Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Jun 29;174(9):877–885. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.16060686

ADHD Medication and Substance-Related Problems

Patrick D Quinn 1,2, Zheng Chang 2,3, Kwan Hur 2, Robert D Gibbons 2,4,5, Benjamin B Lahey 5, Martin E Rickert 1, Arvid Sjölander 3, Paul Lichtenstein 3, Henrik Larsson 3,6, Brian M D’Onofrio 1
PMCID: PMC5581231  NIHMSID: NIHMS888905  PMID: 28659039

Abstract

Objective

Substance use disorders are major contributors to excess mortality among individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), yet associations between pharmacological ADHD treatment and substance-related problems remain unclear. This study investigated concurrent and long-term associations between ADHD medication treatment and substance-related events.

Method

The authors analyzed 2005–2014 commercial healthcare claims from 2 993 887 (47.2% female) adolescent and adult ADHD patients. Within-individual analyses compared the risk of substance-related events (i.e., substance-use-disorder-related emergency-department visits) during months in which patients received prescribed stimulant medication or atomoxetine relative to that during months in which they did not.

Results

In adjusted within-individual comparisons, relative to periods in which they did not receive ADHD medication, male patients had 35% lower odds of concurrent substance-related events when receiving medication (odds ratio [OR] = 0.65, 95% CI, 0.64–0.67), and female patients had 31% lower odds of concurrent substance-related events (OR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.67–0.71). Moreover, male patients had 19% lower odds of substance-related events two years after medication periods (OR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.78–0.85), and female patients had 14% lower odds of substance-related events two years after medication periods (OR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.82–0.91). Sensitivity analyses supported most findings but were less consistent for long-term associations among women.

Conclusions

These results provide evidence that receiving ADHD medication is unlikely to be associated with greater risk of substance-related problems in adolescence or adulthood. Rather, medication was associated with lower concurrent risk of substance-related events and, at least among men, lower long-term risk of future substance-related events.

INTRODUCTION

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent neurodevelopmental disorder, affecting 2.6–4.5% of youth worldwide and continuing, for many, into adolescence and adulthood (1–3). Prospective studies show that risk of substance use disorders is a persisting concern in ADHD (4, 5), at least in part because the two disorders share genetic influences (6–8). Substance use disorders contribute substantially to elevated mortality rates among patients with ADHD (9).

Understanding the association between pharmacological ADHD treatment and substance-related problems is essential to evaluating the potential benefit of such treatment. Stimulant medications are effective in reducing ADHD symptoms in the short-term and are recognized as the first-line treatment option for school-aged children, adolescents, and adults (10–12). Medication associations with substance-related problems, however, have been widely debated (13). Some early research suggested a sensitization hypothesis, wherein exposure to stimulants might increase risk of substance-related problems (14). This possibility continues to be supported by some animal studies, particularly during adolescence (15). Further clinical studies, in contrast, have not found support for medication-induced increases in risk. For example, follow-up data from the Multimodal Treatment Study of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and a meta-analysis showed no medication associations with substance use or problems (16, 17). In fact, several more recent studies have found that medication treatment is associated with decreased substance-related risk (18–20). At present, uncertainty remains regarding the extent to which medication treatment impacts substance-related problems (21–24).

Conclusions from randomized clinical trials have been constrained by sample sizes and treatment durations that may be insufficient to detect rare-yet-serious substance-related events, questions regarding generalizability, and ethical concerns about withholding efficacious treatments (24, 25). At the same time, conclusions from observational studies have been constrained by the possibility of confounding from differences between patients who are and are not treated pharmacologically (i.e., confounding by indication) (16). Consequently, researchers have turned to observational approaches that combine large-scale health-record data with designs that make within-individual comparisons across medicated and un-medicated periods, treating each patient as their own control (26, 27). Notably, Chang and colleagues (19) found that risk of substance-related problems was lower when ADHD patients in the Swedish population were prescribed stimulant medications. That study additionally found a long-term association between medication and lower risk for later substance-related problems, using statistical covariates but not within-individual comparisons. Given cross-national differences in diagnostic and treatment practices, the extent to which these results will generalize to other settings is unclear, and the possibility of unmeasured between-persons confounding renders the long-term associations less conclusive. In the present study, we used within-individual comparisons in a large US sample to examine the extent to which stimulant and atomoxetine treatment for ADHD was associated with concurrent and long-term reductions in risk of substance-related events.

METHOD

Sample

We used data from the Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters (MarketScan) databases of de-identified inpatient, outpatient, and prescribed drug claims. As confirmed with the University of Chicago IRB, the analysis of MarketScan data is exempt because records are de-identified. Data were available from 2003–2014, although we analyzed patients identified in years 2005–2014 because emergency services coding was incomplete in earlier years. MarketScan includes data from employers and health plans in the United States. From 2005 onward, there are approximately 146 million unique enrollee observations in MarketScan, consisting of employees, COBRA continuees, non-Medicare retirees, and covered spouses and dependents.

We identified 2 993 887 (47.2% female; Table 1) ADHD patients, defined as enrollees who received either (a) an ADHD diagnosis (ICD-9 codes 314.xx) or (b) stimulant or atomoxetine ADHD medication treatment. We defined the first inpatient or outpatient diagnosis or filled prescription from 2005 onward as the index date. We followed each patient from the index date until their last month with any enrollment days or December, 2014. However, because substance-related problems in childhood are rare, we analyzed only those enrollment periods in which patients were at least 13 years old. We excluded all enrollment years in which patients lacked prescription drug coverage. If patients dis-enrolled and subsequently re-enrolled, we included continuous follow-up through the first disenrollment.

Table 1.

Summary Statistics for Included ADHD Patients

Variable Male Female
n % n %
Included patients 1,579,704 -- 1,414,183 --
Medicated at least one month 1,319,349 83.5 1,233,425 87.2
At least one medication status switch 910,084 57.6 811,050 57.4
At least one substance-related event 34,655 2.2 24,196 1.7
Median IQR Median IQR
Age in years at start of follow-up 21 (15–34) 28 (19–42)
Follow-up months 16 (8–33) 15 (8–31)
Open in a new tab

Note. Patients with at least one medication status switch had at least one month with filled prescription coverage as well as at least one month with no prescription coverage. Observed ages ranged from 13–64 years at start of follow-up, and observed follow-up ranged from 1–120 months. IQR = interquartile range.

ADHD Medication

We identified stimulant medications using national drug codes for the following generic names: amphetamine salt combination, dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride, dextroamphetamine sulfate, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, methamphetamine hydrochloride, methylphenidate, and methylphenidate hydrochloride. Atomoxetine hydrochloride was the only included non-stimulant medication because other approved non-stimulants (i.e., extended-release clonidine and guanfacine) are frequently used as adjunctive or secondary treatments (11). We required prescription claims to have valid fill dates and days of supply (180 days or less). Medication status was defined on a monthly basis, such that a calendar month covered at least in part by a prescription (i.e., fill date + days of supply) was considered medicated, whereas a month not covered by any prescription was considered un-medicated. Most included male (83.5%) and female (87.2%) patients received ADHD medication during at least one follow-up month (Table 1). Among these patients, most male (89.2%) and female (90.9%) patients received stimulant medication only.

Substance-Related Events

Within-individual comparisons require a time-specific outcome. In order to exclude recurring treatment visits and ensure that claim dates corresponded with actual substance-related events, we counted follow-up months as having an event if they had at least one emergency-department claim with any non-tobacco substance use disorder diagnosis (primary or otherwise). See Supplemental Method in the online supplemental materials for details.

Analytic Approach

We made three sets of comparisons using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). We report associations separately for male and female patients because concurrent within-individual associations significantly differed by sex (long-term associations did not, p = .06). The first comparisons examined purely between-individuals group differences. We used conditional logistic regression to compare the risk of at least one substance-related event from 2005 onward among ADHD patients with that among non-diagnosed, non-medicated controls matched 1:1 on sex, calendar year and age of first enrollment in MarketScan, and length of enrollment in months (PROC LOGISTIC; more than 99.9% of patients could be matched). We then compared those ADHD patients who received any ADHD medication with those who never received medication from 2005 onward (controlling for year and age of first enrollment and enrollment length).

The second set of comparisons examined concurrent associations between ADHD medication and substance-related events. We structured follow-up time by months and compared the risk of substance-related events during months in which patients were or were not prescribed ADHD medication (28). We analyzed substance-related events as repeating outcomes, permitting individuals to experience multiple months with events during follow-up. Events that occurred during the index month were only counted if they occurred after the index date. In a small number of instances (n = 2,634; 0.004% of included months) patients began new prescriptions and experienced substance-related events in the same month. In these cases, we considered patients as un-medicated for the 47.2% of months in which the patient’s first substance-related event occurred before or on the same date as that patient’s first prescription fill.

We began with population-level models. These models compared medicated periods with un-medicated periods, adjusting for the clustering of months within individuals using PROC SURVEYLOGISTIC. We report odds ratios (ORs) with and without time-varying covariates (age, calendar year, and time since last substance-related event). Population-level models remained susceptible, however, to unmeasured confounders that differentiated patients who received ADHD medication from patients who did not. For our primary analyses, we therefore estimated associations using purely within-individual conditional logistic regression. These models compared months in which an individual received medication to months in which that same individual did not receive medication. Because each individual served as their own comparison, these models were free of confounding from all factors that were constant within the individual over time (e.g., genetics, earlier environmental influences) (29). Because the relatively small changes in years of age or calendar year that occurred during follow-up were unlikely to impact within-individual risk of substance-related events, we controlled for time since last event only.

Ten sensitivity analyses explored the robustness of the within-individual associations (Supplemental Method). The first sensitivity analysis examined patients who already had any claims with substance use disorder diagnoses at or before the start of follow-up. The second and third excluded patients who received other psychiatric medications or psychotherapy, respectively, in order to test whether the results were explained by other treatments. The fourth tested whether results would persist in newly treated patients by examining a cohort with incident diagnoses of ADHD after at least one year of enrollment. The fifth examined only the first substance-related events in this incident diagnosis cohort, which reduced the likelihood of bias due to increased medication treatment following prior substance-related events (i.e., reverse causality). The sixth defined treatment gaps more conservatively by coding the first month after a medication period as still medicated. The seventh examined stimulant medications only. The eighth examined a broader definition of substance-related events that also included inpatient and ambulance claims. The ninth estimated associations separately by age group given questions about developmental timing. Finally, in order to evaluate the specificity of the association to ADHD medication, the tenth used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as a negative control medication exposure (27, 30).

The third set of comparisons examined long-term (i.e., interval) associations. The interval associations tested whether medication status at a given month predicted differences in the risk of substance-related events an interval of two years later. We included concurrent and lagged medication status as predictors, ensuring that the lagged association was independent of concurrent medication. We required patients to have at least two years of follow-up for these models, and, because their lagged exposure status would otherwise be undefined, we necessarily excluded all months prior to two years of follow-up. We again repeated these models at the population and within-individual levels. In addition to those described above, sensitivity analyses additionally examined a three-year interval and the duration of medication exposure (i.e., the cumulative months of medication during the two or three prior years).

RESULTS

Group Comparisons

Male (3.2%) and female (2.6%) ADHD patients were more likely to have at least one substance-related event than were male (1.2%; OR = 2.69, 95% CI, 2.65–2.74) and female (0.8%; OR = 3.30, 95% CI, 3.23–3.37) controls. Male ADHD patients who ever received medication were less likely to have substance-related events (3.1%) than were those who never received medication (4.0%; OR = 0.76, 95% CI, 0.75–0.78). There was less difference in the odds of substance-related events among female patients who received medication (2.6%) relative to those who never received medication (2.8%; OR = 0.94, 95% CI, 0.91–0.97). Although claims with any substance use disorder diagnosis were more common than were claims with emergency substance-related events, group differences in risk of any diagnosis were comparable (Table S1).

Concurrent Associations between ADHD Medication and Substance-Related Events

The second set of comparisons examined concurrent associations between receiving ADHD medication prescriptions and risk of substance-related events. At the population level, the adjusted odds of substance-related events were 19% lower among male patients (OR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.79–0.83) and 11% lower among female patients (OR = 0.89, 95% CI, 0.87–0.92) during medicated months relative to un-medicated months (Table 2). More important, in within-individual comparisons that ruled out all time-invariant confounders, patients were less likely to have substance-related events during the specific months in which they received medication relative to months in which those same patients did not receive medication. Specifically, in adjusted models, ADHD medication was associated with 35% lower odds of substance-related events among men (OR = 0.65, 95% CI, 0.64–0.67) and 31% lower odds among women (OR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.67–0.71). Table S2 lists covariate parameter estimates.

Table 2.

Concurrent Associations between ADHD Medication and Substance-Related Events

Cohort Patients (n) Substance-Related Events (n) Population Within-Individual
Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Male
All ADHD patients 1,579,704 46,676 0.68 (0.67–0.70) 0.81 (0.79–0.83) 0.79 (0.77–0.81) 0.65 (0.64–0.67)
 With any prior SUD 53,765 10,671 0.70 (0.67–0.75) 0.77 (0.73–0.81) 0.94 (0.89–1.00) 0.85 (0.79–0.90)
 With no prior SUD 1,525,939 36,005 0.74 (0.72–0.76) 0.86 (0.84–0.88) 0.76 (0.74–0.78) 0.61 (0.59–0.63)
 With no other psychiatric medications 836,305 8,506 0.72 (0.69–0.76) 0.82 (0.79–0.86) 0.78 (0.73–0.83) 0.61 (0.58–0.66)
 With no psychotherapy 1,129,582 17,360 0.78 (0.75–0.80) 0.87 (0.84–0.90) 0.79 (0.75–0.82) 0.58 (0.56–0.61)
Incident diagnosis cohort 304,467 9,647 0.72 (0.68–0.76) 0.79 (0.75–0.83) 0.85 (0.80–0.91) 0.75 (0.70–0.81)
 First events only 304,467 7,128 0.85 (0.81–0.89) 0.81 (0.77–0.85) 0.45 (0.41–0.49) --
Female
All ADHD patients 1,414,183 31,842 0.81 (0.79–0.84) 0.89 (0.87–0.92) 0.84 (0.81–0.86) 0.69 (0.67–0.71)
 With any prior SUD 37,985 6,712 0.69 (0.64–0.74) 0.72 (0.68–0.76) 0.83 (0.77–0.89) 0.74 (0.69–0.80)
 With no prior SUD 1,376,198 25,130 0.89 (0.86–0.91) 0.97 (0.94–0.99) 0.84 (0.81–0.87) 0.67 (0.65–0.70)
 With no other psychiatric medications 481,157 3,237 0.94 (0.87–1.01) 0.98 (0.91–1.06) 0.91 (0.81–1.01) 0.74 (0.66–0.82)
 With no psychotherapy 963,074 10,694 0.97 (0.93–1.02) 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.90 (0.85–0.95) 0.66 (0.62–0.70)
Incident diagnosis cohort 251,990 5,685 0.87 (0.82–0.93) 0.89 (0.84–0.94) 0.94 (0.87–1.03) 0.87 (0.80–0.95)
 First events only 251,990 4,406 1.01 (0.95–1.07) 0.96 (0.90–1.02) 0.57 (0.52–0.64) --
Open in a new tab

Note. Adjusted models control for age and calendar year (population models), time since last substance-related event (population and within-individual multiple events models), and months since index date (population first events models only). ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. OR = odds ratio. SUD = substance use disorder.

Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analyses supported these associations. Among patients with prior substance use disorder diagnoses, the concurrent associations were somewhat attenuated but remained statistically significant, except in the unadjusted model for male patients (Table 2). When we included only patients without other psychiatric medications or psychotherapy or with incident ADHD diagnoses, the associations remained in the same direction, although unadjusted associations for female patients without other medications or incident diagnoses did not reach statistical significance. Notably, in models of first substance-related events only, medication was associated within-individuals with 55% and 43% lower odds of events among male and female patients, respectively, suggesting that results from the repeated events analyses may be conservative estimates of ADHD medication associations.

Defining medication gaps more conservatively, including stimulant medication only, and including inpatient and ambulance claims as substance-related events all produced comparable associations. See Table 3, which also shows results across ages. Although their point estimates varied, the within-individual associations remained in the same direction in all age groups (and were statistically significant in adjusted models). Finally, and critically, the within-individual associations between SSRIs and substance-related events were positive, supporting the specificity of the associations for ADHD medication.

Table 3.

Sensitivity Analyses for Concurrent Within-Individual Associations

Sensitivity Analysis Patients (n) Substance-Related Events (n) Unadjusted Adjusted
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Male
One-month-extended medicated periods 1,579,704 46,676 0.82 (0.80–0.84) 0.67 (0.66–0.69)
Stimulant medication only 1,579,704 46,676 0.80 (0.78–0.82) 0.66 (0.64–0.68)
Ambulance, inpatient, or emergency events 1,579,704 80,653 0.77 (0.76–0.79) 0.71 (0.69–0.72)
Agea
 13–17 615,297 18,410 0.69 (0.66–0.72) 0.61 (0.59–0.64)
 18–25 366,021 15,566 0.97 (0.92–1.01) 0.77 (0.74–0.81)
 26–35 236,249 4,961 0.81 (0.74–0.88) 0.57 (0.52–0.63)
 36–45 174,849 3,690 0.77 (0.70–0.86) 0.62 (0.56–0.69)
 46+ 187,288 4,049 0.69 (0.62–0.76) 0.55 (0.49–0.61)
SSRI medication 1,579,704 46,676 1.34 (1.30–1.39) 1.42 (1.37–1.47)
Female
One-month-extended medicated periods 1,414,183 31,842 0.90 (0.87–0.93) 0.74 (0.71–0.76)
Stimulant medication only 1,414,183 31,842 0.85 (0.82–0.88) 0.70 (0.68–0.72)
Ambulance, inpatient, or emergency events 1,414,183 54,420 0.79 (0.77–0.81) 0.71 (0.69–0.73)
Agea
 13–17 299,018 8,714 0.85 (0.80–0.90) 0.77 (0.73–0.82)
 18–25 333,016 9,767 0.98 (0.93–1.04) 0.78 (0.74–0.83)
 26–35 266,275 4,485 0.80 (0.74–0.88) 0.60 (0.55–0.65)
 36–45 241,620 4,384 0.67 (0.61–0.73) 0.54 (0.50–0.60)
 46+ 274,254 4,492 0.72 (0.66–0.79) 0.56 (0.51–0.62)
SSRI medication 1,414,183 31,842 1.22 (1.18–1.27) 1.25 (1.20–1.30)
Open in a new tab

Note. Adjusted models control for time since last substance-related event. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. OR = odds ratio. SSRI = selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

a

Age group in years at start of follow-up.

Long-Term Associations between ADHD Medication and Substance-Related Events

The third set of comparisons examined associations with substance-related events two years later. Adjusted population models showed minor increases in risk of substance-related events among male (OR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.99–1.06) and female (OR = 1.10, 95% CI, 1.05–1.15) patients two years after medicated periods. However, in adjusted within-individual models, ADHD medication predicted a 19% reduction in the odds of two-years-later substance-related events among male patients (OR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.78–0.85) and a 14% reduction among female patients (OR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.82–0.91). See Table 4, which also presents the concurrent medication estimates from the long-term models.

Table 4.

Long-Term Associations between ADHD Medication and Substance-Related Events

Cohort Patients (n) Substance-Related Events (n) Population Within-Individual
Long-Term Concurrent Long-Term Concurrent
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Male
All ADHD patients 581,941 17,637 1.02 (0.99–1.06) 0.78 (0.74–0.81) 0.81 (0.78–0.85) 0.68 (0.65–0.72)
 With no other psychiatric medications 278,570 2,904 0.99 (0.91–1.07) 0.88 (0.80–0.97) 0.75 (0.67–0.83) 0.69 (0.60–0.78)
 With no psychotherapy 357,085 4,996 1.03 (0.96–1.10) 0.83 (0.77–0.89) 0.72 (0.66–0.78) 0.67 (0.61–0.74)
Incident diagnosis cohort 129,403 3,629 0.93 (0.85–1.01) 0.88 (0.80–0.97) 0.82 (0.74–0.91) 0.76 (0.67–0.86)
Female
All ADHD patients 462,820 10,769 1.10 (1.05–1.15) 0.86 (0.82–0.90) 0.86 (0.82–0.91) 0.77 (0.72–0.82)
 With no other psychiatric medications 128,472 897 0.98 (0.84–1.14) 1.12 (0.96–1.30) 0.93 (0.75–1.14) 0.84 (0.66–1.06)
 With no psychotherapy 263,318 2,553 1.12 (1.02–1.24) 0.97 (0.88–1.07) 0.83 (0.74–0.94) 0.79 (0.68–0.91)
Incident diagnosis cohort 98,190 1,960 0.99 (0.88–1.11) 0.96 (0.86–1.09) 0.96 (0.83–1.11) 0.87 (0.74–1.03)
Open in a new tab

Note. ORs test long-term (two-year) and concurrent associations in simultaneous models. Models also control for age and calendar year (population models only) and time since last substance-related event (population and within-individual models). ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. OR = odds ratio.

Sensitivity analyses

We examined long-term associations among patients with no other psychiatric medication, no psychotherapy, or incident ADHD diagnoses. For male patients in all three groups, medication was associated with reduced long-term, within-individual risk of substance-related events. In contrast, female patients displayed attenuated long-term associations (4–7% reductions, which were not statistically significant) among those without other medications or with incident ADHD diagnoses, but they displayed a 17% reduction in the odds of later substance-related events among those without psychotherapy. Long-term associations without adjustment for time since last event persisted among men but were attenuated among women (Table S3).

Table 5 displays additional sensitivity analyses for the adjusted long-term associations. In male patients, we found largely comparable associations when we examined cumulative prior medication exposure, three-year rather than two-year time intervals, stimulant medications only, and the broader substance-related event definition. Associations for female patients persisted in some but not all analyses. Additionally, the adjusted associations remained in the same direction in all age groups in both sexes, although they were not all statistically significant, likely in part because of decreased power. Finally, SSRIs were associated with minimal differences in the odds of later substance-related events among male and female patients.

Table 5.

Sensitivity Analyses for Long-Term Within-Individual Associations

Sensitivity Analysis Patients (n) Substance-Related Events (n) Long-Term Concurrent
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Male
Agea (2 year interval)
 13–17 258,227 7,439 0.76 (0.72–0.81) 0.62 (0.57–0.66)
 18–25 141,540 6,508 0.85 (0.79–0.91) 0.85 (0.78–0.94)
 26–35 53,897 1,051 0.92 (0.75–1.13) 0.68 (0.54–0.87)
 36–45 54,081 1,072 0.84 (0.69–1.02) 0.57 (0.45–0.72)
 46+ 74,196 1,567 0.87 (0.74–1.03) 0.62 (0.50–0.76)
Time interval
 3 years 389,529 11,597 0.79 (0.75–0.83) 0.69 (0.65–0.74)
Cumulative duration
 In last 2 years 581,941 17,637 0.80 (0.76–0.84) 0.72 (0.69–0.76)
 In last 3 years 389,529 11,597 0.79 (0.75–0.83) 0.74 (0.69–0.79)
Stimulant medication only
 2 year interval 581,941 17,637 0.83 (0.79–0.87) 0.68 (0.65–0.72)
 2 year cumulative 0.83 (0.79–0.88) 0.72 (0.68–0.76)
Ambulance, inpatient, or emergency events
 2 year interval 581,941 30,300 0.86 (0.84–0.89) 0.72 (0.70–0.75)
 2 year cumulative 0.89 (0.86–0.92) 0.75 (0.72–0.78)
SSRI
 2 year interval 581,941 17,637 1.03 (0.97–1.10) 1.48 (1.39–1.56)
 2 year cumulative 1.20 (1.13–1.29) 1.42 (1.34–1.51)
Female
Agea (2 year interval)
 13–17 111,865 2,968 0.80 (0.72–0.89) 0.83 (0.74–0.93)
 18–25 106,368 3,599 0.92 (0.83–1.01) 0.94 (0.84–1.06)
 26–35 61,861 922 0.81 (0.65–0.99) 0.78 (0.62–0.99)
 36–45 74,041 1,362 0.81 (0.69–0.96) 0.57 (0.47–0.69)
 46+ 108,685 1,918 0.93 (0.81–1.07) 0.53 (0.45–0.63)
Time interval
 3 years 293,939 6,567 0.84 (0.78–0.90) 0.80 (0.74–0.87)
Cumulative duration
 In last 2 years 462,820 10,769 0.92 (0.86–0.98) 0.78 (0.73–0.84)
 In last 3 years 293,939 6,567 0.89 (0.83–0.96) 0.82 (0.76–0.90)
Stimulant medication only
 2 year interval 462,820 10,769 0.90 (0.85–0.95) 0.76 (0.71–0.81)
 2 year cumulative 0.95 (0.89–1.01) 0.77 (0.72–0.83)
Ambulance, inpatient, or emergency events
 2 year interval 462,820 18,458 0.93 (0.89–0.97) 0.74 (0.71–0.78)
 2 year cumulative 1.08 (1.03–1.13) 0.73 (0.70–0.77)
SSRI
 2 year interval 462,820 10,769 0.97 (0.91–1.04) 1.28 (1.20–1.37)
 2 year cumulative 1.15 (1.07–1.24) 1.25 (1.17–1.34)
Open in a new tab

Note. ORs test long-term and concurrent associations in simultaneous models, controlling for time since last substance-related event. Cumulative duration associations reflect differences in odds associated with a one-year increase in months of ADHD medication received in the prior two years. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. OR = odds ratio. SSRI = selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

a

Age group in years at start of long-term follow-up.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this national US study is the largest to date to examine whether stimulant and non-stimulant medication therapies for ADHD—widely used and efficacious in the short-term for core ADHD symptoms—are associated with differences in risk of substance-related problems. Medication periods were generally associated with reduced risk of substance-related events. Among male patients, these associations held concurrently, in the long term, across most ages, and across multiple sensitivity analyses. Among female patients, many sensitivity analyses supported a concurrent association, but some failed to support a long-term association with reduced risk. Even when the results failed to support reductions in risk, we found almost no evidence that medication increased risk of substance-related events, even among those with pre-existing substance use disorders.

Our results join a growing pharmacoepidemiologic literature on the social and behavioral benefits and harms of medication treatment for ADHD. They extend a finding of associations between stimulant medication and lower risk of substance-related problems in Sweden by demonstrating within-individual associations with not only lower concurrent risk but also lower long-term risk of substance-related events (19). Moreover, accumulating findings have also demonstrated within-individual associations with lower risk for injuries, transport accidents, criminality, depression, and suicide (26, 31–36). If these results reflect protective effects, it is possible that differing processes underlie decreased substance-related risk in the short and longer term. For example, concurrent associations may be due to decreased impulsive decision-making. In the longer term, accumulating treatment may produce changes in individual behaviors and decisions that aggregate into sustained decreases in substance-related risk, and it is also possible that any benefits result from alterations in prosocial engagement (e.g., as specified by Molina and Pelham (22)), although the apparently weaker long-term, relative to concurrent, associations suggest that at least some risk reduction may dissipate with time. Research with greater clinical detail should explore these possibilities.

The finding that long-term associations were less clear among female relative to male patients may suggest that ADHD medication is associated with less long-term benefit among women. However, our sample was not nationally representative, and differences in associations may reflect characteristics of the included male and female patients. For example, whereas we found more than two male adolescents for every one female adolescent, this sex ratio reversed among those aged 26 years or older (Table 3). More female ADHD patients received other psychiatric medications and psychotherapy than did male patients (Table 2), raising the possibility that self-referral for comorbid psychiatric problems may have increased the number of included adult female patients (37). Given little prior evidence of sex differences in associations between ADHD medication and substance-related problems (16), further investigation is warranted.

Although these data are national, large, and longitudinal, they are observational. We used multiple design features to attempt to rule out alternative explanations for the observed associations. In particular, within-individual comparisons ruled out all potential confounds that were constant within the individual over time (e.g., genetic substance-related liability), and we statistically adjusted for time since prior substance-related events. Sensitivity analyses supported the associations for men and—at least in the short-term—for women. At the same time, our analyses could not exclude all time-varying confounding. Our concurrent results could be consistent, for example, with the hypothesis that life events prompt some patients to simultaneously decrease their substance involvement and enter psychiatric treatment, thereby producing non-causal medication associations. However, we do not believe that this hypothesis explains the observed long-term associations, and the finding that the associations did not hold for SSRIs may also be evidence that it does not entirely explain our results. Moreover, prior findings of associations with decreased risk of accidents and injuries are arguably less susceptible to this alternative explanation (26, 32–35). Nevertheless, lacking randomization to medication, we cannot rule out all plausible explanations.

Indeed, SSRIs were associated with increased risk of substance-related events in the short—but not long—term. Although this pattern supports the specificity of the ADHD medication results, it also prompts questions regarding SSRIs. We believe that these associations are unlikely to represent true adverse effects but may rather reflect time-varying confounding by indication. Specifically, initiation of SSRI treatment among ADHD patients may follow the emergence of substance-related problems but still precede some events, producing a spurious positive association. Related dynamic treatment-initiation processes have been shown to underlie associations between antidepressant treatment and suicidal behavior (38), and this pattern highlights how selection processes can differ across types of medication. Consequently, whereas the SSRI results may strengthen conclusions from this study, they highlight how such negative controls should not necessarily be viewed as definitively ruling out all alternative hypotheses.

Several additional limitations have implications for future research. First, medication treatment in these data was mostly with stimulants. It will be valuable to examine non-stimulant treatments (including extended-release clonidine and guanfacine) and stimulant types more closely (15). Future studies should also consider dosage and polypharmacy effects. Second, we were able to examine adolescents and adults, but, because of the limited follow-up, these data were not ideally suited to examining earlier childhood treatment. Given studies showing lower substance-related risk among earlier treatment initiators (20), research should examine long-term associations following childhood medication receipt. Third, although there is little existing evidence of substance-specific medication associations (19), future studies should examine whether associations differ across classes of substances (e.g., alcohol, illicit substances). Fourth, we do not know whether our results would generalize to patients without commercial health insurance. Finally, our conclusions are constrained by the limitations of claims data, including undiagnosed conditions, medications taken outside of recorded prescriptions, and, notably, prescriptions filled but not taken. As a consequence, our analyses should be interpreted as analogous to ‘intent-to-treat’ analyses in clinical trials. It is also possible, given the size of the databases, that individuals who switched MarketScan-covered employers were included as multiple enrollee observations.

In conclusion, in a large sample of commercially insured adolescent and adult ADHD patients, ADHD medication was associated with lower concurrent risk and, at least among male patients, lower long-term risk of substance-related events. Given mixed results from clinical trials (39), our results should not be interpreted as supporting the use of ADHD medication in the treatment of substance-related problems. More broadly, our results cannot speak to the possibility of diversion or misuse of stimulants outside of treatment. However, they do join a growing evidence base of protective associations for patients receiving medication therapy. It may be useful to consider these associations in conjunction with other potential benefits and harms (e.g., growth delay) when making treatment decisions (40).

Supplementary Material

Supplement

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by NIMH grant R01MH102221, NIDA grant K99DA040727, the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 602768, the Swedish Research Council (2013-2280), the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (2014–2780), and the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, which is funded by NCATS grant TL1TR001107. The authors thank Kelsey Wiggs for assistance with table preparation. MarketScan is a registered trademark of Truven Health Analytics Inc.

Footnotes

Disclosures

Dr. Gibbons has served as an expert witness in cases involving the U.S. Department of Justice and Wyeth, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Henrik Larsson has served as a speaker for Eli-Lilly and Shire and has received a research grant from Shire, and Paul Lichtenstein has served as a speaker for Medice, all outside the submitted work. The authors report no additional competing interests.

References

  • 1.Polanczyk GV, Salum GA, Sugaya LS, Caye A, Rohde LA. Annual research review: A meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015;56(3):345–65. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lahey BB, Lee SS, Sibley MH, Applegate B, Molina BSG, Pelham WE. Predictors of adolescent outcomes among 4–6-year-old children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Abnorm Psychol. 2016;125(2):168–81. doi: 10.1037/abn0000086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Costello EJ, Maughan B. Annual research review: Optimal outcomes of child and adolescent mental illness. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015;56(3):324–41. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Charach A, Yeung E, Climans T, Lillie E. Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and future substance use disorders: Comparative meta-analyses. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;50(1):9–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2010.09.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lee SS, Humphreys KL, Flory K, Liu R, Glass K. Prospective association of childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance use and abuse/dependence: A meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011;31(3):328–41. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sundquist J, Ohlsson H, Sundquist K, Kendler KS. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and risk for drug use disorder: A population-based follow-up and co-relative study. Psychol Med. 2015;45(05):977–83. doi: 10.1017/S0033291714001986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Skoglund C, Chen Q, Franck J, Lichtenstein P, Larsson H. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and risk for substance use disorders in relatives. Biol Psychiatry. 2015;77(10):880–6. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.10.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Quinn PD, Pettersson E, Lundström S, Anckarsäter H, Långström N, Gumpert CH, et al. Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and the development of adolescent alcohol problems: A prospective, population-based study of Swedish twins. Am J Med Genet Part B. 2016;171(7):958–70. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dalsgaard S, Øtergaard SD, Leckman JF, Mortensen PB, Pedersen MG. Mortality in children, adolescents, and adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A nationwide cohort study. Lancet. 2015;385(9983):2190–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61684-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Philipsen A, Jans T, Graf E, Matthies S, Borel P, Colla M, et al. Effects of group psychotherapy, individual counseling, methylphenidate, and placebo in the treatment of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(12):1199–210. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Steering Committee on Quality Improvement and Management. ADHD: Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2011;128(5):1007–22. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-2654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.AACAP Official Action. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46(7):894–921. doi: 10.1097/chi.0b013e318054e724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Singh I. Beyond polemics: Science and ethics of ADHD. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(12):957–64. doi: 10.1038/nrn2514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lambert NM, Hartsough CS. Prospective study of tobacco smoking and substance dependencies among samples of ADHD and non-ADHD participants. J Learn Disabil. 1998;31(6):533–44. doi: 10.1177/002221949803100603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kantak KM, Dwoskin LP. Necessity for research directed at stimulant type and treatment-onset age to access the impact of medication on drug abuse vulnerability in teenagers with ADHD. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2016;145:24–6. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2016.03.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Humphreys KL, Eng T, Lee SS. Stimulant medication and substance use outcomes: A meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70(7):740–9. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.1273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Molina BSG, Hinshaw SP, Eugene Arnold L, Swanson JM, Pelham WE, Hechtman L, et al. Adolescent substance use in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (MTA) as a function of childhood ADHD, random assignment to childhood treatments, and subsequent medication. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013;52(3):250–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.12.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Groenman AP, Oosterlaan J, Rommelse NNJ, Franke B, Greven CU, Hoekstra PJ, et al. Stimulant treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and risk of developing substance use disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;203(2):112–9. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.124784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chang Z, Lichtenstein P, Halldner L, D’Onofrio B, Serlachius E, Fazel S, et al. Stimulant ADHD medication and risk for substance abuse. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2014;55(8):878–85. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.McCabe SE, Dickinson K, West BT, Wilens TE. Age of onset, duration, and type of medication therapy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance use during adolescence: A multi-cohort national study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016;55(6):479–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.03.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Goldstein BI. Do stimulants prevent substance use and misuse among youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder? The answer is still maybe. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013;52(3):225–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.12.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Molina BSG, Pelham WE. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and risk of substance use disorder: Developmental considerations, potential pathways, and opportunities for research. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10(1):607–39. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Storebø OJ, Simonsen E, Gluud C. Methylphenidate for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. JAMA. 2016;315(18):2009–10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.3611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shaw P. Quantifying the benefits and risks of methylphenidate as treatment for childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. JAMA. 2016;315(18):1953–5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.3427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Surman CB, Monuteaux MC, Petty CR, Faraone SV, Spencer TJ, Chu NF, et al. Representativeness of participants in a clinical trial for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Comparison with adults from a large observational study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010;71(12):1612–6. doi: 10.4088/JCP.09m05344pur. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dalsgaard S, Leckman JF, Mortensen PB, Nielsen HS, Simonsen M. Effect of drugs on the risk of injuries in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A prospective cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(8):702–9. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00271-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lichtenstein P, Halldner L, Zetterqvist J, Sjölander A, Serlachius E, Fazel S, et al. Medication for attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder and criminality. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):2006–14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1203241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Efron B. Logistic regression, survival analysis, and the Kaplan-Meier curve. J Am Stat Assoc. 1988;83(402):414–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Allison PD. Fixed effects regression models. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lipsitch M, Tchetgen ET, Cohen T. Negative controls: A tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies. Epidemiology. 2010;21(3):383–8. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181d61eeb. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chen Q, Sjölander A, Runeson B, D’Onofrio BM, Lichtenstein P, Larsson H. Drug treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and suicidal behaviour: Register based study. BMJ. 2014;348:g3769. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chang Z, Lichtenstein P, D’Onofrio BM, Sjölander A, Larsson H. Serious transport accidents in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and the effect of medication: A population-based study. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(3):319–25. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.4174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Raman SR, Marshall SW, Haynes K, Gaynes BN, Naftel AJ, Stürmer T. Stimulant treatment and injury among children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: An application of the self-controlled case series study design. Inj Prev. 2013;19(3):164–70. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Man KKC, Chan EW, Coghill D, Douglas I, Ip P, Leung L-p, et al. Methylphenidate and the risk of trauma. Pediatrics. 2015;135(1):40–8. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-1738. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mikolajczyk R, Horn J, Schmedt N, Langner I, Lindemann C, Garbe E. Injury prevention by medication among children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A case-only study. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(4):391–5. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Chang Z, D’Onofrio BM, Quinn PD, Lichtenstein P, Larsson H. Medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and risk for depression: A nationwide longitudinal cohort study. Biol Psychiatry. 2016;80(12):916–22. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.02.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Simon V, Czobor P, Bálint S, Mészáros Á, Bitter I. Prevalence and correlates of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;194(3):204–11. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.048827. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gibbons RD, Coca Perraillon M, Hur K, Conti RM, Valuck RJ, Brent DA. Antidepressant treatment and suicide attempts and self-inflicted injury in children and adolescents. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(2):208–14. doi: 10.1002/pds.3713. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cunill R, Castells X, Tobias A, Capellà D. Pharmacological treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with co-morbid drug dependence. J Psychopharmacol. 2015;29(1):15–23. doi: 10.1177/0269881114544777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cortese S, Holtmann M, Banaschewski T, Buitelaar J, Coghill D, Danckaerts M, et al. Practitioner review: Current best practice in the management of adverse events during treatment with ADHD medications in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013;54(3):227–46. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement
NIHMS888905-supplement-Supplement.pdf (131.8KB, pdf)

RESOURCES