Association Between Stimulant Treatment and Substance Use Through Adolescence Into Early Adulthood
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Possible associations between stimulant treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and subsequent substance use remain debated and clinically relevant. Objective: To assess the association of stimulant treatment of ADHD with subsequent substance use using the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA), which provides a unique opportunity to test this association while addressing methodologic complexities (principally, multiple dynamic confounding variables). Design, Setting, and Participants: MTA was a multisite study initiated at 6 sites in the US and 1 in Canada as a 14-month randomized clinical trial of medication and behavior therapy for ADHD but transitioned to a longitudinal observational study. Participants were recruited between 1994 and 1996. Multi-informant assessments included comprehensively assessed demographic, clinical (including substance use), and treatment (including stimulant treatment) variables. Children aged 7 to 9 years with rigorously diagnosed DSM-IV combined-type ADHD were repeatedly assessed until a mean age of 25 years. Analysis took place between April 2018 and February 2023. Exposure: Stimulant treatment of ADHD was measured prospectively from baseline for 16 years (10 assessments) initially using parent report followed by young adult report. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequency of heavy drinking, marijuana use, daily cigarette smoking, and other substance use were confidentially self-reported with a standardized substance use questionnaire. Results: A total of 579 children (mean [SD] age at baseline, 8.5 [0.8] years; 465 [80%] male) were analyzed. Generalized multilevel linear models showed no evidence that current (B [SE] range, -0.62 [0.55] to 0.34 [0.47]) or prior stimulant treatment (B [SE] range, -0.06 [0.26] to 0.70 [0.37]) or their interaction (B [SE] range, -0.49 [0.70] to 0.86 [0.68]) were associated with substance use after adjusting for developmental trends in substance use and age. Marginal structural models adjusting for dynamic confounding by demographic, clinical, and familial factors revealed no evidence that more years of stimulant treatment (B [SE] range, -0.003 [0.01] to 0.04 [0.02]) or continuous, uninterrupted stimulant treatment (B [SE] range, -0.25 [0.33] to -0.03 [0.10]) were associated with adulthood substance use. Findings were the same for substance use disorder as outcome. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found no evidence that stimulant treatment was associated with increased or decreased risk for later frequent use of alcohol, marijuana, cigarette smoking, or other substances used for adolescents and young adults with childhood ADHD. These findings do not appear to result from other factors that might drive treatment over time and findings held even after considering opposing age-related trends in stimulant treatment and substance use.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».