Skip to main content
Download PDF

Treatment patterns among children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the United States – a retrospective claims analysis

BMC Psychiatry volume 22, Article number: 555 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurobehavioral disorder affecting approximately 10.0% of children and 6.5% of adolescents in the United States (US). A comprehensive assessment of the current treatment landscape is warranted to highlight potential unmet needs of children and adolescents with ADHD. Therefore, this study described treatment patterns and healthcare costs among commercially insured children and adolescents with ADHD in the US.

Methods

Children and adolescents with ADHD initiating pharmacological treatment indicated for ADHD were identified from IBM MarketScan Commercial Database (2014–2018). A treatment sequence algorithm was used to examine treatment patterns, including discontinuation (≥ 180 days following the last day of supply of any ADHD treatment), switch, add-on, and drop (discontinuation of an agent in combination therapy), during the 12-month study period following the index date (i.e., first observed ADHD treatment). Total adjusted annual healthcare costs were compared between patients with and without treatment changes.

Results

Among 49,756 children and 29,093 adolescents included, mean age was 9 and 15 years, respectively, and 31% and 38% were female. As the first treatment regimen observed, 92% of both children and adolescents initiated a stimulant and 11% initiated combination therapy. Over half of the population had a treatment change over 12 months—59% of children and 68% of adolescents. Treatment discontinuation over 12 months was common in both populations—21% of children and 36% of adolescents discontinued treatment. Healthcare costs increased with the number of treatment changes observed; children and adolescents with treatment changes (i.e., 1, 2, or ≥ 3) incurred an incremental annual cost of up to $1,443 and $2,705, respectively, compared to those without a treatment change (p < 0.001). Costs were largely driven by outpatient visits.

Conclusions

Over a 12-month period, treatment changes were commonly observed and were associated with excess costs, highlighting the unmet treatment needs of children and adolescents with ADHD in the US.

Peer Review reports

Background

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurobehavioral disorder affecting approximately 10.0% of children and 6.5% of adolescents in the United States (US) [1,2,3]. ADHD presentation may be predominantly inattentive (e.g., disorganized and forgetful), predominantly hyperactive-impulsive (e.g., extreme restlessness and tendency to interrupt others), or combined (i.e., criteria for both inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive ADHD are met) [4]. The manifestation of ADHD may impose a significant educational and psychosocial impact on children and adolescents with the condition [5,6,7], resulting in a high patient burden that commonly extends to their caregivers [8, 9]. Additionally, persistent ADHD symptoms may have long-term consequences, such as difficulty in securing stable employment and impaired productivity [10]. A recent study showed that 91% of patients with childhood ADHD do not achieve sustained remission into adulthood [11], suggesting lasting effects of ADHD across the patients’ life course.

Management options for children and adolescents with ADHD include non-pharmacological approaches, such as psychotherapy (e.g., behavioral parental and classroom training) and organizational training (e.g., target skill development), as well as pharmacological treatment (e.g., with short- and long-acting stimulants or non-stimulants) [3]. In the US, approximately two-thirds of children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD are receiving ADHD indicated medications [12] that have been shown to reduce ADHD symptoms [13]. However, among these patients treated with pharmacological options, treatment adherence and persistence tend to be low [14, 15]. ADHD treatments have also been associated with adverse effects such as appetite loss, sleep disturbances, and growth delays [3, 16] that may cause some parents of children and adolescents with ADHD to prefer psychotherapy options [17], which often requires heavy family or school involvement and may result in strains to family members and teachers [3]. Suboptimal management of ADHD among children and adolescents may lead to poorly controlled symptoms and lead to an increased burden on the patients as well as their parents, teachers, and peers.

To assess if the current treatment landscape meets the needs of children and adolescents with ADHD, an evaluation of ADHD treatment patterns (such as discontinuation and switching) among these populations is warranted, as frequent treatment changes may suggest suboptimal management with current treatments. Previous studies on ADHD treatment patterns have generally focused on specific subgroups of interest (e.g., a particular drug/drug class [18,19,20] or patient population [21]), and few studies have evaluated treatment changes in children and adolescents separately using the same methodologies to allow for the identification of any population-specific discrepancies. Importantly, limited information exists on the sequences of use of various ADHD medications in cases of multiple treatment changes that can provide insight to the journeys of patients with ADHD.

Furthermore, treatment changes can be costly, as evidenced in mental health conditions other than ADHD [22, 23]. For instance, treatment discontinuation may lead to additional clinic visits due to uncontrolled symptoms, and treatment switch may result in increased use of acute healthcare services due to adverse effects of new treatments [22]. Thus, healthcare costs associated with treatment changes may represent an undue burden, but this has not been extensively studied in ADHD. Therefore, the current study sought to comprehensively assess treatment patterns and the associated healthcare costs among children and adolescents with ADHD in a real-world setting. Findings of this study may inform clinicians and policymakers of the potential unmet need in existing clinical management of ADHD in these patient populations and help raise awareness of the associated burden.

Methods

Data source

Data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database covering the period between 2014 and 2018 were used. The database covers over 200 million individuals from more than 120 contributing employers and 40 contributing health plans. The database consists of medical and drug data for employees, their spouses, and dependents covered by employer-sponsored private health insurance and includes records of inpatient services, inpatient admissions, outpatient services, and prescription drug claims [24]. Data are de-identified and comply with the patient requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Therefore, no institutional review board exemption was required.

Study design and populations

A retrospective claims-based analysis was conducted to assess treatment patterns among two mutually exclusive cohorts of patients with ADHD—children (aged 6–12 years) and adolescents (aged 13–17 years)—who initiated a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved pharmacological treatment for ADHD (i.e., stimulants, non-stimulants) following a 6-month period without receiving any ADHD treatment to capture a newly initiated ADHD treatment regimen. The study period was defined as the 12-month period following the first observed ADHD prescription fill date (i.e., index date) and the follow-up period was defined as the 6-month period following the study period (i.e., patients were required to have 18 months of continuous health plan enrollment following the index date). The additional 6 months of follow up allowed for sufficient time to determine treatment changes within the entirety of the 12-month study period. The baseline period was defined as the 6-month period preceding the index date. The study design allowed for information on treatments received to be captured among a representative population of children and adolescents with ADHD, including both patients newly initiating a first-line treatment and previously treated patients starting a new treatment regimen.

Children and adolescents were included in the study if they met the following criteria: 1) had ≥ 2 diagnoses of ADHD on distinct dates at any time in the data (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth/Tenth revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM codes: 314.0x; ICD-10-CM codes: F90.x]); 2) had ≥ 1 prescription fill for an FDA-approved ADHD treatment on or after the first observed ADHD diagnosis; 3) had continuous health plan enrollment ≥ 6 months prior to and 18 months following the index date; and 4) had a 6-month washout period prior to the index date in which there was no prescription fill for an ADHD-related treatment. Patient characteristics were compared before and after applying criteria number 3 to ensure generalizability was maintained.

Patients who did not have a treatment change (defined in the next section) observed during the 12-month study period (i.e., patients who remained on the first ADHD-related agent(s) observed in the data following the ADHD diagnosis) were classified into the no treatment change cohort and patients who had ≥ 1 treatment change observed during the 12-month study period were classified into the treatment change cohort. The treatment change cohort was further stratified into 3 mutually exclusive cohorts based on the number of treatment changes observed (i.e., 1, 2, or ≥ 3).

Treatment changes and sequences

Treatment changes and sequences were examined at the agent level during the 12-month study period using a specific algorithm [25]. Agents with the same active ingredient were considered as the same medication, regardless of dosage or brand. Dose changes and dose titration were not considered as a treatment change and were included in the same treatment regimen. Treatment sequences of up to 3 consecutive treatment regimens were described. A treatment regimen was defined as all ADHD-related agents observed within 30 days of the first ADHD-related agent, wherein the first ADHD-related agent was identified using all prescription fills observed during the 12-month study period. For example, if a patient received agent X and then 15 days later received agent Y, the treatment regimen for the patient would be a combination therapy of agent X plus agent Y (Fig. 1). The start of a treatment regimen was defined as the date of the first prescription fill of an ADHD-related agent and the end of a treatment regimen was defined as the first ADHD-related treatment change or the end of the 12-month study period, whichever occurred earlier.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Schematic of treatment change definition

Full size image

Treatment changes observed included treatment discontinuation (defined as no ADHD-related agents for ≥ 180 consecutive days following the last day of supply of the treatment regimen), treatment switch (defined as initiation of a new ADHD-related agent with no prescription fills from the previous treatment regimen within the 30 days following initiation), treatment add-on (defined as initiation of a new ADHD-related agent with ≥ 1 other prescription fill from the previous treatment regimen within the 30 days following initiation), and treatment drop (defined as the discontinuation of an ADHD-related agent from a combination regimen while the other agent[s] from the regimen are not discontinued; Fig. 1). Requiring ≥ 180 days following the last day of supply of any ADHD treatment to be considered a treatment discontinuation or a treatment drop allowed for drug holidays and treatment interruptions to be accounted for. To investigate how results may differ by class of ADHD medication, treatment changes were also described among a subgroup of patients whose first treatment regimen observed consisted of only stimulants and those with only non-stimulants, in either monotherapy or combination therapy of multiple agents within the same class. Treatment combinations (i.e., ≥ 2 ADHD-related agents in a regimen) and non-pharmacological treatments (i.e., psychotherapy) were also descriptively reported for the first 3 treatment regimens observed.

Study measures and outcomes

The study measures and outcomes included baseline patient characteristics (e.g., age, gender, type of ADHD diagnosis [diagnosis of combined ADHD was only available from October 2015], comorbidities, prior pharmacological treatment), treatment characteristics (e.g., types of pharmacological treatment at the class and agent levels, receipt of treatment combinations and/or psychotherapy, and treatment duration of the first 3 regimens observed), treatment changes, and total annual healthcare costs associated with treatment changes. Total annual healthcare costs comprised medical (i.e., inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department) and pharmacy costs and were measured from the index date until the end of the 12-month study period. Total annual healthcare costs among patients with and without a treatment change, as well as that among subgroups with 1, 2, or ≥ 3 treatment changes were compared. Costs were assessed from the payers’ perspective and adjusted to 2019 US Dollar using the medical care component of the US Consumer Price Index [26]. All outcomes were reported separately for the children and adolescents with ADHD.

Statistical analysis

Baseline patient characteristics, treatment characteristics, and treatment changes were reported using means, standard deviations, and medians for continuous variables and frequencies counts and percentages for categorical variables. Differences in the total annual healthcare costs were compared using ordinary least squares regression models with robust standard errors. Adjusted annual healthcare cost differences were reported along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI), using robust standard errors, and p-values. The following control variables were used in the regression for cost differences (including a priori selected demographic characteristics and clinical characteristics with a standardized difference ≥ 0.1 between cohorts): age, gender, type of health plan, region of residence, year of index date, type of ADHD, anxiety (children only), psychotherapy visits during the study period (children only), and depression (adolescents only).

Results

Baseline patient characteristics

A total of 49,756 children with ADHD who met the study criteria were included. Among children with ADHD, the mean age was 8.8 years and 30.8% were female; these demographics were similar to that of the sample prior to requiring continuous eligibility. The first observed ADHD diagnosis among children was commonly hyperactive ADHD (43.9%), followed by inattentive ADHD (30.8%), and combined type ADHD (17.1%). During the 6-month baseline period, 11.1% of children with ADHD had depression and 11.0% had anxiety disorders. Other common baseline comorbidities included acute upper respiratory infections (26.3%) and acute pharyngitis (15.5%). Frequently used pharmacological treatments during the baseline period among children with ADHD included penicillins (17.0%) and antiasthmatic and bronchodilator agents (12.0%) (Table 1).

Table 1 Characteristics of children and adolescents with ADHD – Overall and by treatment change cohort
Full size table

A total of 29,093 adolescents with ADHD who met the study criteria were included. Among adolescents with ADHD, the mean age was 15.0 years and 38.1% were female; these demographics were similar to that of the sample prior to requiring continuous eligibility. The first observed ADHD diagnosis among adolescents was commonly inattentive ADHD (47.1%), followed by hyperactive ADHD (37.3%), and combined type ADHD (8.2%). During the 6-month baseline period, 22.3% of adolescents with ADHD had depression and 17.7% had anxiety disorders. Other common baseline comorbidities included acute upper respiratory infections (22.7%) and acute pharyngitis (12.9%). Frequently used pharmacological treatments during the baseline period among adolescents with ADHD included antidepressants (16.6%), dermatologicals (15.6%), and penicillins (12.4%) (Table 1).

Treatment characteristics of the first regimen observed

The majority (91.9%) of children with ADHD initiated a stimulant in the first treatment regimen observed, with 82.1% initiating a long-acting stimulant and 14.5% initiating a short-acting stimulant. Methylphenidate-based agents were the most common long-acting stimulants (60.9%) and short-acting stimulants (67.2%) received. Non-stimulants were initiated by 9.7% of children, with guanfacine being the most common non-stimulant received (51.8%). As the first treatment regimen observed, 10.5% of children received a combination therapy (i.e., ≥ 2 ADHD-related agents). The mean duration of the first treatment regimen observed among children with ADHD was 7.2 months (Table 2). Throughout the duration of the treatment regimen, 28.2% of children also received psychotherapy, with an average of 6.6 visits.

Table 2 Treatment characteristics among children and adolescents with ADHD – First treatment regimen observed
Full size table

The majority (92.4%) of adolescents with ADHD initiated a stimulant, with 82.9% initiating a long-acting stimulant and 16.0% initiating a short-acting stimulant. Amphetamine-based agents were the most common long-acting stimulants (57.1%) and the most common short-acting stimulants (59.2%) received. Non-stimulants were initiated by 8.8% of adolescents, with atomoxetine being the most common non-stimulant received (62.2%). As the first treatment regimen observed, 10.5% of adolescents received a combination therapy (i.e., ≥ 2 ADHD-related agents). The mean duration of the first treatment regimen observed among adolescents with ADHD was 6.5 months (Table 2). Throughout the duration of the treatment regimen, 35.8% of adolescents also received psychotherapy, with an average of 6.9 visits.

Treatment changes

At the end of the 12-month study period, 40.9% of children with ADHD had remained on their first treatment regimen observed and 59.1% had experienced a treatment change. Among children who experienced a treatment change on their first regimen observed, 20.9% had a treatment discontinuation, 23.4% had a switch, 8.1% had an add-on, and 6.6% had a drop. For those who discontinued treatment, discontinuation occurred within the first month following the initiation of the first treatment regimen observed in 35.0% of patients (Fig. 2A). Over the 12-month study period, 3,285 unique treatment sequences at the agent level were observed among children with ADHD, with 37.8% of children experiencing 1 treatment change, 15.4% experiencing 2 treatment changes, and 5.8% experiencing ≥ 3 treatment changes. Additionally, increasing proportions of combination therapy and psychotherapy use were observed in subsequent regimens (Fig. 2B).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Treatment changes and psychotherapy and combination therapy trends. A Pharmacological treatment changes at the end of the first regimen observed and time to discontinuation1−4. B Combination and psychotherapy use trend5. Notes: [1] Treatment discontinuation was defined as having no ADHD-related agents (of any type) for at least 180 consecutive days following the last day of supply of all ADHD-related agents included in the previous treatment regimen. [2] Treatment switch was defined as the initiation of a new ADHD-related agent (not part of the previous treatment regimen) with no prescription fills of the last ADHD-related agent(s) included in the previous treatment regimen within the 30 days following the newly initiated ADHD-related agent. [3] Treatment add-on was defined as the initiation of a new ADHD-related agent (not part of the previous treatment regimen) with at least one additional prescription fill of the last ADHD-related agent(s) included in the previous treatment regimen, within the 30 days following the newly initiated ADHD-related agent. [4] Treatment drop was defined as the discontinuation of an ADHD-related agent from a treatment regimen while the other agent(s) from treatment regimen are not discontinued for at least enough time to define a new regimen. [5] Psychotherapy and combination therapy of ≥ 2 therapeutic agents were measured between the start and the end of the treatment regimen. Psychotherapy may be underreported in claims

Full size image

At the end of the 12-month study period, 32.2% of adolescents with ADHD had remained on their first treatment regimen observed and 67.8% had experienced a treatment change. Among adolescents who experienced a treatment change on their first regimen observed, 36.4% had a treatment discontinuation, 18.8% had a switch, 6.5% had an add-on, and 6.1% had a drop. For those who discontinued treatment, discontinuation occurred within the first month following the initiation of the first treatment regimen observed in 33.5% of patients (Fig. 2A). Over the 12-month study period, 1,733 unique treatment sequences at the agent level were observed among adolescents with ADHD, with 47.5% of adolescents experiencing 1 treatment change, 15.9% experiencing 2 treatment changes, and 4.4% experiencing ≥ 3 treatment changes. Additionally, increasing proportions of combination therapy and psychotherapy use were observed in subsequent regimens (Fig. 2B).

When stratified by the treatment class received, among children with ADHD whose first treatment regimen observed consisted of only stimulants, 58.0% experienced a treatment change (20.2% treatment discontinuation; 23.3% treatment switch; 8.2% treatment add-on; 6.3% treatment drop), and among those with only non-stimulants, 65.0% experienced a treatment change (30.5% treatment discontinuation; 25.4% treatment switch; 8.7% treatment add-on; 0.4% treatment drop; Fig. 3). Among adolescents with ADHD whose first treatment regimen observed consisted of only stimulants, 67.1% experienced a treatment change (35.8% treatment discontinuation; 18.6% treatment switch; 6.8% treatment add-on; 6.0% treatment drop), and among those with only non-stimulants, 73.4% experienced a treatment change (47.3% treatment discontinuation; 21.4% treatment switch; 4.1% treatment add-on; 0.5% treatment drop; Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Treatment changes by treatment class of first regimen received1−5. Notes: [1] Treatment discontinuation was defined as having no ADHD-related agents (of any type) for at least 180 consecutive days following the last day of supply of all ADHD-related agents included in the previous treatment regimen. [2] Treatment switch was defined as the initiation of a new ADHD-related agent (not part of the previous treatment regimen) with no prescription fills of the last ADHD-related agent(s) included in the previous treatment regimen within the 30 days following the newly initiated ADHD-related agent. [3] Treatment add-on was defined as the initiation of a new ADHD-related agent (not part of the previous treatment regimen) with at least one additional prescription fill of the last ADHD-related agent(s) included in the previous treatment regimen, within the 30 days following the newly initiated ADHD-related agent. [4] Treatment drop was defined as the discontinuation of an ADHD-related agent from a treatment regimen while the other agent(s) from treatment regimen are not discontinued for at least enough time to define a new regimen. [5] Patients who received a stimulant and a non-stimulant in combination therapy (1.6% of children, 1.2% of adolescents) were excluded

Full size image

Healthcare costs

The unadjusted total annual healthcare costs per child with ADHD who did not experience a treatment change over the 12-month study period was $3,787. Adjusted regression models estimated that children with 1, 2, and ≥ 3 treatment changes over the 12-month study period incurred excess annual healthcare costs of $235 (95% CI: $10, $460), $743 (95% CI: $414, $1,071), and $1,443 (95% CI: $1,060, $1,826) (all p < 0.05), respectively, which were mainly driven by excess medical costs, particularly by outpatient costs (e.g., office visits; Fig. 4). Therefore, a positive relationship was observed between the number of treatment changes and total adjusted healthcare cost differences, with children with ADHD who had 1, 2, and ≥ 3 treatment changes incurring an additional 6.2, 19.6, and 38.1% in adjusted annual healthcare costs relative to those without a treatment change, respectively (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Unadjusted mean annual healthcare costs per patient per year and adjusted cost differences.1,2. * Significant at the 5% level. Notes: [1] Total healthcare costs per patient incurred during the 12-month study period were calculated among patients who did not experience a treatment change and among those who experienced 1, 2, or ≥ 3 treatment changes. Total healthcare costs were calculated from the payer perspective and adjusted to 2019 USD using the US Medical Care Consumer Price Index. [2] The unadjusted and adjusted cost differences for each cost component were estimated using generalized linear regression models. The adjusted models were adjusted for the following demographic and baseline characteristics in which the standardized difference between those with and without a treatment change was ≥ 0.1: age, gender, region, health plan, type of ADHD diagnosis, year of index date, anxiety (children only), patients with ≥ 1 psychotherapy visit (children only), depression (adolescents only)

Full size image

The unadjusted total annual healthcare costs per adolescent with ADHD who did not experience a treatment change over the 12-month study period was $5,376. Adjusted regression models estimated that adolescents with 1, 2, and ≥ 3 treatment changes over the 12-month study period incurred excess annual healthcare costs of $380 (95% CI: $0, $761), $1,653 (95% CI: $562, $2,744), and $2,705 (95% CI: $1,593, $3,816) (all p ≤ 0.05), respectively, which were mainly driven by excess medical costs, particularly by inpatient costs (Fig. 4). Adolescents with ADHD who had 1, 2, and ≥ 3 treatment changes incurred an additional 7.1, 30.7, and 50.3% in adjusted annual healthcare costs relative to those without a treatment change, respectively (Fig. 4).

Discussion

This large real-world analysis demonstrated that a sizable portion of children and adolescents with ADHD experienced a treatment change within 12 months of initiating a new ADHD treatment. In both populations, most patients initiated a stimulant, with increasing use of combination therapy and psychotherapy as patients progressed to subsequent treatment regimens. Treatment discontinuation and switch were particularly common; among those who discontinued, over one-third of patients did so within the first month of treatment. Overall, the 3,285 and 1,733 distinct treatment journeys observed within a 12-month period among children and adolescents, respectively, highlight that there appears to be no clear treatment path and patients with ADHD cycle through various treatment options. In addition to the patient burden associated with such treatment cycling, the frequent treatment changes observed was associated with excess healthcare costs, which increased as patients experienced additional treatment changes. Collectively, the findings of this study suggest that the current treatment options may not sufficiently meet the needs of children and adolescents with ADHD.

Previous studies evaluating treatment patterns in children and adolescents with ADHD have focused on specific drugs or drug classes [18,19,20, 27], and most cost analyses in ADHD have not evaluated healthcare costs associated with treatment changes [20, 21]. The current study expands the literature by capturing multiple treatment changes/sequences and the associated healthcare costs in these populations. Findings of the current study corroborated previous reports on the high rates of treatment discontinuation and switch that frequently occur within just a few months of treatment. A novelty of the current study is the use of a specific algorithm to capture various types of treatment changes and to stratify treatment patterns by class of treatment regimen received, which allowed for a comprehensive assessment of the respective treatment journey of children and adolescents with ADHD. Additionally, the definition of treatment discontinuation of ≥ 180 days is an important differentiation from previous studies, which generally used smaller treatment gaps when defining discontinuation [15]. Since it is common for children and adolescents with ADHD to omit medications during non-school days, when demand on attention is less, for reasons such as to reduce the experience of adverse effects from the medications [28, 29], the use of smaller gaps may capture these transient treatment interruptions, thereby overestimating discontinuation. Nonetheless, despite a conservative definition used in the current study, discontinuation was still commonly observed. Meanwhile, the use of data from a large claims database in the current study also allowed for the assessment of the association between healthcare costs and multiple treatment changes that has not been previously reported among children and adolescents with ADHD.

The findings that a high proportion of children and adolescents with ADHD underwent treatment changes during a 12-month period suggest that many patients continue to search for more optimal treatments after receiving the initial regimens. Literature evidence suggests that reasons for treatment changes could be treatment-related (e.g., adverse effects, suboptimal response, risk of abuse) [15], which implies advancement in treatment options may help reduce the rates of treatment changes. Understandably, treatment response may vary across individuals and a treatment change may not always indicate ineffective medication (e.g., stepped-care approaches [30]). It is of note that a stepped-care approach would mainly be captured as treatment add-on, which constituted a relatively small portion of treatment changes observed in this study. Meanwhile, a treatment change may be due to the emergence of new health problems or complications resulting from existing comorbidities [31], prompting the need for a new treatment plan. Alternatively, a treatment change may be part of a treatment plan that aims to better control comorbid symptoms [32]. Additionally, treatment changes may also be triggered by patient-related factors (e.g., lack of understanding of medication need, parents’ opinion), access-related (e.g., pharmacy shortages) factors [15, 33, 34], or cost factors (e.g., discontinue a treatment because it is no longer affordable or switch to a cheaper alternative). Importantly, the rationale for a treatment change may be patient-specific but may also be population-specific and differ between children and adolescents with ADHD, as suggested by the discrepancies in treatment patterns between these populations observed in this study. For example, children with ADHD appeared to experience more treatment switches than adolescents, whereas adolescents appeared to experience more treatment discontinuation and more treatment changes overall than children, highlighting the potential differences in ADHD management faced by these populations. Indeed, patient age has been shown to be a predictor of ADHD treatment discontinuation among children and adolescents, with higher risks of discontinuation and shorter time on therapy among patients ≥ 12 years compared to those < 12 years [35, 36]. The increased rate of treatment changes observed among adolescents with ADHD may be due to the patients’ evolving social roles with age, including increased responsibilities, autonomy in managing treatment schedules, and mounting peer pressure [4, 7], all of which may present as barriers to treatment adherence and persistence among adolescents. Additionally, a higher proportion of adolescents in the current cohort had inattentive ADHD than hyperactive ADHD, which was consistent with previous reports [3, 37, 38]. The characteristics of inattentive ADHD (e.g., difficulty with organization, forgetfulness [4]) may also contribute to poor persistence among adolescents. Future investigations are warranted to better understand the reasons underlying different types of treatment changes and associated reasons for change among children and adolescents with ADHD.

In addition to the direct patient burden of cycling through treatment and incomplete ADHD symptom management, this study also revealed the increased healthcare costs associated with these treatment changes, which may have important implications. ADHD has been found to be a costly condition to society [39, 40], with an estimated $9.0 billion annually being attributable to direct healthcare costs among children and adolescents with ADHD in the US [40]. The findings of the current study demonstrate that more treatment changes are associated with higher healthcare costs, which may be contributing to the large societal burden associated with direct healthcare costs among patients with ADHD. Clinicians and other stakeholders such as payers may be more prudent on treatment decisions and recommendations by recognizing the increased costs that come with a treatment change, and ultimately the resulting impact that this may have on society. Of note, the overall costs associated with treatment changes found in this study may be underestimated, as there are likely considerable indirect costs, including education-related costs (e.g., missed school days) and spillover costs to families and caregivers (e.g., productivity loss due to the need for additional medical attention and physician visits).

The findings of this study should be considered in light of limitations. This study was conducted in a commercially insured population, and hence results may not be representative of the general ADHD population or individuals with public or no health insurance. The algorithm used to define treatment sequences was based solely on the timing of claims with ADHD-related agents, as clinical information is unavailable in claims data. As with all claims-based studies, this study is also subject to general limitations such as billing inaccuracies and missing data. Furthermore, the potential impact of unobservable variables on the study results could not be measured. Additionally, since patients included in the study were captured along different trajectories of their treatment journey, it was not possible to differentiate whether the first observed treatment was the first treatment after the diagnosis of ADHD. As patient’s treatment journey may not be captured in its entirety, the results should be interpreted in view of the inclusion of a mixed population of patients with different treatment history that may affect clinical decisions.

Conclusions

Over a 1-year period, treatment changes were common among children and adolescents with ADHD in the US and the number of treatment changes was positively associated with excess total annual healthcare costs, suggesting potential unmet treatment needs within these populations. Programs, interventions, and treatment options that offer additional solutions to manage patients ADHD symptoms and improve treatment persistence may result in improved treatment outcomes and reduced overall burden to patients and society.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available because they were used pursuant to a data use agreement. Requests for data should be made directly to IBM.

Abbreviations

ADHD:

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

CI:

Confidence interval

FDA:

Food and Drug Administration

US:

United States

References

  1. Child and adolescent health measurement initiative. 2018 national survey of children’s health (NSCH) data query. Data resource center for child and adolescent health supported by the U.S. Department of health and human services, health resources and services administration (HRSA), maternal and child health bureau (MCHB). Available from: www.childhealthdata.org. Accessed: 26 Feb. 2020.

  2. Kessler RC, Avenevoli S, Costello EJ, Georgiades K, Green JG, Gruber MJ, et al. Prevalence, persistence, and sociodemographic correlates of DSM-IV disorders in the national comorbidity survey replication adolescent supplement. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69(4):372–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wolraich ML, Hagan JF, Jr., Allan C, Chan E, Davison D, Earls M, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2019;144(4):e20192528.

  4. Children and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (CHADD). About ADHD. Lanham; 2017. Available from: https://chadd.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/aboutADHD.pdf. Accessed 2 Sept 2021.

  5. Breslau J, Miller E, Joanie Chung WJ, Schweitzer JB. Childhood and adolescent onset psychiatric disorders, substance use, and failure to graduate high school on time. J Psychiatr Res. 2011;45(3):295–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. DuPaul GJ, Langberg JM. Educational impairments in children with ADHD. In: Barkley RA, editor. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York: The Guilford Press; 2015. p. 169–90.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dekkers TJ, Popma A, Sonuga-Barke EJS, Oldenhof H, Bexkens A, Jansen BRJ, et al. Risk taking by adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a behavioral and psychophysiological investigation of peer influence. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2020;48(9):1129–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhao X, Page TF, Altszuler AR, Pelham WE 3rd, Kipp H, Gnagy EM, et al. Family burden of raising a child with ADHD. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2019;47(8):1327–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fridman M, Banaschewski T, Sikirica V, Quintero J, Erder MH, Chen KS. Factors associated with caregiver burden among pharmacotherapy-treated children/adolescents with ADHD in the Caregiver Perspective on Pediatric ADHD survey in Europe. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2017;13:373–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gordon CT, Fabiano GA. The transition of youth with ADHD into the workforce: review and future directions. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2019;22(3):316–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sibley MH, Arnold LE, Swanson JM, Hechtman LT, Kennedy TM, Owens E, et al. Variable patterns of remission from ADHD in the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD. Am J Psychiatry. 2022;179(2):142–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Danielson ML, Bitsko RH, Ghandour RM, Holbrook JR, Kogan MD, Blumberg SJ. Prevalence of parent-reported ADHD diagnosis and associated treatment among U.S. children and adolescents 2016. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2018;47(2):199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cortese S, Adamo N, Del Giovane C, Mohr-Jensen C, Hayes AJ, Carucci S, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018;5(9):727–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Biederman J, Fried R, DiSalvo M, Storch B, Pulli A, Woodworth KY, et al. Evidence of low adherence to stimulant medication among children and youths with ADHD: an electronic health records study. Psychiatr Serv. 2019;70(10):874–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gajria K, Lu M, Sikirica V, Greven P, Zhong Y, Qin P, et al. Adherence, persistence, and medication discontinuation in patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder - a systematic literature review. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014;10:1543–69.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Swanson JM, Elliott GR, Greenhill LL, Wigal T, Arnold LE, Vitiello B, et al. Effects of stimulant medication on growth rates across 3 years in the MTA follow-up. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46(8):1015–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Warikoo N, Faraone SV. Background, clinical features and treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2013;14(14):1885–906.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hodgkins P, Sasane R, Christensen L, Harley C, Liu F. Treatment outcomes with methylphenidate formulations among patients with ADHD: retrospective claims analysis of a managed care population. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(Suppl 2):53–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kemner JE, Lage MJ. Impact of methylphenidate formulation on treatment patterns and hospitalizations: a retrospective analysis. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2006;5:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sikirica V, Pliszka SR, Betts KA, Hodgkins P, Samuelson T, Xie J, et al. Comparative treatment patterns, resource utilization, and costs in stimulant-treated children with ADHD who require subsequent pharmacotherapy with atypical antipsychotics versus non-antipsychotics. J Manag Care Pharm. 2012;18(9):676–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Guo L, Danielson M, Cogan L, Hines L, Armour B. Treatment patterns and costs among children aged 2 to 17 years with ADHD in New York State Medicaid in 2013. J Atten Disord. 2021;25(4):463–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Faries DE, Ascher-Svanum H, Nyhuis AW, Kinon BJ. Clinical and economic ramifications of switching antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. BMC Psychiatry. 2009;9:54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Perez V, Gauthier G, Guerin A, Francois C, Merikle E. The burden of treatment switch in patients with major depression: a US retrospective administrative claims analysis. Value in Health. 2015;18(3):A120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. IBM Watson Health. IBM Market Scan Research Databases for life sciences researchers 2021. Available from: https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/OWZWJ0QO. Accessed: 17 May 2022.

  25. Schein J, Childress A, Adams J, Cloutier M, Gagnon-Sanschagrin P, Maitland J, et al. Treatment patterns among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the United States: a retrospective claims study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021;37(11):2007–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Measuring Price Change in the CPI: Medical care 2019. Available from: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/medical-care.htm. Accessed:  17 May 2022.

  27. Perwien A, Hall J, Swensen A, Swindle R. Stimulant treatment patterns and compliance in children and adults with newly treated attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Manag Care Pharm. 2004;10(2):122–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Martins S, Tramontina S, Polanczyk G, Eizirik M, Swanson JM, Rohde LA. Weekend holidays during methylphenidate use in ADHD children: a randomized clinical trial. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2004;14(2):195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ibrahim K, Vogt C, Donyai P. Caught in the eye of the storm: a qualitative study of views and experiences of planned drug holidays from methylphenidate in child and adolescent ADHD treatment. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2016;21(4):192–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Blader JC, Pliszka SR, Kafantaris V, Foley CA, Carlson GA, Crowell JA, et al. Stepped treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and aggressive behavior: a randomized, controlled trial of adjunctive risperidone, divalproex sodium, or placebo after stimulant medication optimization. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021;60(2):236–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gnanavel S, Sharma P, Kaushal P, Hussain S. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and comorbidity: a review of literature. World J Clin Cases. 2019;7(17):2420–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Barbaresi WJ, Campbell L, Diekroger EA, Froehlich TE, Liu YH, O’Malley E, et al. The society for developmental and behavioral pediatrics clinical practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with complex attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: process of care algorithms. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2020;41(Suppl 2S):S58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Frank E, Ozon C, Nair V, Othee K. Examining why patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder lack adherence to medication over the long term: a review and analysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 2015;76(11):e1459–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. US Government Accountability Office (GAO). Drug shortages: better management of the quota process for controlled substances needed; coordination between DEA and FDA should be improved. Washington, DC; 2015. Available from: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-15-202.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2021.

  35. Atzori P, Usala T, Carucci S, Danjou F, Zuddas A. Predictive factors for persistent use and compliance of immediate-release methylphenidate: a 36-month naturalistic study. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2009;19(6):673–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chen CY, Yeh HH, Chen KH, Chang IS, Wu EC, Lin KM. Differential effects of predictors on methylphenidate initiation and discontinuation among young people with newly diagnosed attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2011;21(3):265–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Holbrook JR, Cuffe SP, Cai B, Visser SN, Forthofer MS, Bottai M, et al. Persistence of parent-reported ADHD symptoms from childhood through adolescence in a community sample. J Atten Disord. 2016;20(1):11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Molina BSG, Hinshaw SP, Swanson JM, Arnold LE, Vitiello B, Jensen PS, et al. The MTA at 8 years: prospective follow-up of children treated for combined-type ADHD in a multisite study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;48(5):484–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Doshi JA, Hodgkins P, Kahle J, Sikirica V, Cangelosi MJ, Setyawan J, et al. Economic impact of childhood and adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the United States. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2012;51(10):990-1002 e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Adler LA, Childress A, Cloutier M, Gagnon-Sanschagrin P, Davidson M, Kinkead F, et al. Economic burden of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among children and adolescents in the United States (US): a societal perspective. Value in Health. 2021;24(1):S6–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Medical writing assistance was provided by Flora Chik, PhD, an employee of Analysis Group, Inc.

Previous presentation

Part of the material in this manuscript was presented at the American Professional Society of ADHD and Related Disorders, January 14–16, 2022, in Tucson, AZ, as a poster presentation.

Funding

This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc. The study sponsor contributed to and approved the study design, participated in the interpretation of data, and reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc., 508 Carnegie Center Dr, Princeton, NJ, 08540, USA

    Jeff Schein & Julie Adams

  2. Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Inc., 7351 Prairie Falcon Rd STE 160, Las Vegas, NV, 89128, USA

    Ann Childress

  3. Analysis Group, Inc., 1190 avenue des Canadiens-de-Montréal, Tour Deloitte, Suite 1500, Montreal, QC, H3B 4W5, Canada

    Patrick Gagnon-Sanschagrin, Jessica Maitland, Wendi Qu, Martin Cloutier & Annie Guérin

Authors
  1. Jeff Schein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ann Childress
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julie Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick Gagnon-Sanschagrin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jessica Maitland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wendi Qu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin Cloutier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Annie Guérin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PGS, JM, WQ, MC, and AG contributed to study conception and design, collection and assembly of data, and data analysis and interpretation. JS, AC, and JA contributed to study conception and design, data analysis and interpretation. All authors reviewed and approved the final content of this manuscript.

Authors’ information

JA is now an employee of AbbVie.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Gagnon-Sanschagrin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Data are de-identified and comply with the patient requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. This study does not contain any patient-identifiable information; therefore, no institutional review board exemption nor informed consent was required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

JS is an employee of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc. AC received research support from Allergan, Takeda/Shire, Emalex, Akili, Ironshore, Arbor, Aevi Genomic Medicine, Neos Therapeutics, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris, KemPharm, Supernus, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; was on the advisory board of Takeda/Shire, Akili, Arbor, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue, Adlon, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris, Supernus, and Corium; received consulting fees from Arbor, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris, KemPharm, Supernus, Corium, Jazz, Tulex Pharma, and Lumos Pharma; received speaker fees from Takeda/Shire, Arbor, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Pfizer, Tris, and Supernus; and received writing support from Takeda /Shire, Arbor, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Pfizer, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, and Tris. JA was an employee of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc. at the time of study conduct. PGS, JM, WQ, MC, and AG are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting company that has provided paid consulting services to Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schein, J., Childress, A., Adams, J. et al. Treatment patterns among children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the United States – a retrospective claims analysis. BMC Psychiatry 22, 555 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04188-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04188-4

Keywords

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

Contact us