Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Icon

Neurofeedback or medication to treat ADHD?

___

Neu­ro­feed­back (NF) is an approach for treat­ing ADHD in which indi­vid­u­als receive real-time feed­back on their brain­wave activ­i­ty and taught to alter their typ­i­cal EEG pat­tern to one that is con­sis­tent with a more focused and atten­tive state.

While con­sid­er­able research sup­ports the effec­tive­ness of neu­ro­feed­back for many chil­dren with ADHD, rel­a­tive­ly few stud­ies have direct­ly com­pared neu­ro­feed­back to ADHD med­ica­tion. Because not all chil­dren respond well to med­ica­tion, and many par­ents have con­cerns about med­icat­ing their child, more data on how these treat­ments com­pare is need­ed.

A study pub­lished recent­ly in Pedi­atrics Inter­na­tion­al offers just such a com­par­i­son.

Par­tic­i­pants were 40 chil­dren in grades 1–6 new­ly diag­nosed with ADHD. Chil­dren were ran­dom­ly assigned to NF or med­ica­tion treat­ment with methylphenidate (MPH), i.e., the gener­ic form of Rital­in. The study was con­duct­ed in Thai­land and MPH was used because it is the only stim­u­lant approved for use in Thai­land.

NF par­tic­i­pants com­plet­ed 2–4 NF train­ing ses­sions per week over 12 weeks; each ses­sion last­ed 30 min­utes. The focus of train­ing was to sup­press theta activ­i­ty and increase beta activ­i­ty. All chil­dren but one com­plet­ed the treat­ment as intend­ed.

Chil­dren treat­ed with MPH began on a low dose which was increased week­ly until the opti­mum effect was achieved (how this was deter­mined is not clear). After titrat­ing to the opti­mum dose, chil­dren remained on it for 12 weeks.

To eval­u­ate the impact of each treat­ment, par­ents and teach­ers com­plet­ed the Van­der­bilt ADHD rat­ing scale before treat­ment began and after it end­ed. It does not appear that par­ents or teach­ers were blind to treat­ment. Although blind­ing would have been prefer­able, because this was com­pa­ra­ble for the two groups, the poten­tial con­found should be min­i­mized.

In the NF group, par­ents report­ed sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tions in both inat­ten­tive and hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms. The mag­ni­tude of the reduc­tion was mod­er­ate.

Teach­ers report­ed sig­nif­i­cant­ly few­er inat­ten­tive, but not hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms post-treat­ment; the reduc­tion in inat­ten­tive symp­toms was large.

For chil­dren treat­ed with MPH, par­ents and teach­ers report­ed sig­nif­i­cant reduc­tions in both types of symp­toms; the mag­ni­tude was large and repli­cates what has been report­ed in numer­ous stud­ies.

In addi­tion to core ADHD symp­toms, the Van­der­bilt includes 8 items where par­ents and teach­ers rate children’s aca­d­e­m­ic and behav­ioral per­for­mance; these items are summed to cre­ate a total per­for­mance score.

For NF treat­ed chil­dren, par­ents report­ed sig­nif­i­cant improve­ment in children’s total per­for­mance, as did teach­ers. For MPH treat­ed chil­dren, teach­ers but not par­ents report­ed gains in total per­for­mance.

When the impact of NF and MPH were direct­ly com­pared, teacher rat­ings indi­cat­ed that MPH was supe­ri­or for both inat­ten­tive and hyper­ac­tive-impul­sive symp­toms; dif­fer­ences in per­for­mance items did not reach sig­nif­i­cance, but tend­ed to favor MPH.

Based on par­ents’ report, there was no sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence between the treat­ments for either core symp­toms or the per­for­mance items.

Giv­en results from many pri­or stud­ies, it is hard­ly sur­pris­ing that both NF and MPH were effec­tive in reduc­ing core ADHD symp­toms in chil­dren.

What this study adds to the lit­er­a­ture is clear evi­dence that at least in the short-term, med­ica­tion is like­ly to have a greater impact on symp­toms than NF treat­ment, at least in school. Because many chil­dren with ADHD strug­gle espe­cial­ly at school, this is impor­tant to know.

How should these results be used when con­sid­er­ing med­ica­tion vs. NF for treat­ing a child with ADHD? First, although there is rea­son to expect that both treat­ments will be help­ful, med­ica­tion treat­ment would be expect­ed to have a greater impact than NF in the school set­ting.

Thus, for chil­dren whose symp­toms are more pro­nounced, results would appear to favor med­ica­tion. It is also almost cer­tain­ly the case that med­ica­tion would pro­duce these ben­e­fits faster then NF, as med­ica­tion tends to impact symp­toms imme­di­ate­ly while the ben­e­fits of NF would accrue over time.

How­ev­er, as dis­cussed in a recent issue of Atten­tion Research Update, there is evi­dence that NF ben­e­fits tend to per­sist after treat­ment ends, and may even increase over time. With med­ica­tion, in con­trast, treat­ment needs to be ongo­ing and sus­tain­ing such treat­ment over an extend­ed time frame can be chal­leng­ing. Thus, the ini­tial supe­ri­or­i­ty of med­ica­tion may very well dimin­ish.

Addi­tion­al head-to-head com­par­isons of NF and med­ica­tion treat­ment over more extend­ed time peri­ods will hope­ful­ly become avail­able soon.

– 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 the Atten­tion Research Update, an online newslet­ter that helps par­ents, pro­fes­sion­als, and edu­ca­tors keep up with the lat­est research on ADHD.

Related articles:

 

The Study:

Effec­tive­ness of neu­ro­feed­back ver­sus med­ica­tion for atten­tion deficit/hyperactivity dis­or­der (Pedi­atrics Inter­na­tion­al). From the abstract:

  • BACKGROUND: Neu­ro­feed­back (NF) is an oper­ant con­di­tion­ing pro­ce­dure that trains par­tic­i­pants to self-reg­u­late brain activ­i­ty. NF is a promis­ing treat­ment for atten­tion-deficit/hy­per­ac­tiv­i­ty dis­or­der (ADHD), but there have been only a few ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als com­par­ing the effec­tive­ness of NF with med­ica­tion with var­i­ous NF pro­to­cols. The aim of this study was there­fore to eval­u­ate the effec­tive­ness of unipo­lar elec­trode NF using theta/beta pro­to­col com­pared with methylphenidate (MPH) for ADHD.
  • METHODS: Chil­dren with new­ly diag­nosed ADHD were ran­dom­ly orga­nized into NF and MPH groups. The NF group received 30 ses­sions of NF. Chil­dren in the MPH group were pre­scribed MPH for 12 weeks. Van­der­bilt ADHD rat­ing scales were com­plet­ed by par­ents and teach­ers to eval­u­ate ADHD symp­toms before and after treat­ment. Student’s t-test and Cohen’s d were used to com­pare symp­toms between groups and eval­u­ate the effect size (ES) of each treat­ment, respec­tive­ly.
  • RESULTS: Forty chil­dren par­tic­i­pat­ed in the study. No dif­fer­ences in ADHD base­line symp­toms were found between groups. After treat­ment, teach­ers report­ed sig­nif­i­cant­ly low­er ADHD symp­toms in the MPH group (P = 0.01), but there were no dif­fer­ences between groups on par­ent report (P = 0.55). MPH had a large ES (Cohen’s d, 1.30–1.69), while NF had a mod­er­ate ES (Cohen’s d, 0.49–0.68) for treat­ment of ADHD symp­toms.
  • CONCLUSION: Neu­ro­feed­back is a promis­ing alter­na­tive treat­ment for ADHD in chil­dren who do not respond to or expe­ri­ence sig­nif­i­cant adverse effects from ADHD med­ica­tion.

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Leave a Reply

Categories: Attention and ADD/ADHD, Cognitive Neuroscience, Education & Lifelong Learning, Health & Wellness

Tags: , , , , ,

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

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters and more, SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking health and performance applications of brain science.

Follow us and Engage via…

twitter_logo_header
RSS Feed

Search for anything brain-related in our article archives