ADHD Medicines Reduce Suicide, Crime Risks in Sweeping Study
The findings come amid increasing debate around whether ADHD is being over-diagnosed and therefore over-treated with drugs like Ritalin. The research published in the British Medical Journal on Wednesday did not investigate whether patients are being accurately diagnosed, but it does provide evidence supporting medical treatment.
ADHD is characterized by difficulties with concentration and impulse control. Roughly 5% of children and 2.5% of adults are estimated to have the condition, which is also associated with an increased risk of substance misuse and self-harm. The researchers wanted to test whether the risk changed with medication.
The study design was meant to closely mirror a randomized clinical trial, considered the gold standard of research. The scientists looked at health registry data from almost 150,000 patients newly diagnosed with ADHD in Sweden. At a two-year follow-up, they found that patients taking medicine had a 17% reduction in suicidal behavior and a 15% drop in substance misuse. They also found declines in the risk for criminality and transport accidents. When looking at the recurrence of these behaviors, there were also benefits linked to the medication.
While the trial cannot show direct causation and could be confounded by factors such as ADHD severity, it provides doctors with vital evidence showing that drugs can address and reduce important risks, according to one of the authors. 'These data should inform clinical guidelines, policies and current debates,' said Samuele Cortese, a professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Southampton.
The benefit was greater for patients taking stimulant medications than non-stimulants in the study. Stimulants include drugs like Novartis AG's Ritalin, while non-stimulants include Eli Lilly & Co.'s Strattera.
The study results echo other similar conclusions, but 'the large sample size, use of a national registry, and more sophisticated analysis give greater confidence in these results that findings aren't explained by something else other than medication use,' said Adam Guastella, a clinical psychologist who works at Sydney Children's Hospital at Westmead and the University of Sydney's Brain and Mind Center. He was not involved in the research.
Prescriptions in England for ADHD medicines have increased 18% year on year since the Covid-19 pandemic, according to research published in the BMJ Mental Health this year. The surge is believed to be linked to greater awareness of the condition.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
30 minutes ago
- News18
For people with ADHD, medication can reduce risk of accidents, crime, suicide
Sydney, Aug 16 (The Conversation) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition that affects around 7 per cent of children and 2.5 per cent of adults. ADHD causes difficulties with holding and sustaining attention over periods of time. People with ADHD also experience hyperactivity and high levels of impulsiveness and arousal. This can make it difficult to plan, coordinate and remain engaged in tasks. ADHD is linked to problems at work, school and home, and to higher rates of mental illnesses such as anxiety. It's also associated with higher rates of long-term harms. Stimulant medication, such as methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine, is the most common treatment for managing ADHD symptoms. Most people with ADHD will respond to at least one ADHD medication. But rising rates of prescriptions in recent years have prompted concern for their effectiveness and safety. New research published today in the journal BMJ points to additional longer-term benefits. It found that people with ADHD who took medication were less likely to have suicidal behaviours, transport accidents, issues with substance misuse, or be convicted of a crime. What did the study do? The study tracked 148,581 people who received a new diagnosis of ADHD between 2007 and 2018. The authors used population-based data from Swedish national registers, including everyone aged six to 64 who was newly diagnosed with ADHD. The average age was 17.4 years, and 41per cent were female. Participants either started or did not start medication within three months of their ADHD diagnosis. The authors examined the effects of drug treatment for ADHD on five critical outcomes: suicidal behaviours, substance misuse, accidental injuries, transport accidents and committing crimes. They looked at both first-time and recurrent events. This study used a method that uses data from health records or registries to mimic the design of a randomised controlled trial, in an attempt to reduce bias. The researchers accounted for age, education, other mental and physical illnesses, prior history and use of other drugs to account for factors that may influence results. What did they find? Within three months of receiving an ADHD diagnosis, 84,282 (56.7 per cent) of people had started drug treatment for ADHD. Methylphenidate was the most commonly prescribed drug, accounting for 88.4 per cent of prescriptions. Drug treatment for ADHD was associated with reduced rates of a first occurrence for four out of the five outcomes: a 17 per cent reduction for suicidal behaviours, 15 per cent for substance misuse, 12 per cent for transport accidents and 13 per cent for committing a crime. When the researchers looked at people with recurrent events, the rate reductions associated with ADHD medication were seen for all five outcomes (including accidental injury). The effect of medication was particularly strong when someone had a history of these events happening frequently. This means those with the most severe symptoms may benefit most. Stimulant drugs were associated with lower rates of all five outcomes compared with non-stimulant drugs. It's likely these benefits are associated with improvements in attention, impulsivity and hyperactivity. People may be less likely to be distracted while driving, to self-medicate and show impacts from other mental health challenges. What didn't the study do? The large sample size, use of national linked registers and sophisticated design give greater confidence that these findings are due to medication use and not due to other factors. But the study was not able to examine medication dosages or track whether people reliably took their medication as prescribed. It also had no way to track the severity of ADHD symptoms. This means it can't tell us if this helped most people or just some people with severe symptoms. We know that ADHD medication helps most people, but it is not effective for everyone. So, we still need to understand why some people don't benefit from ADHD medication, and what other treatments might also be helpful. Finally, even though the study was rigorous in its design and adjusted for many factors, we can't rule out that other unaccounted factors could be associated with these effects. As prescribing increases, the size of the benefit decreases. A second study, published in June, used the same Swedish national registers and self-controlled case series design. This study also concluded that ADHD medication was associated with reduced risks for self-harm, accidental injuries, transport accidents and committing a crime. However, this study also showed that as prescribing rates increased nearly fivefold between 2006 and 2020, the size of the observed benefits of ADHD medications reduced. While remaining significant, the size of the associations between ADHD medication use and lower risks of unintentional injury, traffic crashes, and crime weakened over this time. This could mean people who are less likely to need ADHD medications are now receiving them. What are the impacts for patients and policymakers? People need to know that if ADHD medications are helpful for them or their children, they might also improve many other areas of life. These findings can also give governments confidence that their recent initiatives and efforts to increase access to ADHD support and treatment may have positive downstream impacts on broader social outcomes. But medications aren't the only ADHD treatment. Medication should only represent one part of a solution, with other psychological supports for managing emotional regulation, executive and organisational skills and problem-solving also beneficial. Psychological therapies are effective and can be used in combination with, or separately from, medication. top videos View all Yet research shows drug treatments are relied on more frequently in more disadvantaged communities, where it's harder to access psychological supports. Policymakers need to ensure medication does not become the only treatment people have access to. People with suspected ADHD need a high-quality diagnostic assessment to ensure they get the right diagnosis and the treatment most suitable for them. (The Conversation) SKS GRS GRS (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 16, 2025, 12:45 IST News agency-feeds For people with ADHD, medication can reduce risk of accidents, crime, suicide Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
How Goa managed to tame rabies: Inside state's drive that vaccinated 63,000 dogs in 30 days
PANAJI: Since Sept 2017, Goa has largely eliminated human rabies cases, earning a 'rabies-controlled' status in 2021 after three consecutive years without a single death from the virus. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The streak was broken by one case in 2023, but there were no fatalities in 2024 and none so far this year. 'Even if a single stray dog misses vaccination and sterilisation, it can lead to a litter of eight or nine puppies that are at risk,' said Nilkanth Harlankar, the state's minister for animal husbandry and veterinary services. The story began in 2014 when the threat of rabies in Goa was all too real: 17 people succumbed to the virus that year. There was no reliable data on the dog population — stray or pet — nor any formal record of dog mortality. Then came Mission Rabies, a fledgling NGO with a pilot surveillance project that uncovered a grim truth: of the 45 suspected animal cases they investigated, 39 tested positive for rabies. Instead of being daunted, they doubled down, aiming to vaccinate 50,000 dogs in just 30 days. By the end of the month, over 500 vets from 16 different countries joined forces with local teams and managed to exceed the target: they vaccinated 63,000 dogs. This momentum translated into policy the very next year. In 2015, the thenCM Manohar Parrikar signed an MoU with Mission Rabies, launching a full-fledged vaccination and sterilisation drive across the state. Following this, Goa had 24-hour rabies surveillance, an emergency hotline, rapid response teams, and field volunteers fanning out to every taluka, vaccinating and sterilising dogs, and assisting bite victims. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now From Sept 2017, human rabies cases in Goa virtually disappeared. But the Covid-19 lockdown brought fresh challenges. As tourism halted and markets closed, hungry stray dogs from neighbouring states wandered into Goa. Mission Rabies suspects this migration led to a spike in animal cases in border talukas. Goa's borders with Maharashtra and Karnataka remain points of vulnerability, with rabies cases still detected in talukas like Bicholim, Pernem, Sattari, and Canacona. 'We are vaccinating stray dogs in border talukas on a warfooting,' said Harlankar. In June 2021, it was made mandatory for visitors bringing pets into Goa to declare their animals and share vaccination records via the anti-rabies hotline to prevent cross-border transmission.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Why US budget cuts could derail future mRNA vaccine progress
mRNA vaccines are credited with helping to end the COVID-19 pandemic and save millions of lives. Since then, researchers have been developing the technology to prevent a variety of infectious diseases and cancer. But experts warn this progress has been severely impacted after US health secretary Robert F Kennedy announced cuts to mRNA technology research. In total, the US health department will cancel contracts and withdraw $500 million (€427 million) of research funding, it announced on August 8. The announcement was the latest in a series of anti-science policies brought in by President Trump's second term in office, including a political take-over of federal research grants and withdrawing from the World Health Organization. What does this mean for the future of mRNA vaccine development? We take a look. mRNA vaccines have a long history of safety and efficacy mRNA vaccines were first tested in mice to vaccinate against flu in the 1990s, then first tested in humans in 2013 to vaccinate against rabies . It was thanks to these decades of research and testing that mRNA vaccine technology was ready and safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Kennedy has been a longtime critic of the technology, saying in a video posted to social media platforms that mRNA programs are "troubled'. "We're prioritizing the development of safer, broader vaccine strategies, like whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms that don't collapse when viruses mutate," Kennedy said in the video. What other types of vaccine are in development? There are many types of vaccines in development that have different methods of helping the body to fight a virus. Each technology has advantages and limitations which depend on the disease, the target population, and practical considerations like production speed and costs. Vaccine technology platforms include live (but weakened) and deactivated "whole" pathogen vaccines. The polio vaccine is available in both forms, for example. There are also toxoid-based vaccines, which use inactivated bacterial toxins. Then there are viral vector vaccines, which train the immune system by introducing tiny viral pathogenic fragments into the body. DNA-based therapies are also being considered as another way to provide an accurate target for a human immune response. Luka Cicin-Sain, a viral immunologist at Germany's Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, is leading the development of a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine. The RSV vaccine is a viral vector product, which uses a low-risk mouse virus to deliver the RSV spike protein to the human immune system. Though still being tested, Cicin-Sain is hopeful that his platform will provide long-lasting immunity against RSV with a single immunization dose. Are other types of vaccines as good as mRNA vaccines? Despite the promise these other vaccine technologies have shown, they haven't had the same impact as their mRNA cousin. That's because the benefit of using mRNA technology as vaccines is the ability to quickly adapt their use for new pathogens. "Once you know the structure of the virus, the genetics of the virus, then you can produce a vaccine extremely rapidly," said Penny Ward, a pharmaceutical physician at Kings College London, UK. In some cases, mRNA vaccines can be more effective at training the body's immune response to a pathogen. "We don't seem to produce the same immune response to a DNA vaccine as we have to a [m]RNA vaccine," said Ward. Will a loss for mRNA research be a gain for other vaccines? There is no guarantee the $500 million funding will flow to other vaccine research. Kennedy is a longtime vaccine critic — he has fired the panel that makes vaccine recommendations and shared anti-vax sentiment, including during a measles outbreak in the US in May. Cicin-Sain worries that defunding one branch of vaccine science hinders overall progress in the research field. "I'm not saying that mRNA vaccines can solve everything, but why deny yourself a tool in your toolkit?" Cicin-Sain said. Kennedy's funding cuts will slow down RNA technology development, Cicin-Sain said, and drive American scientists to compete for funding outside the US, diminishing ongoing vaccine science. Will others step in to fund mRNA vaccine research ? While other private and philanthropical research funds do exist to fund mRNA vaccine technologies, it's unlikely they can fill the $500 million gap left by the Trump administration's cuts. There's also no guarantee other national governments will step in to fill the US void. "The funding in Europe has been stagnant," said Cicin-Sain. "And there are not so many [private] investors out there who think that vaccines are the best way to put their VC [venture capital] at work," he added. Ward highlighted another problem with cuts to publicly funded vaccine research — governments who fund vaccine research get first access to successful products, which is why Brits were among the first to get the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. "Government funding secures access for countries that are part funders for those products," Ward told DW. If private funders step in to fund mRNA vaccine research, it could reduce people's access to those vaccines at an affordable price. "If progress is to be made, and there's no source of government funding, the industry will fund [research] if they believe there's a market, but that will be reflected in the price of the eventual product,' Ward said. "No matter how you slice or dice, the net effects are going to be negative," Cicin-Sain said.
