Reasons for treatment changes in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a chart review study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often cycle through multiple treatments for reasons that are not well documented. This study analyzed the reasons underlying treatment changes among adults treated for ADHD in a real-world setting. METHODS: Data were collected via an online reporting form completed by eligible physicians between October and November 2020. Data for adult patients in the United States who were diagnosed with ADHD and initiated a treatment regimen within 1 to 5 years of chart abstraction were obtained. Reason for a treatment change was described for a randomly selected regimen episode, which spanned from treatment initiation until the earliest among treatment add-on/switch or discontinuation, death, or date of chart abstraction. The overall rate of ADHD/treatment-related complications were also described. Physician satisfaction with current treatment options for adult ADHD and opinions on areas for improvement were assessed. RESULTS: Data on 320 patients were reported by 152 physicians specializing in psychiatry (40.1%), pediatrics (25.0%), family medicine (21.7%), and internal medicine (13.2%). Patients had a mean age of 29.3 years; most were diagnosed with ADHD as adults (57.5%) and within the previous 5 years (56.5%). Selected treatment regimens included stimulants (79.1%), nonstimulants (14.7%), and combination therapy (5.6%) for an average duration of 1.9 years. Among patients with treatment discontinuation (N = 59), the most common reasons for discontinuation were suboptimal symptom management (55.9%), occurrence of ADHD/treatment-related complications (25.4%), and patient attitude/dislike of medication (25.4%). The main reasons for other key treatment changes were inadequate/suboptimal management of symptoms and cost considerations. Over 40% of patients had ≥ 1 documented ADHD/treatment-related complication, irrespective of whether they led to a treatment change. One in 5 physicians (19.8%) were very dissatisfied, moderately dissatisfied, or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with current treatment options for ADHD in adults; the top 3 suggested improvements were lower risk of abuse (71.7%), longer effect duration (65.1%), and fewer ADHD/treatment-related complications (61.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The top reasons for treatment changes among adults with ADHD are lack of efficacy and ADHD/treatment-related complications, highlighting the importance of developing more effective and safer treatments to alleviate the burden of ADHD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".