What would you like to find today?

According to Dexing Zhang et al., writing in the British Medical Bulletin, "Mindfulness is a moment-by-moment awareness of thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, and surrounding environment. ... These practices can be formal (e.g. breathing, sitting, walking, body scan) or informal (e.g. mindfulness in everyday life).... Mindfulness is rooted in Buddhist traditions. However, it has become popular in recent years among various secular populations in healthcare, educational, and workplace settings: from pre-schoolchildren to older adults across the world." The two most widely adopted mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are mindfulness-based stress reduction and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (Zhang, 2021).

An Italian research team recently conducted a comprehensive search of the peer-reviewed literature to identify studies exploring the efficacy of mindfulness-based treatments for ADHD. It found 31 studies that qualified for review, ten of which met the criteria for meta-analysis, with a total of 596 participants.

A meta-analysis of seven studies with a combined total of 489 participants found MBIs reduced ADHD symptoms with medium effect size and no sign of publication bias. When split into subgroups with and without active controls - in this case, psychoeducation and skills training groups -the outcomes diverged. In the three studies with non-active controls (187 participants), there was a large reduction in ADHD symptoms. In the four with active controls (302 participants), there was no significant difference.

A meta-analysis of ten studies with 596 participants found MBIs reduced inattention symptoms, with a medium-sized effect. Pooling the five studies without active controls (261 participants) produced a very large reduction in inattention symptoms. Once again, in the five studies with active controls (335 participants), there was no significant difference.

After adjusting for publication bias, a third meta-analysis of nine studies with 563 participants found no significant effect of MBIs hyperactivity symptoms. However, when limited to the five studies with-active controls (261 participants), it found a large reduction in hyperactivity symptoms.

After adjusting for publication bias, the fourth meta-analysis of four studies with a combined 243 participants found no significant improvement in executive function.

After adjusting for publication bias, a fifth meta-analysis combining six studies with 449 participants reported a moderate improvement in mindfulness skills. There was no significant improvement when looking only at the three studies with active controls (262 participants).

The team concluded that MBIs seemed to be effective in treating ADHD, but no more so than psychoeducation and skills training groups.

Yet they cautioned that the use of a waiting list for non-active controls muddies that conclusion: "It could be suggested that any intervention seems to have a significantly higher effect than WL [waiting list]in improving ADHD symptoms." This is a known hazard of using waiting lists as control groups (Cunningham, 2013).

Noting "the low general methodological quality," they stated, "From a clinical standpoint, according to the poor available evidence, we cannot conclude that MBIs are superior to other active [psychological] interventions in ameliorating all the considered outcomes, suggesting a role complementation and not as a replacement of the psychoeducation in the management of patients with ADHD, consistently with some guidelines' recommendations."

Older adults are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease. Psychostimulants may contribute to that risk through side effects, such as elevation of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate.

On the other hand, smoking, substance abuse, obesity, and chronic sleep loss - all of which are associated with ADHD - are known to increase cardiovascular risk, and stimulant medications are an effective treatment for ADHD.

So how does this all shake out? A Dutch team of researchers sets out to explore this. Using electronic health records, they compared all 139 patients 55 years and older at PsyQ outpatient clinic, Program Adult ADHD, in The Hague. Because a principal aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of medication on cardiovascular functioning after first medication use, the 26 patients who had previously been prescribed ADHD medication were excluded from the study, leaving a sample size of 113.

The ages of participants ranged from 55 from 79, with a mean of 61. Slightly over half were women. At the outset, 13 percent had elevated systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure, 2 percent had an irregular heart rate, 15 percent had an abnormal electrocardiogram, and 29 percent had some combination of these (a "cardiovascular risk profile"), and 21 percent used antihypertensive medication.

Three out of four participants had at least e comorbid disorder. The most common are sleep disorders, affecting a quarter of participants, and unipolar mood disorders (depressive or more rarely manic episodes, but not both), also affecting a quarter of participants.

Twenty-four patients did not initiate pharmacological treatment. Of the 89 who received ADHD medication, 58 (65%) reported positive effects, and five experienced no effect. Thirty-eight (43%) discontinued ADHD medication while at the clinic due to lack of effect or to side effects. The most commonly reported positive effects were enhanced concentration, more overview, less restlessness, more stable mood, and having more energy. The principal reasons for discontinuing medication were anxiety/depression, cardiovascular complaints, and lack of effect.

Methylphenidate raised heart rate and lowered weight, but had no significant effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Moreover, there was no significant correlation between methylphenidate dosage and any of these variables, nor between methylphenidate users taking hypertensive medication and those not taking such medication. There was no significant difference in systolic or diastolic blood pressure and heart rate before and after the use of methylphenidate among patients with the cardiovascular risk profiles.

Systolic blood pressure rose in ten out of 64 patients, with two experiencing an increase of at least 20 mmHg. It descended in five patients, with three having a decrease of at least 20 mmHg. Diastolic blood pressure rose by at least 10 mmHg in four patients, while dropping at least 10 mmHg in five others.

The authors concluded "that the use of a low dose of ADHD-medication is well tolerated and does not cause clinically significant cardiovascular changes among older adults with ADHD, even among those with an increased cardiovascular risk profile. Furthermore, our older patients experienced significant and clinically relevant improvement of their ADHD symptoms using stimulants, comparable with what is found among the younger age group," and that "the use of methylphenidate may be a relatively safe and effective treatment for older adults with ADHD, under the condition that all somatic complaints and especially cardiovascular parameters are monitored before and during pharmacological treatment."

Yet they cautioned that "due to the observational nature of the study and the lack of a control group, no firm conclusions can be drawn as to the effectiveness of the stimulants used. ... Important factors that were not systematically reported were the presence of other risk factors, such as smoking, substance (ab)use, aspirin use, and level of physical activity. In addition, the response to medication was not systematically measured"

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 ..."

Taiwan has a single-payer healthcare system that covers virtually every inhabitant (99.5%). That makes it relatively easy to track healthcare issues using its comprehensive National Health Insurance Research Database.

This database maintains a subset, the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database (LHID), consisting of a million persons, with no significant differences in sex, age, or healthcare use from the parent database.

A Taiwanese research team used the LHID to identify 114,486 individuals diagnosed with ADHD from 1997 to 2013. It then compared their motor vehicle (including motorcycles, which are extremely common in Taiwan) crash patterns with 338,261 normally developing controls from the same database.

Adjusting for sex, age, and psychiatric comorbidities, persons with ADHD were about a fifth (19%)more likely to be in traffic crashes. Breaking it down further by sex, women with ADHD were no more likely to be in crashes, but men with ADHD were about a quarter (24%) more likely than their healthy counterparts.

Since the database also tracks pharmaceutical prescriptions, the team also looked into the effect of methylphenidate (MPH), the medication that is the first-line treatment for ADHD under Taiwanese guidelines, and the only approved stimulant. Atomoxetine, a non-stimulant, is used where MPH is either ineffective or not indicated for any other reason and is only used in 4% of all cases.

Of the 114,486 persons diagnosed with ADHD, 89,826 used MPH, and 24,660 did not.

Compared with persons with ADHD who were not on methylphenidate, those with ADHD who were on MPH for 180 days (roughly half a year) or less had 77% fewer accidents, and those on MPH for over 180 days had 93% fewer accidents. This strong dose-response relationship is suggestive of a causal relationship, with MPH perhaps reducing impulsive behavior, particularly among young men with ADHD.

The team also conducted within-person analyses, comparing times when persons with ADHD were taking MPH with periods when they were not. These showed no effect within 30 days of use, rising to a 65%reduction in crashes within 60 to 90 days of use, which was barely outside the 95% confidence interval (p = .07), very likely because of "the extremely low incidence of transport accidence (i.e. 0.6%)enlarged the confidence interval."

The authors concluded, "All registration medical claim data came from the nationally-representative sample of NHI, minimizing the selection and recall bias. By excluding transport accidents before ADHD diagnosis, we have precluded the reverse association between ADHD and road traffic accidents as much as possible. The advantage of the between-subjects comparison was that we were able to examine the MPH effect in different dose groups. However, confounding by indication cannot be eliminated. For example, those with a severe degree of ADHD symptoms, an exhibition of risky behaviors, or comorbid with other psychiatric illnesses were more likely to be prescribed medication. Hence, we also performed within-subject comparisons to adjust for time-invariant factors."

Transport safety thus offers another compelling reason to treat ADHD symptoms. Methylphenidate in particular seems to be especially effective in reducing traffic fatalities and injuries.

It is difficult enough for a typical child to manage type-1 diabetes. For a child that also has ADHD, with learning difficulties, attention and memory problems, and limitations in social communication, it can be all the more challenging to carry out the complex tasks necessary to maintain glycemic control (control of blood sugar levels) and avoid diabetic harm.

To explore the additional risk associated with ADHD among children with type-1 diabetes, an international research team used the Swedish national registers to conduct a nationwide population study. Sweden has a single-payer national health insurance system, and assigns unique personal identification numbers to all residents, making it easy to cross-reference through various population and health registers.

The team used the Swedish Diabetes Register to identify all individuals born in Sweden from 1973 onwards with childhood-onset type 1 diabetes diagnosed before age 18. They then restricted the cohort to those who had no diabetic complications at diagnosis and whose HbA1c values had been recorded within 5 years of diagnosis.

Also known as the glycated hemoglobin test, HbA1c is an indicator of the average blood sugar (glucose) level over the past three months. When glucose builds up in the blood, it binds to the hemoglobin in red blood cells. The HbA1ctest measures bound glucose. Since red blood cells live for about 3 months, the test shows the average blood glucose over that period.

The team also searched for records of diabetes-related kidney damage (nephropathy) and damage to the retina (retinopathy). Diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness among working-age adults.

The nationwide cohort consisted of 11,326 Swedish youths diagnosed with type-1 diabetes, of whom 415 (3.7%) were also diagnosed with ADHD.

Poor glycemic control, defined as mean HbA1c greater than 8.5%, was found in 38% of those with ADHD, twice the 19% found in those without neurodevelopmental disorders. After adjusting for confounders(sex, age at diabetes diagnosis, year of birth and year of diabetes diagnosis, another psychiatric morbidity, parental highest education level, parental psychiatric morbidity, smoking status, mean BMI [body mass index], and mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure), those with ADHD were 2.3 times as likely to have poor glycemic control.

Patients with ADHD were also almost twice as likely to suffer kidney damage, after adjusting for sex, age at diabetes diagnosis, year of birth, year of diabetes diagnosis, another psychiatric morbidity, parental highest education level, parental psychiatric morbidity, mean HbA1c levels, mean BMI, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and smoking status.

After the same adjustments, patients with ADHD were found to be a third (33%) more likely to suffer retinal damage.

The team concluded, "childhood-onset type 1 diabetes patients with neurodevelopmental disorders, especially those with ADHD or intellectual disability, are more prone to poor glycemic control and a higher risk of chronic diabetic complications compared with those without neurodevelopmental disorders.

Further longitudinal studies with a more comprehensive evaluation of diabetes management and molecular data are needed to provide insight into potential mediators in the association between comorbid neurodevelopmental disorder and diabetes complications in type 1 diabetes."