Dr. Joe Biederman and ADHD

Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) issued a press release regarding a study performed by Joseph Biederman, MD and colleagues. Biederman is a professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.  The study finds that the use of stimulant drugs to treat children with ADHD has no effect on their future risk of substance abuse.

This study directly contradicts previous studies which indicate stimulant treatment could increase substance abuse risk.  The authors of the current study (Biederman, et al) maintain that previous studies produced conflicting results because they had several limitations; some only looked at adolescents, although young adults are at the highest risk of substance abuse. The authors argue that other studies did not control for conditions such as conduct disorder that are known to be associated with substance abuse. This is commonly referred to as co-morbidity and is truly the norm for ADHD as ADHD virtually never presents by itself. It is commonly associated with conduct disorder, learning disabilities, dyslexia, etc. The authors also maintain that other studies may have examined the impact on use of only a particular substance.

Biederman, like Russell Barkley, seems to get substantial funding from the pharmaceutical industry. That being disclosed, Biederman’s previous research tended to promote the use of stimulant medication [from www.Sciencedaily.com]:

“Earlier studies under the MGH Psychopharmacology group had suggested that stimulant treatment might actually reduce the risk of substance abuse in ADHD patients, who are at elevated risk to begin with…”

Imagine that! Taking stimulant medication in the same class as cocaine or speed in my early years would prevent me from desiring to use addictive drugs in my later years! Now that’s impressive, Joe. Obviously that was an untenable position, but Joe got the next best result with his try-again research methodology; it may not prevent substance abuse later on, but at least, Dr. Joe maintains, it doesn’t cause it.

“Because stimulants are controlled drugs, there has been a concern that using them to treat children would promote future drug-seeking behavior,” says Dr. Joe, the study’s lead author.

The MTA (Multimodal Treatment of ADHD) found that after three years of drug taking, they couldn’t find any difference in children medicated and children who had done nothing at all. The study’s authors said they witnessed no overall global academic improvement, behavioral improvement, or social improvement. They also found that children in their study had lower overall weight. Height was also less than peers.

What interests me greatly is the fact that when the authors of these studies have close ties to the pharmaceutical industry, their data tends to be skewed in favor of medicine. When there isn’t a close tie, we tend to get contradictory data, which is what one would expect.

I’m not an advocate of medicine, but I’m not an opponent either. It has its place and can help some children in the short-term. It must be supported with cognitive and behavioral interventions to maximize the opportunity for change. 

As far a research goes, all I want is the truth. Nothing skewed. No hidden agendas.

Driving under the influence of ADHD

The University of Virginia wished to test whether ADHD medication helps young adults while facing driving distractions.

Research suggests that ADHD drivers have a greater likelihood of having or causing an accident. Obviously, hallmarks of the ‘disorder’ are inattention, distractibility, and sometimes hyperactivity. So, when their cell phone rings and they answer, bad things tend to happen.

According to Daniel Cox, Ph.D., professor of psychiatry and neurosciences at the University of Virginia Health System, as a group young ADHD drivers are two to four times more likely to have a car accident than non-ADHD drivers. Cox’ research will examine the effects of methylphenidate (MPH), a controlled-release stimulant worn as a patch, on young ADHD drivers facing real-life distractions.

This is rather clever marketing as the research is funded by Shire Pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical mega-giant who makes Adderall and the MPH patch. As I’ve stated before, it’s always questionable when a pharmaceutical giant funds a university study on its own medications. In this instance, it will make great marketing if the good Dr. Cox finds that young adults drive better while on meds! But, heck, since stimulant medication has the same effect on non-ADHD people, shouldn’t we all take it prior to driving? Regardless of that fact, if young ADHD people can wear a patch and drive better, that’ll sell millions of dollars worth of medicine!

The study would likely be significantly more impressive if Dr. Cox used unmedicated non-ADHD young adults and medicated non-ADHD young adults as control groups. I’d be more than eager to see those results.

Or maybe, just maybe, ADHD or not, we should put our cell phones away, put out our cigarettes, not eat in the car, put our pet in a pet carrier, and focus on driving. Shouldn’t we demand that of our ADHD teens before placing a stimulant patch on their arms? 

Drugs, Baseball, and ADHD

Very recently, award winning pitcher, Roger Clemens, testified before congress that he did not use steroids despite the fact that his personal trainer testified that he injected Clemens with steroids.

But steroids aren’t the only drug of choice for professional baseball players, so are stimulant medications like Ritalin, or Adderall. However, Major League Baseball (MLB) has a strict policy regarding doping. Mandatory drug testing began in 2004. At that time, a positive test for steroids resulted only in a referral to treatment — not a suspension. After considerable negotiation between MLB and the player’s union, current first-time offenses result in a mandatory 50-game suspension. Second offenses result in a 100 game suspension. Third strike and you’re out for a lifetime ban. These harsh anti-doping measures were settled in November 2005. To see that they were followed, MLB also created the independent system administrator. They hired physician Bryan Smith.

According to USA today, “Congress took issue with the increased rate at which Smith was approving therapeutic-use exemptions for players with ADHD. Smith approved 103 therapeutic-use exemptions for ADHD drugs in 2007, 75 more than the previous season. The suggestion from Tierney [Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass] was that players were using drugs such as Ritalin and Adderall after amphetamines were added to baseball’s list of banned substances.”

Given the use of steroids among baseball players to increase performance in a very highly competitive field has raised considerable suspicion among members of congress and the public in general.

Newsweek reports:

According to records MLB officials turned over to congressional investigators as part of George Mitchell’s probe into steroid use in baseball, the number of players getting “therapeutic use exemptions” from baseball’s amphetamines ban jumped in one year from 28 to 103—which means that, suddenly, 7.6 percent of the 1,354 players on major-league rosters had been diagnosed with ADD.

One possible reason for this increase: in 2005 baseball banned the use of “greenies,” amphetamines that help players remained focused and energetic through the rigors of a 162-game season. Amphetamines were once as common as deli spreads in big-league clubhouses—in some, greenies were used to spike the coffee. Players are now seeking doctors’ prescriptions for ADD medications, usually Ritalin and Adderall, apparently to replace the now-illegal energy boosting drugs. (Ritalin is the trade name for the drug methylphenidate, and Adderall is an amphetamine-dextroamphetamine; they are both considered stimulants.)

Only the players know why they need stimulants. Perhaps some of the players do have ADHD. It’s difficult to say. We do know that for many years players have used stimulant drugs to increase their performances in a highly competitive field where their livelihoods depend on performance. When amphetamines were banned, exemptions for stimulant medication went up. It does draw suspicion. It also depicts the incredible lengths we go to when money is involved.