ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Stimulant medications used for the treatment of Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are believed to provide a physical advantage in athletics, but several of these medications are not regulated by the World Anti-Doping Association. Given the prevalence of ADHD among the athlete population and concern for abuse of ADHD medications, this review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate effects of ADHD medications on athletic performance, thereby appraising the validity of claims of performance enhancement. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Review databases was performed for all randomized controlled trials evaluating athletic performance after ingestion of placebo or ADHD treatment medications from August 2020 through November 2020. All RCTs identified from these search criteria were included for screening, with exclusion of any animal studies. Two reviewers (JB, CK) assessed methodological quality and risk of bias using CONSORT 2010 and Cochrane Collaboration tools. Study results were compiled with corresponding p values for each finding. Effect sizes (Cohen's D) for athletic performance and physiological changes were aggregated for each study. Studies were further screened for homogeneity that would allow for meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was calculated using I2. RESULTS: A total of 13,033 abstracts evaluating amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylphenidate, and bupropion were screened. The final analysis included nine studies, six of which found significant improvement in athletic performance with use of stimulant medications (p < 0.05). Methylphenidate and amphetamine were consistently identified to have a performance effect. Secondary effects identified included significant increase in heart rate, core temperature, and elevation of various serum hormone levels (p < 0.05). Effect size evaluation found seven studies demonstrating small to large effects on physical performance, as well as in categories of cardiometabolic, temperature, hormone, and ratings of perceived exertion, to varying degrees. A meta-analysis was performed on two studies, demonstrating conflicting results. CONCLUSIONS: Dopaminergic/noradrenergic agonist medications appear to have a positive effect on athletic performance, as well as effects on physiological parameters. Further consideration of medications currently not regulated, i.e. bupropion, is warranted given evidence of athletic performance enhancement. PROSPERO trial registration number: CRD42020211062; 10/29/2020 retrospectively registered.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Comprehensive sports medicine care goes beyond the treatment of injuries resulting from athletic activities. Ultimately, it is a competence that includes knowledge in physical therapy, training, nutrition, coaching, motivation, competition, mentoring, psychology, and spirituality that allows the physician and patient to collaborate on promoting the patient's health goals. The current literature demonstrates a lack of knowledge in the Osteopathic Primary Care Sports Medicine Model's effectiveness in performance. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a comprehensive osteopathic primary care sports medicine approach can improve performance and health outcomes in collegiate athletes. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial commenced just prior to the start of the lacrosse season and concluded at the end of the season. All the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) collegiate lacrosse players were educated first in a 1-day seminar of the core competencies, and all participants had access to ask questions on their own volition. Then they were randomized into two groups, either the experimental group receiving the direct osteopathic primary care sports medicine intervention (n=18) or the control group not having active intervention (n=19). Also, the overall team winning percentage for that season was computed and compared to that for the previous years and the following year. Participants were assessed before and after the intervention with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), custom Osteopathic Primary Care Sports Medicine questionnaire, and body fat composition, and their changes were compared between the experimental group and the control group. Collected data were analyzed using the repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study. After 14 participants were excluded due to being lost to follow-up, 23 athlete records were analyzed. The winning percentage of the team was highest during the year of the study period time than in the 3 previous years and the following year. The test group did not have any statistically significant change in the PHQ-9, SF-36, custom Osteopathic Primary Care Sports Medicine questionnaire, as well as in body fat composition. CONCLUSIONS: When used during a collegiate lacrosse season, this Osteopathic Primary Care Sports Medicine intervention did not significantly improve health outcomes. This preliminary study, despite its limitations in compliance and study population size, did demonstrate improvement in overall team performance when comparing the intervention sport season to other seasons but was not statistically significantly. Therefore, further studies are warranted to improve the understanding in this approach to athlete health outcomes and performance.
