WASHINGTON — New data from a large federal study have reignited a debate over the effectiveness of long-term drug treatment of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and have drawn accusations that some members of the research team have sought to play down evidence that medications do little good beyond 24 months.
The study also indicated that long-term use of the drugs can stunt children’s growth.
The latest data paint a very different picture from the study’s positive initial results, reported in 1999.
One principal scientist in the study, psychologist William Pelham, said that the most obvious interpretation of the data is that the medications are useful in the short term but ineffective over longer periods, but his colleagues had repeatedly sought to explain away evidence that challenged the long-term usefulness of medication. When their explanations failed to hold up, they reached for new ones, Pelham said.
“The stance the group took in the first paper was so strong that the people are embarrassed to say they were wrong,” said Pelham, of the University at Buffalo. Pelham noted that the drugs, including Adderall and Concerta, are among the medications most frequently prescribed for American children, adding, “If 5 percent of families in the country are giving a medication to their children and they don’t realize it does not have long-term benefits but might have long-term risks, why should they not be told?”
Peter Jensen, one of Pelham’s fellow researchers, responded that Pelham was biased against the use of drugs.
