Juliano Laran and Chris Janiszewski recently published a study in Journal of Consumer Research (Vol. 37, electronically published Aug. 24, 2010, entitled "Work or Fun? How Task Construal and Completion Influence Regulatory Behavior."
It is an example of a simple research study in an evolving literature about self-control.
A prevailing notion is that the work involved in any self-controlling action is depleting; therefore, repeated difficult acts of self-control, even if successful, increase the chance of self-control failure shortly thereafter, because of the depletion of inner self-control resources.
The authors in this study hypothesize that there are several variables which affect the dynamics here:
1) individuals vary in their capacity for self-control
2) individuals who engage in actions which are inherently satisfying (fun) are not depleted by these actions, and do not experience a decrement in self-control afterwards
3) individuals for whom these same actions are merely work, and not fun, are depleted by their actions, and have less self-control afterwards
4) Activities which are incomplete have a neutral effect on subsequent self-control
5) Activities can be "reframed" as work, or as fun, and this reframing affects whether the activity is depleting or not.
The experiments described in this paper are, like many brief psychological studies of this sort, somewhat amusing to read about, and could certainly be criticized as somewhat shallow, cross-sectional portraits of a complex behavioural dynamic, with quite limited generalizability. The measure of "self-control," for example, involves measuring how much candy the subjects eat following a written exercise.
Yet, the results did support the hypotheses, allowing the following conclusions:
1) One's attitude towards a task has a very strong influence upon how the completed task will affect you afterwards. If tasks are perceived and experienced as work, as tedious, as unenjoyable, then they will leave you "depleted," and substantially more prone to unhealthy behaviours afterwards. If an attitude can be nurtured of tasks being enjoyable or fun, then the completion of these tasks leads to an increased sense of vitality, without any experience of depletion. .
2) While there may be mood or personality states or traits which influence these attitudes towards tasks, it is possible to reframe the activities in a beneficial way.
3) If some tasks cannot be reframed as "fun," than a neutral alternative could be to frame the activity as ongoing, and therefore never complete. Incompleted tasks, according to this study, have a more neutral effect upon self-control depletion. In the management of obesity, for example, nutrition management tactics, even if not subjectively enjoyable, would best be framed as a permanent lifestyle change, rather than a temporary "diet." An unpleasant "diet" is much more likely to cause regulatory failure after completion; this is certainly the almost invariable experience of all those who have managed their weight using spartan "diets." Yet, I would emphasize that something better than neutrality should be sought after, which, in the case of nutrition management, means that one's permanent nutritional habits should also be enjoyable, rather than simply a self-care chore.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Medications for ADHD: newspaper headline
I have just looked at a front-page newspaper article by Carolyn Abraham in The Globe and Mail (Tuesday, October 19, 2010).
The article attempts to discuss the issue of whether medications are prescribed too often, for treating supposed attention deficit disorder, particularly in male children.
This is a very serious, important question. It warrants careful analysis of the issues, and a balanced evaluation of evidence.
Unfortunately, the article bothered me greatly, because of its bias. Here are some quotes from the article:
The article mentions important issues of concern, including the role of pharmaceutical marketing in changing medication prescription patterns. The diagnosis of ADHD, and the use of medications, appears to vary substantially from one locale to the next. The phenomenon of teachers coercing parents to seek medication treatment for their children is certainly problematic.
But the article did not give a balanced presentation of evidence.
It is more common, in my experience, to encounter young adults who have struggled with ADHD symptoms, without any medication treatment, all their lives. Often times, they, or their parents, have been strongly opposed to the idea of taking medications. Many of these young adults are very intelligent, but often have been unable to sit through the intellectual tasks required to develop their intelligence. Therefore, they have often not been able to achieve the goals which are reasonably available to them. There is really no way around the fact that reading, for example, is necessary to develop one's mind in the modern world; reading requires one to sit still and focus for extended periods of time. A great deal of the discipline required to develop one's intellect requires prolonged focus, often with tasks that are initially perceived to be uninteresting (with discipline, intelligence, and imagination, any so-called "boring" subject can become interesting--but if individuals are unable to focus during the initial "boring" introduction to a subject, this deep interest and engagement may never be found).
Treating ADHD with medication does not increase substance abuse. Rates of substance use in an untreated ADHD population are substantially higher. Here is a reference to a research article demonstrating this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18838643 It is certainly my clinical experience, that subjects with untreated ADHD have much higher rates of substance use, including cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, and harder drugs. The belief that treating ADHD with medications somehow increases risk for substance abuse, is simply unfounded--the opposite effect has been clearly shown. Exceptions exist, of course, in individual cases where adolescents may be abusing their medication, selling it, etc. Also, in many cases "ADHD" is not the only issue or problem; there may be antisocial behaviour, mood disorders, severe family or psychosocial problems, etc. which also obviously affect risks.
In terms of dangers or risks, it is of course important to examine negative side-effects or toxicity from stimulants. Such an analysis would fairly establish that risks are present, but of low incidence. For example, the risk of stimulants causing heart problems.
But a fair assessment of risk must include consideration of the risks of non-treatment! The obvious risks in an ADHD population are higher risks of accidental injuries, car accidents, sequelae from substance abuse, and reckless interpersonal behaviour. The risk pertains not only to those with untreated ADHD, but also to peers (for example, passengers in a vehicle). Here are a few references evidence about this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19739058
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18815438
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10790000
It is also, of course, very important to consider whether counseling or other types of therapy could be helpful for ADHD symptoms. The prevailing evidence shows that there can be small effects with existing therapy styles--this is certainly worth pursuing--but counseling often doesn't work very well. In cases where there are multiple other problems going on (e.g. anxiety, mood, family conflicts, etc.) then of course some type of external counseling support would be preferable to simply obtaining a stimulant prescription. The notion that "a few months of counseling" would make much of a difference for most kids with ADHD symptoms is absurd, and entirely unsupported by any evidence.
The idea of accepting that "that's what boys do," etc. is important to consider. But imagine, as an adult reader, that you are transported to elementary school again. Would it be a pleasant and rewarding situation for you to be in a classroom where the attitude "that's what boys do" prevails? Similar philosophies, in the adult world, have been used to justify various types of antisocial behaviour. The issue is not just about the individuals with so-called ADHD, but also about peers and community. Rambunctiousness need not be pathologized, but a desire for sustained attentiveness need not be pathologized either. Most people with ADHD histories have had serious difficulties not just in classroom settings, but in all spheres of life: home, friendships, community, work, etc. This issue is not just about artificially forcing people into the constraints of a boring, quiet classroom, although admittedly a sedate classroom environment could be a very unhelpful factor for some.
The article seems to suggest that male teachers would be preferable. What does this have to do with anything? Where is the evidence?! Is this claim not an insult to female teachers? And, in my memory, I don't remember male teachers being any better at managing a classroom of rambunctious kids, compared to female teachers. In fact, I can think of counterexamples, in which female teachers could have a gentle, maternal effect on hyperactive kids helping them to enjoy their day, so that their experience of a classroom could be more positive.
I do agree that there are learning or educational styles which could suit some individuals much better. And I agree that having opportunities to be physically active is extremely important--for everyone, not just for "ADHD kids." One of the authors in this article suggests that the decline of opportunities such as "wood shop" (the implication is, that these are mainly for boys) is part of the problem. But, imagine as a wood shop teacher -- where you are in charge of a band saw, a lathe, and a few power nail guns -- that you have a few kids who are easily bored, highly rambunctious, and have difficulty paying attention. Band saw + ADHD! Do you see any problems there?
Some "alternative learning styles" could already begin to produce an unnecessary tier, sending kids with more ADHD symptoms away from a more scholarly focus, towards developing a more physical trade. I don't think there's anything wrong with this per se, unless the child with ADHD symptoms actually wants to develop scholarly pursuits, and/or has an undeveloped talent for the type of scholarship which requires intense focus, and doesn't really want to be "tiered" in this way.
I recognize that this is an important issue, and everyone's point of view needs to be considered to work out the best solutions for health policy and for helping individuals. But this article, in one of Canada's leading newspapers, was disturbingly one-sided, and in my opinion could contribute to many individuals feeling stigmatized or rejecting the possibility of medication therapy without a balanced understanding of the evidence.
One of the main issues to contemplate, and really the main helpful theme in this article, in my opinion, has to do with degree or magnitude: ADHD symptoms exist on a continuum, with everyone in the population having some measurable quantity of attentional capacity, physical restlessness, or impulsivity. These could be considered traits, and each of these traits could be considered useful, positive, and "normal" in some ways, as well as negative or deleterious in others. Medications or other therapies have the capacity to change the degree of symptoms or traits somewhat, for anyone (it is a myth that stimulants improve attention only in those with ADHD). The degree of environmental change required to help an individual escalates rapidly as the degree of symptoms increases. So, there will always be a gray area, of individuals who have more "ADHD symptoms" than the population average, but fewer than those with extreme and highly disabling symptoms. Determining how to help these individuals may be highly influenced by the whims of the local educational or medical culture, combined with the attitudes of the individuals and their families. There may be no absolute, fixed standard possible, to determine exactly when to use a particular form of therapy.
I believe that such decisions should be influenced by the following factors:
1) clear informed consent on the part of individuals and families considering medications or other therapies. This involves having a balanced understanding of evidence, of the risks and benefits of treating and of not treating.
2) thorough assessment with careful attendance to family and psychosocial stresses--never an impulsive prescription of stimulants after a single 5-minute appointment!
3) Follow-up in all cases, with opportunities for talking therapies and behavioural therapy if desired.
4) A reasonable set of nationalized, standardized guidelines for assessment and treatment, to reduce the possibility that a person's geographic location, or the whims of teachers, doctors, journalists, etc. would be strong determinants of whether or not treatment of any kind is offered.
The article attempts to discuss the issue of whether medications are prescribed too often, for treating supposed attention deficit disorder, particularly in male children.
This is a very serious, important question. It warrants careful analysis of the issues, and a balanced evaluation of evidence.
Unfortunately, the article bothered me greatly, because of its bias. Here are some quotes from the article:
Boys: Fixing with a pill is easier than counselling [this was a heading]
There's a desire for the quick fix...the idea that - 'oh, we'll fix this with a pill' - rather than spend a few months in counselling, is pretty appealing. [this was a quote attributed to Gordon Floyd, the CEO of Children's Mental Health Ontario]
What are we drugging? Female teachers who don't understand boys like to run and jump and shout - that's what boys do. [this was a quote attributed to Jon Bradley, an education professor at McGill University]
Prescription rates for ADHD drugs, which like cocaine, are psycho-stimulants...
Mr. Floyd feels counselling stands a better chance of getting to the root of the problem with children, rather than using drugs for years to dull symptoms. Research shows, he says, that talk therapy can be very successful for kids with ADHD.
stimulant drugs may be dangerous for those with underlying heart problems - and those who do not actually have ADHD.
I have often wondered why no real connection has been made between the over-medicalization of our children and the increasing prevalence of illicit drug use in our society. When we give kids the message that they can be 'fixed' by popping a pill, it hardly seems surprising to me that they would later seek to solve their problems by using other available substances. [a quote attributed to Judy McGuire, a "Globe Catalyst"]
The article mentions important issues of concern, including the role of pharmaceutical marketing in changing medication prescription patterns. The diagnosis of ADHD, and the use of medications, appears to vary substantially from one locale to the next. The phenomenon of teachers coercing parents to seek medication treatment for their children is certainly problematic.
But the article did not give a balanced presentation of evidence.
It is more common, in my experience, to encounter young adults who have struggled with ADHD symptoms, without any medication treatment, all their lives. Often times, they, or their parents, have been strongly opposed to the idea of taking medications. Many of these young adults are very intelligent, but often have been unable to sit through the intellectual tasks required to develop their intelligence. Therefore, they have often not been able to achieve the goals which are reasonably available to them. There is really no way around the fact that reading, for example, is necessary to develop one's mind in the modern world; reading requires one to sit still and focus for extended periods of time. A great deal of the discipline required to develop one's intellect requires prolonged focus, often with tasks that are initially perceived to be uninteresting (with discipline, intelligence, and imagination, any so-called "boring" subject can become interesting--but if individuals are unable to focus during the initial "boring" introduction to a subject, this deep interest and engagement may never be found).
Treating ADHD with medication does not increase substance abuse. Rates of substance use in an untreated ADHD population are substantially higher. Here is a reference to a research article demonstrating this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18838643 It is certainly my clinical experience, that subjects with untreated ADHD have much higher rates of substance use, including cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, and harder drugs. The belief that treating ADHD with medications somehow increases risk for substance abuse, is simply unfounded--the opposite effect has been clearly shown. Exceptions exist, of course, in individual cases where adolescents may be abusing their medication, selling it, etc. Also, in many cases "ADHD" is not the only issue or problem; there may be antisocial behaviour, mood disorders, severe family or psychosocial problems, etc. which also obviously affect risks.
In terms of dangers or risks, it is of course important to examine negative side-effects or toxicity from stimulants. Such an analysis would fairly establish that risks are present, but of low incidence. For example, the risk of stimulants causing heart problems.
But a fair assessment of risk must include consideration of the risks of non-treatment! The obvious risks in an ADHD population are higher risks of accidental injuries, car accidents, sequelae from substance abuse, and reckless interpersonal behaviour. The risk pertains not only to those with untreated ADHD, but also to peers (for example, passengers in a vehicle). Here are a few references evidence about this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19739058
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18815438
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10790000
It is also, of course, very important to consider whether counseling or other types of therapy could be helpful for ADHD symptoms. The prevailing evidence shows that there can be small effects with existing therapy styles--this is certainly worth pursuing--but counseling often doesn't work very well. In cases where there are multiple other problems going on (e.g. anxiety, mood, family conflicts, etc.) then of course some type of external counseling support would be preferable to simply obtaining a stimulant prescription. The notion that "a few months of counseling" would make much of a difference for most kids with ADHD symptoms is absurd, and entirely unsupported by any evidence.
The idea of accepting that "that's what boys do," etc. is important to consider. But imagine, as an adult reader, that you are transported to elementary school again. Would it be a pleasant and rewarding situation for you to be in a classroom where the attitude "that's what boys do" prevails? Similar philosophies, in the adult world, have been used to justify various types of antisocial behaviour. The issue is not just about the individuals with so-called ADHD, but also about peers and community. Rambunctiousness need not be pathologized, but a desire for sustained attentiveness need not be pathologized either. Most people with ADHD histories have had serious difficulties not just in classroom settings, but in all spheres of life: home, friendships, community, work, etc. This issue is not just about artificially forcing people into the constraints of a boring, quiet classroom, although admittedly a sedate classroom environment could be a very unhelpful factor for some.
The article seems to suggest that male teachers would be preferable. What does this have to do with anything? Where is the evidence?! Is this claim not an insult to female teachers? And, in my memory, I don't remember male teachers being any better at managing a classroom of rambunctious kids, compared to female teachers. In fact, I can think of counterexamples, in which female teachers could have a gentle, maternal effect on hyperactive kids helping them to enjoy their day, so that their experience of a classroom could be more positive.
I do agree that there are learning or educational styles which could suit some individuals much better. And I agree that having opportunities to be physically active is extremely important--for everyone, not just for "ADHD kids." One of the authors in this article suggests that the decline of opportunities such as "wood shop" (the implication is, that these are mainly for boys) is part of the problem. But, imagine as a wood shop teacher -- where you are in charge of a band saw, a lathe, and a few power nail guns -- that you have a few kids who are easily bored, highly rambunctious, and have difficulty paying attention. Band saw + ADHD! Do you see any problems there?
Some "alternative learning styles" could already begin to produce an unnecessary tier, sending kids with more ADHD symptoms away from a more scholarly focus, towards developing a more physical trade. I don't think there's anything wrong with this per se, unless the child with ADHD symptoms actually wants to develop scholarly pursuits, and/or has an undeveloped talent for the type of scholarship which requires intense focus, and doesn't really want to be "tiered" in this way.
I recognize that this is an important issue, and everyone's point of view needs to be considered to work out the best solutions for health policy and for helping individuals. But this article, in one of Canada's leading newspapers, was disturbingly one-sided, and in my opinion could contribute to many individuals feeling stigmatized or rejecting the possibility of medication therapy without a balanced understanding of the evidence.
One of the main issues to contemplate, and really the main helpful theme in this article, in my opinion, has to do with degree or magnitude: ADHD symptoms exist on a continuum, with everyone in the population having some measurable quantity of attentional capacity, physical restlessness, or impulsivity. These could be considered traits, and each of these traits could be considered useful, positive, and "normal" in some ways, as well as negative or deleterious in others. Medications or other therapies have the capacity to change the degree of symptoms or traits somewhat, for anyone (it is a myth that stimulants improve attention only in those with ADHD). The degree of environmental change required to help an individual escalates rapidly as the degree of symptoms increases. So, there will always be a gray area, of individuals who have more "ADHD symptoms" than the population average, but fewer than those with extreme and highly disabling symptoms. Determining how to help these individuals may be highly influenced by the whims of the local educational or medical culture, combined with the attitudes of the individuals and their families. There may be no absolute, fixed standard possible, to determine exactly when to use a particular form of therapy.
I believe that such decisions should be influenced by the following factors:
1) clear informed consent on the part of individuals and families considering medications or other therapies. This involves having a balanced understanding of evidence, of the risks and benefits of treating and of not treating.
2) thorough assessment with careful attendance to family and psychosocial stresses--never an impulsive prescription of stimulants after a single 5-minute appointment!
3) Follow-up in all cases, with opportunities for talking therapies and behavioural therapy if desired.
4) A reasonable set of nationalized, standardized guidelines for assessment and treatment, to reduce the possibility that a person's geographic location, or the whims of teachers, doctors, journalists, etc. would be strong determinants of whether or not treatment of any kind is offered.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Atomoxetine for ADHD
Atomoxetine (Strattera) is one of the pharmacological options for treating ADHD symptoms (attention or concentration problems, hyperactivity, impulsivity) in children and adults. I think it is a good drug, quite safe, quite effective. It is not likely to help with mood or anxiety symptoms. Its effect is probably not quite as robust, for most people, compared to stimulants, but it has the compelling advantage of working continuously throughout the day, instead of wearing off (as the stimulants do) after a few hours. It takes at least 2 weeks of daily dosing for it to work, which differs from the immediate effect of stimulants.
While it has only a 5-hour half-life in the body, it probably works just as well if dosed once-daily compared to twice-daily. Side-effects are usually quite mild, including possible dry mouth and reduced appetite.
It is quite expensive, and is not covered well by medication funding plans in BC.
Here is a brief survey of some of the research literature about atomoxetine that I found interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20665133
This 2010 article demonstrates that once-daily atomoxetine is superior to placebo for treating adult ADHD symptoms, over a 6-month follow-up period. Treated patients typically had about a 30% reduction in their symptom scores. Doses were about 80 mg/day.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18448861
This is an important study, with 4 years of follow-up, treating adult ADHD patients on an open-label basis. The medication was tolerated well, again with ADHD symptom reductions of about 30%. Depression and anxiety symptoms were not affected. I tried unsuccessfully to find a clear statement about average doses used in the study; the dosing regime was similar to other studies, with a maximum of 160 mg/day. From the authors' previous paper on the interim results of this study, the mean dose was about 100 mg/day, the median about 120 mg/day. So these are higher doses than in some of the other studies, which typically had 80 mg/day dosing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20070786
This was a 6-week open study, showing that adults with "atypical ADHD" showed improvement with atomoxetine treatment, doses averaging about 80 mg/day.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20051220
This is an important 2008 meta-analysis, comparing effect sizes of different therapies for adult ADHD. Short-acting stimulants were best; long-acting stimulants similar (no advantage--if anything, not quite as high an effect size compared to short-acting stimulants); non-stimulants such as atomoxetine significantly helpful, but not quite as large an effect size as stimulants.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17110824This study shows modest but significant improvement in quality-of-life ratings for adult ADHD patients treated with atomoxetine 80 mg/day for 6 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20642391
This study shows reduction in high-risk behaviours in adolescents treated with atomoxetine over a 40-week period. Looking quickly at the results, I see significant differences between atomoxetine and placebo, but the absolute differences were quite modest in size (typically about a 10% change). Also the study design has a variety of weaknesses.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17474814
This is one of many studies showing that atomoxetine does not help with depressive symptoms. In this case, it was used as an adjunct to an SSRI.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19358788
This study showed no improvement in cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia treated with atomoxetine over 8 weeks. There were no adverse psychiatric effects, however. This is an important area to study, to determine if ADHD treatments such as atomoxetine are psychiatrically safe for those with other major mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679638
This 2010 article from Neurology shows that atomoxetine is not useful for treating depression in Parkinson Disease patients. I find this type of study useful, to look at psychiatric symptoms in medical illnesses. In such situations, the biological impact of the treatment often seems more clear to me, perhaps with fewer confounding psychological factors. The study did find that patients treated with atomoxetine (target dose 80 mg/day) had significantly less daytime sleepiness, and significant improvement in "global cognitive function."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19025777
This similar study shows a possible improvement due to atomoxetine treatment--averaging about 90 mg/day--of executive dysfunction in Parkinson Disease patients. I note also that there was a reduction in other symptom domains, such as apathy and emotional lability; these problems can be difficult to address in those with mood disorders.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17900980
Here's another interesting study, using atomoxetine to treat sleep apnea patients, averaging about 80 mg/day over 4 weeks. The atomoxetine did not help reduce apnea, but it did significantly reduce subjective sleepiness. There are only a couple of fragmentary mentionings of atomoxetine in treating narcolepsy, another disorder of excessive sleepiness; here is one case report: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16268387 Excessive sleepiness is another challenging symptom I see a lot of in young adult depression; antidepressants often don't help with the sleepiness, and tolerance tends to develop for stimulants. So atomoxetine may be another useful option.
While it has only a 5-hour half-life in the body, it probably works just as well if dosed once-daily compared to twice-daily. Side-effects are usually quite mild, including possible dry mouth and reduced appetite.
It is quite expensive, and is not covered well by medication funding plans in BC.
Here is a brief survey of some of the research literature about atomoxetine that I found interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20665133
This 2010 article demonstrates that once-daily atomoxetine is superior to placebo for treating adult ADHD symptoms, over a 6-month follow-up period. Treated patients typically had about a 30% reduction in their symptom scores. Doses were about 80 mg/day.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18448861
This is an important study, with 4 years of follow-up, treating adult ADHD patients on an open-label basis. The medication was tolerated well, again with ADHD symptom reductions of about 30%. Depression and anxiety symptoms were not affected. I tried unsuccessfully to find a clear statement about average doses used in the study; the dosing regime was similar to other studies, with a maximum of 160 mg/day. From the authors' previous paper on the interim results of this study, the mean dose was about 100 mg/day, the median about 120 mg/day. So these are higher doses than in some of the other studies, which typically had 80 mg/day dosing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20070786
This was a 6-week open study, showing that adults with "atypical ADHD" showed improvement with atomoxetine treatment, doses averaging about 80 mg/day.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20051220
This is an important 2008 meta-analysis, comparing effect sizes of different therapies for adult ADHD. Short-acting stimulants were best; long-acting stimulants similar (no advantage--if anything, not quite as high an effect size compared to short-acting stimulants); non-stimulants such as atomoxetine significantly helpful, but not quite as large an effect size as stimulants.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17110824This study shows modest but significant improvement in quality-of-life ratings for adult ADHD patients treated with atomoxetine 80 mg/day for 6 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20642391
This study shows reduction in high-risk behaviours in adolescents treated with atomoxetine over a 40-week period. Looking quickly at the results, I see significant differences between atomoxetine and placebo, but the absolute differences were quite modest in size (typically about a 10% change). Also the study design has a variety of weaknesses.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17474814
This is one of many studies showing that atomoxetine does not help with depressive symptoms. In this case, it was used as an adjunct to an SSRI.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19358788
This study showed no improvement in cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia treated with atomoxetine over 8 weeks. There were no adverse psychiatric effects, however. This is an important area to study, to determine if ADHD treatments such as atomoxetine are psychiatrically safe for those with other major mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679638
This 2010 article from Neurology shows that atomoxetine is not useful for treating depression in Parkinson Disease patients. I find this type of study useful, to look at psychiatric symptoms in medical illnesses. In such situations, the biological impact of the treatment often seems more clear to me, perhaps with fewer confounding psychological factors. The study did find that patients treated with atomoxetine (target dose 80 mg/day) had significantly less daytime sleepiness, and significant improvement in "global cognitive function."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19025777
This similar study shows a possible improvement due to atomoxetine treatment--averaging about 90 mg/day--of executive dysfunction in Parkinson Disease patients. I note also that there was a reduction in other symptom domains, such as apathy and emotional lability; these problems can be difficult to address in those with mood disorders.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17900980
Here's another interesting study, using atomoxetine to treat sleep apnea patients, averaging about 80 mg/day over 4 weeks. The atomoxetine did not help reduce apnea, but it did significantly reduce subjective sleepiness. There are only a couple of fragmentary mentionings of atomoxetine in treating narcolepsy, another disorder of excessive sleepiness; here is one case report: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16268387 Excessive sleepiness is another challenging symptom I see a lot of in young adult depression; antidepressants often don't help with the sleepiness, and tolerance tends to develop for stimulants. So atomoxetine may be another useful option.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
"Vitamin Water" and "Energy Drinks"
Here's another exploitative marketing scheme going on, in the middle of university campuses:
A sugary drink, consisting of water with 23 grams (about 5 teaspoons) of sugar per 500 mL, sold in large, colourful bottles of 300 - 500 mL each -- is being aggressively marketed to young people, with many implied claims about healthfulness. There are funny, witty, ironic statements printed on the bottles, which I think would appeal to young adults, and consolidate the notion that these are actually healthy.
A similar drink, which also contains caffeine and a bizarre mixture of added chemicals, is also being aggressively marketed, with free samples being given out by smiling, athletic young people in decorated sports cars. Today I noticed the energy drink people occupying one of the university's athletic fields with three large garishly decorated vehicles, hip musical accompaniment blaring out as they handed out samples. It was a bothersome irony that an athletic field (another health-associated prop) had to be the setting for this.
It is not a healthy practice to consume sugary drinks. Aside from the risk of tooth decay, and the exposure to metabolically harmful simple carbohydrates, the habit of consuming these drinks conditions people to expect sweetness while they hydrate themselves. Ordinary, pure, free drinking water becomes bland and undesirable. Though the direct health effects of having a glass of sweetened water are not catastrophic, there are a variety of indirect harmful effects:
-because you are quenching your thirst, and hunger, with a solution containing glucose or fructose, you will have a smaller appetite, and less money, to obtain or consume a healthy meal.
-because of the advertising involved, you will become conditioned to believe that you are engaging in a healthy behaviour.
-you will be financially supporting one of the largest junk food manufacturers in the world; the magnitude of harm done to the world's population (directly and indirectly) by such companies would be staggering to calculate.
-by purchasing these products, you are contributing to the phenomenon of retailers stocking their shelves with "vitamin water" instead of with healthier choices. In one of my favourite local cafes, my favourite healthy, locally-made fruit juice is gone, replaced by rows of multi-coloured "vitamin water." The reason was economic -- the bright colours and the sugar make for a rapidly-selling product.
The presence of vitamins, minerals, amino acids, etc. in these products is, in my opinion, irrelevant. It is pure marketing. If you need extra vitamins in your day, you can take a daily supplement, or have a piece of fresh fruit. The other ingredients are largely placebo as well, just like the colouring.
The case is made by some that there is less sugar in these drinks, compared to other familiar soft drinks. The difference is actually not very substantial, it reminds me of cigarette companies manufacturing "light" cigarettes, to try to sell people on the idea that this is "healthier."
I consider this type of marketing to have little ethical difference from a hypothetical example of cigarette companies hiring athletic, charming young people to hand out free samples from a flashy new car.
What bothers me most about this issue is the use of healthy-sounding nutrition talk ("vitamins," etc.) to persuade people to buy an unhealthy product.
I do not support a puritanical view of food & eating though. I think there are many sweet, wonderful, decadent foods to be savoured (in moderation of course!) Generally, dessert vendors do not market their tastiest pastries by emphasizing their vitamin content! In any case, such foods can be enjoyed more richly, in smaller, healthier portions, if one is less conditioned to expect sweetness frequently through the day, such as in drinking water.
Here are a few references to some pertinent review articles:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20631477
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20682226
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18809264
One exception, in which a case could be made to supplement drinks with vitamins, could be in the management of chronic, severe alcoholism. There is a syndrome called "Wernicke-Korsakoff encephalopathy", in which severely malnourished alcoholics develop irreversible, catastrophic brain damage due to metabolism of carbohydrates without adequate vitamin B1. Adding vitamin B1 (thiamine) to hard liquor, could conceivably prevent some cases of irreversible brain damage in malnourished alcoholics who keep drinking. I'm not sure if thiamine would be chemically stable in an ethanol solution though--if anyone knows the answer to this one, please let me know. Anyway, I don't believe this consideration is relevant to health management on university campuses (!)
Conclusion: if you're thirsty, drink water!
A sugary drink, consisting of water with 23 grams (about 5 teaspoons) of sugar per 500 mL, sold in large, colourful bottles of 300 - 500 mL each -- is being aggressively marketed to young people, with many implied claims about healthfulness. There are funny, witty, ironic statements printed on the bottles, which I think would appeal to young adults, and consolidate the notion that these are actually healthy.
A similar drink, which also contains caffeine and a bizarre mixture of added chemicals, is also being aggressively marketed, with free samples being given out by smiling, athletic young people in decorated sports cars. Today I noticed the energy drink people occupying one of the university's athletic fields with three large garishly decorated vehicles, hip musical accompaniment blaring out as they handed out samples. It was a bothersome irony that an athletic field (another health-associated prop) had to be the setting for this.
It is not a healthy practice to consume sugary drinks. Aside from the risk of tooth decay, and the exposure to metabolically harmful simple carbohydrates, the habit of consuming these drinks conditions people to expect sweetness while they hydrate themselves. Ordinary, pure, free drinking water becomes bland and undesirable. Though the direct health effects of having a glass of sweetened water are not catastrophic, there are a variety of indirect harmful effects:
-because you are quenching your thirst, and hunger, with a solution containing glucose or fructose, you will have a smaller appetite, and less money, to obtain or consume a healthy meal.
-because of the advertising involved, you will become conditioned to believe that you are engaging in a healthy behaviour.
-you will be financially supporting one of the largest junk food manufacturers in the world; the magnitude of harm done to the world's population (directly and indirectly) by such companies would be staggering to calculate.
-by purchasing these products, you are contributing to the phenomenon of retailers stocking their shelves with "vitamin water" instead of with healthier choices. In one of my favourite local cafes, my favourite healthy, locally-made fruit juice is gone, replaced by rows of multi-coloured "vitamin water." The reason was economic -- the bright colours and the sugar make for a rapidly-selling product.
The presence of vitamins, minerals, amino acids, etc. in these products is, in my opinion, irrelevant. It is pure marketing. If you need extra vitamins in your day, you can take a daily supplement, or have a piece of fresh fruit. The other ingredients are largely placebo as well, just like the colouring.
The case is made by some that there is less sugar in these drinks, compared to other familiar soft drinks. The difference is actually not very substantial, it reminds me of cigarette companies manufacturing "light" cigarettes, to try to sell people on the idea that this is "healthier."
I consider this type of marketing to have little ethical difference from a hypothetical example of cigarette companies hiring athletic, charming young people to hand out free samples from a flashy new car.
What bothers me most about this issue is the use of healthy-sounding nutrition talk ("vitamins," etc.) to persuade people to buy an unhealthy product.
I do not support a puritanical view of food & eating though. I think there are many sweet, wonderful, decadent foods to be savoured (in moderation of course!) Generally, dessert vendors do not market their tastiest pastries by emphasizing their vitamin content! In any case, such foods can be enjoyed more richly, in smaller, healthier portions, if one is less conditioned to expect sweetness frequently through the day, such as in drinking water.
Here are a few references to some pertinent review articles:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20631477
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20682226
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18809264
One exception, in which a case could be made to supplement drinks with vitamins, could be in the management of chronic, severe alcoholism. There is a syndrome called "Wernicke-Korsakoff encephalopathy", in which severely malnourished alcoholics develop irreversible, catastrophic brain damage due to metabolism of carbohydrates without adequate vitamin B1. Adding vitamin B1 (thiamine) to hard liquor, could conceivably prevent some cases of irreversible brain damage in malnourished alcoholics who keep drinking. I'm not sure if thiamine would be chemically stable in an ethanol solution though--if anyone knows the answer to this one, please let me know. Anyway, I don't believe this consideration is relevant to health management on university campuses (!)
Conclusion: if you're thirsty, drink water!
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Personality Tests
Here's a site which has a good selection of free personality questionnaires:
http://similarminds.com/personality_tests.html
I find that questionnaires of this type rarely give any novel information that you wouldn't know about yourself already, and be able to describe in a short self-descriptive paragraph. Many such questionnaires are actually copyrighted, and one needs to pay a fee just to have a copy. I've always had a bit of a problem with this, as I think it exaggerates the importance of what is usually a simple set of questions, which in my opinion should usually be in the public domain. It is annoying to read a journal article about questionnaires (which are often referred to, in a somewhat aggrandizing way, as "instruments," as though we are talking about some kind of highly sophisticated engineering technology), where the copyrighted questionnaire is referred to in the article, but you can't actually see the questions!
But spending some time with these things can have a few positives:
1) a framework for reflection -- sometimes questionnaires can deal with questions or phenomena which are relevant, but rarely thought about or discussed. The questions can be a cue or a framework to contemplate issues. Some of these issues could be addressed in a therapeutic discussion.
2) entertainment -- it can be an interesting or possibly enjoyable activity to fill out questionnaires, and compare your results with others in the population.
It would be important to resist any tendency to be self-critical about your results; everyone will have a unique set of responses, some of which may change over time, or be mood-dependent, as well. Questionnaires are an imperfect way to measure any sort of characteristic anyway. But in any case, a questionnaire is a bit like a lens or a camera--it produces data which can be informative. Sometimes the information can be unique or interesting, like a clever snapshot of yourself from a camera; but other times the information may not be very unique or interesting at all (like a poorly-lit or blurry snapshot of yourself). Even if you may have issues with the way a particular questionnaire is constructed, it can be interesting to see how your responses compare on a percentile basis with others. You may find certain phenomena about yourself that you previously thought were quite extreme, are in fact really quite close to the population average. Or you might discover there are other phenomena which are farther from the mean. Any of these findings might be a subject of future therapeutic dialog.
http://similarminds.com/personality_tests.html
I find that questionnaires of this type rarely give any novel information that you wouldn't know about yourself already, and be able to describe in a short self-descriptive paragraph. Many such questionnaires are actually copyrighted, and one needs to pay a fee just to have a copy. I've always had a bit of a problem with this, as I think it exaggerates the importance of what is usually a simple set of questions, which in my opinion should usually be in the public domain. It is annoying to read a journal article about questionnaires (which are often referred to, in a somewhat aggrandizing way, as "instruments," as though we are talking about some kind of highly sophisticated engineering technology), where the copyrighted questionnaire is referred to in the article, but you can't actually see the questions!
But spending some time with these things can have a few positives:
1) a framework for reflection -- sometimes questionnaires can deal with questions or phenomena which are relevant, but rarely thought about or discussed. The questions can be a cue or a framework to contemplate issues. Some of these issues could be addressed in a therapeutic discussion.
2) entertainment -- it can be an interesting or possibly enjoyable activity to fill out questionnaires, and compare your results with others in the population.
It would be important to resist any tendency to be self-critical about your results; everyone will have a unique set of responses, some of which may change over time, or be mood-dependent, as well. Questionnaires are an imperfect way to measure any sort of characteristic anyway. But in any case, a questionnaire is a bit like a lens or a camera--it produces data which can be informative. Sometimes the information can be unique or interesting, like a clever snapshot of yourself from a camera; but other times the information may not be very unique or interesting at all (like a poorly-lit or blurry snapshot of yourself). Even if you may have issues with the way a particular questionnaire is constructed, it can be interesting to see how your responses compare on a percentile basis with others. You may find certain phenomena about yourself that you previously thought were quite extreme, are in fact really quite close to the population average. Or you might discover there are other phenomena which are farther from the mean. Any of these findings might be a subject of future therapeutic dialog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)