Industry leaders in improving attention. |
|
For more information call (800) 788 - 6786 or request
a |
New Outcome Reports From the MTA Study
Most subscribers to Attention Research Update are probably familiar with the initial results of the NIMH collaborative multi-site, multi-modal treatment study of children with ADHD (the "MTA Study", for short). This study is the largest and most comprehensive treatment study of ADHD ever conducted, involving 579 children between the ages of 7 and 9, each diagnosed with the combined subtype of ADHD (i.e. these children had both inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms). The study took place at 6 different sites around the country.
Children participating in the MTA study were randomly assigned to one of 4 different treatment conditions: combined treatment - a combination of carefully administered medication treatment and intensive behavioral intervention; medication management only; behavioral treatment only; and community care (i.e. these children received treatment as usual in their communities.) Fourteen months after treatment began, the children were assessed on a variety of different outcome measures covering a variety of domains of functioning, including primary ADHD symptoms, oppositional behavior, parent-child relations, peer relations, self-esteem, anxiety/symptoms of emotional distress, and academic achievement.
As is typical of a study of this size, the initial results were complex, but can be reasonably summarized. First, children in all 4 groups were doing better at the end of the study than they were when treatment began. Second, on some outcomes, combined treatment and medication management alone were superior to behavioral treatment or community care. Finally, no statistically significant differences were found between combined treatment and medication management on any of the 19 individual outcomes examined (although there was some indication that children receiving combined treatment fared somewhat better). For a comprehensive review of this initial set of findings, including a careful description of the different treatments provided in this study, click here. Reviewing this extensive summary of the initial MTA publication will be helpful in considering the information that follows.
The absence of significant differences between the combined and medication management treatments has been widely interpreted to indicate that behavioral interventions do not provide any incremental benefit to well conducted medication treatment. The MTA researchers themselves, however, never made this conclusion. In fact, two papers published in the February 2001 issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry suggest that the combination of medication and treatment is preferable in many cases to medication alone.
In the first paper -- “Multimodal treatment of ADHD in the MTA: An alternative outcome analysis” (Conners et al., JAACAP, 40, 159-167) -- the authors take a different approach to examining treatment outcome than that used in the initial publication. Rather than examine each outcome measure separately -- which was done initially to determine whether response to the 4 different treatments varied for specific outcomes -- the authors of this paper created a single composite outcome measure by averaging children’s scores on the individual measures. This composite measure can be thought of as an indicator of how each child was doing in general, across multiple domains of functioning. Although this approach eliminates the possibility of comparing treatment outcomes in individual domains, comparing the composite outcome scores for children in the 4 groups enables one to obtain a more global perspective on the impact of the different treatments.
The second "re-analysis" of the treatment outcome data -- “Clinical relevance of the primary findings of the MTA: Success rates based on severity of ADHD and ODD symptoms at the end of treatment” (Swanson et al., JAACAP, 40, 168-179) -- takes a slightly different approach. Rather than creating a composite outcome score that reflects how children were doing in multiple domains of functioning, the authors focus on parent and teacher ratings of core ADHD symptoms and symptoms of ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder). And, the primary question examined is the degree to which each treatment resulted in children displaying levels of ADHD and ODD symptoms similar to what is typical for children without ADHD. When this was true, treatment was considered to be successful. This approach to examining the data (i.e. the percentage of children showing non-deviant levels of symptoms at the end of treatment) is especially instructive.
Results
The results from analyses using the broad composite outcome described above are informative, and modify (somewhat) conclusions drawn from the initial study results. The authors report that, when this composite was used to measure outcome, children receiving combined treatment did significantly better than children in any other group. They did much better than the children who received community care or behavioral treatment alone, and modestly better than children whose treatment was restricted to careful medication management. This latter result differs from previously published findings in which researchers did not find statistically significant advantages for combined treatment relative to medication management for individual outcomes. When medication management alone was compared to behavioral treatment alone, medication treatment demonstrated a modest superiority. .
Results from the second paper help put these results in a somewhat clearer perspective. Recall that in this paper, the authors focused on the percentage of children in each group who had average parent and teacher ratings of ADHD and ODD symptoms at the end of treatment -- i.e. symptom ratings were similar to those of children without ADHD. Results from this analysis are shown below.
As the numbers indicate, over two-thirds of the children receiving combined treatment had “normalized” scores after 14 months, compared to only 1 in 4 treated in the community. Normalized outcomes were more likely when treatment included the careful medication component (i.e. combined or medication) rather than intensive behavioral interventions alone. Finally, combined treatment alone was modestly superior to medication management. Specifically, these data suggest that if children in the medication group had also received the MTA behavioral interventions, a greater number would have been in the “normal” range at the 14-month outcome assessment.
While these results demonstrate the dramatic improvements in core ADHD symptoms that are provided by effective treatment, it is also important to point out that such improvement is not always the case. Even when state-of-the-art medication and behavioral interventions were combined, about one-third of children continued to show elevated levels of ADHD/ODD symptoms 14 months later, relative to non-ADHD peers. Among those receiving the most carefully conducted medication treatment available, over 40% continued to show elevated levels of core ADHD symptoms. This does not mean, of course, that these children were not benefiting from the treatment. It does indicate, however, that many continued to experience difficulties despite receiving the best possible care currently available.
Summary And Implications
In general, results from these two papers are consistent with the initial set of published findings. As reported in the initial outcome paper, children in all 4 groups showed significant improvement. Children receiving careful medication treatment were doing somewhat better than children whose treatment was limited to intensive behavioral interventions. What is evident here that was not initially reported, however, is that adding behavioral interventions to careful medication management yields significantly better outcomes when a composite outcome measure is used (i.e. study 1 above) or when one considers the likelihood of normalized scores on core ADHD/ODD symptoms (i.e. study 2). Thus, the benefits of “multi-modal” treatment for ADHD are more clearly supported by these results. (Note: It is important to remember that participants in the MTA study were restricted to those with the combined subtype of ADHD and included no children with inattentive symptoms only. Thus, these results do not inform us about the efficacy of the different treatments for children with the inattentive subtype.)
In translating these findings to the issues faced by individual parents and clinicians, several things are noteworthy. First, parents need to be vigilant about trying to obtain treatment for their child that is as close as possible to treatments used in the MTA study. In regards to medication, this means a careful initial trial is necessary to determine the optimum dosage and medication for their child, followed by systematic monitoring to determine how their child is doing and make adjustments as indicated. The excellent results obtained by children treated with medication -- either alone or in combination with behavioral interventions -- points to the importance of this careful approach.
The results also indicate that the addition of well-designed and carefully implemented behavioral interventions could reasonably be expected to provide some modest additional benefit. One caveat to mention here, however, is that the behavioral interventions used in the MTA study would be difficult to duplicate in most communities. Thus, it remains unclear whether the intensity of behavioral interventions that are more routinely available in this age of managed care would be similarly effective.
Finally, it should be noted that the treatments tested in the MTA study were limited to medication and comprehensive behavioral treatment. As noted above, although these treatments were clearly shown to be helpful, many participants continued to experience important difficulty despite receiving state-of-the art care using these approaches. This highlights the need for continued efforts to develop other types of interventions. Parents should be aware that promising results have been reported for a number of alternative treatments including dietary interventions and neurofeedback. Thus, should traditional approaches to treating ADHD (i.e. medication and/or behavioral therapy) prove to be insufficient for a particular child, there are other options that may prove fruitful.
Note: This article originally appeared in Attention Research Update, an online newsletter written by Dr. David Rabiner, a Duke University psychologist and former member of CHADD's Professional Advisory Board. You can learn more about Attention Research Update and sign up for a free subscription at www.helpforadd.com.