ADHDMedsandDrugAbuse 2008 06 AsktheExpert Volkow
ADHDMedsandDrugAbuse 2008 06 AsktheExpert Volkow
ADHDMedsandDrugAbuse 2008 06 AsktheExpert Volkow
The results of two recent studies indicated that treating children as early as age six or seven
with stimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is not likely to increase the risk of substance abuse when they are adults. The studies, both sponsored by the National Institute of Drug
Abuse (NIDA) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), also showed treatment with stimulants did
not prevent substance abuse later in adulthood. The studies, conducted by researchers at New York
University School of Medicine and the Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School
were published in the April 2008 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry. Bryan Goodman, MA,
executive editor of Attention magazine, talked with Nora Volkow, MD, director of NIDA, about what
the results of the studies mean to parents and their children with AD/HD.
Nora D. Volkow, MD
10
Attention
substances with abuse potential, such as alcohol and nicotine, the greater the risk of drug abuse and dependence in
adulthood. However, an opposite perspective has also been
proposed, according to which stimulant treatment of children and adolescents with AD/HD may reduce the risk of
later substance abuse. Considering that individuals with
AD/HD are at higher-than-normal risk for substance abuse,
it is urgent for us to discriminate between the two alternatives
in order to properly address this issue.
The complex nature of the research needed in this area has
resulted in ambiguous, sometimes even contradictory, conclusions. Different investigators have found positive, negative, and even non-significant correlations between stimulant
treatment of AD/HD and the subsequent risk of substance use
disorders. These studies help to clarify some of these issues.
Were there any limitations with this research
that parents should know about? Are there plans
to replicate this study?
Yesthere are almost always limitations to any study. For
these, the most notable is that the samples are clinically referred; therefore, medication status is not randomized. The
gold standard for addressing this type of question would be
a randomized study in which some children receive medication and others do not (but receive a placebo), with a longitudinal design to measure various outcomes over time. However, this type of study would be not just extremely costly,
but also ethically untenable unless an equally effective alternative treatment for AD/HD could be offered to the comparison group. Thus, these current studies add to a growing
body of knowledge on the long-term outcomes associated
11
prevalence and course of the disorder, and the therapeutic efficacy of its treatments.
A second priority that I feel very strongly about stems
from the rapid growth of diagnosed cases (which has
stabilized in recent years in children and adolescents,
but continues to increase in adults) that has led to a dramatic surge in the availability of stimulant medications
in the market with the concomitant risk of diversion
and abuse. In my opinion, the keys to addressing this
critical issue are (a) tightening and ensuring medical
standards of diagnosis and (b) continuing to educate
the public about the dangers of nonmedical use of
stimulant medications.
Who makes the decision that one research project
is more important than another?
In addition to the peer review process, designed to evaluate the scientific merit and significance of a proposed
research project, there is a constant dialogue between
NIDAs leadership, the research community, NIDAs
12
Attention
CHADD does not endorse products, services, publications, medications or treatments, including those advertised in this magazine.