Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-5rzhg Total loading time: 0.732 Render date: 2021-11-29T01:11:14.450Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Methylphenidate and the risk of burn injury among children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2020

Vincent Chin-Hung Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi Branch, Chiayi, Taiwan School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
Yao-Hsu Yang
Affiliation:
Health Information and Epidemiology Laboratory, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi Branch, Chiayi, Taiwan
Ting Yu Kuo
Affiliation:
Health Information and Epidemiology Laboratory, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan
Mong-Liang Lu
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry & Psychiatric Research Center, Wan-Fang Hospital and Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
Wei-Ting Tseng
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung Branch, Chiayi, Taiwan
Tsai-Yu Hou
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung Branch, Chiayi, Taiwan
Jia-Ying Yeh
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung Branch, Chiayi, Taiwan
Charles Tzu-Chi Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Health Promotion and Health Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
Yi-Lung Chen*
Affiliation:
Department of Healthcare Administration, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Min-Jing Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi Branch, Chiayi, Taiwan School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
Michael E. Dewey
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
Michael Gossop
Affiliation:
National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Yi-Lung Chen, E-mail: elong@asia.edu.tw
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a higher risk of burn injury than in the normal population. Nevertheless, the influence of methylphenidate (MPH) on the risk of burn injury remains unclear. This retrospective cohort study analysed the effect of MPH on the risk of burn injury in children with ADHD.

Method

Data were from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). The sample comprised individuals younger than 18 years with a diagnosis of ADHD (n = 90 634) in Taiwan's NHIRD between January 1996 and December 2013. We examined the cumulative effect of MPH on burn injury risk using Cox proportional hazards models. We conducted a sensitivity analysis for immortal time bias using a time-dependent Cox model and within-patient comparisons using the self-controlled case series model.

Results

Children with ADHD taking MPH had a reduced risk of burn injury, with a cumulative duration of treatment dose-related effect, compared with those not taking MPH. Compared with children with ADHD not taking MPH, the adjusted hazard ratio for burn injury was 0.70 in children taking MPH for <90 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64–0.77) and 0.43 in children taking MPH for ≥90 days (95% CI 0.40–0.47), with a 50.8% preventable fraction. The negative association of MPH was replicated in age-stratified analysis using time-dependent Cox regression and self-controlled case series models.

Conclusion

This study showed that MPH treatment was associated with a lower risk of burn injury in a cumulative duration of treatment dose-related effect manner.

Type
Original Articles
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity and cognitive dysfunction (Agerbo et al., Reference Agerbo, Nordentoft and Mortensen2002). The global lifetime prevalence of ADHD is estimated to be 7.2% (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Sanders, Doust, Beller and Glasziou2015). ADHD is significantly associated with impairments in daily life, daily functioning at school or work, and social and emotional development (Buitelaar and Medori, Reference Buitelaar and Medori2010). Furthermore, it has implications for family stress and health care resource consumption (Dittmann et al., Reference Dittmann, Banaschewski, Schacht and Wehmeier2014). In addition, the core symptoms of ADHD, including inattention, distractibility and impulsivity, probably account for the increased risk of unintentional injuries (Cairney, Reference Cairney2014). ADHD is associated with an increased risk of accident and injury (Rowe et al., Reference Rowe, Maughan and Goodman2004; Chang et al., Reference Chang, Lichtenstein, D'Onofrio, Sjolander and Larsson2014; Chang et al., Reference Chang, Ghirardi, Quinn, Asherson, D'Onofrio and Larsson2019), leads to a shorter life expectancy, and those accidents or injuries are the most common cause of death in ADHD patients (Dalsgaard et al., Reference Dalsgaard, Ostergaard, Leckman, Mortensen and Pedersen2015b; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Chan, Wu, Lee, Lu, Liang, Dewey, Stewart and Lee2019).

Burn injuries can be a devastating event, imposing a physical, psychological and economic burden on such patients and society (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Chen, Chen and Ma2014b). Children with ADHD are at an increased risk of burn injury (Mangus et al., Reference Mangus, Bergman, Zieger and Coleman2004; Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Ayoub, Rosenberg, Robert and Meyer2004; Fritz and Butz, Reference Fritz and Butz2007; Badger et al., Reference Badger, Anderson and Kagan2008; Ghanizadeh, Reference Ghanizadeh2008). The most recent case–control study including 223 patients demonstrated that the prevalence of burn injury among children with ADHD (10.6%) was higher than that among the control group (2.0%) (Ghanizadeh, Reference Ghanizadeh2008). A retrospective study by Badger et al. also reported that children with ADHD or ADD were more frequently involved in activities with a high risk of burn injury and more frequently experienced mental health difficulties (Badger et al., Reference Badger, Anderson and Kagan2008).

Pharmacotherapy is the first-line treatment for children with ADHD, and it can effectively reduce ADHD symptoms at all ages (Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity et al., Reference Wolraich, Brown, Brown, DuPaul, Earls, Feldman, Ganiats, Kaplanek, Meyer, Perrin, Pierce, Reiff, Stein and Visser2011). Robust evidence has been reported to support methylphenidate (MPH) as preferred first-choice medications for the short-term treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents (Cortese et al., Reference Cortese, Adamo, Del Giovane, Mohr-Jensen, Hayes, Carucci, Atkinson, Tessari, Banaschewski, Coghill, Hollis, Simonoff, Zuddas, Barbui, Purgato, Steinhausen, Shokraneh, Xia and Cipriani2018). Studies have proposed that treatment with stimulants might reduce the risk of injuries in patients with ADHD (Dalsgaard et al., Reference Dalsgaard, Leckman, Mortensen, Nielsen and Simonsen2015a; Man et al., Reference Man, Chan, Coghill, Douglas, Ip, Leung, Tsui, Wong and Wong2015; Mikolajczyk et al., Reference Mikolajczyk, Horn, Schmedt, Langner, Lindemann and Garbe2015; Liang et al., Reference Liang, Yang, Kuo, Liao, Lin, Lee, McIntyre, Kelsen, Wang and Chen2017). One population-based prospective cohort study reported that treatment with ADHD drugs reduced the risk of injuries and emergency ward visits (Dalsgaard et al., Reference Dalsgaard, Leckman, Mortensen, Nielsen and Simonsen2015a). No study has evaluated whether exposure to psychostimulant treatment mitigates the risk of burn injury or examined the effect of the duration of medication administration. We therefore explored the effect of the psychostimulant MPH on the risk of burn injury in patients with ADHD and whether the mitigating effects are related to the duration of exposure, by using a nationwide population-based dataset in Taiwan. We hypothesised that ADHD medication was linked to a lower risk of burn injury.

Materials and methods

Study design and participants

In this retrospective cohort study, we used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) under the aegis of the National Health Research Institute, which includes data on outpatient, ambulatory and hospital inpatient care, as well as on dental services. Taiwan launched a single-payer National Health Insurance programme on 1 March 1995, covering the delivery of all health care services to 99.5% of the national population (Ng, Reference Ng1997). The NHIRD holds some important information, such as patients' demographic data, the medical institution visited, diagnostic codes, the drugs prescribed, the date of any prescriptions given and any claimed medical expenses. The database has been used in many epidemiologic studies in Taiwan (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Lee, Yuan, Yang, Yang, Lee, Sun, Shyu and Wang2017; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Wu, Huang, Yang, Kuo, Liang, Huang and Gossop2018). Several validation studies have shown that the data set represents modest to high sensitivity and positive predictive values (Hsieh et al., Reference Hsieh, Su, Shao, Sung, Lin, Kao Yang and Lai2019).

The ADHD cohort was selected from NHIRD. It included individuals younger than 18 years by 31 December 2013. For ensuring the diagnosis of ADHD, we only recruited participants with ADHD who received at least one inpatient diagnosis of ADHD (International Classification of Disease, 9th revision [ICD-9] code: 314) or more than two outpatient diagnoses within 1 year between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2011.

Outcomes

The main outcome of this study was burn injury (ICD-9-CM codes: 940–949). Patients with a diagnosis of burn injury (Mangus et al., Reference Mangus, Bergman, Zieger and Coleman2004) before the diagnosis of ADHD were excluded. Patients with ADHD were followed up for the incidence of burn injury as an outcome, or until age 18, or to the end of 2013.

Assessment of other characteristics

Several covariates were selected, including sex, age, urbanisation level of residence and seizure (ICD-9 code: 345). Psychiatric comorbidity included intellectual disability (ICD-9 codes: 317–319), autism (ICD-9 code: 299), conduct disorder (ICD-9 code: 312), opposition defiant disorder (ICD-9-CM code: 313.81), anxiety (ICD-9 code: 300) and depression (ICD-9 codes: 296.2, 296.3, 300.4 and 311). Baseline medication use was identified based on a prescription of any benzodiazepine (ATC codes: N03AE, N05BA and N05CD), benzodiazepine-related drugs (ATC code: N05CF), antipsychotic (ATC code: N05A) or antidepressant (ATC code: N06A) 12 months prior to the burn injury diagnosis.

MPH (ATC code: N06BA04) has been the only stimulant approved for treating ADHD in Taiwan and is regarded as the first-line treatment for ADHD according to Taiwan's National Insurance. In 2017, atomoxetine (ATX), a non-stimulant, was also approved for ADHD treatment in Taiwan. However, compared with MPH, ATX has a much lower prescription rate (4% in all patients with ADHD) (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Yang, Shyu, Yuan, Yang, Lee, Lee and Wang2016). ATX is recommended only for cases where patients have insufficient treatment outcomes (i.e. inefficacy and intolerability) from MPH. Thus, it can be reasonably assumed that patients who received ATX have had prior MPH treatment exposure. Therefore, we included patients with only MPH exposure in this study. We investigated the treatment duration effect by examining MPH use in the ADHD cohort. The definition of treatment duration was the cumulative length of MPH exposure (days) within the follow-up period until end-points of burn injury, death or the end of the study. The ADHD population was divided into three subgroups based on the duration of MPH prescription: 0, <90 and ≥90 days. This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.

Statistical analysis

All data management and statistical analyses were performed using SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and R 4.0.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). To describe the distribution of the study population, a χ 2 test was used to compare the characteristics between the ADHD and control groups. The adjusted risk of burn injury between ADHD with and without MPH medication and the preventable fraction of MPH medication among individuals with ADHD was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. The results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We calculated the duration of medication use for each patient with ADHD and tested the cumulative effect on the burn incidence according to stratification into three groups, 0, <90, ≥90 days, by adjusting for covariates in competing risk-adjusted Cox regression models (Allgulander and Fisher, Reference Allgulander and Fisher1986). Age-stratified analysis was also conducted to examine the cumulative effect of MPH at three different age groups: (1) age <6, (2) age between 6 and 12, and (3) age >12 and <18. Participants' age is calculated by the difference between their birthdate and the end of follow-up (i.e. 31 December 2013) (Allgulander and Fisher, Reference Allgulander and Fisher1986). To examine the immortal time bias, a sensitivity analysis using time-dependent Cox hazards regression analysis was performed. We also estimated the preventable fraction: the proportion of incidents of burn in patients with ADHD not taking MPH that could be prevented by MPH medication.

For within-patient comparisons, we used the self-controlled case series (SCCS) model, in which time was divided into periods similar to the stratified Cox regression model, with each patient as a separate stratum (i.e. the patient served as his or her own control). The risk estimated from the SCCS model indicates the risk of burn injury when individuals took MPH compared to the period when they did not take MPH. The SCCS model automatically adjusts for all time-invariant factors (e.g. sex) for the same patient before and during the follow-up. The effect period for MPH was set at 1–3 months based on previous studies (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Sjolander, Runeson, D'Onofrio, Lichtenstein and Larsson2014a; Chang et al., Reference Chang, D'Onofrio, Quinn, Lichtenstein and Larsson2016). Thus, the effect period was split into three 1-month effect periods: 0–30, 31–60 and 61–90 days from the end of each treatment period. Finally, we combined the three effect periods into one to report the average pooled estimate of MPH use for burn injury. Figure 1 is present to illustrate the SCCS study design in this cohort. The SCCS model was applied using the SCCS package in R (Farrington et al., Reference Farrington, Whitaker and Weldeselassie2018). Furthermore, a moderation analysis based on the SCCS model was conducted to examine whether the neurodevelopment disorders (i.e. intellectual disability and autistic spectrum disorder) modify the effect of MPH on burn injury in children and adolescents with ADHD.

Fig. 1. Overview of the self-controlled case series study design. The self-controlled case series study design was used in this study for within-patient comparisons to examine the effect of methylphenidate on traumatic brain injury in adolescent patients with ADHD. The effect period for methylphenidate is set at 1–3 months. Thus, the effect period was split into three 1-month effect periods: 0–30, 31–60 and 61–90 days at the end of each treatment period. Individual's time not within the treatment period would serve as a self-controlled period for self-comparison. Time point of cohort entry was defined as the date of age of onset of ADHD. The end of follow-up was 31 December 2013.

Results

Table 1 shows the characteristics of children with ADHD stratified to three subgroups: 0 days (22 347 patients), <90 days (17 766 patients) and ≥90 days (50 521 patients). The risk of burn injury was 6.7, 4.5 and 2.9% in the three groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). The preventable fraction of MPH medication was 0.508, indicating that 50.8% (11 352 patients) incidence of burn injury could be prevented if they took MPH medication.

Table 1. Characteristics of children with ADHD with and without MPH use

Table 2 shows the influences of the MPH cumulative effect on the burn risk among patients with ADHD and different age groups. For the whole sample, compared with patients with ADHD not taking MPH, those taking MPH for <90 days had an adjusted HR of 0.70 for burn injury (CI 0.64–0.77) and those taking MPH for ≥90 days had an adjusted HR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.40–0.47). The results of the trend test were significant (p < 0.01). In addition, age-stratified analyses revealed a similar pattern in different age groups and the adjusted HR ranged from 0.55 to 0.87 for those taking MPH for <90 days and 0.32 to 0.55 for those taking MPH for ≥90 days, respectively. Table 3 shows the sensitivity analysis which confirmed the inverse association between MPH and risk of burn injury using the time-dependent model.

Table 2. Cox proportional hazards model for burn injury in children with ADHD and age-stratified analysis

a Adjusted by seizure, intellectual disability, autism, conduct disorder, opposition defiant disorder, anxiety, depression and psychotropic use (benzodiazepine, Z-drugs, antipsychotics and antidepressants).

Table 3. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards model for burn injury in children with ADHD

a Adjusted by seizure, intellectual disability, autism, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety, depression and psychotropic use (benzodiazepine, Z-drugs, antipsychotics and antidepressants).

Table 4 presents the effect of MPH on burn injury within patients with ADHD, which was determined using the SCCS model. Within-patient comparisons revealed a significant reduction in the risk of burn injury in effect periods from 0 to 30 (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.44–0.55), 30 to 60 (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40–0.54) and 60 to 90 days (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.42–0.41). An average pooled estimate of these effect periods indicated an HR of 0.49 and 95% CI of 0.45–0.53. Furthermore, we found that the effect of MPH on burn injury was attenuated in participants with ADHD and intellectual disability (p = 0.002), but not in autistic spectrum disorder (p > 0.05). The protective effect (RR) was decreased from 0.49 in participants with ADHD to 0.61 in participants with ADHD and intellectual disability.

Table 4. Stratified Cox regression for self-controlled case series model of burn injury in children with ADHD

a Hazard ratios were calculated using stratified Cox regression for SCCS model, which automatically adjusts for all time-invariant factors (e.g. sex) for the same patient before and during the follow-up.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first nationwide population-based cohort study to investigate the effect of medication usage on the risk of burn injury in ADHD patients. Our study looked into the risk of burn injury specifically and added to the existing evidence that MPH treatment was associated with a lower risk of burn injury among ADHD children. We found a lower incidence of burn injury in patients with ADHD prescribed MPH in the whole sample and different age subgroups. In total, 50.8% incidence of burn injury among patients with ADHD not taking MPH could be prevented if they took MPH medication. The effect was more prominent with increased duration of MPH use: a 30% reduction in the risk of burn injury with <90 days of MPH use was observed, and a 57% reduction in the risk of burn injury with ≥90 days of MPH use was noted. Similar reductions were replicated in age-stratified analysis and the time-dependent and SCCS design. These results suggest the robust effect of MPH use on burn injury in ADHD.

Research has indicated that ADHD patients have a higher risk for burn injury than non-ADHD controls (Fredriksen et al., Reference Fredriksen, Dahl, Martinsen, Klungsoyr, Haavik and Peleikis2014). The potential explanations include impulsivity, attention-deficit-related carelessness, overlooking danger, impairment in executive function and motor coordination. This study found that ADHD patients prescribed MPH had a reduced likelihood of burn injury and prior studies have also demonstrated correlations between burn injury and MPH. One retrospective chart review examined children admitted to a burn care facility with respect to ADHD diagnosis or history of stimulant prescription and found that although a high percentage of these children (nearly 89%) had been prescribed stimulant medication, approximately 42% of them had not taken their usual dose of MPH on the day of the burn injury; they were injured by impulsive fire-play behaviour (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Ayoub, Rosenberg, Robert and Meyer2004). In the present study, an average within-patient risk reduction of 51% was noted from comparing periods of time exposed to stimulant medication and unexposed periods. We expand on prior findings that MPH treatment plays a role in the reduced risk of burn injury in patients with ADHD. Several studies have suggested benefits on core symptoms and cognitive performance improvement after stimulant treatment (Fredriksen et al., Reference Fredriksen, Dahl, Martinsen, Klungsoyr, Haavik and Peleikis2014; Setyawan et al., Reference Setyawan, Fridman, Hodgkins, Quintero, Erder, Katic and Harpin2015). Nevertheless, the exact mechanism of such stimulants underlying reduction of burn injury risk in children with ADHD requires further investigation.

We also investigated the cumulative effect of MPH (using the cumulative duration of MPH prescription) on the risk of burn injury in patients with ADHD and found that the burn injury risk reduction was linked to an increased MPH usage duration. Studies have identified attenuation in the risk of fracture, suicide and traumatic brain injury to be associated with the dosage effect of MPH treatment (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Yang, Liao, Kuo, Liang, Huang, Huang, Lee, McIntyre and Lin2017; Liang et al., Reference Liang, Yang, Kuo, Liao, Lin, Lee, McIntyre, Kelsen, Wang and Chen2017; Liao et al., Reference Liao, Yang, Kuo, Liang, Huang, Wang, Lee, McIntyre and Chen2018). Long-term stimulant treatment normalises delayed brain development and yield to neuroadaptive and neurochemical change (Schweren et al., Reference Schweren, de Zeeuw and Durston2013). Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have also shown that exposure to psychostimulants may alter brain function connectivity and activity (van der Marel et al., Reference van der Marel, Bouet, Meerhoff, Freret, Boulouard, Dauphin, Klomp, Lucassen, Homberg, Dijkhuizen and Reneman2015). Our findings extend previous evidence and hold implications for clinical practice – sufficient duration of MPH treatment may be protective against burn injury.

This nationwide population-based study has several strengths. First, the nationally representative sample was substantial and minimised selection bias. Second, patients with ADHD were identified through physician-based diagnoses. Third, all MPH prescriptions are recorded in the NHIRD, avoiding misclassification bias. Also, by excluding burn injuries prior to ADHD diagnosis, the reverse causal relationship between ADHD and burn injury was eliminated. Finally, we used different models to demonstrate the robust treatment effect of MPH on burn injury. The between-subject treatment effect was observed in the Cox proportional hazards models. We found a significant cumulative duration of treatment dose-related effect of MPH treatment on burn risk, whereas within-subject treatment effects were assessed using the SCCS model. Some studies have also used the within-subject methodology (i.e. SCCS or case-crossover study design) to examine the effect of MPH on unintentional injuries (Ruiz-Goikoetxea et al., Reference Ruiz-Goikoetxea, Cortese, Aznarez-Sanado, Magallon, Alvarez Zallo, Luis, de Castro-Manglano, Soutullo and Arrondo2018); however, these studies suffered from the small sample size because their sample size merely ranged from 328 to 4934 (Ruiz-Goikoetxea et al., Reference Ruiz-Goikoetxea, Cortese, Aznarez-Sanado, Magallon, Alvarez Zallo, Luis, de Castro-Manglano, Soutullo and Arrondo2018). As a result, they focused on any type of injury, and they were not able to examine some specific causes of injury. For example, in Raman et al.'s study, they had 328 individuals with ADHD who experienced an incident medically attended injury event and received at least one prescription for stimulant medication, but only 1.2% (4/328) reported experiencing burn injury (Raman et al., Reference Raman, Marshall, Haynes, Gaynes, Naftel and Stürmer2013). In our study, because of the enforcement rules of the National Health Insurance in Taiwan, citizens in Taiwan are required to enrol in this insurance programme, resulting in sufficient data for examining this issue. In terms of the SCCS, we revealed that the risk was significantly reduced during the possible effect period of MPH treatment (1–3 months after treatment initiation). In addition, the major advantage of the SCCS model was that indication bias and any time-invariant confounders would be automatically controlled because of self-comparison. Finally, the time-dependent Cox model was conducted to address immortal time bias, which refers to a period of follow-up duration, by design, the outcome cannot occur. All these models provided similar results, suggesting that our study provided robust estimates of the inverse effects of MPH treatment on burn risk in children with ADHD.

This study had several limitations. First, the accuracy of disease diagnoses for ADHD or burn injury has not been documented. Second, information on drug adherence was lacking. Third, we did not evaluate the therapeutic effect of non-pharmacological treatment because behavioural therapy and psychoeducation were not fully registered in the NHIRD. Finally, the lack of MPH use in some patients may be due to a worsening of symptoms, and we did not have information on the severity of ADHD.

In conclusion, MPH treatment was linked to a lower risk of burn injury in children with ADHD, and the effect was stronger with longer MPH use.

Data

These data were owned by the National Health Research Institutes. The present study was based on the National Health Insurance Research Database provided by the Central Bureau of National Health Insurance, the Department of Health, and managed by the National Health Research Institutes.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff of the Health Information and Epidemiology Laboratory for their comments and assistance in the data analysis.

Financial support

This work was supported by grants from the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CLRPG6G0042, CLRPG6G0043).

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical standards

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 200.

Footnotes

*

Contributed equally.

References

Agerbo, E, Nordentoft, M and Mortensen, PB (2002) Familial, psychiatric, and socioeconomic risk factors for suicide in young people: nested case-control study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 325, 74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allgulander, C and Fisher, LD (1986) Survival analysis (or time to an event analysis), and the Cox regression model – methods for longitudinal psychiatric research. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 74, 529535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badger, K, Anderson, L and Kagan, RJ (2008) Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder in children with burn injuries. Journal of Burn Care and Research 29, 724729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buitelaar, J and Medori, R (2010) Treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder beyond symptom control alone in children and adolescents: a review of the potential benefits of long-acting stimulants. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 19, 325340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cairney, J (2014) Deficits in attention, motor control, and perception and increased risk of injury in children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 56, 10401041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, Z, Lichtenstein, P, D'Onofrio, BM, Sjolander, A and Larsson, H (2014) Serious transport accidents in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and the effect of medication: a population-based study. JAMA Psychiatry 71, 319325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, Z, D'Onofrio, BM, Quinn, PD, Lichtenstein, P and Larsson, H (2016) Medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and risk for depression: a nationwide longitudinal cohort study. Biological Psychiatry 80, 916922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, Z, Ghirardi, L, Quinn, PD, Asherson, P, D'Onofrio, BM and Larsson, H (2019) Risks and benefits of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication on behavioral and neuropsychiatric outcomes: a qualitative review of pharmacoepidemiology studies using linked prescription databases. Biological Psychiatry 86, 335343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Q, Sjolander, A, Runeson, B, D'Onofrio, BM, Lichtenstein, P and Larsson, H (2014a) Drug treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and suicidal behaviour: register based study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 348, g3769.Google Scholar
Chen, SH, Chen, YC, Chen, TJ and Ma, H (2014b) Epidemiology of burns in Taiwan: a nationwide report including inpatients and outpatients. Burns: Journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 40, 13971405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, VC, Yang, YH, Liao, YT, Kuo, TY, Liang, HY, Huang, KY, Huang, YC, Lee, Y, McIntyre, RS and Lin, TC (2017) The association between methylphenidate treatment and the risk for fracture among young ADHD patients: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan. PLoS ONE 12, e0173762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, VC, Wu, SI, Huang, KY, Yang, YH, Kuo, TY, Liang, HY, Huang, KL and Gossop, M (2018) Herpes zoster and dementia: a nationwide population-based cohort study. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 79, 16m11312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, VC, Chan, HL, Wu, SI, Lee, M, Lu, ML, Liang, HY, Dewey, ME, Stewart, R and Lee, CT (2019) Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and mortality risk in Taiwan. JAMA Network Open 2, e198714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cortese, S, Adamo, N, Del Giovane, C, Mohr-Jensen, C, Hayes, AJ, Carucci, S, Atkinson, LZ, Tessari, L, Banaschewski, T, Coghill, D, Hollis, C, Simonoff, E, Zuddas, A, Barbui, C, Purgato, M, Steinhausen, H-C, Shokraneh, F, Xia, J and Cipriani, A (2018) Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry 5, 727738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalsgaard, S, Leckman, JF, Mortensen, PB, Nielsen, HS and Simonsen, M (2015a) Effect of drugs on the risk of injuries in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet. Psychiatry 2, 702709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalsgaard, S, Ostergaard, SD, Leckman, JF, Mortensen, PB and Pedersen, MG (2015b) Mortality in children, adolescents, and adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a nationwide cohort study. Lancet (London, England) 385, 21902196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmann, RW, Banaschewski, T, Schacht, A and Wehmeier, PM (2014) Findings from the observational COMPLY study in children and adolescents with ADHD: core symptoms, ADHD-related difficulties, and patients’ emotional expression during psychostimulant or nonstimulant ADHD treatment. Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders 6, 291302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrington, P, Whitaker, H and Weldeselassie, YG (2018) Self-Controlled Case Series Studies: A Modelling Guide with R. San Francisco, CA: Chapman and Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredriksen, M, Dahl, AA, Martinsen, EW, Klungsoyr, O, Haavik, J and Peleikis, DE (2014) Effectiveness of one-year pharmacological treatment of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): an open-label prospective study of time in treatment, dose, side-effects and comorbidity. European Neuropsychopharmacology 24, 18731884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fritz, KM and Butz, C (2007) Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and pediatric burn injury: important considerations regarding premorbid risk. Current Opinion in Pediatrics 19, 565569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghanizadeh, A (2008) Small burns among out-patient children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Burns: Journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 34, 546548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsieh, CY, Su, CC, Shao, SC, Sung, SF, Lin, SJ, Kao Yang, YH and Lai, EC (2019) Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database: past and future. Clinical Epidemiology 11, 349358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, MJ, Yang, KC, Shyu, YC, Yuan, SS, Yang, CJ, Lee, SY, Lee, TL and Wang, LJ (2016) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, its treatment with medication and the probability of developing a depressive disorder: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan. Journal of Affective Disorders 189, 110117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, MJ, Lee, SY, Yuan, SS, Yang, CJ, Yang, KC, Lee, TL, Sun, CC, Shyu, YC and Wang, LJ (2017) Comorbidity of narcolepsy and depressive disorders: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan. Sleep Medicine 39, 95100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liang, SH, Yang, YH, Kuo, TY, Liao, YT, Lin, TC, Lee, Y, McIntyre, RS, Kelsen, BA, Wang, TN and Chen, VC (2017) Suicide risk reduction in youths with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder prescribed methylphenidate: a Taiwan nationwide population-based cohort study. Research in Developmental Disabilities 72, 96105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liao, YT, Yang, YH, Kuo, TY, Liang, HY, Huang, KY, Wang, TN, Lee, Y, McIntyre, RS and Chen, VC (2018) Dosage of methylphenidate and traumatic brain injury in ADHD: a population-based study in Taiwan. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 27, 279288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Man, KK, Chan, EW, Coghill, D, Douglas, I, Ip, P, Leung, LP, Tsui, MS, Wong, WH and Wong, IC (2015) Methylphenidate and the risk of trauma. Pediatrics 135, 4048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mangus, RS, Bergman, D, Zieger, M and Coleman, JJ (2004) Burn injuries in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Burns: Journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 30, 148150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mikolajczyk, R, Horn, J, Schmedt, N, Langner, I, Lindemann, C and Garbe, E (2015) Injury prevention by medication among children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a case-only study. JAMA Pediatrics 169, 391395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ng, CH (1997) The stigma of mental illness in Asian cultures. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 31, 382390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raman, SR, Marshall, SW, Haynes, K, Gaynes, BN, Naftel, AJ and Stürmer, T (2013) Stimulant treatment and injury among children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: an application of the self-controlled case series study design. Injury Prevention 19, 164170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowe, R, Maughan, B and Goodman, R (2004) Childhood psychiatric disorder and unintentional injury: findings from a national cohort study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 29, 119130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruiz-Goikoetxea, M, Cortese, S, Aznarez-Sanado, M, Magallon, S, Alvarez Zallo, N, Luis, EO, de Castro-Manglano, P, Soutullo, C and Arrondo, G (2018) Risk of unintentional injuries in children and adolescents with ADHD and the impact of ADHD medications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 84, 6371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schweren, LJ, de Zeeuw, P and Durston, S (2013) MR imaging of the effects of methylphenidate on brain structure and function in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. European Neuropsychopharmacology 23, 11511164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Setyawan, J, Fridman, M, Hodgkins, P, Quintero, J, Erder, MH, Katic, BJ and Harpin, V (2015) Relationship between symptom impairment and treatment outcome in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a physician perspective. Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders 7, 7587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, CR, Ayoub, M, Rosenberg, L, Robert, RS and Meyer, WJ (2004) Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder & pediatric burn injury: a preliminary retrospective study. Burns: Journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 30, 221223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, R, Sanders, S, Doust, J, Beller, E and Glasziou, P (2015) Prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatrics 135, e9941001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Marel, K, Bouet, V, Meerhoff, GF, Freret, T, Boulouard, M, Dauphin, F, Klomp, A, Lucassen, PJ, Homberg, JR, Dijkhuizen, RM and Reneman, L (2015) Effects of long-term methylphenidate treatment in adolescent and adult rats on hippocampal shape, functional connectivity and adult neurogenesis. Neuroscience 309, 243258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity D, Steering Committee on Quality, I, Management, Wolraich, M, Brown, L, Brown, RT, DuPaul, G, Earls, M, Feldman, HM, Ganiats, TG, Kaplanek, B, Meyer, B, Perrin, J, Pierce, K, Reiff, M, Stein, MT and Visser, S (2011) ADHD: clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 128, 10071022.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Overview of the self-controlled case series study design. The self-controlled case series study design was used in this study for within-patient comparisons to examine the effect of methylphenidate on traumatic brain injury in adolescent patients with ADHD. The effect period for methylphenidate is set at 1–3 months. Thus, the effect period was split into three 1-month effect periods: 0–30, 31–60 and 61–90 days at the end of each treatment period. Individual's time not within the treatment period would serve as a self-controlled period for self-comparison. Time point of cohort entry was defined as the date of age of onset of ADHD. The end of follow-up was 31 December 2013.

Figure 1

Table 1. Characteristics of children with ADHD with and without MPH use

Figure 2

Table 2. Cox proportional hazards model for burn injury in children with ADHD and age-stratified analysis

Figure 3

Table 3. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards model for burn injury in children with ADHD

Figure 4

Table 4. Stratified Cox regression for self-controlled case series model of burn injury in children with ADHD

You have Access
Open access
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Methylphenidate and the risk of burn injury among children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Methylphenidate and the risk of burn injury among children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Methylphenidate and the risk of burn injury among children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *