PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11282038

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

Abstract

Management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) encompasses two general domains: pharmacologic therapies and nonpharmacologic therapies, including educational, cognitive-behavioral, and other psychological and psychiatric approaches. Within the past year there have been two seminal developments in treatment. The first is that the Evidence-based Practice Center at McMaster University, under contract with the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, produced an evidence based report on the treatment of ADHD. The topic was proposed to the AHCPR by the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Psychiatric Association, who served as partners to the center. The second is the completion of the Multisite Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (MTA) study by the National Institutes of Mental Health, a 14-month double-blind placebo trial of medication and behavioral therapy in ADHD. In general, the result of the evidence-based review and the MTA study is that stimulants are the most effective agents for the treatment of ADHD. Results from the MTA study indicate that methylphenidate (MPH) and MPH combined with behavioral therapy are superior to behavioral therapy alone and that all three are superior to community therapy. The evidence-based review indicates that each of the stimulants is superior to placebo and the stimulants (regular and sustained-release MPH as well as d and l isomers of the stimulants) are comparable. As for other agents, tricyclic antidepressants, specifically desipramine, are superior to placebo. Only a few studies compared stimulants directly with tricyclic antidepressants, and these were technically inadequate, leading to the conclusion that more rigorous studies are required. Only five studies were found that examined nonpharmacologic treatment, and all contained major limitations in methodology. Despite the limitations, all showed that stimulants were more effective than the nonpharmacologic therapies, consonant with the results of the MTA study. There was lack of evidence to support the superiority of combination multimodal treatment over stimulant therapy alone, again consonant with the MTA study. Both the evidence-based review and the MTA study examined ADHD in middle childhood. Finally, most studies are relatively short-term, including the MTA study (at 14 months). Some evidence suggests that MPH reduces behavioral disturbance as long as it is taken.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bennett A. Shaywitz, Jack M. Fletcher, Sally E. Shaywitz. 2001. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-001-0004-y

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗