3 ms·
Please don't try to guess treatment outcomes based on binding affinities. > it’s clear this should be unethical to prescribe for anyone stimulants would be ef
by PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Please don't try to guess treatment outcomes based on binding affinities.
> it’s clear this should be unethical to prescribe for anyone stimulants would be effective on.
This is wrong in so many ways. Again, please don't try to guess outcomes based on binding affinities.
For what it's worth, some of the non-stimulant ADHD medications such as Guanfacine are strikingly effective for ADHD when titrated properly, some times even moreso than traditional stimulants. The challenge is that titration can take time and the effects are not immediately apparent from the first dose, whereas stimulant medication follows the opposite trajectory where the first dose is the most effective and subsequent dosing has reduced effects due to tolerance. Parents often mistake the instant response of stimulants for superior efficacy in treating ADHD, whereas instrumented tests show that medications like Guanfacine are actually quite good if the patient is given time to adapt.
- The_rationalist 6y agoAre there long term comparative studies? Any reference benchmarck?
- astrange 6y agoI actually moved off guanfacine and onto Strattera because it has so many side effects - for instance, it makes you very weak to alcohol and it affects your heart rate. It's also physiologically addictive and you have to ramp off it for a week or two, which is a problem if you've forgotten to get a refill since, you know, you have ADHD. Ironically these are all things people think Adderall does which it doesn't do.
- lazide 6y agoI wasn’t guessing outcomes based on binding affinities, I was going off the data they posted in the article AND multiple large controlled studies on stimulants in ADHD populations. For instance - stimulants in ADHD populations do not cause suicidal ideation. Which is nice. This drug does for a non trivial number of folks who get it.