slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Childhood ADHD, Comorbidity, and Risk for Late-Adolescent Drug Abuse PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Childhood ADHD, Comorbidity, and Risk for Late-Adolescent Drug Abuse

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 46

Childhood ADHD, Comorbidity, and Risk for Late-Adolescent Drug Abuse - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 408 Views
  • Uploaded on

Childhood ADHD, Comorbidity, and Risk for Late-Adolescent Drug Abuse Ken Winters, Ph.D. Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research, Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota 2004 APA Annual Meeting New York Our Ex-Governor was a professional wrestler. Lake Wobegon Staff:

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Childhood ADHD, Comorbidity, and Risk for Late-Adolescent Drug Abuse' - omer


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Childhood ADHD, Comorbidity, and Risk for Late-Adolescent Drug Abuse

Ken Winters, Ph.D.

Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research,

Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota

2004 APA Annual Meeting

New York

slide2

Our Ex-Governor was a

professional wrestler.

Lake Wobegon Staff:

All above average.

Women are strong.

Men are good looking.

U of Minnesota,

Center for Adolescent

Substance Abuse Research

slide3

Acknowledgements

  • Funding provided by NIMH and NIDA(DA 12995)
  • Special thanks to the staff who made this study and presentation possible:
    • Gerry August, Ph.D. (co-Investigator)
    • George Realmuto, M.D. (co-Investigator)
    • Tamara Fahnhorst, M.P.H.
    • Andria Botzet, M.A.
    • Jessie Breyer, B.A.
    • Jodi Helseth, M.A.
slide4

Timeline: NIMH – NIDA

Baseline Follow-up Follow-upFollow-up

1 23

Year 1991 1994 19952001

Age 7-9 10-12 11-1318-19

slide5

Samples

  • ADHD sample initially identified at baseline with a multigate screening procedure; over 7,000 students (21 urban elementary schools) received scores on Conner’s HI scales
  • Revised Conner’s Teacher & Parent Rating Scales-Hyperactivity Index
  • Gate 1 - Teacher (HI-T) cut off score > 1.75 SD
  • Gate 2 - Parent (HI-P) cut off score > 1.75 SD
  • Comparison sample screened from same schools
  • HI-T < 1.0 SD
  • Screened youth assessed with parent DICA-R at Baseline, F-UP 1, F-UP 2
slide6

Eligibility for current study

  • ADHD group
      • DSM-III-R diagnosis of ADHD
      • “High Water Mark” diagnosis (Baseline, F-UP 1, F-UP 2)
        • included: ADHD only and ADHD w/externalizing
        • excluded: ADHD w/internalizing and subclinical ADHD
      • Data collected at F-UP 3
  • Comparison group
      • Absence of any DSM-III-R diagnosis(Baseline, F-UP 1, F-UP 2)
      • Data collected at F-UP 3
slide7

Groups for the Analysis

n attrition

ADHD Group

ADHD only 29 6

ADHD w/externalizing 96 13

Comparison 99 5

Overall attrition: 9.7%

slide8

Attrition Effects at F-UP 3 for the ADHD Sample – Baseline HI-T/HI-P

AssessedAttrition (n = 125) (n = 19)

Baseline Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t

HI-T 2.18 (.39) 2.22 (.43) ns

HI-P 1.97 (.42) 2.15 (.41) 1.99 (.05)

slide9

Attrition Effects at F-UP 3 for the ADHD Sample – Other Variables

  • Cases that do not have data at Follow-up 3 show
      • …. a trend toward
        • lower IQ,
        • lower baseline SES,
        • more frequently in a single-parent household,
        • having younger parents
      • …. at a significant level
        • biological mother with a lower level of
        • education
slide10

Outcome Assessment Measures

Follow-up 3:

1. Drug Use FrequencyMonitoring the Future Survey (Johnston et al., 2000)

all major drug categories (including tobacco)

1=never; 7=40+

2. DSM-IV SUD

Adolescent Diagnostic Interview (Winters et al., 1993)

Alcohol Abuse/Dependence

Marijuana Abuse/Dependence

Other Drug Abuse/Dependence

Use consequences

slide11

Outcome Assessment Measures

  • Follow-up 3:
  • Focus of the outcome variables:
    • lifetime drug use
    • prior year drug use
    • SUD diagnostic data
slide12

Demographics

ADHD-only ADHD w/ext. Comp

n 29 96 99

Gender (% male)86.3% 77.9% 69.2%

Mean age 18.1 18.5 18.2

% grad high school or current95.2% 89.3% 98.6%

Mean IQ (KBIT) 105.1 100.6 106.7

Mean SES (baseline)* 48.1 45.2 50.4 (.01)

% single parent family 24.1% 26.3% 7.1% (.01)

Ethnicity: 88% Caucasian

* Hollingshead, 1975, (occupation code x 5) x (education code x 3); Range 17 - 66

slide13

Research questions

1. What are the late adolescent drug use behavior outcomes of children with ADHD?

2. Do ADHD children with comorbid CD/ODD report greater drug use than ADHD children without comorbid CD/ODD?

3. What other childhood and adolescent characteristics distinguish drug-abusing from non-drug-abusing ADHD participants?

slide14

LIFETIME DRUG USE (Y/N)

F-UP 3: Youth self-report

ADHD-only ADHD w/ext Comp 2 Variables % % %

Used alcohol 95.7 88.7 84.1 ns

Used marijuana 73.971.0 51.2 7.52 (.02)

Used cocaine 8.732.8 15.0 9.02 (.01)

Used amph. 8.7 24.6 15.0 ns

Used ecstasy 4.3 31.1 17.5 8.29 (.02)

Used any other drug 17.4 47.5 28.8 8.77 (.01)

Used tobacco 73.9 83.3 68.8 ns

slide15

PRIOR YEAR DRUG USE (Y/N)

F-UP 3: Youth self-report

ADHD-only ADHD w/ext Comp 2 Variables % % %

Used alcohol 87.0 80.6 75.6 ns

Used marijuana 52.2 61.3 43.9 4.3 (.02)

Used cocaine 8.7 26.2 13.8 5.2 (.02)

Used amphet. 4.3 13.1 10.0 ns

Used ecstasy 0 14.8 10.0 ns

Used any other drug 8.7 29.5 13.8 7.4 (.02)

Used tobacco 81.3 94.0 81.5 ns

slide16

OTHER DRUG USE VARIABLES (Y/N)

F-UP 3: Youth self-report

ADHD-only ADHD w/ext Comp 2 Variables % % %

Tobacco - daily users 24.1 31.3 27.3 ns

Heavy alcohol (40+/ past yr)13.0 24.2 29.3 ns

Binge Drinking 17.9 32.6 20.9 ns

(girls=4+ drinks per sitting, boys=5+ drinks per sitting)

Heavy marij. (40+/ past yr)8.7 29.0 15.9 5.9 (.05)

Heavy other drug (40+/ past yr)0 3.3 0 ns

Early onset (<13 years) 9.1 27.9 15.4 5.1(.05)

slide17

OTHER DRUG USE VARIABLES - continuous measures of use history where significance found

F-UP 3: Youth self-report

ADHD-only ADHD w/ext. CompF

Variables M M M

Lifetime use

Total frequency 18.8 23.6 19.0 3.4 (.03)

Marijuana3.2 4.6 3.3 3.1 (.05)

Ecstasy 1.01.81.3 4.5 (.01)

Prior year use

Total frequency 16.8 21.5 18.4 3.2 (.04)

Amphetamine1.3 1.8 1.3 3.4 (.04)

Ecstasy 1.01.61.2 3.9 (.02)

slide18

SUD DIAGNOSES

F-UP 3: Youth self-report

ADHD-only ADHD w/ext. Comp2 Variables % % %

Alcohol abuse/dep 17.2 28.7 22.4 ns

Marijuana abuse/dep 13.8 31.3 20.6 5.0(.05)

Other drug abuse/dep 3.4 6.4 4.0 ns

Dep.on 1+ substances 13.8 21.9 18.2 ns

slide19

Other SUD and RELATED VARIABLES

F-UP 3: Youth self-report

ADHD-only ADHD w/ext. CompF

Variables M M M

# Alcohol sym (0-11)0.9 1.4 1.2 ns

# Marij. sym (0-11)0.9 1.9 1.1 3.3 (.05)

# Other Drug sym (0-11)0.1 0.4 0.2 ns

# Total Drug sym (0-11)1.9 3.4 2.4 3.8 (.05)

Dependence Vulnerability 0.9 1.4 1.0 ns

(# dep sym/ # drugs used)

Use Consequences (0-14) 1.0 1.9 1.3 ns

slide20

Research questions

1. What are the late adolescent drug use behavior outcomes of children with ADHD?

2. Do ADHD children with comorbid CD/ODD report greater drug use than ADHD children without comorbid CD/ODD?

3. What other childhood and adolescent characteristics distinguish drug-abusing from non-drug-abusing ADHD participants?

slide21

VARIABLES DISTINGUISHING ADHD SUBJECTS: SUD+ (n = 40) vs SUD- (n = 85)

Significant Variables (p < .01)

Childhood:

BASC -Aggression (> score SUD+)

BASC - Anxiety (> score SUD+)

BASC - Depression (> score SUD+)

Early onset (< 13-years) drug use (> SUD+)

slide22

VARIABLES DISTINGUISHING ADHD SUBJECTS: SUD+ (n = 40) vs SUD- (n = 85)

Significant Variables (p < .01)

Adolescence:

BASC - Aggression (> score SUD+)

BASC - Conduct (> score SUD+)

BASC - Hyperactivity (> score SUD+)

BASC - Attention (> score SUD+)

Woodcock Johnson (< performance SUD+)

High school drop-out (> SUD+)

Life stress events (> events SUD+)

Psychostimulant medication (> SUD+)

slide23

VARIABLES NOT DISTINGUISHING ADHD SUBJECTS: SUD+ vs SUD-

Non-Significant Variables

Childhood BASC - Hyperactivity, Conduct & Attention

Adolescent BASC – Anxiety, Depression

SES

Maternal depression

Maternal control/coping

Maternal locus of control

Single parent family

IQ

Childhood WJ

Childhood WRAT

Childhood psychostimulant medication

slide24

Summary

  • Late adolescent drug use outcomes were assessed from a community-based sample diagnosed as ADHD in their youth.
  • Drug use behaviors, including drug use history and SUD diagnoses, were generally elevated in the ADHD w/externalizing compared to the ADHD only and Comparison groups (small to medium effect sizes)
    • In terms of drug specificity, marijuana and ecstasy, to a lesser degree, emerged as two drugs with relatively consistent elevations among the ADHD w/externalizing group.
slide25

Summary

  • ADHD youth with a late adolescent SUD diagnosis showed some distinguishing characteristics
    • childhood: internalizing cluster, aggression, early drug use onset
    • adolescence: externalizing cluster,stressful life events, school/learning problems
slide28

Summary of Baseline Demographic Data for the Groups

  • The groups did not differ significantly on race, age, or gender.
  • Significant differences painted a more severe picture for the
  • ADHD w/externalizing group; they more frequently…
      • came from single-parent households
      • had a lower SES
      • lower IQ
      • a greater number of ADHD symptoms
      • scored less favorably on all parent-rated BASC scales,
  • The comparison group almost always scored more favorably on the
  • baseline demographic and psychosocial variables.
slide29

Diagnostic Assessment Measures

Baseline, Follow-up 1, & Follow-up 2:

Diagnostic Interview for Children & Adolescents

(Reich, 1992; DICA-R) DSM-III-R - Based

ADHD

Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Conduct Disorder

Overanxious Disorder

Avoidant Disorder

Separation Anxiety Disorder

Major Depressive Disorder (Past & Present)

Dysthmia

Adjustment Disorder

slide30

Stimulant Medication Grouping

Never Used Stimulants vs. Childhood Use vs. Adolescent Use vs. Extended Use

  • Inclusion criteria (must have positive ADHD diagnosis):
  • Never Used Stimulants: No stimulant use reported at all time points (Follow-ups 1994, 1995, 1997, & 2000)
  • Childhood Use: Stimulant medication use reported only at 1994 and/or 1995 time points
  • Adolescent Use: Stimulant medication use reported only at 1997 and/or 2000 time points
  • Extended Use: Stimulant medication use reported during at least one time point in each of the childhood and adolescent years
slide31

Demographics (by Stimulant Medication Groupings)

ChildAdol.ExtendNever

n 26 24 22 53

Gender (%male) 85.7 79.2 81.8 78.7

Mean age 18.9 18.4 18.1 18.4

% grad high school or current 100 87.5 87.5 90.6

Mean IQ (KBIT) 102.7 103.5 104.6 105.7

Mean SES (baseline)* 41.2 48.9 50.3 45.2

% from div/sep family 23.1 29.2 22.7 26.9

Ethnicity: groups > 88% Caucasian

* Hollingshead, 1975, (occupation code x 5) x (education code x 3); Range 17 - 66

slide32

Association Between Stimulant Medication Groups and Various Mediating or Moderating Variables

  • Significant differences did not emerge for most variables
  • across the 4 stimulant medication groups
  • Significant differences emerged between the groups on:
      • SES (childhood < adolescent & extended stimulant use)
      • early onset of marijuana use (childhood < extended)
      • Barkley parent scales of inattention and hyperactivity
      • ( inattention and hyperactivity = never used stimulants
      • or childhood-only use)
slide33

Stimulant Medication Grouping Categorical Outcome Variables PRIOR YEARDRUG USE(Y/N)

Variables Child Adol. Extend Never 2 % % % %

Used alcohol prior year 92.9 94.7 88.9 88.2 .8

Used marijuana prior year 57.1 73.7 78.9 73.5 1.9

Used cocaine prior year 28.6 36.8 17.6 23.5 1.9

Used amphetamines prior year 14.3 21.1 17.6 23.5 .6

Used ecstasy prior year 21.4 26.3 17.6 26.5 .6

Used any other drug prior yr. 35.7 47.4 29.4 35.3 1.35

Used tobacco prior year 80.0 100 100 85.2 5.4

slide34

Stimulant Medication Grouping Continuous Outcome Variables SYMPTOM COUNT(0-11; 4 abuse, 7 dependence )

Variables Child Adol. Extend NeverF M(sd)M(sd)M(sd) M(sd)

# Alcohol ab/dep symp 1.0 (2.1)1.8 (3.1) 1.5 (2.0) 1.1 (2.1) .9

# Marijuana ab/dep sym 1.4 (3.0) 2.1 (3.1) 1.3 (2.4) 1.2 (2.4) .7

# Other Drug ab/dep sym 0.1 (.6) 1.2 (2.9) 0.3 (1.3) 0.1 (.5) 3.3 (p<.02)

# Total Drug ab/dep sym 2.5 (5.0) 5.1 (7.4) 3.1 (4.6) 2.3 (4.4) 1.7

slide35

Stimulant Medication Groupings Categorical Outcome Variables

Variables Child Adol. Extend Never2 % %% %

Alcohol abuse/dep 19.2 30.4 36.4 23.1 2.3

Marijuana ab/dep 19.2 37.5 .22.7 28.3 2.4

Other drug ab/dep 3.8 16.7 4.5 2.0 6.9

Dep.on 1+ substances 15.4 37.5 22.7 13.2 6.6

Tobacco - daily users7.7 50.0 45.5 24.5 14.1 (p<..00)

slide36

Initial Screening

  • 7,231 1st - 4th grade children screened from 22 suburban elementary schools
  • Participated in a brief intervention program for children with disruptive behavior
  • Multigate screen
  • Revised Conner’s Teacher & Parent Rating Scales- Hyperactivity Index
  • Gate 1 - Teacher (HI-T) cut off score 1.6*
  • Gate 2 - Parent (HI-P) cut off score 1.3*
  • * 1.75 standard deviation units above the mean
  • * scores range from 0 - 3
slide37

Screening and Initial Sample cont.

  • 148 refused consent after Gate 1
  • 494 screened at Gate 2
  • 400 screened positive with HI-P (5.5% of orig. sample)
  • 91 lost mostly due to school boundary change
  • Thus, 309 disruptive children were eligible for the intervention
slide38

10-Year Tracking Method

  • Letter was sent to parents outlining follow-up study
  • Phone call to parents/youth detailing protocol
  • Youth and parents interviewed individually at nearby library or research office
  • Participants were compensated for their participation ($75 youth, $25 parent)
  • Web-based tracking techniques utilized for hard-to-find participants
slide39

ADHD Status Grouping Criteria

ADHD-only vs. ADHD with externalizing vs. Comparisons

  • Inclusion criteria for the ADHD-only and ADHD w/ext. groups
  • DICA-R Parent used to diagnose disorders
  • DSM-III-R-Based
  • Conducted at Baseline (1991), FU-1 (1994), & FU-2 (1995)
  • Diagnosis endorsed at least once during the 3 time points
  • ADHD-only group had no co-morbid diagnoses
  • ADHD w/ext. includes ODD/CD diagnosis at 1 of 3 time points
  • Inclusion criteria for the Comparison Group
  • HI-P & HI-T negative (<1 SD from the mean, score = <1.1)
  • No Diagnosis of ADHD, ext. or int. disorders at FU-1 & FU-2
slide40

Diagnostic Assessment Measures

Baseline, Follow-up 1, & Follow-up 2:

Diagnostic Interview for Children & Adolescents

(Reich, 1992; DICA-R) DSM-III-R - Based

ADHD

Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Conduct Disorder

Overanxious Disorder

Avoidant Disorder

Separation Anxiety Disorder

Major Depressive Disorder (Past & Present)

Dysthmia

Adjustment Disorder

slide41

Outcome Assessment Measures

Follow-Up 3 (2001)

1. Drug Use Frequency (DUF) (including tobacco )Based on Monitoring the Future Survey items:1 = never 5 = 10-19 times

2 = 1-2 times6 = 20-39 times

3 = 3-5 times 7 = 40+

4 = 6-9 times

2. DSM-IV Diagnostic Interview

Adolescent Diagnostic Interview (Winters et al., 1993)

Alcohol Abuse/Dependence

Marijuana Abuse/Dependence

Other Drug Abuse/Dependence (not including tobacco)

slide42

Outcome Assessment Measures

  • Follow-Up 3 (2001)
  • Focus of the outcome variables for this presentation...
    • prior year drug use (yes/no)
    • diagnostic data
slide43

Categories of Analyses

#1. Grouping (Standard)

ADHD vs.Comparisons (no diagnosis)

#2.Grouping (Externalizing)

ADHD only vs. ADHD/ODD/CD vs. Comp.

#3 Grouping (Internalizing)

ADHD/Anxiety/Depression vs. Comparisons

slide44

#1 Grouping (Standard)

ADHD vs. Comparisons (no diagnosis)

  • Inclusion criteria for the ADHD Group
  • DICA-R Parent used to diagnose ADHD
  • DSM-III-R-Based
  • Conducted at Baseline (1991), FU-1 (1994) & FU-2 (1995)
  • Diagnosis endorsed at 1 of the 3 timepoints
  • Inclusion criteria for the Comparison Group
  • HI-P & HI-T negative (<1 SD from the mean, score = <1.1)
  • No Diagnosis at FU-1 & FU-2 (no ADHD, depression, anxiety, oppositional defiant, or conduct disorder)