Comorbid Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Substance Use Disorder: Treatment Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is predominantly a diagnosis of childhood and adolescence but has also been recognized in adults. It is associated with high rates of comorbid psychiatric conditions, particularly substance use disorders (SUD). METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted with a focus on ADHD, SUD, their comorbidity, and treatment considerations. RESULTS: Literature suggests that the use of methylphenidate (MPH) in children does not increase SUD later in life, and may in fact reduce substance use and abuse in adolescence and adulthood. Concurrent treatment of ADHD-SUD, which may be supported theoretically, has yielded inconsistent data on clinical trials. While MPH use in adults with ADHDSUD may be effective in alleviating ADHD symptoms, the benefits on SUD are not clear and remain controversial. Studies suggest that adults with comorbid ADHD-SUD do not misuse or divert their medication, but MPH does not consistently improve substance use. However, data are lacking for substances other than cocaine and stimulants other than MPH. While the risk of stimulant abuse should not be ignored, it may be minimized by selecting medications that are not readily crushed and solubilized for parenteral administration, or by utilizing non-stimulant medications and/or psychotherapy. CONCLUSION: While there are a lack of evidence-based guidelines for the concurrent treatment of ADHD and SUD, evidence to date suggests that stimulant medications should not necessarily be avoided for patients with comorbid ADHDSUD and that concurrent treatment may be a successful approach to improve ADHD outcomes without worsening SUD symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".