Addiction and ADHD - The Bullet Points

Figure 1.  from Shaw M, Hodgkins P, Caci H, et al. A systematic review and analysis of long-term outcomes in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: effects of treatment and non-treatment.  BMC Med. 2012 Sep 4 10:99 (see ref 6 below).

One of the main concerns in the treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is whether treatment improves outcomes.  The outcomes measure of interest may depend on the clinical population that you are focused on treating.   In primary care settings, my impression is that a lot of the adults treated by internists are relatively stable and that they do not have a lot of problems with other mental illnesses or addictions.  That is my speculation based on some of the numbers of adults I have heard are seeing primary care physicians and the fact that seeing those numbers with even a fraction of patients who have additional psychiatric problems or addictions would be unsustainable.  I have also directly observed the pattern that many patients who are discharged from primary care for stimulant overuse or psychiatric complications like mania end up seeing psychiatrists.  As a psychiatrist working in a residential setting that treats substance use problems - trends in overprescribing, misdiagnosis and confusion about the concept of addiction and ADHD treatment are readily observed.  It is very clear that people with clear ADHD can misuse stimulants and continue to insist on using stimulants.  It is clear than many of these people develop insight into this and can say at one point that they can no longer take stimulants even though they have a bona fide ADHD diagnosis.  It is also clear that there is a lot of confusion among treating professionals about the issue of whether or not a stimulant should be prescribed to a person with an addiction.  

There is a lot of overlap between the diagnosis and treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and addiction or substance use disorders.  Discovering this overlap depends on clinical experience, training and exposure to patients with addictions.  It is fairly common to read studies about ADHD outcomes that may not look at addictions as outcomes.  Like many areas in medicine, some of the early studies in this area have not been borne out by subsequent studies.  The study of this problem has only been a relatively recent endeavor.   The original AHRQ report in 1999 (1) looked at 77 randomized controlled clinical trials included in the time period from 1971 to 1999.  Half of the studies were published since 1990.  At that time there were only 13 adult studies.  The outcome variables were generally improvement on symptomatic rating scales, neuropsychological tests or educational achievement tests.    

Connor's review (2) looks at the studies prior to 2006.  At the time he states that there were a total of 14 studies that looked at potential abuse issues.  One of the studies supported the idea of behavioral sensitization or stimulant administration leading to craving and eventual self administration.   That study did not control for Conduct Disorder, a comorbid condition  that increase the risk of substance use disorders.  The other studies found no increased risk, and in some cases a decreased risk of substance use disorders.  There were no review elements that looked at addictions or substance use disorders.  A meta-analysis of 6 studies by Wilens, et al showed a 1.9 fold reduction in risk in the stimulant treated patients.  Connor's conclusion is that "...in uncontrolled environments, active substance abuse is a relative contraindication to prescribing stimulant medications."  the use of atomoxetine or antidepressants with a known efficacy for ADHD was encouraged (p. 626).

A more recent review by Shaw, et al from 2012 takes a different approach.  The authors looked at studies between 1980 and 2010 with a minimum follow-up period of two years or more (prospective or retrospective) or cross sectional studies that compared two ages differing by two years of more.  Nine separate outcome measures were examined as indicated in Figure 1 at the top of this page.  Since some studies reported more than one outcome measure, a total of 636 outcomes were examined from the 351 studies reviewed for this paper.  Drug use or addictive behavior was one of the most frequently examined outcomes with a total of 160 results.  The next most frequent result was academic functioning with 119 results.  The data is represented as percentage comparisons as improved, similar, or poorer than the comparators.  As an example in Figure 1, the last 4 categories show that treatment was beneficial in 67% of the drug/addictive, 50% of the antisocial, 50% of the service use outcomes, and 33% of the occupational outcomes.  The authors conclude that in these four treatment groups there was no benefit conferred by treatment.  They looked at the issue of treatment of these four groups in the rest of the world and found that there was substantially better outcomes for this subgroup.  There were significant methodological problems noted in the studies including the need to control for Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and a number of other comorbid psychiatric disorders.  Other potential comparison issues between the American and non-American studies included the fact that the American studies were largely prospective, the non-American studies used more stringent ICD-10 codes.  One of the main variables that addiction psychiatrists are focused on clinically is when the addiction is established.  Did it occur before, during, of after the ADHD diagnosis in childhood?  What does that spectrum suggest for the impact of stimulant treatment on an addiction outcome?

Where does all of this leave clinicians today?  It is possible to find clinicians who believe that they are treating addiction with stimulants because they are reducing impulsivity associated with ADHD.  There are also clinicians who believe that stimulants must be avoided at all costs, even in people with a diagnosis of ADHD.  Is there a rational approach to discuss what is known about the diagnosis and treatment with the patient as part of their overall treatment program that might optimize treatment outcomes?  I think that there is and have written it down in this worksheet entitled 28 Discussion Points for Stimulant Treatment of ADHD.  The worksheet is intended to address problematic diagnosis as the first point of variance.  It discusses the relevant addiction and safety considerations.  There is also a framework for exploring the decision to use a stimulant in the broader context of a treatment plan that may include non-medical therapists and treatment programs and housing programs that may limit or prohibit the patient from using stimulants.  It does not incorporate the therapeutic alliance and overprescribing considerations.  One of the most difficult tasks for physicians is not prescribing a medication with addictive potential when a person believes it is necessary for their life or they are demanding it.

Remembering that people with addictions are compelled to take stimulants whether they improve outcomes or not is an important part of providing quality care to this population.
 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



References:

1:  Jadad AR, Boyle M, Cunningham C, et al.  Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.  Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 11 (Prepared by McMaster University under Contract No. 290-97-0017).  AHRQ Publication No. 00-E005.  Rockville, MD:  Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.  November 1999.

2:  Connor DF.  Stimulants.  In: Barkley DF.  Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment.  3rd ed.  New York, NY.  The Guilford Press, 2006: 608-647.

3:  Barkley RA, Fischer M, Smallish L, Fletcher K. Does the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder with stimulants contribute to drug use/abuse? A 13-year prospective study. Pediatrics. 2003 Jan;111(1):97-109. PubMed PMID: 12509561.

4:  Wilens TE, Faraone SV, Biederman J, Gunawardene S.  Does stimulant therapy of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder beget later substance abuse? A meta-analytic review of the literature. Pediatrics. 2003 Jan;111(1):179-85. PubMed PMID: 12509574.

5: Biederman J, Monuteaux MC, Spencer T, Wilens TE, Macpherson HA, Faraone SV. Stimulant therapy and risk for subsequent substance use disorders in male adults with ADHD: a naturalistic controlled 10-year follow-up study. Am J Psychiatry. 2008 May;165(5):597-603. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07091486. Epub 2008 Mar 3. PubMed PMID: 18316421.

6:  Shaw M, Hodgkins P, Caci H, Young S, Kahle J, Woods AG, Arnold LE. A systematic review and analysis of long-term outcomes in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: effects of treatment and non-treatment. BMC Med. 2012 Sep 4;10:99. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-99. Review. PubMed PMID: 22947230.  online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/99


Attribution:

The graphic at the top of this post is from reference 6 above and is posted per the open access license at that site.

Robust Doses of Extended-Release Mixed Amphetamine Salts To Treat Cocaine Use Disorder

JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Jun 1;72(6):593-602

This article (2) caught my eye in JAMA Psychiatry.  Stimulant (methamphetamine, cocaine, prescription stimulants, and various synthetics) use disorders (previously called addictions) are difficult problems to treat.  That is especially true because of the epidemic of adult Attention Deficit~Hyperactivity Disorder diagnoses and the cross contamination from the cognitive enhancement movement as well as new indications for stimulant prescriptions.   Stimulant medications are widely available and generally work at some level for most people who take them leading to the common impression that:  "I took my cousin's Adderall and it worked!  Therefore I must have ADHD and need my own Adderall prescription."  By the time that has happened it is usually very difficult for any physician to explain to this patient why a positive response to a stimulant does not equate to an ADHD diagnosis, especially if the prospective patient has been functioning at a high level and is presenting for diagnosis and treatment after doing extremely well in college and their first few years of professional school.

A second problem with the ADHD stimulant use issue is the misconception that people with "true" ADHD are less susceptible to the positive reinforcing effects of stimulants than people without ADHD.  There are certainly subgroups of person with this diagnosis that do not like to take stimulants.  They find that stimulants decrease their appetite, given them increased anxiety and insomnia, and in many cases leave them feeling more restricted, affectively blunted and less spontaneous.  I find that these patients are generally selected out by the time they are adults.  They had true ADHD diagnoses in middle school, did not like the stimulants, or in many cases their parents did not like the effect they were seeing and they were taken off of them.  They may have developed significant coping strategies based on their dislike of stimulant effects.  Like many adult psychiatric disorders there is no one uniform phenotype, and the phenotype of the person who was diagnosed either as a child or an adult and who gets a euphorigenic effect from stimulants and escalates the dose clearly exists and is seen in treatment centers.  In many cases they have an iatrogenic diagnosis of bipolar disorder from a pattern of taking the month's prescription of stimulant in the first one or two weeks and then either going into withdrawal or using a depressant like alcohol, benzodiazepines, or opioids to treat the dysphoria and cravings associated with stimulant withdrawal.

There is also the situation where a person has been using high dose prescribed stimulants (taking more than prescribed) or using high doses of meth or cocaine off the street, where they develop a residual state that is identical to ADHD, but where the cause of the ADHD is the stimulant.  I think it is an error to treat that residual state with stimulants.  That residual state is generally associated with a profound level of impairment and lack of insight.  The patient is aware of significant cognitive problems, attributes them to ADHD and often insists on treatment with stimulants despite a clear addiction to stimulants.  They may insist that years or decades of stimulant use was their attempt to self diagnose and treat their own ADHD.  It is very common for patients with substance abuse problems to give a history of no formal diagnosis in childhood, no school or occupational impairment, but to offer the opinion that they think they may have ADHD.  All of these considerations lead to associated problems in providing care to people who have clear ADHD and stimulant use diagnoses.  

That leads me to this multisite study (2) on the effects of high doses of extended release mixed amphetamine (ER MA) salts on both ADHD and cocaine use in patients who have both of these diagnoses.  The doses used were 60 and 80 mg/day.  The most commonly used current prescription versions of these drugs typically recommend a maximum dose in adults of 30 mg/day (1), but interestingly there is a "titrate to tolerability" statement in the package insert of a drug where 20 - 60 mg/day were used in trials with the statement  "There was not adequate evidence that doses greater than 20 mg/day conferred additional benefit."  The authors describe their dosing selections as "robust" and suggest that there is evidence that higher doses are needed to treat cocaine use problems.

Looking at authors methodology, their screening for this trial is instructive of the problems encountered in clinical practice.  Of a total of 1614 patients screened, only 126 were ultimately randomized to placebo, 60 mg/day ER MA, or 80 mg/day ER MA.  Five hundred and sixty two were screened out due to medical or psychiatric exclusion criteria.  It is common in older populations of stimulant users to find significant cardiovascular morbidity in the form of cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmias and these were some of the exclusion criteria.  The other aspect of this study that I really liked and would suggest implemented in everyday practice is the authors approach to blood pressure and heart rate specifically:

"Participants with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg or heart rate higher than 100 beats/min for 2 weeks or with single readings of blood pressure higher than 160/110mmHg or heart rate higher than 110 beats/min were discontinued from study medication." 

It is always shocking to hear from a person who has been on stimulants for years that nobody has ever checked their blood pressure or pulse, especially when they are sitting in front of you and are hypertensive and tachycardic.  This basic procedure should be done on any person taking stimulants, antipsychotics, antidepressant and for that matter any CNS active drug.  If similar effects are noted with any of these medications they should be discontinued.

Another important aspect of this study is that although the patients were well screened, they were complex from a substance use standpoint with current alcohol (18.6 - 27.9%), cannabis (7 - 14%), and nicotine (45-65.1%) use disorders.  The high levels of nicotine use are not surprising considering the epidemiological correlations between smoking and cocaine use and recent evidence about the epigenetic effects of nicotine in substance use disorders.  The authors do not comment on whether there were different outcomes for the non-smokers in this study.

On the primary outcome measure for ADHD - a 30% reduction in the AISRS (Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale) 58.1% of the high strength group and 75% of the low strength group achieved that outcomes with odds ratios of 2.27 and 5.23 respectively (see text for confidence intervals).  In terms of cocaine use outcomes the 80 mg dose resulted in fewer cocaine positive weeks (by any positive toxicology or report) and abstinence in the last three weeks.  The numbers are given in the table below:

High dose MA ER resulted in both a significant reduction in cocaine positive weeks over the 14 weeks of the study.  The 60 and 80 mg doses were actually fairly equivalent form a statistical standpoint and both were superior to placebo in terms of ADHD and cocaine outcomes.  But the real question is whether this is a reasonable clinical approach to this problem?  This was an intent-to-treat analysis with significant drop out rates.  The drop out rates are illustrated in the rapid decline in denominators in each group in Table 2.

In my experience, a substantial number of patients with ADHD and either cocaine or amphetamine use disorder reach the end of the prescribing algorithm where they have failed or relapsed.  In many cases that failure does not lead to a prescription being stopped for many reasons, a lack of information to the prescribing physician being foremost among them.  In the real world there is no clinic that will follow patients three times a week with toxicology screens at most of those visits and offer them all cognitive behavioral therapy.  Models currently funded by managed care companies and governments consist of patients being seen every one to three months for 20 or 30 minutes.  Many of those  visits are done by clinicians with little to no addiction experience.  Within the medication maintenance literature, particularly with buprenorphine maintenance there are studies that suggest psychotherapy adds nothing to the outcomes.  But even without that data what business manager would consider those therapists "cost effective" beyond the stimulant prescription?

A key element that I never see in these studies is the patient's subjective response to the stimulant at increasing doses.    I have found that Koob's definition of addiction is generally predictive:

"Addiction is a chronic relapsing syndrome that moves from an impulse control disorder involving positive reinforcement to a compulsive disorder involving negative reinforcement."

A euphorigenic, hypomanic effect is usually the high risk positive reinforcer regardless of the substance taken.  One of the theories of abuse deterrent approaches is that the pharmacokinetics of the substance used prevents rapid availability in the brain and this decreases abuse potential.  Many abuse deterrent preparations fail because multiples of the dose can be taken and result in the positive reinforcing aspects of the addiction cycle.  I consider the authors' paper to be elegant in its experimental approach.  The graphic at the top of this page is first-rate as a source of information.  It also illustrates the problem of coming up with a clinical trial that can be translated into practice.  I would not consider implementing this strategy as a clinical approach until there was a long term study that looked thoroughly at all of the outcomes.  At this time, I don't think the modest results of this short term study warrant the widespread practice of using extended release mixed amphetamine salts for cocaine use disorders.  There are also legal issues with prescribing maintenance doses of controlled substances in order to "maintain an addiction" as some laws are currently written.  I would have liked to see an attempt to characterize the subjective responses to methamphetamine use measured along with an analysis of whether the non-smokers did better than the smokers.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



References:

1:  Drug Facts and Comparisons.  Wolters Kluwer Health.  St. Louis, MO, 2013.

2: Levin FR, Mariani JJ, Specker S, Mooney M, Mahony A, Brooks DJ, Babb D, Bai Y,Eberly LE, Nunes EV, Grabowski J. Extended-Release Mixed Amphetamine Salts vs Placebo for Comorbid Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Cocaine Use Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Jun 1;72(6):593-602. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.41. PubMed PMID: 25887096; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4456227

Attribution:

1.  The figure at the top of this post is from reference 2 above and is used with permission from the American Medical Association, License Number 3660331303348.  Copyright © 2015 American Medical Association.  All rights reserved.

Is the FDA objective enough to assess treatments in psychiatry - or is this just politics as usual?

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) feed posted a link to this FDA news release regarding a new biological test for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity disorder.  The device is essentially a quantitative EEG (QEEG) machine.  The QEEG heyday was back in the mid 1980s to 1990's.  Devices were designed that could take the standard output of an EEG montage and look at the frequency bands and how that activity fluctuated topographically within the individual.  There were two major manufacturers at the time and both of those technologies allowed for a comparison of the subjects QEEG with a standardized groups.  The difference could be determined as a t or z score and that was plotted relative to the electrode placements.  The final analysis would yield maps consisting of frequencies and mathematical operations on those frequencies.

There were several articles on this methodology including an impressive article in Science on the diagnostic capabilities of these instruments.  One manufacturer provided an algorithm of clinical features and EEG features that purported to diagnose major psychiatric disorders.  You could actually analyze the data both ways - with or without the clinical features.  There was enthusiasm to the point that a new psychiatric subspecialty in electrophysiology was made to meet the requirements of psychiatrists who wanted to use QEEG technology.

In 1988, I was so impressed with the technology that I approached a potential employer and struck a bargain that I would take a salary cut if they would buy me the machine and the deal was struck.  I was fortunate enough to be affiliated with a certified electrophysiology lab with an outstanding electrophysiologist and EEG technologists.  This was critical in order to collect standardized data and select numerous 2 second epochs of EEG data for computerized analysis.  The epochs had to be completely free of artifact in order to provide valid data for analysis and anywhere from 30 to 60 of these epochs needed to be selected per patient.

If you think about it for more than a few minutes, what is wrong with the idea that EEG frequencies should point to a specific psychiatric diagnosis?  The short answer is a lack of specificity.  There are literally hundreds of conditions that can lead to fast or slow frequencies including normal fluctuations of conscious states.  During my QEEG work we had to collect EEG epochs for analysis in the "eyes closed but alert" state.  Quantitative EEGs can demonstrate significant fluctuation in that state.

After several hundred QEEGs with and without the computerized algorithm, it was apparent that the diagnostic abilities of QEEG were low.  There were literally a handful of analyses that seemed to match the clinical diagnosis and at that point we shut down the project.  As far as I can tell from their web site, that company no longer sells a QEEG machine claiming to make psychiatric diagnoses.

I have not been able to locate the specific reference for this FDA approval.  The FDA press release states:

"In support of the de novo petition, the manufacturer submitted data including a clinical study that evaluated 275 children and adolescents ranging from 6 to 17 years old with attention or behavioral concerns. Clinicians evaluated all 275 patients using the NEBA System and using standard diagnostic protocols, including the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV Text Revision(DSM-IV-TR) criteria, behavioral questionnaires, behavioral and IQ testing, and physical exams to determine if the patient had ADHD. An independent group of ADHD experts reviewed these data and arrived at a consensus diagnosis regarding whether the research subject met clinical criteria for ADHD or another condition. The study results showed that the use of the NEBA System aided clinicians in making a more accurate diagnosis of ADHD when used in conjunction with a clinical assessment for ADHD, compared with doing the clinical assessment alone."

From ClinicalTrials.gov that appears to be this registered clinical trial.  No results are reported and there are no publications in peer reviewed journals that I can find.  The concerns about this technology should be apparent from the history outlined in the above narrative and the same application suggested by the FDA.  This is not a diagnostic procedure but one that is a supplement to the clinical evaluation for ADHD.  It reminds me what Russell Barkley - noted ADHD expert and scholar said in a seminar I attended last fall.  There are no gold standard tests for ADHD any more than there are for any other problems of executive function.  He pointed out that hours of neuropsychological testing (he is a neuropsychologist) is no more accurate than standard ADHD checklists.  Neuropsychological testing is important because of the high prevalence of learning disorders in ADHD.

My prediction at this point (pending an actual published research paper) is that this QEEG machine will not be that clinically useful and if it is a question of neuropsychological testing versus the QEEG, neuropsych testing should be the the option because it can detect and allow for treatment planning for any associated learning disorders and QEEG cannot. One of the risks here in an age where insurance companies deny diagnostic costs is that neuropsychological testing is denied and the QEEG substituted depending on cost.  That would not allow for the recognition or treatment planning for a learning disorder.

The larger question is how competent the FDA is to make decisions on devices for psychiatric disorders?  The FDA came out with a notice in 2011 that electroconvulsive therapy devices may need to be reclassified (Class II to Class III) resulting in the need for additional testing, clinical trials, and regulation.  That occurred after two generations of psychiatrists were trained on the current devices and have clinically demonstrated that it is a safe, effective and in many cases life saving therapy.  They completed their own study and meta-analyses and it is unclear to me what they concluded.  I consider the FDA web site to essentially be unnavigable.  Available information in the psychiatric literature suggests that they are still is the process of coming up with a formula for reclassification of ECT devices to a more restrictive category and that their analysis of the efficacy of ECT may have been seriously underestimated.  The concern of the authors is that reclassification will restrict availability of ECT to patients who have clear indications for its use much in the same way that poor Medicare reimbursement restricts the availability in some hospitals now.

The even larger question is there some kind of systematic bias operating here?  Both the ECT and QEEG decisions seem mismatched with the available science and clinical experience.  The FDA has the appearance of transparency, but you can never find what you need in the thousands of web pages that are linked to the agency.  In the ECT example, I could not find a clear statement, vote or conclusion about the ECT decision until I read the article by Weiner, at al.  In the case of the QEEG device there is no publication of the study supporting its use.  Independent review suggests that there have been no advances in the past 16 years.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


FDA Executive Summary.  Meeting to Discuss the Classification of Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) Devices.  January 27-28, 2011.

Weiner R, Lisanby SH, Husain MM, Morales OG, Maixner DF, Hall SE, Beeghly J,Greden JF; National Network of Depression Centers. Electroconvulsive therapy device classification: response to FDA advisory panel hearing and recommendations. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;74(1):38-42. doi:10.4088/JCP.12cs08260. PubMed PMID: 23419224.

Sand T, Bjørk MH, Vaaler AE. Is EEG a useful test in adult psychiatry? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2013 Jun 11;133(11):1200-1204. English, Norwegian. PubMed PMID: 23759782.

Nuwer M. Assessment of digital EEG, quantitative EEG, and EEG brain mapping: report of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. Neurology. 1997 Jul;49(1):277-92. Review. PubMed PMID: 9222209.

"E. On the basis of current clinical literature, opinions of most experts, and proposed rationales for their use,QEEG remains investigational for clinical use in postconcussion syndrome, mild or moderate head injury, learning disability, attention disorders, schizophrenia, depression, alcoholism, and drug abuse." (from Nuwer 1997)