Category Archives: CES v. Drugs

Kids on Drugs (Thanks to Parents and Doctors)

Part I: The Dangers

Part II

Parents and Doctors are often overwhelmed when having to deal with ADHD kids. They often look for a shortcut—prescription drugs. Common brand names include stimulants such as Ritalin, Concerta, Adderall, Metadate, Vyvanse, and Provigil. Use of such drugs has reached epidemic proportions. The figures are staggering:

kids-on-drugs

 

More than 1 in 10 (11%) US school-aged children had received an ADHD diagnosis by a health care provider by 2011, as reported by parents.

o    6.4 million children reported by parents to have ever received a health care provider diagnosis of ADHD , including:

  • 1 in 5 high school boys
  • 1 in 11 high school girls

 

The percentage of US children 4-17 years of age with an ADHD diagnosis by a health care provider, as reported by parents, continues to increase.

o    A history of ADHD diagnosis by a health care provider increased by 42% between 2003 and 2011:

  • 7.8% had ever had a diagnosis in 2003
  • 9.5% had ever had a diagnosis in 2007
  • 11.0% had ever had a diagnosis in 2011

o    Average annual increase was approximately 5% per year

The percentage of children 4-17 years of age taking medication for ADHD, as reported by parents, increased by 28% between 2007 and 2011.

o    Percentage of children taking medication for ADHD was:

  • 4.8% in 2007
  • 6.1% in 2011

o    Average annual increase was approximately 7% per year

The average age of ADHD diagnosis was 7 years of age, but children reported by their parents as having more severe ADHD were diagnosed earlier.

o    8 years of age was the average age of diagnosis for children reported as having mild ADHD

o    7 years of age was the average age of diagnosis for children reported as having moderate ADHD

o    5 years of age was the average age of diagnosis for children reported as having severe ADHD

More US children were reported by their parents to be receiving ADHD treatment in 2011 compared to 2007, however treatment gaps may exist.

o    In 2011, as many as 17.5% of children with current ADHD were reported by their parents as not receiving either medication for ADHD or mental health counseling

o    More than one-third of children reported by their parents as not receiving treatment were also reported to have moderate or severe ADHD

The patterns in ADHD diagnosis and medication treatment showed increases in the percentages overall, however some new patterns emerged between 2007 and 2011.

o    The percentage of children reported by their parents to have a history of health care provider diagnosed ADHD increased for most demographic groups (for example, across racial groups, boys and girls) from 2003 to 2011; however,

o    Between 2007 and 2011, the percentage of children reported by their parents to have a history of a health care provider diagnosed ADHD:

  • Was similar among older teens
  • Decreased among multiracial children and children of other races when compared to black or white children

The number of US families impacted by ADHD continues to increase.

o    An estimated 2 million more children were reported by their parents to be diagnosed by a health care professional with ADHD in 2011, compared to 2003

  • By 2011, 6.4 million children were reported by their parents to be diagnosed by a health professional with ADHD compared to 4.4 million in 2003

o    An estimated 1 million more children were reported by their parents to be taking medication for ADHD in 2011, compared to 2003.

  • By 2011, 3.5 million children were reported by their parents to be taking medication for ADHD compared to 2.5 million in 2003

kids-adhd-drugs

These figures should give pause for consideration. By increasing children’s dependence on pharmaceuticals, they learn that the best and easiest way to deal with their emotional issues is by taking a drug, perfect training for their adult years and an added incentive to graduate to recreational drug use and an increased reliance and dependence on prescriptions as a pathway to health.

ADHD Drug Warnings:

There have been 44 warnings from eight countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, France and Singapore) warning that ADHD drugs/stimulants cause harmful side effects. These include the following (note that some warnings cite more than one side effect, so the list below may not be equal to the total number of warnings):

  • 13 warnings on stimulants causing heart problems
  • 10 warnings on stimulants causing mania/psychosis
  • 9 warnings on stimulants causing cardiovascular problems
  • 8 warnings on stimulants causing death
  • 4 warnings on stimulants causing hallucinations
  • 4 warnings on stimulants causing depression
  • 4 warnings on stimulants causing violence, hostility or aggression
  • 4 warnings on stimulants causing seizures
  • 3 warnings on stimulants causing agitation or irritability
  • 3 warnings on stimulants causing anxiety
  • 2 warnings on stimulants causing suicide risk/attempts
  • 2 warnings on stimulants causing addiction or dependence

ADHD Drug Studies:

There are 25 studies from five countries (United States, Australia, Denmark, Canada and Italy) showing that ADHD drugs/stimulants cause harmful side effects. These include the following (note that some studies cite more than one side effect, so the list below may not be equal to the total number of studies):

  • 5 studies on stimulants causing addiction/medication abuse
  • 5 studies on stimulants causing heart problems
  • 5 studies on stimulants showing lack of efficacy of the drug
  • 4 studies on stimulants causing stunted growth
  • 2 studies on stimulants causing death
  • 1 study on stimulants causing suicide risk/attempts
  • 1 study on stimulants causing violence
  • 1 study on stimulants causing homicidal ideation
  • 1 study on stimulants causing irritability
  • 1 study on stimulants causing depression
  • 1 study on stimulants causing mania, psychosis and hallucinations

Isn't it time we examined a drug-free alternative? The CES Ultra is exactly that—a safe and effective modality with no negative side-effect

Kids on Drugs ( Thanks to Parents and Doctors) – part 2

Part 2: How CES, the Drug Free Alternative, Can Make a Difference

Part 1

One Parent’s Experience

CES Ultra Improves Sleep, Reduces Anxiety, Irritability, and Depression in 14-year-old Male

We’ve been doing a trial with the CES Ultra the past week. The subject was DS*, our 14 year old with diagnosed insomnia, anxiety, and depression. He used the unit for 20 minutes per day, at bedtime.

I would rate the improvement in apparent anxiety and depression to be significant. Anxieties are no longer a major topic of discussion. DS is starting to leave the house on his own for activities other than school. He’s walked outside for exercise many days since starting the program. Last night he performed with his school orchestra and said he didn’t feel strung out about it like he usually has in the past. He settled down well afterwards, which is a first.

Insomnia has shown moderate improvement. We had hoped for more improvement in that department, but perhaps we will see this continue over a longer term. DS does like to use it at bedtime, finds it easier to fall asleep. He is no longer asking for a prescription for sleeping pills. But still some early-morning wakening, etc.

My DH and I find our son more talkative, less defensive, and quite a bit more mellow in the past week. That is something we have not seen for a long time. Irritability has been markedly decreased … now closer to normal teenage irritability than what we endured before. I suspect the reduced anxiety and reduced depression are contributing to the mellower kid.

Side effects: DS feels dozy after using it. Would not do a treatment just before driver’s ed. No negative side effects otherwise noted.

Our family gives CES an “A” grade and a “thumbs up.” The unit’s positive effect on our anxious, depressed, irritable, insomniac teen has taken a lot of stress off of the entire family. And I must add, finding a psych doc who gave us a free (with consult) week-long trial period on the device was very helpful before making the full investment in purchase, which we plan to do.

* (For the sake of privacy, identities are withheld.)

Brief Research Study

Smith, Ray B., McCusker, Charles F., Jones, Ruth G., and Goates, Delbert T.  The use of cranial electrotherapy stimulation in the treatment of stress related attention deficit disorder, with an eighteen month follow up. Unpublished, 1991 and follow-up in 1993.

This study compared the effects of 3 randomly assigned CES devices which had marked differences in electrical stimulation parameters, in the treatment of stress related attention deficit disorder in 23 children and adults, 9 males, 14 females, 9 – 56 years old (average 30.96) with an average education level of 10.56 years. All had been diagnosed as having generalized anxiety disorder (61%), and/or depression (45%), and/or dysthymia (17%). 8 had a primary diagnosis of ADD. CES treatments were given daily, 45 minutes per day for 3 weeks. All 3 CES devices were equally effective based on Duncan’s Range test in significantly (P<.001) reducing depression as measured on the IPAT depression scale (mean of 19.38 ± 8.44 pretest to 13.19 ± 7.00 post test), state and trait anxiety scales of the STAI (mean state anxiety was reduced from 39.95 ± 11.78 pretest to 29.76 ± 6.99 post test, and the mean trait anxiety was reduced from 43.90 ± 11.31 pretest to 32.19 ± 7.50 post test), and in increasing the Verbal pretest (mean of 99.38 ± 13.20 to post test of 107.50 ± 14.13), Performance (mean of 107.4 ± 15.05 to 126.6 ± 14.2 ), and Full Scale I.Q. scores on the WISC-R or WAIS-R IQ tests (mean of 103.2 ± 13.7 to 117.6 ± 14.28). The authors concluded that in the unlikely event that our findings are the results of placebo effect alone, a CES device, retailing at approximately $795, would still be a relatively inexpensive and apparently reliable treatment for such a debilitating disorder as stress related ADD. On 18 month follow up, the pts performed as well or better than in the original study, the Full Scale IQ had not moved significantly from where it was after the first 3 weeks of treatment, the Performance IQ fell back slightly, while the Verbal IQ continued to increase. There did not seem to be any pattern of addiction to or over dependence on the CES device. There was no side effects except for 1 pt who cried during treatments, and 1 who was sore behind the ears when the electrode gel began drying out.

The cornerstone tenet of medicine is “Do no harm.” Don’t you owe it to your child to try a safe, effective, non-invasive approach before turning to drugs? Consider the CES Ultra.

Another Therapist Reports: CES Intervention Diffuses Anger, Decreases Hyper-Irritability, & Improves Health of 21-year-old Female College Student after Other Therapies Fail.

CES being used in pain clinics

CES units were becoming more widely used in pain clinics at the dawning of the 21st century. The clinics typically do not wait for pain studies to be completed, but simply try CES with their patients to see what effect they can observe, then compare it with their historical experience with those same types of patients. A typical such clinic is one just outside Dallas, Texas. A nursing assistant puts CES electrodes on patients as they enter the waiting room to await their turn with physicians or other therapists. The wait can vary from a few minutes to a half hour, depending on the patient load at a given time. The patients complete a 10 point self rated pain score prior to receiving CES. When they are called into treatment by the treatment staff, the CES is removed, the amount of time they were on the device is recorded, as a post CES self rated pain score if obtained.

The clinic has become so enthusiastic about the results, that this protocol has become a permanent part of their core treatment program. They now enthusiastically prescribe CES home units for their large number of patients who now request them, and the staff reports their clinic is much more effectively treating chronic pain than they were previously.

Pain clinic treatment results have been published, however. An interesting CES study was completed in a pain clinic near Bombay, India, in 2001. It was an open clinical trial of CES, used alone as a treatment of pain patients who had been refractory to all other previous efforts of treatment of their pain at the clinic. They were given CES treatments one hour per day, 5 days a week, for three weeks. They were asked to rate their pain level on a VAS scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the most intense pain. Following treatment their mean self reported pain level had been reduced by 62%. Analyzing the data for individual patients it was found that 15% of the patients did not respond to the treatment, 30% gained total relief, while the remainder of the patients claimed significant relief ranging from 33% to 94%.

CES vs. Drugs in the aging population

cesultra-for-old-people

As in many developed countries, we are an aging population. The treatment of depression, anxiety and insomnia in the geriatric patients with medications present unique challenges due to the increased risk of adverse side effects. These side effects include the risk of falls and motor vehicle accidents. Again, the number of medications taken in our geriatric patients continues to increase. Thus risk of adding psychotropic medications to their medication profile poses additional drug/drug interactions and side effect burden. CES avoids this disadvantage and provides a safe alternative to patients, their families and care givers. Furthermore, missing a CES treatment does not carry the risks of missing doses of psychotropic medications in this population.

Excerpts from “A View from the Trenches” written by Jason Worchel, M.D.

More CES Research – http://www.cesultra.com/research-resources.htm

A View from the Trenches: Why Psychiatry needs CES – Part 1

Why Psychiatry needs CES
by Jason Worchel, M.D.

Jason Worchel, M.D. is a noted psychiatrist and Director of the Hilo Mental Health Center in Hilo, HI. The following posts are taken from a paper written by Dr. Worchel in his testimony before the F.D.A. concerning the effectiveness and safety of CES from the perspective of a practicing psychiatrist.

The Challenge of Psycho-Pharmacology

As a practicing psychiatrist, I am constantly struggling with balancing purported efficacy with known risks of somatic interventions. While currently approved interventions have demonstrated efficacy relative to placebo, the rate of improvement with placebo remains consistently above 30%.

With the increasing prevalence of polypharmacy, there is an increasing risk of adverse side effects for the statistical hope for improved outcomes as demonstrated in clinical trials conducted with select populations in controlled environments. In addition to evaluating the risk/benefits of various treatments, I know from multiple studies most patients are not adherent to the prescribed medication regimens and discontinue medications altogether within a relatively short period of time.

Though my goal is to treat the presenting illness or alleviate its symptoms, my primary duty to my patients is to “do no harm.” This typically results in an approach that follows a spectrum of interventions with initial treatments being those with the least risk of adverse side effects.

There is no risk conventional interventions that currently constitute the standard of care will be bypassed by using CES.

Experience

I have worked with primary care physicians in our federally qualified health clinics on the Big Island. They, like others across the country, are stymied and frustrated by the challenge of treating chronic pain.

In particular, they face patients with bona fide pain but who also have depression, anxiety, insomnia and substance abuse. With regards to treatment interventions, they are damned if the do and damned if the don’t treatment with various classes of analgesic medications, including narcotic medications.

They are particularly afraid of the increasing fatalities occurring with the use of narcotic analgesic medications in combination with benzodiazepines and antidepressant medications. They welcome alternatives to medications for those patients whose emotional distress intensifies their suffering and pain sensation. CES could provide a safe alternative for them that do not currently exist.

In summary, CES represents as safe intervention for conditions for which existing treatments, especially pharmacologic and invasive interventions pose significant risk for adverse side effects. It is especially beneficial in defined populations. These include those who refuse medications and psychotherapy, dual diagnosed patients, geriatric patients, females of child bearing age and during pregnancy.

Advantages of CES

I would like to highlight various advantages of CES relative to other existing treatments, especially medications that may not be well appreciated. Take for example, the difficulty faced by primary care physicians and mental health professionals in treating female patients of child bearing age. All available medications have teratogenic risk and are not recommended during pregnancy and breast feeding. Patients desiring to become pregnant have justified concerns about taking psychotropic medication

cesultra, ces ultra, cranial electrotherapy How To

Current treatment algorithms encourage polypharmacy when initial treatments with a single drug are not effective. While there is some increased response, polypharmacy only increases the side effects burden and can result in untoward drug/drug interactions. These types of problems do not occur with CES.

Many psychotropic medications for the treatments of depression, anxiety and insomnia have discontinuation syndromes. Given the high rate of discontinuation of these medications by patients due to side effects and lack of efficacy, many patients unfortunately suffer when the take a medication prescribed to alleviate their suffering. This does not occur with CES. There are circumstances, for example prior to surgery, when certain psychotropic medications are required to be discontinued. CES does not have to be discontinued prior to surgery.

One my greatest concerns in treating patients with depression, anxiety and insomnia involves suicide. We know increased risk of suicide in depressed patients but it is often global insomnia is a significant risk factor for suicide as well as anxiety/agitation. Although safer than the older tricyclic and tetracylcic antidepressants, the current medications carry a significant risk of death in overdose, especially when combined with other analgesic medications. Too often, the medications we prescribed to prevent suicide become a means through which the patient attempts suicide. In fact, there are black box warnings that these medications may increase suicidal impulses, especially in adolescents. CES does not pose this risk.

As in many developed countries, we are an aging population. The treatment of depression, anxiety and insomnia in the geriatric patients with medications present unique challenges due to the increased risk of adverse side effects. These side effects include the risk of falls and motor vehicle accidents. Again, the number of medications taken in our geriatric patients continues to increase. Thus risk of adding psychotropic medications to their other medications poses additional drug/drug interactions and side effect burden.

CES avoids this disadvantage and provides a safe alternative to patients, their families and care givers. Furthermore, missing a CES treatment does not carry the risks of missing doses of psychotropic medications in this population.

CES Ultra research – read more – http://www.cesultra.com/research-resources.htm