Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Icon

A Controlled Trial of Herbal Treatment for ADHD

Many par­ents, health care pro­fes­sion­als, and edu­ca­tors agree that there is a press­ing need to devel­op effec­tive treat­ments for ADHD to com­ple­ment or sub­sti­tute for tra­di­tion­al med­ica­tion and behav­ior ther­a­py approach­es. This is because such treat­ments do not work for every­one, impor­tant dif­fi­cul­ties often remain even when these treat­ments are effec­tive, and evi­dence for the long-term ben­e­fits of these treat­ments remains less com­pelling than one would like. In addi­tion, in the case of med­ica­tion treat­ment, some indi­vid­u­als expe­ri­ence intol­er­a­ble side effects and many have con­cerns about tak­ing ADHD med­ica­tion for an extend­ed peri­od.

One alter­na­tive approach to treat­ing ADHD has relied on the use of Com­pound Herbal Prepa­ra­tions (CHP) derived from tra­di­tion­al Chi­nese med­i­cine. Prac­ti­tion­ers of this approach believe that such prepa­ra­tions have impor­tant cog­ni­tive enhanc­ing prop­er­ties because they sup­ply essen­tial nutri­ents, fat­ty acids, phos­pho­lipids, amino acids, B vit­a­mins, min­er­als, and oth­er micronu­tri­ents that are impor­tant for opti­mal brain growth and devel­op­ment. As a treat­ment for ADHD, the idea is that many indi­vid­u­als with ADHD have defi­cien­cies in essen­tial nutri­ents that com­pro­mise healthy brain devel­op­ment and result in ADHD symp­toms. Pro­vid­ing these nutri­ents via an appro­pri­ate­ly pre­pared herbal com­pound thus has the poten­tial to be ther­a­peu­tic and reduce these symp­toms.

This idea was test­ed recent­ly in a ran­dom­ized-con­trolled tri­al of a spe­cif­ic CHP for chil­dren with ADHD [Katz, Kol-Degani, & Kav-Vena­ki (2010). A com­pound herbal prepa­ra­tion (CHP) in the treat­ment of ADHD: A ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­al. Jour­nal of Atten­tion Dis­or­ders. Pub­lished online on March 12, 2010.] Par­tic­i­pants were 120 6–12 year-old chil­dren new­ly diag­nosed with ADHD based on a com­pre­hen­sive diag­nos­tic eval­u­a­tion. These chil­dren were all eval­u­at­ed at the She­ba Med­ical Cen­ter, one of the largest uni­ver­si­ty-affil­i­at­ed ter­tiary care cen­ters in Israel.

(Editor´s note: Dr. David Rabin­er, author of this arti­cle, pre­vi­ous­ly reviewed a 2005 meta-analy­sis whose find­ings need to be kept in mind to con­tex­tu­al­ize this new study. In the arti­cle Dietary Inter­ven­tion for ADHD: A Meta-Analy­sis, Dr. Rabin­er con­clud­ed that “Results from this meta-analy­sis pro­vide strong evi­dence that the behav­ior of chil­dren with ADHD can be made worse by dietary fac­tors, and that elim­i­nat­ing AFCs from their diets will, on aver­age, result in behav­ioral improve­ments. This result is con­sis­tent with with accu­mu­lat­ing evi­dence that neu­robe­hav­ioral tox­i­c­i­ty may result from a wide vari­ety of dis­trib­uted chem­i­cals.”)

Chil­dren were ran­dom­ly assigned to receive either the CHP (n=80) or a place­bo (n=40) that was spe­cial­ly pre­pared to taste, smell, and look sim­i­lar to the herbal for­mu­la. Ran­dom­iza­tion was done in a 2:1 ratio because the treat­ment was to last 4 months, and inves­ti­ga­tors wished to min­i­mize the num­ber of chil­dren who would receive place­bo treat­ment for which no ben­e­fit was antic­i­pat­ed.

Active ingre­di­ents in the CHP — brand name Nur­ture & Clar­i­ty — includ­ed Paeo­ni­ae Alba, With­a­nia Som­nifera, Cen­tel­la Asi­at­i­ca, Spir­uli­na Platen­sis, Baco­pa Monieri, and Mel­lis­sa Offic­i­nalis. All raw herbs used in the prepar­ing the com­pound were approved by the Israeli Min­istry of Health as safe, food-grade herbs.

Nei­ther par­ents, chil­dren, research assis­tants who test­ed the chil­dren or staff mem­bers who dis­trib­uted the appro­pri­ate for­mu­la to par­tic­i­pants knew who received the CHP and who was giv­en the place­bo. To con­firm that the place­bo prepa­ra­tion could not be dis­tin­guished from the CHP, 20 Israeli med­ical stu­dents were pro­vid­ed with both prepa­ra­tions and asked which was which; these stu­dents were unable to reli­ably tell them apart. Based on the infor­ma­tion pro­vid­ed, there­fore, this appears to have been a care­ful­ly con­duct­ed tri­al with strong ran­dom­iza­tion and blind­ing pro­ce­dures.

Pri­or to begin­ning treat­ment with the CHP or place­bo, chil­dren were admin­is­tered the Test of Vari­ables of Atten­tion (TOVA), a wide­ly used com­put­er­ized test of atten­tion and impul­siv­i­ty. In the TOVA, chil­dren sit in front of a com­put­er and are instruct­ed to respond using a par­tic­u­lar key when­ev­er a des­ig­nat­ed stim­u­lus appears. When any oth­er stim­u­lus flash­es they are not sup­posed to respond. The test lasts for over 20 min­utes and good per­for­mance requires the child to sus­tain atten­tion to an unin­ter­est­ing task for a rea­son­ably long peri­od of time.

Fail­ing respond when a response is required — errors of omis­sion — are believed to reflect prob­lems with sus­tain­ing atten­tion. Respond­ing when the wrong stim­u­lus appears — errors of com­mis­sion — reflect impul­sive respond­ing. Oth­er mea­sures from the TOVA include response reac­tion time and reac­tion time vari­abil­i­ty. Chil­dren receive a score on each scale that com­pares their per­for­mance to age-matched peers from a large nor­ma­tive sam­ple. They are also assigned an over­all score, again based on age appro­pri­ate norms.

Fol­low­ing base­line admin­is­tra­tion of the TOVA, chil­dren were treat­ed with the CHP or place­bo prepa­ra­tion over a 4‑month peri­od. At the end of 4 months the TOVA was admin­is­tered a sec­ond time. This enabled the researchers to deter­mine whether chil­dren receiv­ing the CHP demon­strat­ed sig­nif­i­cant improve­ment on the test com­pared to those who received place­bo.

- Results -

At the fol­low-up assess­ment, data was obtained on 73 of 80 chil­dren who received the CHP com­pared to only 19 of 40 who received place­bo. The sig­nif­i­cant­ly greater drop-out rate among place­bo-treat­ed chil­dren reflect­ed the greater num­ber of par­ents who were not sat­is­fied with their child’s response and who with­drew to pur­sue oth­er options.

Results from the TOVA were ana­lyzed in 2 pri­ma­ry ways. First, with­in each group, researchers test­ed whether there was sig­nif­i­cant improve­ment from pre-test to post-test. Then, they direct­ly com­pared CHP vs. place­bo dif­fer­ences con­trol­ling for age and sex. Because pre­lim­i­nary analy­ses indi­cat­ed that results were con­sis­tent across dif­fer­ent ADHD sub­types, i.e., inat­ten­tive, hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive, and com­bined, chil­dren with each sub­type were com­bined in all analy­ses.

For the with­in group analy­ses, chil­dren in the CHP group showed sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant improve­ment on all indices of the TOVA. In fact, their aver­age fell well with­in the nor­mal range on all TOVA vari­ables. In con­trast, those in the place­bo group showed small declines on each TOVA vari­able and con­tin­ued to per­form in the below aver­age range.

A direct com­par­i­son of the two groups yield­ed equal­ly strong results, as CHP- treat­ed chil­dren made sig­nif­i­cant­ly greater improve­ment than place­bo-treat­ed chil­dren on every TOVA scale. The mag­ni­tude of these group dif­fer­ences would be con­sid­ered large.

The authors con­duct­ed a final analy­sis in which they assumed that all con­trol chil­dren who with­drew would have improved as much as the aver­age child in the CHP group had they con­tin­ued and that all CHP chil­dren who with­drew would not have improved at all. Even when these con­ser­v­a­tive assump­tions were made, chil­dren in the CHP group were still per­form­ing sig­nif­i­cant­ly bet­ter on aver­age.

It should also be not­ed that care­ful assess­ments were con­duct­ed dur­ing the 4‑month tri­al on the safe­ty and tol­er­a­bil­i­ty of the CHP. No seri­ous adverse effects were report­ed and the rate of even mild adverse events among CHP-treat­ed chil­dren was actu­al­ly low­er than for chil­dren who received place­bo.

- Sum­ma­ry and Impli­ca­tions -

Results from this ran­dom­ized-con­trolled tri­al of a com­pound herbal treat­ment for ADHD clear­ly indi­cate sig­nif­i­cant improve­ment on an objec­tive mea­sure of sus­tained atten­tion and impul­sive respond­ing, i.e., the TOVA. Giv­en how care­ful­ly the tri­al was con­duct­ed, and the mag­ni­tude of the effects that were found, this is an encour­ag­ing and impres­sive result. Beyond the TOVA results, the fact that over 90% of par­ents kept their child on the herbal com­pound over 4 months — com­pared to under 50% of chil­dren receiv­ing place­bo — sug­gests that they were observ­ing real-world ben­e­fits in their child and were not receiv­ing pres­sure from teach­ers to ‘do some­thing’. Clear­ly, these find­ings under­score the poten­tial ben­e­fits of this herbal com­pound in the treat­ment of ADHD.

Despite these impres­sive results, how­ev­er, there remain sev­er­al impor­tant rea­sons for cau­tion regard­ing the poten­tial ben­e­fits of this treat­ment. First, this is only a sin­gle study and repli­ca­tion with anoth­er sam­ple would be impor­tant for increas­ing con­fi­dence in the find­ings. The need for repli­cat­ing treat­ment effects is impor­tant for any treat­ment approach and hope­ful­ly such work is already under­way.

Sec­ond, and I believe this is espe­cial­ly impor­tant, the out­come mea­sures used to eval­u­ate treat­ment impact were unfor­tu­nate­ly lim­it­ed. While the TOVA cer­tain­ly offers objec­tive evi­dence of improved atten­tion and reduced impul­sive respond­ing, the mea­sure­ment bat­tery would have ide­al­ly includ­ed behav­ior rat­ings made by par­ents and teach­ers. Such rat­ings would pro­vide a clear­er indi­ca­tion than the TOVA results of whether treat­ment yield­ed reduc­tions in ADHD symp­toms that were observed at home and at school, which are the out­comes that real­ly mat­ter. Although the fact that most par­ents kept their child on the herbal com­pound for the 4 months sug­gests that ‘real-world’ reduc­tions in ADHD symp­toms were evi­dent, col­lect­ing the stan­dard­ized behav­ior rat­ings is nec­es­sary to con­firm this.

Final­ly, the study pro­vides no real infor­ma­tion on how long any ben­e­fits of this treat­ment would be sus­tained. Is this com­pound some­thing chil­dren need to take indef­i­nite­ly — as is often true for med­ica­tion — or do the ben­e­fits per­sist even after the com­pound is no longer admin­is­tered? This would be impor­tant infor­ma­tion to col­lect in sub­se­quent work.

These lim­i­ta­tions not with­stand­ing, this is an inter­est­ing and impor­tant study that high­lights the need for addi­tion­al research on this promis­ing inter­ven­tion approach for chil­dren with ADHD.

Rabiner_David– Dr. David Rabin­er is a child clin­i­cal psy­chol­o­gist and Direc­tor of Under­grad­u­ate Stud­ies in the Depart­ment of Psy­chol­ogy and Neu­ro­science at Duke Uni­ver­sity. He pub­lishes Atten­tion Research Update, an online newslet­ter that helps par­ents, pro­fes­sion­als, and edu­ca­tors keep up with the lat­est research on ADHD, and teach­es the online course  How to Nav­i­gate Con­ven­tion­al and Com­ple­men­tary ADHD Treat­ments for Healthy Brain Devel­op­ment.

Relat­ed arti­cles:

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

2 Responses

  1. adri says:

    your blog is use­full for oth­er peo­ple

  2. Dr. Rebecca James says:

    This is an excep­tion­al­ly encour­ag­ing arti­cle!
    I am excit­ed to share this with my edu­ca­tion ther­a­py clients!

Leave a Reply

Categories: Attention and ADD/ADHD, Health & Wellness

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Search in our archives

Follow us and Engage via…

twitter_logo_header
RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)