Adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often present psychiatric comorbidities and, in particular, substance use disorder (SUD). ADHD-SUD comorbidity is characterized by greater severity of both disorders, earlier age of onset, higher likelihood of polydrug-abuse and suicidal behaviors, more hospitalizations, and lower treatment adherence. At the present stage, research focused on the pharmacological management of ADHD with comorbid SUD in both adolescents and adults is still lacking. Furthermore, while the short-term effects of stimulants are well studied, less is known about the chronic effects of these drugs on dopamine signaling. Current available evidence is consistent in reporting that high doses of stimulant medications in ADHD-SUD subjects have a mild to moderate efficacy on ADHD symptoms. Some data suggest that pharmacological treatment with stimulants may be beneficial for both ADHD symptoms and comorbid cocaine or amphetamine use. However, in the long run, stimulant medications may have a potential risk for misuse. For the absence of potential misuse, atomoxetine is often recommended for ADHD with comorbid cocaine or amphetamine use disorder. However, its efficacy in reducing addictive behavior is not demonstrated. In subjects with other subtypes of SUD, both atomoxetine and stimulant drugs seem to have scarce impact on addictive behavior, despite the improvement in ADHD symptomatology. In this population, ADHD treatment should be combined with SUD-specific strategies.

Background: While a large amount of medical literature has explored the association between Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Substance Use Disorders (SUDs), less attention has been dedicated to the typologies of SUD and their relationships with ADHD-specific symptomatology and general psychopathology in dual disorder patients. Methods: We selected 72 patients (aged 18–65) with a concomitant SUD out of 120 adults with ADHD (A-ADHD). Assessment instruments included the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in adults (DIVA 2.0), Conner’s Adult ADHD Rating Scales–Observer (CAARS-O:S): Short Version, the Structured Clinical Interview for Axis I and II Disorders (SCID-I), the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11), the Brief Psychiatric rating scale (BPRS), the Reactivity Intensity Polarity Stability Questionnaire (RIPoSt-40), the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) and the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ). A factorial analysis was performed to group our patients by clusters in different typologies of substance use and correlations between SUDs, as made evident by their typological and diagnostic features; in addition, specific ADHD symptoms, severity of general psychopathology and patients’ functionality were assessed. Results: Two patterns of substance use were identified: the first (type 1) characterized by stimulants/alcohol and the second (type 2) by the use of cannabinoids (THC). Type 1 users were significantly younger and had more legal problems. The two patterns were similar in terms of ADHD-specific symptomatology and its severity at treatment entry. No differences were found regarding the other scales assessed, except for lower scores at MEQ in type 1 users. Conclusions: At treatment entry, the presence of different comorbid SUD clusters do not affect ADHD-specific symptomatology or severity.

Over-standard methadone doses are generally needed in the treatment of heroin use disorder (HUD) patients that display concomitant high-severity psychopathological symptomatology. A flexible dosing regimen may lead to higher retention rates in dual disorder (DD), as we demonstrated in bipolar 1 HUD patients, leading to outcomes that are as satisfactory as those of HUD patients without high-severity psychopathological symptomatology. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of treatment-resistant chronic psychosis HUD patients (PSY-HUD) with those of peers without dual disorder (HUD). 85 HUD patients who also met the criteria for treatment resistance—25 of them affected by chronic psychosis and 60 without DD—were monitored prospectively for up to 8 years while continuing to receive enhanced methadone maintenance treatment. The rates of endurance in the treatment of PSY-HUD patients were 36%, compared with 34% for HUD patients (p = 0.872). After 3 years of treatment, these rates tended to become progressively more stable. PSY-HUD patients showed better outcome results than HUD patients regarding CGI severity (p < 0.001) and DSM-IV-GAF (p < 0.001). No differences were found regarding good toxicological outcomes or the methadone dosages used to achieve stabilization. The time required to stabilize PSY-HUD patients was shorter (p = 0.034). An enhanced methadone maintenance treatment seems to be equally effective in patients with PSY-HUD and those with HUD.

The main aim of this study was to examine the body of knowledge on the prevalence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in “high-risk” children whose parents are diagnosed with ADHD. This knowledge could aid early identification for children presenting with ADHD symptoms at a young age. We conducted a systematic search of the literature assessing high-risk children. Included were original articles published in English with the main aim to assess prevalence of ADHD in high risk children. In addition, a meta-analysis was conducted to examine this prevalence. Four articles met our inclusion and exclusion criteria all suggesting an increased prevalence of ADHD in children of parents with ADHD. The meta-analysis also confirmed the increased prevalence of ADHD in high-risk children. The literature indicates that children of ADHD parents have an increased risk of developing ADHD compared to control children.

Background and Objectives: Emotional dysregulation is central to the problem of the overlap between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and cyclothymia. The aim of the study was to evaluate comorbidity rates between ADHD and cyclothymic disorder and to explore demographic and clinical differences among the groups, focusing on affective temperament and emotional dysregulation. Materials and Methods: One hundred sixty-five outpatients attending the Second Psychiatry Unit at the Santa Chiara University Hospital (Pisa) were consecutively recruited: 80 were diagnosed with ADHD, 60 with cyclothymic disorder, and 25 with both conditions. Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego (TEMPS-M) and the 40-item version of Reactivity, Intensity, Polarity, and Stability questionnaire (RI-PoSt-40) were administered. Results: Cyclothymic patients were more frequently female and older with respect to the ADHD groups. Both comorbid and non-comorbid ADHD patients showed significantly lower educational attainment and more frequently had substance use disorders. Panic disorder was common in non-comorbid cyclothymic patients, who showed significantly higher rates of familial panic disorder, major depressive disorder and suicide attempts in comparison with patients only diagnosed with ADHD. Cyclothymic patients without ADHD were also characterized by fewer hyperthymic temperamental traits, higher depressive and anxious dispositions, and a greater negative emotionality. No significant differences among groups were observed for cyclothymic temperament and overall negative emotional dysregulation, but comorbid patients with both conditions scored the highest in these subscales. This group also showed significantly higher affective instability with respect to ADHD patients without cyclothymia and was less frequently diagnosed with bipolar disorder type II than patients from both the other groups. Conclusions: ADHD and cyclothymia often co-occur and show similar levels of emotional dysregulation. However, cyclothymic patients may be more prone to negative emotionality in clinical settings. Subjects with “sunny” cyclothymic features might escape the attention of clinicians unless ADHD is present.

While the association between adult Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (A-ADHD) and Substance Use Disorders (SUDs) has been widely explored, less attention has been dedicated to the various substance use variants. In a previous paper, we identified two variants: type 1 (use of stimulants/alcohol) and type 2 (use of cannabinoids). In this study, we compared demographic, clinical and symptomatologic features between Dual Disorder A-ADHD (DD/A-ADHD) patients according to our substance use typology, and A-ADHD without DD (NDD/A-ADHD) ones. NDD patients were more frequently diagnosed as belonging to inattentive ADHD subtype compared with type 1 DD/A-ADHD patients, but not with respect to type 2 DD/ADHD. NDD/A-ADHD patients showed less severe symptoms of hyperactivity/impulsivity than DD/A-ADHD type 1, but not type 2. Type 1 and type 2 patients shared the feature of displaying higher impulsiveness than NDD/A-ADHD ones. General psychopathology scores were more severe in type 2 DD/ADHD patients, whereas type 1 patients showed greater similarity to NDD/A-ADHD. Legal problems were more strongly represented in type 1 than in type 2 patients or NDD/A-ADHD ones. Our results suggest that type 1 and type 2 substance use differ in their effects on A-ADHD patients—an outcome that brings with it different likely implications in dealing with the diagnostic and therapeutic processes.