# When Adults With ADHD Should Consider Stimulant Deprescribing > **Author:** Benjamin Caplan, MD (ABFM Board Certified, MA Lic. #240562, NPI: 1962722637) > **Publisher:** CED Clinic (https://cedclinic.com) > **Canonical URL:** https://cedclinic.com/ced-when-adults-with-adhd-should-consid-2026-10-07/ > **Published:** 2026-10-07T12:53:29-04:00 | **Last Modified / Clinically Audited:** 2026-10-07T12:53:29-04:00 > **Clinical Summary:** medical cannabis research: Physician review of The American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology task force consensus statement on the deprescribing of sti... --- CED Clinical Relevance #88 Verified Clinical Evidence Primary literature analysis of The American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology task force consensus statement on the deprescribing of stimulant medications in adults with ADHD✰.. Clinical Insight | CED Clinic This consensus statement is most useful as a clinical decision scaffold, not a mandate to stop stimulants. It highlights situations where the benefit-risk balance has changed: the ADHD diagnosis no longer fits, stimulants are not improving attention or function, adverse effects cannot be managed, or the medication is worsening hypertension, anxiety, insomnia, psychosis risk, substance misuse, or other comorbidities. Importantly, the panel distinguished untreated non-cannabis substance use disorders and deliberate stimulant misuse from cannabis use alone, where consensus was not reached. For patients, the message is not abrupt discontinuation, but structured reassessment with functional goals, safety monitoring, and alternative ADHD strategies when needed. Clinical SciencePeer-ReviewedDosing ContextSafety SignalsPhysician Insight AudiencePatients, clinicians, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy analysts. Primary TopicClinical study review: When Adults With ADHD Should Consider Stimulant De. Source[Read the full source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42160906/) Table of Contents - [When Adults With ADHD Should Consider Stimulant Deprescribing](#When_Adults_With_ADHD_Should_Consider_Stimulant_Deprescribing)[How to Interpret This Clinical Study](#How_to_Interpret_This_Clinical_Study)[Three Rules for Critical Reading](#Three_Rules_for_Critical_Reading) - [CED Perspective Lens: Eight Clinical Viewpoints](#CED_Perspective_Lens_Eight_Clinical_Viewpoints)[Clinical Evidence Synthesis](#Clinical_Evidence_Synthesis) - [Patient Communication](#Patient_Communication) - [Dosing & Formulations](#Dosing_Formulations) - [Safety & Side Effect Profile](#Safety_Side_Effect_Profile) - [Regulatory & Policy Dynamics](#Regulatory_Policy_Dynamics) - [Mechanisms & Physiology](#Mechanisms_Physiology) - [Research Limitations](#Research_Limitations) - [Future Outlook](#Future_Outlook) - [Frequently Asked Questions](#Frequently_Asked_Questions)[Related](#Related) # When Adults With ADHD Should Consider Stimulant Deprescribing A psychopharmacology task force used literature review and Delphi consensus to clarify when adult ADHD stimulant deprescribing deserves serious consideration, including misuse, diagnostic uncertainty, absent benefit, and worsening comorbidities. What This Study Teaches Us This ASCP consensus statement combined a focused literature review with a 2 round Delphi survey of 45 international psychopharmacology experts, reaching at least 75 percent agreement on 10 of 11 deprescribing statements. The panel supported deprescribing consideration for incorrect diagnosis, absent cognitive benefit, nonremediable adverse effects, medical or psychiatric worsening, stimulant misuse, and untreated non-cannabis substance use disorders, while cannabis use alone fell just short of consensus as an insufficient reason to stop stimulants. Why This Matters Adult ADHD stimulants are often continued for years, and this paper offers practical checkpoints for deciding when continued prescribing is no longer clinically justified. It also helps clinicians separate true contraindications and misuse from stigmatized assumptions, especially around cannabis use. Study SnapshotPost TypePhysician-Guided Clinical Science Deep DivePrimary SourceEuropean neuropsychopharmacology : the journal of the European College of NeuropsychopharmacologyPublication Date2026OctEvidence LevelJournal Article, Consensus Statement, ReviewFocus AreaWhen Adults With ADHD Should Consider Stimulant DeprescribinLead AuthorsDavid W Goodman, Rajnish Mago, Leslie Citrome, Holly A Swartz et al.DOI10.1016/j.euroneuro.2026.112863PMIDPMID: 42160906 Clinical Bottom Line This study review translates complex data into practical clinical insights, maintaining realistic therapeutic expectations. Headline vs. Reality Truth Meter | Clinical Analysis **Mainstream Media Claim:** Adults with ADHD should be taken off stimulant medications if they use cannabis or stay on stimulants too long. **Primary Journal Data:** The consensus statement did not test patient outcomes and did not recommend blanket discontinuation. A 45 expert Delphi process reached consensus on 10 of 11 statements, supporting deprescribing consideration when diagnosis is incorrect, benefits are absent, harms are nonremediable, stimulants are misused, or untreated non-cannabis substance use disorders are present. The cannabis statement fell just short of consensus. **Dr. Caplan’s Clinical Verdict:** This is a reassessment framework, not an anti-stimulant rule. Continued stimulant treatment can remain appropriate when ADHD diagnosis, functional benefit, adherence, and safety are clear, while deprescribing becomes reasonable when the medication is ineffective, unsafe, misused, or based on a mistaken diagnosis. Primary Analysis | The American Society of Clinical Psychop **Study Overview:** There is a lack of consensus in the field about the indefinite use of psychostimulants for adult ADHD and the circumstances under which their deprescribing warrants consideration. To address this gap in knowledge, the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) convened a Task Force on the deprescribing of psychotropic medications, including stimulant medications for adult ADHD, which entailed a focused literature review and 2-round Delphi survey querying 45 international psychopharmacology experts on factors related to deprescribing. Consensus (≥75% agreement, defined by endorsements of “strongly agree” or “moderately agree”) was reached on 10 of 11 (91%) Delphi statements. Survey responses plus literature review suggest that stimulant deprescribing may be appropriate when 1) the diagnosis of ADHD is deemed incorrect upon reevaluation unless another stimulant-responsive condition is evident; 2) cognitive complaints have other more likely etiologies for which stimulant medications are inappropriate; 3) cognitive benefits are absent; 4) stimulant medications exacerbate medical or other psychiatric comorbidities; 5) adverse effects, if present, are non-remediable; 6) stimulant medications are misused; and 7) untreated comorbid non-cannabis substance use disorders are present. Panelists just fell short of consensus in perceiving regular use of cannabis as an insufficient reason to deprescribe stimulant medications in adult ADHD patients. In sum, clinical circumstances and rationales can be identified that support decisions to deprescribe stimulant medications for adult ADHD. Deliberate stimulant misuse or abuse, comorbid medical or psychiatric contraindications, and diagnostic inaccuracy pose strong reasons to consider deprescribing stimulants, potentially in favor of alternative pharmacotherapies and psychotherapies for adult ADHD. **Primary Source & Scope:** Published in *European neuropsychopharmacology : the journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology* (2026Oct) conducted by David W Goodman, Rajnish Mago, Leslie Citrome, Holly A Swartz et al.. [Primary Source Link](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42160906/) | **Primary Record:** DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2026.112863 | PMID: 42160906 How Strong Is This Evidence? The paper uses a recognized Delphi consensus method with 45 international psychopharmacology experts and an explicit agreement threshold of at least 75 percent. Reaching consensus on 10 of 11 statements suggests strong expert convergence, but the design remains lower in evidentiary certainty than prospective cohort studies or randomized deprescribing trials. Its rigor is strongest as structured expert guidance for clinical decision making, not as proof of patient outcome effects. Where This Paper Deserves Skepticism The conclusions depend on expert selection, the framing of Delphi statements, and the scope of the focused literature review. The paper does not appear to measure actual deprescribing outcomes such as relapse, functioning, quality of life, cardiovascular events, or substance use trajectories. Cannabis related conclusions are especially uncertain because the panel narrowly missed consensus rather than resolving the clinical question. What This Paper Does Not Show This study does not prove that all adults with ADHD should eventually discontinue stimulant medication or that long term stimulant treatment is inherently unsafe. It also does not establish cannabis use as either clearly safe with stimulants or automatically incompatible with stimulant prescribing. How This Fits With the Broader Clinical Conversation Adult ADHD treatment has expanded substantially, while many clinical systems remain better at initiating stimulants than periodically reassessing them. This consensus statement fits a broader movement in psychopharmacology toward deprescribing frameworks for medications that may remain useful for some patients but inappropriate for others over time. Deprescribing research has matured in geriatrics, sedative hypnotics, antipsychotics, and antidepressants, but stimulant deprescribing in adult ADHD has received less structured attention. That gap matters because stimulants combine therapeutic benefit, controlled substance regulation, cardiovascular monitoring needs, and misuse concerns. The cannabis element is also part of a larger shift. As cannabis use becomes more common and legally accessible, clinicians need more precise approaches than automatic exclusion or casual reassurance. This paper signals that expert consensus has not fully settled how regular cannabis use should affect stimulant decisions in adult ADHD. Editorial Commentary *This consensus statement is valuable because it brings order to a common clinical gray zone. Adult ADHD care often begins with a clear need, then years pass, life circumstances change, comorbidities evolve, and the original rationale for stimulant therapy may no longer be examined with the same rigor.* *The most clinically important contribution is the distinction between reasons to reassess and reasons to punish. Misuse, incorrect diagnosis, absent benefit, and worsening medical or psychiatric conditions are legitimate reasons to consider deprescribing. Cannabis use alone remains more complicated in this paper, because the panel did not reach consensus that regular use is an insufficient reason to stop stimulants.* *The statement should not be used as a blunt instrument. A patient who is functioning better, taking medication as prescribed, showing stable vitals and sleep, and demonstrating clear benefit should not be destabilized by policy anxiety. The right clinical posture is repeated verification: correct diagnosis, measurable benefit, manageable risk, and a plan if any of those assumptions fail.* What a Careful Reader Should Take Away This statement supports deliberate stimulant reassessment, especially when benefit is absent, diagnosis is uncertain, side effects persist, comorbidities worsen, or misuse emerges. It should guide individualized deprescribing conversations, not justify automatic discontinuation. [https://cedclinic.com/ask](https://cedclinic.com/ask)Ask about this study:[🧠Anxiety and Mood](https://cedclinic.com/ask)[🛡️Safety](https://cedclinic.com/ask)[⚖️Dosing](https://cedclinic.com/ask)[🔎This study's limits](https://cedclinic.com/ask) Evidence Interpretation Guide ## How to Interpret This Clinical Study Navigating biomedical publications regarding The American Society of Clinical Psychopharma requires reviewing study methodology and patient eligibility. ### Three Rules for Critical Reading **Separate consensus from trial evidence**this paper organizes expert agreement but does not directly test deprescribing outcomes. **Critical Rule**Focus on the specific triggers endorsed by the panel, including diagnostic inaccuracy, absent benefit, nonremediable harm, misuse, and untreated non-cannabis substance use disorders. **Treat the cannabis finding carefully**the panel fell just short of consensus, so it should prompt individualized assessment rather than a universal rule. Key Evaluation Question Did the Delphi process identify clinically coherent and sufficiently agreed upon situations where stimulant deprescribing should be considered in adults with ADHD? The Patient Question Given my current diagnosis, benefits, side effects, substance use, sleep, and medical history, is continuing my stimulant still the safest and most useful plan? The Bottom Line The paper provides a practical expert consensus framework for when to reconsider adult ADHD stimulants, while leaving major outcome questions for future research. CED Perspective Lens ## CED Perspective Lens: Eight Clinical Viewpoints Analyzing evidence across clinical, patient, safety, dosing, and physiological perspectives Lens OverviewEight structured clinical perspectives synthesizing primary study data for patient care. #### Clinical Evidence Synthesis This paper is a consensus statement, not a randomized deprescribing trial. Its evidence base is a focused literature review paired with a 2 round Delphi survey of 45 international psychopharmacology experts. Consensus was defined as at least 75 percent endorsement of moderately agree or strongly agree. By that standard, 10 of 11 statements met consensus, which is a strong signal of expert alignment on core clinical triggers for considering stimulant deprescribing. The strongest areas of agreement were practical: wrong diagnosis, no meaningful cognitive benefit, nonremediable adverse effects, misuse, worsening comorbidities, and untreated non-cannabis substance use disorders. These are recognizable problems in adult ADHD care, even if they have not been fully tested in discontinuation trials. Rigorous critical appraisal of study design, cohort size, and statistical controls ensures that clinical recommendations reflect verified therapeutic endpoints rather than speculative associations. Lens takeawayThe evidence is consensus based, clinically useful, and not equivalent to outcome trial proof. #### Patient Communication The patient conversation should begin with function, not accusation. Is the stimulant helping work performance, household organization, emotional regulation, driving safety, or daily follow-through in ways that matter to the patient? Deprescribing should be framed as a safety and fit review. Patients may fear that stopping means their symptoms are not believed, so the clinician should explain that medications can be useful at one stage and inappropriate at another. Open and transparent discussions with healthcare providers help clarify realistic treatment timelines, administration methods, and appropriate product selection. Lens takeawayA respectful deprescribing conversation protects alliance while reassessing benefit, risk, and diagnosis. #### Dosing & Formulations The statement does not provide a universal taper schedule. That is appropriate, because stimulant deprescribing differs by formulation, dose, duration, indication certainty, comorbidities, and misuse risk. In stable patients without urgent safety concerns, gradual dose reduction can help distinguish withdrawal fatigue or rebound inattentiveness from true recurrence of impairing ADHD symptoms. In misuse, diversion, mania, psychosis, severe cardiovascular concern, or escalating risk, a more rapid discontinuation plan may be clinically necessary. Clinicians should also reconsider whether the formulation contributed to the problem. Long acting preparations may reduce peaks and misuse risk for some patients, while nonstimulants, behavioral therapy, sleep treatment, and comorbidity care may become more appropriate alternatives. Individualized dose titration, documented cannabinoid ratios, and monitored therapeutic responses remain essential for maximizing clinical benefit while minimizing adverse side effects. Lens takeawayDeprescribing is a dosing strategy, not simply the absence of prescribing. #### Safety & Side Effect Profile The consensus statement places safety at the center of stimulant continuation decisions. Nonremediable adverse effects are a clear reason to consider stopping, particularly when insomnia, appetite suppression, anxiety, cardiovascular strain, irritability, or psychiatric destabilization persist despite reasonable adjustments. Medical and psychiatric comorbidities matter because stimulants amplify catecholaminergic signaling. For many patients that improves attention and task initiation, but in vulnerable situations it can worsen blood pressure, panic, agitation, mania, psychosis, or problematic use patterns. The paper also separates adverse effects from absence of benefit. A patient may tolerate a stimulant but gain no meaningful cognitive or functional improvement, which still weakens the rationale for indefinite prescribing. Safety review should include vitals, sleep, appetite, anxiety, mood cycling, substance use, refill behavior, and collateral functional evidence when appropriate. Lens takeawayThe safest stimulant plan is the one repeatedly tested against benefit and harm. #### Regulatory & Policy Dynamics Stimulants are controlled medications, so deprescribing guidance has regulatory and access implications. Poorly designed policies can push clinicians toward blanket discontinuation, while overly permissive prescribing can miss misuse or worsening comorbidity. This consensus supports a middle path: document diagnosis, functional benefit, adverse effects, comorbidities, adherence, and misuse concerns. That documentation helps protect patients who benefit from treatment and clarifies why deprescribing is appropriate when risks outweigh gains. Consistent administrative oversight and clear statutory definitions ensure that public health protections keep pace with evolving consumer formulations. Lens takeawayGood policy should support individualized reassessment rather than reflexive continuation or reflexive discontinuation. #### Mechanisms & Physiology Stimulant medications primarily enhance dopaminergic and noradrenergic signaling in circuits related to attention, salience, inhibition, motivation, and executive function. In correctly diagnosed ADHD, that can translate into improved organization, persistence, and impulse control. The same mechanisms can become liabilities. Increased arousal may worsen insomnia or anxiety, dopaminergic reinforcement can complicate misuse risk, and sympathomimetic effects may stress cardiovascular systems in susceptible patients. The paper’s logic is physiologically coherent: when the target syndrome is absent, benefit is absent, or the same pharmacology worsens another condition, continuing the medication becomes harder to justify. Investigating receptor affinities, pharmacokinetic pathways, and cellular interactions clarifies the biological mechanisms underlying observed clinical outcomes. Objective synthesis of pharmacological mechanisms alongside real-world patient outcomes ensures that evidence translation remains both scientifically rigorous and clinically practical. Lens takeawayMechanism supports both stimulant benefit and the reasons deprescribing may become necessary. #### Research Limitations The major limitation is that Delphi consensus reflects expert interpretation, not direct evidence that deprescribing improves outcomes in the listed scenarios. There were no randomized comparisons of taper strategies, relapse rates, quality of life, or long term functional outcomes. The focused literature review may also inherit gaps from the underlying adult ADHD evidence base, including limited data on older adults, complex psychiatric comorbidity, cannabis co-use, and patients treated for many years. Consensus thresholds can create a false sense of precision. A 75 percent agreement line is useful for organizing expert opinion, but it does not replace individualized clinical reasoning. Lens takeawayThe statement organizes judgment well, but outcome studies still need to test it. #### Future Outlook The next research step should be pragmatic deprescribing trials in adults with long term stimulant exposure. Clinicians need data on who successfully tapers, who relapses, which alternatives work best, and which monitoring schedules reduce harm. Cannabis deserves careful study rather than reflexive assumptions. This panel did not reach consensus that regular cannabis use alone is an insufficient reason to deprescribe, which signals uncertainty, not proof that cannabis use requires stimulant discontinuation. Future guidance will be stronger if it includes patient reported outcomes, objective functional measures, sleep metrics, cardiovascular monitoring, substance use trajectories, and diagnostic reassessment tools. Future prospective investigations with standardized formulations and long-term follow-up will provide critical clarity as clinical evidence matures. Objective synthesis of pharmacological mechanisms alongside real-world patient outcomes ensures that evidence translation remains both scientifically rigorous and clinically practical. Establishing transparent safety protocols, certified testing benchmarks, and monitored patient responses remains the foundation of responsible cannabinoid medicine. Lens takeawayBetter evidence should move the field from expert consensus toward measurable outcomes. Join the Conversation Have a question about how this applies to your situation? [Ask Dr. Caplan](https://benjamincaplan.com/ask-dr-caplan) Want to discuss this topic with other patients and caregivers? [Join the forum discussion](https://cedclinic.com/interact/discussion-forums/forum/cannabis-industry/) [https://cedclinic.com/contact/](https://cedclinic.com/contact/) Physician-Led, Whole-Person Care A doctor who takes the time to truly understand you. Personal care that starts with listening and is guided by experience and ingenuity. Health, Longevity, Wellness One-on-One Cannabis Guidance Metabolic Balance [Leave a Message](https://cedclinic.com/contact/) [Metabolic Care](https://cedclinic.com/metabolic/metabolic-how-it-works/) [Medical Consulting](http://CEDclinic.com/book) [Cannabis Care](http://CEDclinic.com/book) [https://cedclinic.com/contact/](https://cedclinic.com/contact/) Share this Evidence Watch [X](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=When+Adults+With+ADHD+Should+Consider+Stimulant+Deprescribing&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcedclinic.com%2Fced-when-adults-with-adhd-should-consid-2026-10-07%2F) [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcedclinic.com%2Fced-when-adults-with-adhd-should-consid-2026-10-07%2F) [BlueSky](https://bsky.app/intent/compose?text=When+Adults+With+ADHD+Should+Consider+Stimulant+Deprescribing%20https%3A%2F%2Fcedclinic.com%2Fced-when-adults-with-adhd-should-consid-2026-10-07%2F) [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/drcaplan/) [Substack](https://doctorapprovedcannabis.substack.com/) [RSS](https://cedclinic.com/feed/) Source: [Primary Source: The American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology task force consensus statement on the deprescribing of stimulant medications in adults with ADHD✰.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42160906/) Related Reading at CED ClinicContinue exploring the evidence[Prenatal Cannabis Exposure and Neurodevelopment: What the New Systematic Review Actually Shows](https://cedclinic.com/prenatal-cannabis-neurodevelopment-impact/) More on this topic: Systematic review analyzing cognitive, behavioral, and developmental trajectories following gestational cannabinoid exposure. [More on this topic: Fetal neurodevelopment](https://cedclinic.com/prenatal-cannabis-neurodevelopment-impact/)[The Multifaceted Impact of CBD on Sleep: A Comprehensive Guide for Better Rest](https://cedclinic.com/the-multifaceted-impact-of-cbd-on-sleep-a-comprehensive-guide-for-better-rest/) More on this topic: Clinical insights into sleep architecture, circadian rhythm modulation, and cannabinoid titration for insomnia. [More on this topic: Cannabinoids & sleep](https://cedclinic.com/the-multifaceted-impact-of-cbd-on-sleep-a-comprehensive-guide-for-better-rest/)[Cannabis Use Disorder Is Rising Among US Adults](https://cedclinic.com/cannabis-use-disorder-rising-us-adults-2026/) More on this topic: Epidemiological evaluation of diagnostic trends, screening tools, and evidence-based patient counseling. [More on this topic: CUD trends & screening](https://cedclinic.com/cannabis-use-disorder-rising-us-adults-2026/) ## Frequently Asked Questions Does this paper say adults with ADHD should stop stimulants after a certain number of years? No. It does not set a time limit. It recommends considering deprescribing when diagnosis, benefit, safety, misuse, or comorbidity concerns make continued treatment less appropriate. Is cannabis use alone a reason to stop ADHD stimulants? The expert panel did not reach consensus on that point. Cannabis use should prompt clinical discussion about cognition, sleep, motivation, driving, anxiety, and substance use patterns, but this paper does not establish cannabis use alone as an automatic reason to deprescribe. What are the clearest reasons to consider stimulant deprescribing? The strongest reasons include incorrect ADHD diagnosis, lack of meaningful benefit, nonremediable side effects, stimulant misuse, worsening psychiatric or medical comorbidities, and untreated non-cannabis substance use disorders. Should stimulants be stopped abruptly? Not routinely. Abrupt stopping may be appropriate for serious safety threats or misuse, but many stable patients benefit from a planned taper with monitoring for fatigue, mood change, sleep shifts, and return of impairing ADHD symptoms. How can a clinician tell whether a stimulant is still helping? Benefit should be measured functionally, such as work performance, task completion, emotional regulation, safe driving, household management, and reduced impulsive errors. Feeling more energized is not enough by itself. What if the original ADHD diagnosis was wrong? The consensus statement supports deprescribing consideration when reevaluation suggests ADHD was incorrectly diagnosed, unless another clinically appropriate stimulant-responsive condition is present. What alternatives exist if stimulants are deprescribed? Options may include atomoxetine, guanfacine, clonidine, bupropion in selected patients, cognitive behavioral therapy for ADHD, coaching, sleep treatment, substance use treatment, anxiety or mood care, and environmental supports. Does lack of cognitive benefit mean the dose should simply be increased? Not necessarily. If careful dose optimization has not produced meaningful functional improvement, further escalation may increase harms without improving outcomes. Reassessment or deprescribing may be more appropriate. How does stimulant misuse change the plan? Deliberate misuse, abuse, diversion, or escalating unsanctioned use is a strong reason to reconsider prescribing. The plan may involve discontinuation, safer alternatives, substance use treatment, closer monitoring, or specialist referral. Does this consensus statement prove deprescribing improves adult ADHD outcomes? No. It identifies expert agreed circumstances where deprescribing warrants consideration. It does not prove that stopping stimulants improves symptoms, safety, quality of life, or long term functioning in every patient. ### Related --- ### Verification & Medical Governance - **Lead Clinical Author:** Benjamin Caplan, MD - **Credentials:** Board Certified in Family Medicine (ABFM), Founder & CMO CED Clinic & CED Foundation, Author of *The Doctor-Approved Cannabis Handbook* (Penguin Random House). - **Clinical Scale:** 350,000+ lifetime evaluations overseen; 81,008-patient Real-World Evidence Registry (`~/.ced_rwe_vault.db`); 125,000+ peer-reviewed study literature observatory (`http://localhost:8768/api/explorer/terminal`). - **License Verification:** Commonwealth of Massachusetts License #240562 (https://checkahealthlicense.mass.gov/). - **NPI Registry:** 1962722637 (https://npiregistry.cms.hhs.gov/provider-view/1962722637). - **Ethics & Data Privacy:** Clinical registry observations adhere strictly to HIPAA Safe Harbor de-identification (45 CFR § 164.514(b)) and criteria for secondary research exemption under 45 CFR § 46.104(d)(4).