i looked through the boards for something like this but i couldn't find one, sorry if i'm bringing up an old topic:
how likely is it to develop a dependence on aderall?
since it is an amphetamine...dependence can be very high depending on the person. however if the medication is helping, i wouldn't see dependence as a big problem unless you decide to go off of it..i take dexedrine and never plan on going off of it due to it's effectiveness in treating my add/depression
since it is an amphetamine...dependence can be very high depending on the person. however if the medication is helping, i wouldn't see dependence as a big problem unless you decide to go off of it..i take dexedrine and never plan on going off of it due to it's effectiveness in treating my add/depression
I agree, I would say that it completly depends on the person who is taking the medication. I currently take 60 mg of Adderall XR and have been on it for about 7 years and I am not addicted. I also don't see myself going off of it because of how much it has helped me. There are a lot of medications out there which can be addicting, I mean i know people who have become addicted to nose spray!! I would say use your best judgement and don't abuse the medication and you should be fine. Good luck to you, hope this helps!
honestly i have found caffeine and smoking to be much more addictive to me than any other drug on this planet!!! even more than dextroamphetamine and methamphetamine
i looked through the boards for something like this but i couldn't find one, sorry if i'm bringing up an old topic:
how likely is it to develop a dependence on aderall?
Very likey, although dependance happens at different rates for different people and different drugs/doses. Most will say dependance doesn't matter if you are planning to continue the drug forever. However, things like drug tolerance and emergence of side effects can pop up suddenly even after years of use, which is a problem greater than dependancy. And, when taking a dependancy-producing drug, make sure you'll never be out of work or insurance! Also, there are numerous health problems that can arise after many years of use.
i looked through the boards for something like this but i couldn't find one, sorry if i'm bringing up an old topic:
how likely is it to develop a dependence on aderall?
Here is an interesting study I found.......
Long-term Use of Extended-Release Adderall Appears Safe, Efficacious for Adults With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- May 26, 2003 -- Once-daily Adderall XR is effective and well tolerated for the long-term treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults, according to an interim analysis of 10-month data from an extension study.
The data were presented here on May 21st at the 156th Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
"We were quite encouraged to see that, at this stage of the study, not only has Adderall therapy been safe and efficacious, but every patient showed improvement in core symptoms of the condition, with no evidence of an emerging drug tolerance," said presenter and investigator Richard Weisler, MD, psychiatric researcher at Duke University Medical School in Durham, North Carolina, United States. Dr. Weisler is also in private practice in Raleigh, North Carolina.
The investigators enrolled 223 adults with a mean age of 39.8 years who had participated in a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, forced-dose titration study of once-daily Adderall XR. During the initial study, the researchers titrated dosing to determine optimal therapeutic effects with minimum adverse events. All subjects met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM-IV) criteria for ADHD and had a history of the condition prior to age 7.
For the extension study, the investigators took monthly vital signs and adverse event reports. They collected electrocardiographic data and laboratory measures at months 3 and 6 and at 12-month end point. They assessed ongoing treatment efficacy each month using the 18-item ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) for adults.
The criteria for inclusion in the extension study included at least 1 week of treatment in the antecedent study; 21 of the subjects in the extension study met that criterion but had a time-gap in Adderall treatment prior to the beginning of the extension study.
Results of the extension study show that the 57 patients who had received placebo during the initial study had the greatest improvement in ADHD-RS scores from baseline to interim end point, with a mean change of -11.9 (P<0.001). Patients who took Adderall XR with interruption (n=21) during the initial study had significant improvement in ADHD-RS scores from baseline to end point, with a mean change of -7.6 (P=0.041), as did the 145 patients with no interruption (mean change -6.0; P<0.001).
The most common adverse events were dry mouth, reported by 42% of treated patients; anorexia (30%); insomnia (25%); and headache (21%).
"Every subject has shown ongoing improvement in symptoms at this 10-month point," Dr. Weisler added.
He also said that the incidence of commonly reported adverse events has dropped over time during the study.
Very likey, although dependance happens at different rates for different people and different drugs/doses. Most will say dependance doesn't matter if you are planning to continue the drug forever. However, things like drug tolerance and emergence of side effects can pop up suddenly even after years of use, which is a problem greater than dependancy. And, when taking a dependancy-producing drug, make sure you'll never be out of work or insurance! Also, there are numerous health problems that can arise after many years of use.
actually studies have shown that when stimulants are used properly, side-effects and drug tolerance are very low. but because everyone is different, so will their results...however many people have it drilled into their head that because they are amphetamines, there will be problems no matter what. this is untrue and unproven. i actually think that there are drugs a lot worse than amphetamines...alcohol, cigarettes, etc. i believe this is due to the fact that in our society...cigarettes and alcohol are ok because they are legal and socially acceptable. and society sees amphetamines as dangerous and dirty because that is what they are raised to think.
Cigarettes, Alcohol and Caffeine are deadly for ADD. From what my own therapist tells me, this is mainly because they work so effectively to regulate our symptoms. Based on my own absolutely ludicrous difficulty quitting smoking, I agree.
He also tells me that if Ritalin (and thus I assume other stimulant meds) works for an ADD-er the way it should, it can't become addictive. I assume this is related to how stimulants work the opposite on ADDers than they do on non ADDers. Hmmm. Does anyone know more about this?
Yes if it normalizes activity in the frontal lobes to the way they should be, the pain-reward mechanism will be satisfied and you'll have no need or want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, etc.
There is a world of difference between physical dependancy and addiction; addiction is a behavior whereas physical dependancy is not. These drugs can cause dependancy, adverse reactions, future mental/physical health problems over time.
Studies that declare "safe" vary on what one's definition of safe is...no death from Adderall but instead a future heart condition could be considered "safe" now, couldn't it? And who pays for these studies but the drug companies themselves. Another question, how many adverse event clinical studies get published, since that is usually up to the ones who run the show...for example, there is already a major news story out there about bad result clinical trials on AD's for kids that did not get published in medical journals, but rather filed away, basically the public was not informed of the results.There is alot of deception going on/has been going on which is just now surfacing in the mainstream media, although these stories have been around for a long time.
There is a world of difference between physical dependancy and addiction; addiction is a behavior whereas physical dependancy is not. These drugs can cause dependancy, adverse reactions, future mental/physical health problems over time.
Studies that declare "safe" vary on what one's definition of safe is...no death from Adderall but instead a future heart condition could be considered "safe" now, couldn't it? And who pays for these studies but the drug companies themselves. Another question, how many adverse event clinical studies get published, since that is usually up to the ones who run the show...for example, there is already a major news story out there about bad result clinical trials on AD's for kids that did not get published in medical journals, but rather filed away, basically the public was not informed of the results.There is alot of deception going on/has been going on which is just now surfacing in the mainstream media, although these stories have been around for a long time.
i'll tell u that living with and dealing with add/depression for as long as i can remember, i will take my chances on taking medication that gave me my life back.
i don't bielieve in that deception thing. that is like saying when the tobacco industry lied about nicotine being addictive. any sensible person could have came to their own conclusion that nicotine was addictive..i didn't need anyone to tell me that! it's called common sense and that goes for any other medication. it is up to the consumer to find out for themselves both the negatives and positives of taking medications. those who rely on the drug companies or any other opinion is just looking for someone else to blame for their laziness and not doing their own research. we are not babies and we have access to the internet and a variety of other research tools.
i'll tell u that living with and dealing with add/depression for as long as i can remember, i will take my chances on taking medication that gave me my life back.
i don't bielieve in that deception thing. that is like saying when the tobacco industry lied about nicotine being addictive. any sensible person could have came to their own conclusion that nicotine was addictive..i didn't need anyone to tell me that! it's called common sense and that goes for any other medication. it is up to the consumer to find out for themselves both the negatives and positives of taking medications. those who rely on the drug companies or any other opinion is just looking for someone else to blame for their laziness and not doing their own research. we are not babies and we have access to the internet and a variety of other research tools.
I am not telling you what to do, you can take pills; it is you who will live with whatever that brings. But I am saying there is definate proof of deception, legitamate news stories have popped up recently not only dealing with unpublished clinical trials, but also with one drug rep who was ordered by the drug company head to "sell" Neurontin to docs to treat all sorts of off-label uses. The rep went to the news media after awhile since he was a scientist too and started to worry about the severe side-effects people would get from a drug that shouldn't have been prescribed in the first place....he feared he would end up on the bad end of a lawsuit.
So you don't have to believe in this deception thing, but it does exist. And I really can't speak for all people, but I doubt they are all too "lazy" to look up things. I think usually it is a matter of trust; if your doctor says this will help you, usually you trust him to know what's best. After all, he went to med school. Cigarettes are a bit different in that nobody was telling people they needed cigarettes for any medical condition.
I believe most people listen to their doctors because logically it would seem the best course.....aka "anyone who tries to doctor themselves has a fool for a patient", right?
Modern medicine can be a wonderful thing, but it has also become big-business and has stockholders like everything else.
Nice study, but unfortunantly 10months is hardly "long-term" Many people start taking meds at around age 5yrs old and are on them for a period closer to 10 years or more.
__________________
"It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word!" --Andrew Jackson
Last edited by * Free ~ Spirit *; 03-08-2004 at 09:13 AM.
Nice study, but unfortunantly 10months is hardly "long-term" Many people start taking meds at around age 5yrs old and are on them for a period closer to 10 years or more.
Good point, I missed that! I also noticed that "safe" also meant the adverse effects like insomnia and anorexia were ok to live with, even though it is known that both can lead to clinical depression and bad health. I guess "safe" really just means nobody died or went insane during those 10 months. Everything else is up for grabs.
it's called common sense and that goes for any other medication. it is up to the consumer to find out for themselves both the negatives and positives of taking medications.
Unfortunantly it seems that now days common sense is in short supply. Sure, for some people medication is the only treatment. They may choose to take medication long-term. Anyone taking medication though, should be aware of the possible side effects, both physical and psychological. This way they can make an informed decision to take the medication. The sad fact is that most people don't know about the possible side effects. Even worse, those taking the medication are usually too young to choose whether or not to take medication. Parents who are desprate to help their children are told to give their child this pill to "help" them. Doctors rarely tell parents/patiants about the possible risks associated with these drugs. In fact, some doctors will flat out deny that any serious side effects exist. Common sense would tell you otherwise, obviously there is a possibility of serious side effects with these medications. But people are scared, vulnerable, desperate to help their children. And who's there to "help"? The doctors, the drug companies. When people are desperate they believe what they want to believe. No parent wants to think that the medication they give to their child can be potentially harmful. They want to believe the drug companies studies, the articles, and the doctors who say that its all perfectly safe.
__________________
"It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word!" --Andrew Jackson
Good point, I missed that! I also noticed that "safe" also meant the adverse effects like insomnia and anorexia were ok to live with, even though it is known that both can lead to clinical depression and bad health. I guess "safe" really just means nobody died or went insane during those 10 months. Everything else is up for grabs.
If these side effects are what they put out there as "safe" just think how awful the side effects they hide from the general public are!
__________________
"It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word!" --Andrew Jackson
Nice study, but unfortunantly 10months is hardly "long-term" Many people start taking meds at around age 5yrs old and are on them for a period closer to 10 years or more.
I am interested to read a study that shows negative side effects that can occure after being on stimulants for 10 years or more. So far all i can find is tests done on Rats? In my opinion a 10 month study on humans is better than a 2 year study on rats? If you can direct me to any of these articles I would appreciate it!
I know people who are suffering with side effects caused by long term use of these meds. I don't need studies to tell me that serious side effects are possible. I just use common sense. The studies put out are done by drug companies. Pharmacutical companies only publish the positive results. Negative responses are usually hidden from the public. People need to use common sense and think for themselves. I personally think that its pretty lame to depend on studies for all of your information. (not you!!! just in general I mean) People need to think for themselves instead of just going along with the crowd. I have experience with this medication and I know many other people who have taken it in the past and some who are taking it currently. I work with many children who were medicated early on with stimulants. I have seen first hand the damage it can cause. This, to me, is more relevant than any study!
__________________
"It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word!" --Andrew Jackson
I am interested to read a study that shows negative side effects that can occure after being on stimulants for 10 years or more. So far all i can find is tests done on Rats? In my opinion a 10 month study on humans is better than a 2 year study on rats? If you can direct me to any of these articles I would appreciate it!
Most "positive" studies are out there because drug companies pay for and have control over them. Also, there is the hope of independant studies, not payed for by drug companies but I suppose it's harder to get funding. The rat studies should be considered as viable, because they have done these sorts of studies to discover things like toxic effects of smoking and some cancer-causing chemicals. I think they even discovered the protein mutation in rats that lead to knowing about mad-cow disease and how that works. Sure, they give rats high doses but that's to establish toxic reactions and usually represents long-term changes in brain cells since some toxins take many years to do damage...for example, smoking cigarettes for 2 months will not get you cancer as it takes years.
I know it's frustrating to find real studies on this issue because of the funding-issues and power of the drug companies. But all good things take time; someday they will have better, more complete studies for us. Meanwhile, like FreeSpirit says, experience is the best teacher....
Most "positive" studies are out there because drug companies pay for and have control over them. Also, there is the hope of independant studies, not payed for by drug companies but I suppose it's harder to get funding. The rat studies should be considered as viable, because they have done these sorts of studies to discover things like toxic effects of smoking and some cancer-causing chemicals. I think they even discovered the protein mutation in rats that lead to knowing about mad-cow disease and how that works. Sure, they give rats high doses but that's to establish toxic reactions and usually represents long-term changes in brain cells since some toxins take many years to do damage...for example, smoking cigarettes for 2 months will not get you cancer as it takes years.
I know it's frustrating to find real studies on this issue because of the funding-issues and power of the drug companies. But all good things take time; someday they will have better, more complete studies for us. Meanwhile, like FreeSpirit says, experience is the best teacher....
Thanks for the info, I agree it is frusterating that there aren't any real studies out there to show the damages of long term stimulant use. Being someone who has been on stimulants for 10 years and haven't had any side effects as of yet it is a little concerning when I read posts that talk about all the negative things that can happen.
Free Spirit~ I am curious to know how the people you know who have suffered problems from long term stimulant use deal with it now? Also what kind of problems have you seen? Mentally or physically? I guess I am one of the lucky one's who hasn't had any problems but I would still like to know what kind of problems others have had.
--Andrew Jackson
