| Many
of you are already familiar with the results of the MTA study, the
largest treatment study of ADHD every conducted. The goal of this study was to compare
the effectiveness of carefully conducted medication treatment,
intensive behavioral treatment, the combination of medication and
behavioral treatment, and typical treatment for ADHD as practiced in
community. Participants in this
study were 579 children between the ages of 7 and 9.9 who had been
carefully diagnosed with ADHD, Combined Type. Although children in all 4 treatment
groups showed significant improvement, those in the medication-only
group and the combined-treatment group had significantly greater
improvement in their core ADHD symptoms than children given only
intensive behavioral treatment or community care. There was also evidence that combined
treatment provided a modest incremental benefit compared to careful
medication treatment alone. An important question
not fully addressed in the initial analyses of = the MTA results is whether
treatment response may vary as a function of the other conditions a
child may have in addition to ADHD (i.e. co-morbid conditions).
Unfortunately, it is well known that children with ADHD often have
other conditions as well, including Oppositional Defiant Disorder
(ODD), Conduct Disorder (CD), mood disorders, and anxiety disorders.
These co-morbid conditions can complicate a
child’s treatment and tend to be associated with a poorer long-term
prognosis. Therefore, it is very
important to carefully examine whether the presence of these other
difficulties affects the type of impairments that children have, how
they respond to treatment, and the type of treatment that is likely to
be most helpful. (Note: In the
MTA study, medication and behavioral treatment were the only ones
investigated because they are the interventions with the strongest
empirical support at this time.) (Note: Some of the children diagnosed
with anxiety disorders had mood disorders as well.) Diagnoses and assignment to the
different groups were based on structured psychiatric interviews
conducted with parents, and thus do not reflect children’s own reports
of fears, worries, and other symptoms of anxiety.
Results A number of different baseline and outcome
measures were collected in this study, including core symptoms of ADHD,
oppositional/aggressive behavior, academic achievement, anxiety and
depression symptoms, social skills, and parent-child relations. Although the results varied across
these different measures, there are several important general
conclusions that can be made. Parents of children with ADHD and ODD/CD report
greater difficulty with their child than parents of children with ADHD
and an anxiety disorder. An important exception
to this general pattern is that children with ADHD and an anxiety
disorder were more likely to have academic problems and to be diagnosed
with a learning disability. Overall, children with ADHD and an anxiety disorder
tended to be more treatment responsive than children with ADHD alone or
children with ADHD and ODD/CD Children with ADHD and
an anxiety disorder showed a positive response to all 3 MTA treatments
(i.e. medication only, behavior therapy only, and combined treatment)
and tended to show greater improvement than children in the other
groups. Thus, although children
in the other groups also showed important benefits from treatment, the
treatment gains for children with ADHD and an anxiety disorder tended
to be slightly greater. Behavioral interventions were particularly likely
to be helpful for children with ADHD and an anxiety disorder. On a number of
specific outcome measures, including measures of academic achievement,
as well as an overall composite measurement of outcome, children with
ADHD and anxiety were more likely to show a positive response to
behavioral treatment than were children in the other
groups. Unlike the children in the other groups, these
children did as well with behavior therapy alone as they did with
medication alone. For
children with ADHD only, or ADHD and ODD/CD, treatments with medication
seem especially effective, while behavioral treatment alone may be less
effective. Children with ADHD
alone or ADHD and ODD/CD showed relatively little response to intensive
behavioral therapy only. The use
of carefully conducted medication treatment thus seems especially
important for these types of ADHD children. For ADHD children who also have both an anxiety
disorder and ODD/CD, the use of combined treatment (i.e. medication and
behavior therapy) may offer substantial advantages. For these children
with the most complex set of symptoms, overall outcome for combined
treatment was significantly better than for either behavioral treatment
or medication treatment alone. Summary and
Implications These findings add substantially to the main
results of the MTA study and have clinical implications that are
potentially important for parents and clinicians. First, it appears that children with
ADHD and a co-morbid anxiety disorder may be especially likely to have
concurrent academic problems and learning disabilities. Thus, for these children, it would be
especially important for this possibility to be carefully considered
and investigated. Although this
is likely to occur in a comprehensive evaluation conducted by a child
mental health specialist, this may be short-changed because of
insurance-imposed limitations.
In addition, primary care physicians may not always have the
training that enables a careful assessment of academic functioning and
learning difficulties to be completed. Second, for children
with ADHD and an anxiety disorder, carefully executed behavioral
treatment may yield treatment gains that are equivalent to what would
be provided by medication. Thus,
in situations where parents have strong concerns about the use of
medication, where children do not benefit from it, or, cannot tolerate
it, behavioral treatment alone can be a reasonable treatment choice for
these children. For these
children, beginning treatment with behavior therapy alone and carefully
monitoring their progress may alleviate the need for medication in many
instances. Third, parents and clinicians should be aware
that in children with ADHD alone, or ADHD with ODD/CD, the use of
carefully conducted medication therapy is likely to be especially
critical. In the MTA study,
these children did not respond well to medication treatment alone even
though they showed robust responses to medication. When an anxiety disorder is also
present, however, the addition of behavior treatment may confer some
important incremental benefits. As with any study, there
are several important caveats to keep in mind. First, these results apply
specifically to children with the combined sub-type of ADHD between the
ages of 7 and 10. The extent to
which they would generalize to children with other ADHD subtypes (i.e.
inattentive or hyperactive-impulsive) and of different ages is
unknown. Second, there are
always individual exceptions to results that are derived from comparing
groups. Thus, although these
results indicate what is more likely to be true about a specific child
(e.g. a child with ADHD alone is likely to respond better to medication
treatment than to behavioral treatment), there are always exceptions at
the individual level. Most
importantly, the results from the MTA study are based on both
medication and behavioral treatment that can be considered
state-of-the-art. For example,
children receiving medication treatment began with a = careful
placebo-controlled trial to determine their optimum starting dose, and
were then carefully monitored each month to determine when
modifications to dosage or even type of medication were necessary. Behavioral treatment included
extensive work with parents, an 8-week summer program for children, and
an intensive behavior management system at school. Unfortunately, this is not the type
of medication treatment or behavioral treatment that is typically
provided in community settings.
In fact, one of the main findings of the MTA study is that
children receiving medication treatment or combined treatment in the
study did significantly better than those whose treatment occurred in
the community. Thus, one cannot
assume, for example, that the behavior treatment most children have
access to = would show the same positive impact on children with ADHD
and an anxiety disorder that was shown in this
study. Rather than being
discouraged by this possibility, however, it is important for parents
to learn as much as they can about what these state-of-the-art MTA
treatments entailed, and to do their best to make sure that the
treatment received by their child matches this to the extent
possible. With medication
treatment, for example, even though the entire = placebo-controlled
procedure would be hard to follow exactly, it is quite possible to
incorporate several important elements of this procedure, including:
testing a child on a full range of doses, obtaining systematic feedback
from teachers on the child’s behavior and school work on each dose, and
obtaining such feedback on a regular basis to determine when treatment
modifications may be necessary.
These simple steps can make an important
difference. New Evaluation and Treatment Guidelines From
an Expert Panel The Journal of Attention Disorders recently
published a special issue in which the results of a large-scale survey
conducted with ADHD experts from medical and psychology backgrounds
were reported. The goal of this
survey was to establish guidelines that address important clinical
issues for which there may currently be little controlled scientific
evidence, but for which there exists considerable experience in
clinical practice. By obtaining
and summarizing the opinions of a large number of experts (i.e. 44
physicians and 47 psychologists, representing 86% and 94% of the
individuals to whom a survey was sent), the results create a set of
guidelines that can be informative to both parents and practitioners.
As noted above, the survey was designed to
obtain and synthesize expert opinion on issues that are not yet fully
addressed in the research literature on ADHD. The designers of the survey were
themselves recognized ADHD experts (Keith Conners is the lead author)
and are careful to note that because individuals with ADHD can vary so
widely along multiple dimensions, the consensus recommendations will
certainly not be appropriate in all circumstances. They are also careful to note that
the survey was financially sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry,
and describe the steps taken to avoid having this bias the
results. The major effort here
was to present data from every respondent so that readers can compare
the summary guidelines with the raw data on which each guideline is
based. It is also noted
appropriately that the guidelines represent current expert opinion, and
that expert opinion at any given time can be revealed by future studies
to be wrong. For example, future
studies may indicate that treatments currently regarded as
“alternative”, and thus not generally recommended, are actually quite
helpful in many cases and should be considered to be important
treatment options. The important
point here is that any set of recommendations can only be based on the
best available evidence, and should this evidence change over time, so
will the recommendations. Survey results were
summarized to produce guidelines in multiple areas, including the
assessment and treatment of ADHD, how these vary depending on the type
of ADHD (i.e. combined, inattentive, or hyperactive-impulsive), and the
age of the client. Particular
attention is given to important clinical issues such as what to do when
treatment is only partially effective or even ineffective, what
constitutes adequate monitoring, and how the current state of treatment
for ADHD can be improved.
Reviewing the entire set of guidelines is beyond the scope of
what can be presented here, and the focus in this issue will be on
three particular points: selecting an initial treatment strategy,
changing the treatment regimen when response is judged to be
inadequate, and what constitutes appropriate ongoing care.
Selecting an
initial treatment strategy The question facing
the experts here was how to sequence the treatments for ADHD—whether to
begin with medication alone, psychosocial treatment alone, or a
combination of both from the start.
Experts were told to assume that both types of treatment would
be available, and to rank order their recommendations in terms from
most to least preferred option.
It is reasonable to assume that by psychosocial treatment, the
experts were referring to the types of non-medical interventions for
ADHD for which empirical support has been shown, including parent
training, clinical behavior therapy, skills-based training, psycho-educational
interventions, etc. Psychosocial
treatment alone Starting with psychosocial treatments alone
was the consensus recommendation in situations where ADHD symptoms were
judged to be mild and/or when the child was of preschool age. In cases where there was a
co-occurring internalizing problem (i.e. mood or anxiety disorder),
beginning with a psychosocial intervention alone and beginning with a
combination of medication and psychosocial treatment were rated
equivalently. Combined
treatments Situations where combined treatment was viewed
as an equally appropriate initial treatment strategy to medication or
psychosocial intervention alone are described above. In addition, combined treatment was
regarded as the best initial option for individuals with the
predominantly inattentive subtype of ADHD, for children and
adolescents, and/or when there are co-occurring behavior disorders
(i.e. Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorder). The consensus opinion of these
experts thus shows a strong preference for combined treatment. For children and adolescents, this
would be the preferred option except in cases where symptoms were
judged to be mild (i.e., psychosocial treatment alone would be
reasonable here), or when there is a strong preference for one
treatment approach vs. the other.
The preference for combined treatment is consistent with MTA
study results in which the
researchers found a modest, but statistically significant, advantage
for combined treatments over medication alone for several specific
outcomes and for an overall composite of the different outcomes
considered. Changing the treatment
regimen An issue closely related to the choice of
initial treatment strategy is the appropriate time to change treatment
regimens when the response has been inadequate. Several factors were deemed important
to evaluate before making any such change. Before making changes to medication
treatment, the following steps were advised: Ensure adequate
dosage: In many instances, patients may be receiving a dosage that is
too low to provide maximum benefit, and adjusting the dose can yield
significant additional benefits.
This often occurs when researchers do not test a full range of
during an initial trial, but instead use the first dose on which some
improvements are evident as the maintenance dose.
Evaluate for
compliance problems: Being certain that medication is actually being
taken as instructed is necessary before changing medications or
deciding medication will not provide important
benefits. Ensure coverage across waking hours - It is
important to make sure the type of medication and/or dosing schedule
provides adequate coverage across the period of time when symptom
management is critical. (Note:
Now that medications with longer durations have become available—e.g.,
Concerta—this may be easier to ensure than when multiple daily doses
are required as with regular methylphenidate.) In regards to switching medications when a
positive response to the initial medication choice is not obtained, the
panel strongly recommended that several different stimulants be given a
thorough trial before trying a different class of medication (e.g.
switching to an anti-depressant). Adding new meds rather
than trying another type of stimulant first was also not a preferred
option. In cases where
medication alone has been used to begin treatment, the consensus was
that psychosocial treatment should be added when no response has been
noted over a 5-week period of careful trials. In situations where only a partial
response (i.e. some symptoms clearly remain and impair functioning), it
was recommended that psychosocial interventions be added after 7
weeks. When psychosocial
treatment alone has been the initial strategy, the experts advised
adding medication when a month has elapsed with no response, and
waiting between 6-7 weeks when at least a partial response has been
obtained. What is an
appropriate level of maintenance care? One of the real
drawbacks in the care that many children with ADHD receive is the lack
of adequate monitoring and follow-up.
In addition, those receiving medication often stop taking it
prematurely. The guidelines in
this section are thus especially important to
note. For children/adolescents who respond well to
medication, it is suggested that medication be maintained on the dosage
determined to be most effective for 1-2 years before trying to taper
it. A typical duration of
medication treatment for good responders ranged from 2-10 years. For adults, it was recommended that
those showing an excellent medication response continue to take it for
2-5 years before trying to taper or discontinue.
For individuals who have had an excellent
response to medication treatment (i.e. symptoms have been fully
normalized with no residual impairment), it was advised that follow-up
visits be scheduled every 3 months.
In cases where only partial response has been obtained, the
consensus opinion called for monthly visits. Thus, ongoing monitoring of treatment
response is seen as essential. For psychosocial interventions, weekly
visits are recommended during the first 6 months of treatment. A range of 7-20 visits would be held
during this period depending on response. This figure is for an “uncomplicated
ADHD patient”, and would need to be increased when difficulties were
more pronounced than is typical. 6-12 months after treatment has been
initiated, booster sessions were recommended to be held every 1-3
months once symptoms have been fully normalized, and 1-2 times each
month when there has been only a partial response.
Sessions for ongoing monitoring beyond 12 months should take
place 1 to 2 times per year for children and adolescents, and as needed
for adults. Summary The recommendations above are important in
that they reflect the most widely held views among a large number of
experts. As noted above, these
guidelines will not apply to every individual, and treatment decisions
for specific individuals can be influenced by a wide variety of factors
that no set of guidelines can fully capture. In cases where treatment choices fall
clearly outside of these guidelines, however, it would be important to
be able to specify the factors that have resulted in what would be
considered atypical recommendations. |