personalized treatment plans tailored to the severity of their symptoms, their specific impairments, and their individual circumstances. This personalization is not evidence of arbitrariness; it is precisely how evidence-based medicine is practiced. In sum, the continuous nature of ADHD symptoms is fully compatible with a biologically-based diagnosis that has substantial evidence for validity, and acknowledging symptom variability does not render diagnosis arbitrary or diminish its clinical importance.
In sum, readers seeking a balanced, evidence-based understanding of ADHD deserve clearer, more careful reporting. By overstating diagnostic uncertainty, selectively interpreting research about medication efficacy, and inaccurately portraying the educational benefits of medication, this article presents an overly simplistic, misleading picture of ADHD.
_logo%201.svg)
