Does anyone take ADHD stimulant meds (Adderall, Vyvanse)? Tips on reducing neurotoxicity risk?

Eg melatonin could maybe decrease it (though also make one more sleepy too). That said, past a certain dose higher doses of melatonin don’t seem to increase sleepiness, and vyvanse may just overcome this

Melatonin attenuates the amphetamine-induced decrease in vesicular monoamine transporter-2 expression in postnatal rat striatum - PubMed (10mg/kg melatonin)

Cardiac Early Repolarization Pattern Anomalies Among Children and Adolescents With and Without Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Community Observational Study - PMC (I have early repolarization)

here’s a good dopamine researcher btw: https://cas.illinoisstate.edu/faculty_staff/profile.php?ulid=pagarri#fs-tabs-accord3

Tbf, I know that some of the “cool people” [eg one is noted EA/AI Safety person] just take it 1x-2x per week - usually this is enough to get people to do the “high activation energy” things they need to do while not making them tolerant/dependent and it most likely drastically reduces increased risk of Parkinson’s that could happen from taking it every day as prescribed. It’s also not 100% clear if occasional cycling (esp with co-administration of melatonin) causes any damage at all, since b/c hormetic effects.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%40typedfemale%20amphetamines&src=typed_query

==

It’s also important to note that these things have appetite suppressant effects that can be pro-longevity on the rest of the body (esp if they are used to induce 48+ hour long fasts). Also it’s said by one person that using a lot of Vyvanse/Adderall seems to normalize the brain development of young kids with ADHD (at least the ones who are a mess without meds and whose brains then become ADAPTED to the condition where they’re constantly a mess - which screws up self-confidence and many many other things that are downstream)

9 Likes

I’m currently taking adderall but have not been doing it long term, just in the past few months. The only things i know to do to are basic health practices, like making exercise a priority, sleeping, and keeping my blood sugar stable. I supplement with Fish oil. Occasionally I will take melatonin before bed for potential protective effects but I do worry about regular use screwing with my hormones.

In one of the links you mentioned cannabis may have protective benifits. do you have any specific insights there that might be applied?

I would really do anything that could mitigate any damage being caused by adderall use. Ritalin and Modafinil just don’t work well.

2 Likes

Hi Alex, thanks for this post. I am curious if you have moved onto Vyvanse from Adderall? And if you view has changed on the use of stimulant. Also I read some people use it with L-Theanine / Gabe to counter the potential jittery.

And what about this: “Chronic use of amphetamines may increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s”.

2 Likes

https://desmolysium.com/neurotoxicityofamphetamine/

2 Likes
1 Like

this paper seemed to miss the entire point

random new paper:

Synaptic Specializations at Dopamine Release Sites Orchestrate Efficient and Precise Neuromodulatory Signaling

Abstract: Dopamine is a key chemical neuromodulator that plays vital roles in various brain functions. Traditionally, neuromodulators like dopamine are believed to be released in a diffuse manner and are not commonly associated with synaptic structures where pre- and postsynaptic processes are closely aligned. Our findings challenge this conventional view. Using single- bouton optical measurements of dopamine release, we discovered that dopamine is predominantly released from varicosities that are juxtaposed against the processes of their target neurons. Dopamine axons specifically target neurons expressing dopamine receptors, forming synapses to release dopamine. Interestingly, varicosities that were not directly apposed to dopamine receptor-expressing processes or associated with neurons lacking dopamine receptors did not release dopamine, regardless of their vesicle content. The ultrastructure of dopamine release sites share common features of classical synapses. We further show that the dopamine released at these contact sites induces a precise, dopamine-gated biochemical response in the target processes. Our results indicate that dopamine release sites share key characteristics of conventional synapses that enable relatively precise and efficient neuromodulation of their targets.

Amphetamine-type neurotoxicity — why it matters

High-dose or chronic amphetamine/methamphetamine floods the cytosol with dopamine, which auto-oxidises to quinones and generates H₂O₂ via monoamine oxidase-B (MAO-B); hyperthermia and glutamate release amplify the insult. Loss of dopamine transporter (DAT), tyrosine-hydroxylase and vesicular monoamine transporter signalling is the usual read-out of this “terminal” damage.


How selegiline

could

help … and why the story is complicated

Pharmacological action Theoretical impact on amphetamine toxicity Counter-points
Irreversible MAO-B inhibition at ≤10 mg/day (humans) blocks dopamine deamination → less H₂O₂, less 6-OHDA formation Reduces one major ROS source; explains lower HVA/DOPAC levels in selegiline-treated brains MAO-A (still active) and non-enzymatic oxidation keep producing ROS; amphetamine toxicity also involves glutamate and mitochondrial stress that MAO-B inhibition alone can’t stop
Pro-survival “propargyl” signalling (↑ Bcl-2, BDNF, GDNF; activates Akt/CREB) Shifts neurons into an anti-apoptotic state seen with other propargylamines Mostly shown in cell culture or MPTP models, not yet confirmed in amphetamine-using humans
Low-dose DAT up-regulation & blunted DA release (0.1–0.3 mg kg⁻¹ in rats) Fewer free cytosolic DA spikes during an amphetamine challenge, smaller oxidative burst High or chronic selegiline doses lose this effect or even enhance DA release via its l-amphetamine metabolites
Antioxidant & anti-inflammatory properties independent of MAO-B Attenuates lipid peroxidation, TNF-α, IL-1β in meth-treated rat hippocampus Doses showing these benefits (1–5 mg kg⁻¹ in rodents) exceed human MAO-B-selective levels and generate more amphetamine-like metabolites

What the animal data actually show

Design Main neurochemical end-point Result
Pretreatment (24 h → 21 days) with 0.1–0.3 mg kg⁻¹ selegiline before meth binge DAT loss, striatal DA depletion 30–60 % protection; effect abolished above 0.5 mg kg⁻¹
Co-treatment 0.5–2 mg kg⁻¹ for 21 days with 10 mg kg⁻¹ meth Oxidative markers, hippocampal BDNF/Akt Significant protection and better mood/cognition scores in rats
Post-treatment (starting 24 h after meth binge) 0.02–2 mg kg⁻¹ for 18 days Striatal DA, HVA No rescue of dopamine depletion; high dose worsened mortality
Older mouse studies (1990s) TH-positive fibre counts Mixed—some no effect, some modest protection; differences traceable to temperature control and selegiline stereoisomer

Meta-pattern:

Protection is inconsistent, heavily dose- and timing-dependent, and disappears if selegiline is given after damage is underway.


Human evidence: almost a blank page

  • No controlled trials have examined selegiline as a neuroprotectant in therapeutic amphetamine (Adderall, Vyvanse) users or in stimulant-use disorder.
  • Imaging of Parkinson patients on 10 mg/day selegiline patch for years shows no obvious DAT loss, but this is confounded by disease-related degeneration and concurrent levodopa.
  • Epidemiology of MAO-B inhibitor users does not show lower Parkinson risk from prescribed amphetamine, but datasets are too small for a firm conclusion.

Practical implications if you are taking prescription stimulants

Question Evidence-based answer
Will a MAO-B-selective 5–10 mg/day dose reliably prevent long-term dopaminergic wear-and-tear? Unproven. Animal data look promising for pre-treatment, but protection is partial and has not been translated to humans.
Could it back-fire? At clinical doses selegiline’s l-amphetamine metabolite is weak (∼1/20 the potency of d-amphetamine) but still adds catecholaminergic load. Higher doses (>10 mg oral or ≥15 mg transdermal) lose MAO-B selectivity and increase blood-pressure and serotonin-toxicity risks if combined with SSRIs or bupropion.
Is rasagiline or safinamide safer? They lack amphetamine metabolites and have similar propargyl antioxidant signalling; very limited amphetamine–interaction data, but theoretically cleaner.
Could lowering peripheral dopamine metabolism (↓ HVA) reduce oxidative stress? Possibly, but most stimulant oxidative burden arises inside axons, not in the periphery; MAO-B inhibition only addresses part of the pathway.
Other proven strategies Keep core temperature down, avoid sleep deprivation, use the lowest effective stimulant dose, maintain antioxidant status (N-acetyl-cysteine, vitamin C/E), and monitor DAT density or HVA if clinically justified.

Bottom line

Selegiline has several mechanisms that could dampen amphetamine-induced oxidative injury—MAO-B blockade, propargyl neurotrophic signalling, and (at low doses) reduced dopamine efflux. Rodent data are split: some studies show 30–60 % protection, others none, and a few report worse outcomes at high doses. No human study has yet asked the question directly. Therefore, while low-dose selegiline is biologically plausible as a partial safeguard, it should not be relied on as a stand-alone antidote to amphetamine neurotoxicity. Until clinical trials arrive, the best defence remains responsible stimulant dosing, temperature and sleep control, and general antioxidant support—selegiline can be an adjunct, not a guarantee.

2 Likes

Adult ADHD may take a toll on the brain. Here’s what to know.

Adult ADHD is associated with a higher risk for dementia, but medications and lifestyle changes may lower risk.

Full article here: https://archive.ph/Gh3DL#selection-275.0-279.111

If by “ion panel” you mean the Genova ION/NutrEval-style organic acids panel that reports urinary homovanillic acid (HVA): Adderall isn’t famous for making that number spike. At therapeutic doses it usually does little to nothing, and in some contexts stimulants actually lower dopamine metabolites. Old but decent data show d-amphetamine reduced HVA in responders with normal baseline HVA, with small, mixed effects otherwise. So if your plan is “pee cup equals dopamine truth,” the cup is a lousy gossip. (PubMed)

What moves HVA on these panels much more than Adderall:

  • Diet and collection factors: coffee, tea, bananas, chocolate/cocoa, citrus, vanilla, plus acute stress and hard workouts can raise catecholamine metabolites. Labs often ask you to avoid those for a few days before collection. (UCLA Health)
  • Specific meds: L-dopa and some antibiotics can distort HVA; labs explicitly warn about them. Stimulants aren’t a classic interference the way L-dopa is. (Mayo Clinic Laboratories)
  • Clinical states: HVA/VMA testing is mainly for neuroblastoma screening and certain rare metabolism disorders, not for “how dopaminergic am I today.” (Mayo Clinic Laboratories)

Nutshell:

  • Urine HVA on an ION/OAT panel is a peripheral turnover marker, swayed by diet, stress, and a few meds. It is not a reliable readout of brain dopamine or of your Adderall response. CSF/brain data with stimulants trend toward reduced HVA, not increased. (Nature)

If you’re going to run the panel anyway, do the boring prep: skip the coffee/tea/bananas/chocolate/citrus/vanilla, avoid max-effort workouts, and list your meds. Then interpret HVA for what it is: a noisy side character, not the protagonist. (UCLA Health)

Adderall’s Impact on Homovanillic Acid (HVA) Levels in Humans

Background: Adderall and Dopamine Metabolism

Adderall (mixed amphetamine salts) elevates dopamine and norepinephrine by promoting neurotransmitter release and blocking reuptake. Homovanillic acid (HVA) is the major end-product of dopamine metabolism, formed via monoamine oxidase (MAO) and catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) pathways. It can be measured in urine (reflecting overall body dopamine turnover) and in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF, reflecting central nervous system dopamine metabolism). Changes in HVA levels after Adderall use can indicate how the drug alters dopamine activity. Below, we examine acute vs. chronic effects on HVA in urine and CSF, citing studies that compare baseline levels to post-medication changes and highlighting conflicting findings.

Adderall and Urinary HVA Levels

Baseline Differences: Before treatment, individuals with ADHD have been observed to excrete lower 24-hour urinary HVA compared to peers. In one study of boys with hyperactivity, baseline HVA output was significantly lower than in control children . This suggests reduced baseline dopamine turnover in ADHD.

Effects of Acute/Short-Term Use: Short-term Adderall (or other stimulants) does not always produce a large immediate spike in urinary HVA. For example, a controlled trial comparing stimulant effects found that dextroamphetamine did not significantly change urinary dopamine metabolites in the acute setting . In that study, children on dextroamphetamine showed no significant alteration in dopamine or HVA excretion over the observation period . This lack of acute change may reflect the complex kinetics of dopamine release and metabolism shortly after a dose. (Notably, the same trial reported that methylphenidate also left HVA unchanged acutely , despite increasing some norepinephrine metabolites, underscoring that immediate dopamine metabolite responses can be subtle.) Another report supports that initial stimulant dosing doesn’t always elevate HVA: hyperactive children given a single dose of amphetamine showed minimal immediate change in urinary HVA, unless their baseline levels were very low . In fact, one study noted d-amphetamine tended to increase HVA output only in those hyperactive children who had abnormally low HVA at baseline, whereas it slightly decreased HVA in those with initially normal HVA levels . This baseline-dependent effect suggests acute Adderall may normalize dopamine turnover – raising it if it was low, or dampening excessive turnover via autoregulatory feedback if it was high.

Effects of Chronic Use: With sustained use, Adderall generally drives an increase in total dopamine turnover, which becomes evident in urine. In a clinical research unit study, 9 hyperactive boys were treated with d-amphetamine (0.5 mg/kg daily) for 2 weeks. Their 24-hour urinary HVA excretion rose significantly during treatment . (In the same study, the norepinephrine metabolite MHPG fell, reflecting amphetamine’s differing impact on NE vs. DA metabolism .) These data were a near-replication of earlier findings by the same authors and indicate that chronic therapeutic dosing of amphetamine increases overall dopamine metabolism and HVA production . Consistently, general pharmacology sources note that centrally-acting stimulants (used for ADHD) tend to elevate catecholamine release and therefore increase the excretion of their metabolites in urine . In practical terms, patients on long-term Adderall often show higher urinary HVA levels on organic acid panels, aligning with the drug’s dopamine-enhancing effects.

Contradictory Findings: Not all studies have observed an HVA rise with stimulants, which can be due to differences in timing and physiology. For instance, one placebo-controlled trial reported no significant change in urinary HVA after dextroamphetamine administration, even as clinical symptoms improved . The discrepancy with studies that do see increases may lie in acute vs. chronic measurement and individual variability. It’s important to note that urine HVA represents an aggregate over many hours; a single dose might not drastically alter the 24-hour total unless sustained or repeated. Additionally, as mentioned, the direction of HVA change can depend on baseline dopamine activity. The tendency for amphetamine to raise HVA in those with initially low dopamine turnover but not in others suggests a possible “leveling” effect. Despite some inconsistent acute results, the preponderance of data for chronic use indicates Adderall boosts dopamine turnover (hence HVA) over time in most individuals . This is consistent with its pharmacological action of increasing synaptic dopamine availability, which ultimately leads to more dopamine being metabolized.

Adderall and CSF HVA Levels

Baseline CSF HVA & Stimulant Response: HVA in cerebrospinal fluid reflects brain dopamine metabolism and has been studied as a trait marker in ADHD. Interestingly, baseline CSF HVA levels have shown predictive relationships with stimulant efficacy, though findings have been somewhat conflicting. In a cohort of boys with ADHD, higher pre-treatment CSF HVA correlated with a better behavioral response to stimulants . In that study, children with relatively elevated CSF HVA at baseline responded most robustly to methylphenidate or dextroamphetamine, whereas those with low CSF HVA showed a poorer or even negative response . This suggests central dopaminergic activity (indexed by HVA) was positively linked to medication benefit – possibly because higher baseline dopamine turnover meant there was more dopamine release to augment with stimulants. By contrast, a study in adults found almost the opposite pattern: adult ADHD patients who ultimately responded to methylphenidate had lower CSF HVA, while non-responders had higher HVA . Responders’ CSF HVA was below normal, implying a dopamine deficit that stimulant treatment successfully addressed, whereas non-responders may have had other etiologies for their symptoms . These adult findings mirrored two earlier small studies in children that noted low CSF HVA in “hyperactive” or minimal brain dysfunction patients . Thus, baseline CSF HVA studies have yielded mixed results – some indicate “low dopamine” ADHD subtypes respond best, others indicate “high turnover” individuals respond best. This discrepancy might be due to developmental differences or heterogeneity within ADHD. Regardless, both lines of evidence underscore that Adderall’s effect on CSF HVA is modulated by the individual’s baseline dopamine metabolism.

Acute Amphetamine Effects on CSF HVA: Direct experimental data in humans show that a single large dose of amphetamine does increase dopamine turnover in the brain, but this may not immediately manifest as a higher free HVA level in CSF unless special measures are taken. A seminal 1970s study had amphetamine abusers take high-dose oral amphetamine and underwent lumbar punctures before and after the “binge.” Result: CSF HVA did not significantly change in the hours following acute amphetamine exposure . On face value, it appeared that dumping dopamine into the synapse had no effect on HVA. However, the same study employed probenecid (a drug that blocks organic acid transport and thus HVA clearance from CSF) to probe the issue. Under probenecid, amphetamine caused a marked rise in CSF HVA levels . In other words, amphetamine did accelerate dopamine metabolism, but normally the newly formed HVA was rapidly removed from the CSF. When HVA clearance was inhibited, a significant accumulation was detected . The researchers concluded that large-dose amphetamine increases central dopamine turnover, even though an immediate post-dose lumbar puncture may show little change because HVA is being produced and cleared simultaneously . This finding is important: it reconciles how amphetamine can acutely stimulate dopamine release without necessarily spiking CSF HVA at a single time-point – the HVA is being made, but also rapidly transported out of the CSF into the bloodstream. (In line with this, animal studies have observed clear increases in CSF HVA after amphetamine. For example, in primates, amphetamine administration led to significantly elevated ventricular CSF HVA concentrations . The human and primate data together suggest the timing of measurement and presence of clearance mechanisms are key in whether an HVA rise is seen acutely.)

Furthermore, acute amphetamine might even lower CSF HVA transiently in certain cases due to feedback mechanisms. There is some evidence that dextroamphetamine treatment acutely reduced CSF HVA in children with ADHD . This counterintuitive reduction could occur if, for instance, amphetamine-induced dopamine release triggers strong autoreceptor-mediated suppression of dopamine synthesis/firing, temporarily decreasing intraneuronal dopamine metabolism. Such acute decreases were noted in the earlier pediatric reports: stimulant administration led to drops in CSF HVA in some hyperactive children, especially those who started with higher HVA levels . In summary, acute Adderall can either leave CSF HVA unchanged or cause slight decreases in the short term, despite internally boosting dopamine turnover – a paradox explained by the dynamics of release, metabolism, and clearance in the CNS.

Chronic/Long-Term Effects on CSF HVA: Long-term data on CSF HVA during sustained Adderall treatment in humans are limited (due to the invasiveness of repeat lumbar punctures). However, clinical hints and animal models suggest a normalizing or adaptive effect over time. One report mentioned that chronic dextroamphetamine treatment tended to lower CSF HVA in ADHD children on medication , consistent with a possible long-term reduction in baseline dopamine turnover as the system adapts. In extreme cases of stimulant overuse or toxicity, dopamine neurons can be down-regulated or damaged, which would reduce HVA generation. For instance, an experiment in vervet monkeys found that chronic high-dose amphetamine caused severe dopamine depletion in the brain (and a large drop in the immediate dopamine metabolite DOPAC), yet HVA levels in the brain were only moderately reduced . Despite ~60% destruction of dopamine neurons, HVA remained closer to normal, indicating that compensatory metabolic pathways (e.g. extra-neuronal metabolism of dopamine) kept HVA production up . This suggests that even when chronic amphetamine diminishes dopamine stores or neuronal function, the body adjusts to maintain dopamine turnover output to a degree. In therapeutic scenarios, we wouldn’t expect neuronal destruction, but some down-regulation of dopamine activity can occur (transporters internalize, receptors adjust, etc.). Thus, after an initial period of enhanced dopamine release and metabolism (which might raise HVA early in treatment), the CSF HVA may normalize to baseline or even dip with longer treatment, reflecting homeostatic stabilization. Indeed, some authors have noted that CSF HVA might increase during the first weeks of stimulant therapy but then return to pre-treatment levels after a month or more of continued use (a pattern analogous to what is seen with antipsychotic dopamine-blockers) . In sum, chronic Adderall can lead to complex central changes: it boosts dopamine turnover, but the brain’s feedback mechanisms may eventually counterbalance to maintain equilibrium in HVA output.

Summary of CSF Findings: The acute and chronic CSF data may seem contradictory – amphetamine can appear to increase, not change, or decrease CSF HVA under different conditions. The key is understanding that CSF HVA is a snapshot of central dopamine metabolism at a specific moment, influenced by both production and clearance. Amphetamine’s immediate effects (massive dopamine release, less reuptake) can paradoxically lower measurable HVA at first, while prolonged use generally increases total dopamine metabolism but also triggers adaptive responses. The net outcome in CSF HVA will depend on when and how it’s measured. Nonetheless, the evidence consistently shows that amphetamine accelerates dopamine turnover (as proved when HVA clearance was blocked ), even if the CSF HVA concentration doesn’t always spike in parallel.

Physiological Interpretation: Why HVA Responses Differ (Acute vs. Chronic, Urine vs. CSF)

The effects of Adderall on HVA are best understood by examining the drug’s mechanisms on dopamine neurons:

  • Dopamine Release vs. Reuptake Inhibition: Adderall causes rapid release of dopamine from presynaptic storage vesicles and reverses the dopamine transporter (DAT), pushing dopamine into the synapse. It also blocks DAT reuptake to some extent. Acutely, this means much more dopamine is available in the synaptic cleft and extracellular space, and less is being taken back up into the neuron. Why does this matter for HVA? Most HVA is generated after dopamine is metabolized by MAO in the neuronal cytosol (producing DOPAC, which then becomes HVA via COMT) or in extracellular spaces via COMT then MAO (producing HVA from 3-methoxytyramine). When Adderall hits:
    • Intracellular metabolism temporarily drops: Because dopamine isn’t being recaptured as efficiently, there is less dopamine in the cytosol for MAO to convert into DOPAC. Early after amphetamine, studies in animals and humans show a dip in intraneuronal DOPAC levels (a precursor to HVA) as reuptake is inhibited. This can contribute to a transient decrease or lack of rise in measured HVA centrally . Essentially, the usual pathway for dopamine breakdown is disrupted.
    • Extracellular metabolism rises: At the same time, the flood of dopamine in the synapse is subject to metabolism outside neurons. Dopamine can be converted by COMT to 3-methoxytyramine, which is then metabolized by MAO to HVA. This alternate route means dopamine release will yield HVA, but much of that HVA might be generated in the extracellular space or peripheral tissues and then carried away. In the earlier-cited amphetamine study, only when HVA clearance was blocked did they see the accumulated HVA – confirming that amphetamine did increase HVA production via enhanced dopamine turnover . Under normal conditions, that extra HVA was simply whisked into the bloodstream and eventually into urine.
  • Compartmental Differences: The urine vs. CSF discrepancy largely comes down to integration over time and source. Urine HVA is cumulative – it catches all HVA that the body produces and excretes over many hours. Thus, even if at any given instant CSF HVA isn’t high, prolonged amphetamine action will result in more dopamine being metabolized overall and more HVA appearing in urine. For example, a child on daily amphetamine showed significantly greater 24h HVA excretion after 2 weeks . Urine also includes HVA from peripheral dopamine (the gut produces dopamine, and sympathetic nerves release some dopamine/norepinephrine that gets metabolized to HVA). Adderall stimulates peripheral catecholamine release as well; studies note that stimulants raise plasma NE and can elevate peripheral metabolic byproducts . So, Adderall tends to boost urinary HVA because it increases total-body catecholamine turnover – an effect that becomes more pronounced with repeated dosing . In contrast, CSF HVA is instantaneous and purely central. A lumbar puncture measures HVA at that moment in the CNS. If Adderall at that moment has shunted dopamine away from intraneuronal breakdown (lowering one source of HVA) and HVA is being rapidly exported from CSF, the level can appear unchanged or even lower, as seen in some acute studies . Only when viewed over a longer duration (or with clearance blocked) do we see the true increase in central HVA production. Think of it as Adderall “mobilizing” dopamine – initially, more dopamine is signaling and less is being immediately oxidized, but over time the excess dopamine is metabolized via alternate routes, yielding more HVA that eventually shows up in systemic circulation.
  • Feedback and Autoregulation: Dopamine neurons have autoreceptors and feedback loops. A sudden surge of synaptic dopamine from amphetamine can activate D2 autoreceptors on neurons, which slow dopamine synthesis and firing. This feedback might reduce new dopamine production and thus HVA formation transiently. In individuals with high baseline dopamine turnover, this feedback is strong – giving Adderall could actually reduce their dopamine firing for a period, which might explain why some studies saw CSF HVA drop in those cases . Conversely, in people with low baseline dopamine, Adderall’s push may simply elevate them to normal dopamine output without triggering as much autoregulatory shutdown, resulting in a net increase in HVA. This aligns with observations that stimulant effects on HVA were baseline-dependent (low baseline HVA went up, high baseline HVA went down) . Over the long run, continuous stimulant exposure can cause the neuron to adjust its homeostasis: DAT proteins may internalize (reducing dopamine clearance capacity) , and tyrosine hydroxylase activity might change. These changes can either sustain higher dopamine availability or lead to a new equilibrium where dopamine output and metabolism are moderated. That could explain why after weeks on Adderall, CSF HVA might normalize even though urinary HVA remains elevated – the brain has recalibrated to a steady-state dopamine turnover that is closer to baseline, while the peripheral systems still show the drug’s metabolic effects.
  • Evidence of Increased Turnover: Despite the nuances above, it’s clear that Adderall ultimately increases dopamine turnover. The additional HVA seen when amphetamine is given with probenecid in humans , and the rise in monkey CSF HVA , both demonstrate enhanced dopamine metabolism. Clinically, the rise in urinary HVA with chronic use is a straightforward reflection of this . The lack of acute CSF HVA elevation without probenecid doesn’t mean turnover isn’t happening – it means the dopamine is being metabolized in such a way that HVA doesn’t accumulate in the CSF compartment. The physiological bottom line is that Adderall’s pharmacologic actions (massive dopamine release and transporter blockade) initially redistribute how dopamine is metabolized but, given time, lead to an overall increase in HVA production once the excess dopamine is broken down. Different compartments reveal different phases of this process.

Conclusion

Adderall’s effect on HVA is context-dependent: acutely, central HVA levels may not rise and can even transiently decrease in some individuals, whereas with ongoing use the total output of HVA tends to increase. Urinary HVA provides an integrated measure of this increased dopamine metabolism – chronic Adderall therapy is associated with higher urinary HVA excretion compared to baseline . CSF HVA, an instantaneous central measure, might remain unchanged or reduced right after a dose , yet other evidence shows dopamine turnover is in fact heightened in the brain (unmasked by probenecid or animal measurements) . The seemingly contradictory findings can be explained by Adderall’s mechanism: by releasing dopamine and inhibiting its reuptake, it alters the timing and location of dopamine breakdown. Initially, metabolism shifts away from the cell (reducing immediate HVA in CSF), but ultimately the excess dopamine is metabolized (increasing HVA, especially peripherally). Baseline neurochemistry and adaptive responses further influence the direction and magnitude of HVA changes.

In practical terms, these findings illustrate that Adderall potentiates dopaminergic activity – which is why it benefits ADHD symptoms – and the evidence of that activity (in the form of HVA) can be detected given the right parameters. Increased urinary HVA and altered CSF HVA are biochemical reflections of Adderall’s stimulation of dopamine pathways. In children with ADHD, for instance, amphetamine’s clinical efficacy has been linked to its dopaminergic effects (enhancing dopamine signaling and turnover) . Any differences in HVA responses are not contradictions of this effect but rather reveal the complex physiology of dopamine regulation across different body compartments and time scales.

Sources:

  • Shekim et al., Biol Psychiatry (1983) – Urinary HVA in hyperactive boys: baseline vs. post-d-amphetamine .
  • Zametkin et al., Arch Gen Psychiatry (1985) – Urinary catecholamine metabolites after methylphenidate vs. dextroamphetamine .
  • Shekim et al., Am J Psychiatry (1982) – Baseline low HVA and its change with d-amphetamine in responders vs. non-responders .
  • Castellanos et al., Neuropsychopharmacology (1996) – Baseline CSF HVA predicting stimulant response in ADHD boys .
  • Wender et al., report in Psychiatric Times – Adult ADHD CSF HVA in responders vs. non-responders .
  • Angrist et al., J. Psychiatr. Res. (1974) – Acute amphetamine “binge” effects on CSF HVA, with and without probenecid .
  • Sci. Reports (2017) – Summary noting amphetamine’s effect to reduce CSF HVA acutely in some children .
  • Owen et al., Psychopharmacology (1978) – Chronic amphetamine in monkeys (dopamine and HVA changes) .
  • Genova Diagnostics, Organic Acids Guide – Note on stimulants increasing catecholamine metabolites .
  • (Additional mechanistic insight drawn from above sources and neuropharmacology principles of dopamine metabolism.)

from the new Caesar AI

Evidence from primate and human studies suggests that chronic therapeutic use of amphetamine is associated with subtle but measurable alterations in the brain’s dopaminergic system, including potential neurotoxicityReview article Amphetamine-related drugs neurotoxicity in humans. The neurotoxic mechanism is primarily linked to oxidative stress resulting from the autooxidation of elevated dopamine concentrations in the neuron’s cytosolFrontiers | Dopamine Autoxidation Is Controlled by Acidic pH. A standard therapeutic dose can increase extracellular dopamine in the human striatum by approximately 10- to 15-foldDextroamphetamine - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. While direct quantification of the corresponding increase in intracellular (cytosolic) dopamine is unavailable from human studies, the rate of dopamine autooxidation and subsequent production of neurotoxic reactive oxygen species (ROS) is directly proportional to the cytosolic dopamine concentrationFrontiers | Dopamine Autoxidation Is Controlled by Acidic pH. This elevated oxidative stress is qualitatively linked to the accumulation of cellular aging markers like lipofuscin, though a precise quantitative relationship is not established in the provided materialsDopaminergic mediation in the brain aging and ….

Evidence of Dopaminergic Neurotoxicity at Therapeutic Doses

The question of whether therapeutic amphetamine doses cause neuronal damage is complex, with conflicting evidence from different experimental modelsLiterature Review: Update on Amphetamine Neurotoxicity and Its Relevance to the Treatment of ADHD - Claire Advokat, 2007. While high, abusive doses are known to damage dopaminergic pathways, the effects of long-term, prescribed use are more subtleLiterature Review: Update on Amphetamine Neurotoxicity and Its Relevance to the Treatment of ADHD - Claire Advokat, 2007.

Evidence from Primate and Human Studies

Studies in non-human primates provide the most direct evidence for potential neurotoxicity at therapeutic-equivalent dosesAbuse of Amphetamines and Structural Abnormalities in Brain - PMC. In one key study, monkeys treated for four weeks with amphetamine doses mimicking those in human clinical treatment developed significant neurochemical deficitsAbuse of Amphetamines and Structural Abnormalities in Brain - PMC. The plasma drug concentrations in the monkeys (136 +/- 21 ng/ml) were matched to levels reported in human ADHD patients (120 to 140 ng/ml)Abuse of Amphetamines and Structural Abnormalities in Brain - PMC. This regimen resulted in 30-50% reductions in key markers of dopamine system health in the striatum, including dopamine itself, its primary metabolite, its rate-limiting synthesis enzyme (tyrosine hydroxylase), the dopamine transporter (DAT), and the vesicular monoamine transporter (VMAT)Abuse of Amphetamines and Structural Abnormalities in Brain - PMC.

In humans, long-term therapeutic use (up to 50 mg per day) for conditions like ADHD and narcolepsy has been associated with reduced striatal dopamine synthesis and releaseThe Effects of Amphetamine and Methamphetamine on …. While this points to a functional alteration, it is debated whether this represents actual neuronal damage or a compensatory adaptationAbuse of Amphetamines and Structural Abnormalities in Brain - PMC. Notably, some evidence suggests that non-human primates may be more vulnerable to stimulant-induced neurotoxicity than rodentsAbuse of Amphetamines and Structural Abnormalities in Brain - PMC.

Conflicting Evidence and Mechanistic Insights

The evidence is not uniform. Some reviews note that amphetamines have been used therapeutically for decades without clear, definitive evidence of long-term adverse effects in humansFull article: Neurotoxicity of drugs of abuse - the case of methylenedioxy amphetamines (MDMA, ecstasy ), and amphetamines. Furthermore, a large clinical study of individuals with ADHD found no impact on the developmental trajectories of brain volumes with clinical treatmentAbuse of Amphetamines and Structural Abnormalities in Brain - PMC. Rodent studies using lower, repeated doses often fail to show neurotoxicity, questioning the relevance of high-dose animal data to human therapyAbuse of Amphetamines and Structural Abnormalities in Brain - PMC. Some rat studies even show “trophic” dendritic growth, a sign of neuronal adaptation rather than damage, with therapeutic-like treatment regimensLiterature Review: Update on Amphetamine Neurotoxicity and Its Relevance to the Treatment of ADHD - Claire Advokat, 2007.

The primary mechanism for amphetamine-related neurotoxicity is oxidative stressThe role of dopamine receptors in the neurotoxicity of methamphetamine - Ares‐Santos - 2013 - Journal of Internal Medicine - Wiley Online Library. Amphetamine increases cytosolic dopamine, which is highly susceptible to autooxidation at the neutral pH of the cytosol, leading to the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and toxic dopamine quinonesCytosolic dopamine determines hypersensitivity to blunt …

Quantitative Impact on Dopamine Levels

Amphetamine profoundly increases both extracellular and extravesicular (cytosolic) dopamine concentrations, which is the direct driver of potential neurotoxicityMethylphenidate vs. Amphetamine: Neurotransmitters? :zap::brain: #pmhnp #psychnp #neurotransmitter.

Extracellular Dopamine Increase

Human studies measuring the impact of therapeutic amphetamine doses on extracellular dopamine in the striatum show a significant surge, though figures vary.

  • One source reports a 15 mg oral dose increased extracellular dopamine in the striatum by 5.2-fold relative to baselineAmphetamine - Wikipedia.
  • Another overview suggests the same 15 mg dose increases striatal extracellular dopamine by approximately 10- to 15-fold in healthy volunteers, as measured by Positron Emission Tomography (PET)Dextroamphetamine - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.

This discrepancy can be reconciled by examining PET imaging studies that use the radiotracer [11C]raclopride The Chemical Tools for Imaging Dopamine Release - PMC. In this method, amphetamine-induced dopamine release competes with [11C]raclopride for D2 receptors, causing a measurable decrease in the tracer’s binding potential (BP)The Chemical Tools for Imaging Dopamine Release - PMC. This percent reduction in BP can be correlated to the fold-increase in dopamine:

  • Multiple studies suggest a conversion ratio where each 1% reduction in [11C]raclopride binding corresponds to a 40- to 50-fold percent increase in synaptic dopamine (e.g., a 44:1 or 50:1 ratio)Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 2569–2574, March 1997 Medical Sciences. For example, a 10% decrease in BP would imply a 5-fold (500%) increase in dopamineFrontiers | Measurement of Striatal Dopamine Release Induced by ….
  • A human study using a therapeutic dose of dextroamphetamine (0.3 mg/kg) observed a 22.2% to 22.5% reduction in [11C]raclopride BP in the striatumConditioned Dopamine Release in Humans: A Positron …

Applying the 40:1 to 50:1 conversion ratios to this observed ~22.5% binding reduction yields a dopamine increase of 900% to 1125%, which is a 10- to 12.25-fold increase over baseline. This calculation aligns with the higher estimates and suggests the 10- to 15-fold range is a more robust approximation.

Extravesicular (Cytosolic) Dopamine Increase

Direct quantification of the increase in cytosolic dopamine in humans after amphetamine administration is not available in the provided research. However, the mechanism of action—inhibiting the vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) and reversing the dopamine transporter (DAT)—directly leads to the accumulation of dopamine in the cytosolFrontiers | Dopamine Autoxidation Is Controlled by Acidic pH. This cytosolic pool is the source for the massive extracellular release.

While a precise N-fold increase cannot be stated, data from primate microdialysis studies show that therapeutic doses can increase extracellular dopamine by 1,800% to over 5,800% (an 18- to 58-fold increase), demonstrating the immense capacity of the cytosolic surge that drives this effectAmphetamine-induced release of dopamine in primate …. The baseline cytosolic dopamine concentration in human midbrain neurons is estimated to be in the range of 50 to 300 nM Integrating the Roles of Midbrain Dopamine Circuits in Behavior and Neuropsychiatric Disease.

Autooxidation Events and Lipofuscin Accumulation

The neurotoxic potential of amphetamine is directly linked to the biochemical instability of dopamine outside of its protective vesicles.

The Proportional Increase in Autooxidation

Dopamine is stable within the acidic environment of synaptic vesicles (pH ~5.6), but it is highly susceptible to autooxidation at the neutral pH of the cytosol (pH ~7.4)Complexity of dopamine metabolism | Cell Communication and Signaling | Full Text. This process generates damaging ROS and toxic dopamine quinonesDopaminergic mediation in the brain aging and …

Crucially, the amount of auto-oxidized dopamine and the associated ROS production is directly proportional to the level of cytosolic dopamine Frontiers | Dopamine Autoxidation Is Controlled by Acidic pH. Kinetic modeling studies confirm this relationship:

  • Spontaneous oxidation of a 20 µM dopamine solution at physiological pH 7.4 produces hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) at a rate of 0.24 µM per hourFrontiers | Kinetic Modeling of pH-Dependent Oxidation of Dopamine by Iron and Its Relevance to Parkinson’s Disease.
  • The reaction is strongly pH-dependent; at pH 7.4, dopamine’s half-life is measured in minutes, whereas at the acidic pH of vesicles, it is stable for daysFrontiers | Dopamine Autoxidation Is Controlled by Acidic pH.

Given this direct proportionality, a hypothetical 10-fold increase in the steady-state concentration of cytosolic dopamine would be expected to cause a roughly 10-fold increase in the rate of dopamine autooxidation events and the corresponding generation of ROS.

Effect on Lipofuscin Accumulation

Lipofuscin is an aggregate of non-degradable, oxidized cellular waste, primarily composed of cross-linked proteins and lipids, that accumulates in lysosomes and is considered a hallmark of cellular agingDopaminergic mediation in the brain aging and … Its formation is directly linked to oxidative stress and the degradation of cellular components like mitochondria (mitophagy)PGC-1α activity in nigral dopamine neurons determines ….

The causal chain is as follows:

  1. Therapeutic amphetamine use increases cytosolic dopamine.
  2. Increased cytosolic dopamine leads to a proportional increase in autooxidation.
  3. This autooxidation generates ROS, which causes oxidative damage to proteins and lipids.
  4. This damaged material is processed through autophagy and accumulates as lipofuscin.

While this qualitative link is well-established, the provided research does not contain a quantitative model to calculate the specific increase in the rate of lipofuscin accumulation resulting from a given increase in dopamine-derived oxidative stress. Research queries to establish this specific quantitative link did not yield any results. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that elevated autooxidation from therapeutic amphetamine use would contribute to increased lipofuscin formation, but it is not possible to quantify by “how much” based on the available information.

Way better than o3 (which moralizes)

Based on the metric of extracellular dopamine release, the relative neurotoxic potential of 3-methylmethcathinone (3-MMC) and mephedrone (4-MMC) compared to amphetamine (the active component of Adderall) is complex, with significant differences observed between in vitro potency at the human dopamine transporter and in vivo effects in animal models. While the cathinones can induce potent, high-magnitude dopamine release, amphetamine is substantially more potent at the human dopamine transporter and its effects are longer-lasting.

Critically, extensive research indicates that the magnitude of dopamine release is not a direct or linear predictor of neurotoxicity. Evidence suggests that while amphetamine causes direct, long-term damage to dopamine neurons, 4-MMC does not produce similar neurotoxic damage on its own, despite causing comparable or greater peaks in extracellular dopamineFrontiers | Alcohol Co-Administration Changes Mephedrone-Induced Alterations of Neuronal Activity.

In Vitro Potency for Dopamine Release

The half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) measures a drug’s potency in producing a given effect, with a lower EC50 value indicating higher potency. Analysis of EC50 values for dopamine release reveals a critical difference between effects on rodent versus human dopamine transporters (DAT).

Potency at Rodent Dopamine Transporters

In studies using rat brain preparations (synaptosomes), 3-MMC and 4-MMC are highly potent dopamine releasers, with potencies comparable to or exceeding many reported values for amphetamine.

Substance Dopamine Release EC50 (nM) — Rat Models Source(s)
Amphetamine 6.0 - 1700 nM (wide reported range) Pharmacology of Drugs Used as Stimulants - Docherty - 2021
3-MMC 28 - 70.6 nM Appearance of 2-MMC and 3-MMC on the illicit drug …
4-MMC 49.1 - 52 nM Mephedrone - Wikipedia

Note: The smaller the EC50 value, the higher the potency.

Potency at the Human Dopamine Transporter (hDAT)

Data from systems using the human dopamine transporter (hDAT) show a starkly different potency profile. Amphetamine is significantly more potent at hDAT than either 3-MMC or 4-MMC. The potency of 4-MMC, in particular, is dramatically lower at hDAT compared to rat DAT.

Substance Dopamine Release EC50 (µM) — hDAT Models Source(s)
Amphetamine 0.036 - 1.31 µM Currents in response to rapid concentration jumps of amphetamine uncover novel aspects of human dopamine transporter function - PubMed
3-MMC ~2.3 µM Structural Determinants for Inhibitor Recognition by the Dopamine …
4-MMC ~8.7 µM Mephedrone induces partial release at human dopamine …

Note: EC50 values are expressed in micromolars (µM) for direct comparison. 1 µM = 1000 nM.

This species-specific difference indicates that based on potency at the human molecular target, amphetamine is a more powerful dopamine releaser than 4-MMC and 3-MMC.

In Vivo Extracellular Dopamine Levels

In vivo microdialysis studies in awake rats measure the real-time concentration of neurotransmitters in specific brain regions, providing insight into the magnitude and duration of a drug’s effect.

4-MMC vs. Amphetamine

A direct comparative study in the rat nucleus accumbens, a key brain reward center, yielded several key findingsMephedrone, compared with MDMA (ecstasy) and …:

3-MMC vs. Amphetamine

The provided research does not contain a direct in vivo microdialysis study comparing extracellular dopamine levels following 3-MMC and amphetamine administration. However, given that 3-MMC is more potent than 4-MMC at the rat dopamine transporter, it is expected to be a robust dopamine releaser in vivo in that modelCritical review report: 3-Methylmethcathinone (3-MMC).

The Disconnect Between Dopamine Release and Direct Neurotoxicity

The premise that higher dopamine release equates to greater neurotoxicity is an oversimplification not supported by the available evidence. Studies directly assessing markers of neuronal damage reveal a different profile for the cathinones compared to amphetamines.

In conclusion, when assessed solely by the magnitude of extracellular dopamine release, the comparison is nuanced. In rat models, 4-MMC produces a higher but shorter-lasting dopamine spike than amphetamine at the doses tested. However, at the human dopamine transporter, amphetamine is a markedly more potent releasing agent than both 3-MMC and 4-MMC. If one considers the broader and more clinically relevant definition of neurotoxicity—actual neuronal damage—the available evidence strongly suggests that amphetamine is more directly neurotoxic than 4-MMC.

Beta-blockers can mitigate some, but not all, of the cardiotoxic risks associated with amphetamines (e.g., Adderall) and methylphenidate (e.g., Ritalin). Their primary benefit lies in countering the hemodynamic stress caused by stimulant-induced catecholamine surges, such as increased heart rate and myocardial contractility[1][2]. However, their ability to protect against direct, non-catecholamine-mediated cellular damage like oxidative stress is uncertain and may be limited[3].

The clinical application of beta-blockers in this context is complex due to a theoretical risk of “unopposed alpha-stimulation,” which could paradoxically worsen hypertension, though this phenomenon appears to be rare in practice[4][2]. Notably, recent guidelines from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) for managing hypertension in adults taking ADHD medications recommend decreasing the stimulant dose or discontinuing the drug, rather than co-prescribing a beta-blocker[5][6].

The Dual Mechanisms of Stimulant Cardiotoxicity

Stimulant-induced cardiotoxicity originates from two distinct pathways: indirect effects mediated by catecholamines and direct toxic effects on heart muscle cells[7][8][9].

Catecholamine-Mediated Effects (Indirect Toxicity)

Both amphetamine and methylphenidate increase the synaptic levels of catecholamines like norepinephrine and dopamine[10][11]. This hyperadrenergic state stimulates peripheral alpha- and beta-adrenergic receptors, leading to a range of adverse cardiovascular effects[1][12]:

  • Tachycardia (Increased Heart Rate): Stimulation of beta-1 receptors increases heart rate[8][13].
  • Hypertension (Increased Blood Pressure): Alpha-1 receptor stimulation causes vasoconstriction (narrowing of blood vessels), increasing blood pressure[8].
  • Increased Myocardial Oxygen Demand: The combination of a faster heart rate and increased contractility elevates the heart’s demand for oxygen[1].
  • Vasospasm: The hyperadrenergic state can cause sudden, severe contraction of coronary arteries, reducing oxygen supply to the heart muscle (myocardial ischemia) and potentially leading to myocardial infarction (heart attack)[8][15].
  • Long-Term Structural Changes: Chronic exposure to high catecholamine levels is directly cardiotoxic, leading to myocardial fibrosis (scarring), hypertrophy (enlargement of heart muscle cells), and ultimately cardiomyopathy (disease of the heart muscle)[7][16].

Direct Myocardial Toxicity (Non-Catecholamine)

Separate from their effects on catecholamines, stimulants can exert direct damage on cardiomyocytes (heart muscle cells)[8][17]. Animal and in-vitro studies have shown that amphetamines can induce cellular damage and hypertrophy even in the absence of catecholamines[8]. The proposed mechanisms for this direct toxicity include[18][3][19][20]:

  • Increased Oxidative Stress: Generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that damage cellular components[17][12].
  • Mitochondrial Dysfunction: Impairment of the cell’s energy-producing structures[18][12].
  • Altered Calcium Homeostasis: Disruption of the normal flow of calcium ions, which is critical for muscle contraction and electrical signaling[18][21].
  • Apoptosis: Programmed cell death of cardiomyocytes[3][20].
  • Inflammation and Fibrosis: Increased markers of inflammation and tissue scarring within the heart muscle[12].

Beta-Blocker Efficacy and Limitations

Mitigation of Hemodynamic Stress

Beta-blockers directly antagonize the effects of catecholamines on beta-adrenergic receptors, making them a logical countermeasure to the hemodynamic stress caused by stimulants[2]. In clinical and experimental settings, they have been shown to reduce tachycardia associated with stimulant use[4]. A controlled study using the beta-blocker pindolol before MDMA (an amphetamine derivative) administration successfully prevented increases in heart rate[22]. However, in that same study, pindolol had no effect on the increase in mean arterial blood pressure, suggesting an incomplete protective effect against hypertensive responses[22].

Uncertain Protection Against Direct Toxicity

The efficacy of beta-blockers in preventing the direct, non-catecholamine-mediated cardiotoxicity of stimulants is not established[3]. A critical animal study demonstrated that while a beta-blocker could control the heart rate and blood pressure increases from methamphetamine, it did not prevent the drug from causing direct histopathological damage to the rat myocardium[3]. This finding suggests that managing hemodynamic effects alone may not be sufficient to eliminate the cardiotoxicity risk.

In other contexts of drug-induced cardiotoxicity, such as from chemotherapy, certain beta-blockers like carvedilol have demonstrated direct cardioprotective effects attributed to their antioxidant properties[23][24]. While no specific evidence was found to confirm a similar benefit against stimulant-induced oxidative stress, this mechanism provides a theoretical basis for potential protection that is not shared by all beta-blockers[25].

Safety Concern: The Risk of Unopposed Alpha-Stimulation

A long-standing concern with using beta-blockers for stimulant toxicity is the phenomenon of “unopposed alpha-stimulation”[26][27].

  • Mechanism: Stimulants activate both alpha-1 receptors (causing vasoconstriction) and beta-2 receptors (causing vasodilation)[2][28].
  • Theoretical Risk: Using a beta-blocker (especially a non-selective one that blocks beta-2 receptors) could inhibit the compensatory vasodilation, leaving the alpha-1-mediated vasoconstriction “unopposed.” This could theoretically lead to a paradoxical and dangerous increase in blood pressure and coronary artery constriction[29][30].

However, clinical evidence suggests this risk is inconsistent, rare, and may be overstated, particularly for amphetamines as compared to cocaine[4][13]. One review of 19 studies involving 227 patients treated for amphetamine toxicity found only one possible case of unopposed alpha-stimulation, which resolved without a negative outcome[2]. The American Heart Association notes that for methamphetamine, unlike cocaine, there is no specific contraindication or controversy surrounding the use of beta-blockers for cardiac arrhythmias[31].

Comparative Analysis of Beta-Blocker Types

Not all beta-blockers carry the same risk profile in this context.

  • Mixed Alpha/Beta-Blockers: Drugs like labetalol and carvedilol, which block both alpha and beta receptors, are often considered preferable as they can prevent hypertension and tachycardia without the risk of unopposed alpha-stimulation[31][32]. In studies of cocaine users with heart failure, carvedilol demonstrated a larger improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class compared to the beta-1 selective blocker metoprolol[33][34].
  • Beta-1 Selective Blockers: These drugs (e.g., metoprolol, atenolol) primarily target beta-1 receptors in the heart, with less effect on beta-2 receptors in the blood vessels[35]. Some authors suggest that “selective” beta-1 blockers are a reasonable option as they would be less likely to cause unopposed alpha-stimulation[36].
  • Carvedilol’s Unique Properties: In studies of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity, carvedilol has been shown to be superior to other beta-blockers in preserving heart function, a benefit partly attributed to its potent antioxidant properties[23]. This suggests it may offer more comprehensive protection against drug-induced cellular damage.

Clinical Guidelines and Practical Application

Despite the theoretical benefits, co-prescribing beta-blockers to manage stimulant side effects is not a recommended primary strategy in current clinical guidelines.

  • Guideline Recommendations: The most recent ACC/AHA guidelines for managing secondary hypertension recommend that for patients taking ADHD drugs, clinicians should first consider decreasing the dose of the stimulant or discontinuing it altogether[5][6]. The guidelines do not recommend adding a beta-blocker as a first-line management strategy.
  • Monitoring is Key: Both historical (2008 AHA) and current guidelines emphasize vigilant cardiovascular monitoring for patients on stimulants[38][39]. This includes taking a thorough patient and family cardiac history, conducting a physical exam, and regularly checking blood pressure and heart rate, especially during dose titration[38][40].
  • Observed Clinical Practice: While not formally recommended, there is evidence suggesting some clinical use of this combination. One large observational study noted that some individuals on ADHD medications are prescribed beta-blockers for symptoms like palpitations, which could potentially mask or reduce the observed risk of arrhythmias in study populations[39][41]. This indicates that co-prescription occurs in real-world practice, though robust data on its long-term safety and efficacy for this specific purpose is lacking.

Citations

[1] https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)62896-6/fulltext
[2] Beta-Blockers for Cocaine and other Stimulant Toxicity • LITFL
[3] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.016704
[4] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1074248416681644
[5] https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.081
[6] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001356
[7] https://www.cureus.com/articles/351915-prolonged-amphetamine-dextroamphetamine-use-an-unrecognized-cause-of-cardiomyopathy.pdf
[8] https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/ndarc/resources/TR.238.pdf
[9] https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0188-21982017000100035
[10] Amphetamine Abuse Related Acute Myocardial Infarction - PMC
[11] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332217345341
[12] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949918623000311
[13] https://www.cmaj.ca/content/194/4/E127
[15] https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Articles/2020/10/26/13/08/Methamphetamine-Associated-Cardiomyopathy-and-PAH
[16] Cardiotoxicity associated with methamphetamine use and signs of cardiovascular pathology among methamphetamine users
[17] Prolonged Amphetamine-Dextroamphetamine Use: An Unrecognized Cause of Cardiomyopathy - PubMed
[18] Cardiovascular disease associated with methamphetamine use: a review - PubMed
[19] Exposure to Amphetamines Leads to Development of Amphetamine Type Stimulants Associated Cardiomyopathy (ATSAC) | Cardiovascular Toxicology
[20] Exposure to Amphetamines Leads to Development of Amphetamine Type Stimulants Associated Cardiomyopathy (ATSAC) - PubMed
[21] The Effect of Methamphetamine on Ventricular Myocytes of Neonatal Rats - PubMed
[22] Effects of a beta-blocker on the cardiovascular response to MDMA (Ecstasy) - PubMed
[23] Preventive use of beta-blockers for anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity: A network meta-analysis - PMC
[24] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circheartfailure.113.000267
[25] Beta-blockers for the primary prevention of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials | BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology | Full Text
[26] Amphetamine poisoning • LITFL • Toxicology Library Toxicant
[27] https://www.pathway.md/ai/history/why-we-cannot-give-beta-blockers-for-cocaine-toxicity-789018f0-7ce7-4ee8-94f4-dbf81b582402
[28] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8900778/
[29] https://www.heartlungcirc.org/article/S1443-9506(16)31574-8/abstract
[30] https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/812518-medication
[31] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCEP.121.010273
[32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_blocker
[33] https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=pa-capstones
[34] https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/86076
[35] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/alpha-adrenergic-stimulation
[36] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307919694_Beta_Blockers_and_the_Cardiac_Complications_of_Methamphetamine
[38] https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2009/0515/p905.html
[39] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2811812
[40] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.107.189473
[41] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10851097/

fwiw stims can help dendritic remodelling. this AND neurotoxicity (to a limited extent) might bothbe possible at same time
Methylphenidate can remodel spines, but the direction isn’t one-size-fits-all.
In mice, repeated MPH increased spine density in striatal medium spiny neurons, similar to other psychostimulants. Spine gain in the NAcc/striatum isn’t inherently “healthy”; it can reflect drug-adaptation circuits.
In rodent cingulate cortex, chronic low-dose MPH “normalized” stress-induced spine alterations and increased dendritic complexity. Helpful in that model, but that’s stress recovery, not aging.
Very acutely, MPH can shift spines toward a more “mature” mushroom phenotype without changing total density, suggesting rapid synaptic tuning rather than wholesale growth.

==

But maybe try NAC or NAC