-
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Apr 2018Psychostimulants, including amphetamines and methylphenidate, are first-line pharmacotherapies for individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This... (Review)
Review
Psychostimulants, including amphetamines and methylphenidate, are first-line pharmacotherapies for individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This review aims to educate physicians regarding differences in pharmacology and mechanisms of action between amphetamine and methylphenidate, thus enhancing physician understanding of psychostimulants and their use in managing individuals with ADHD who may have comorbid psychiatric conditions. A systematic literature review of PubMed was conducted in April 2017, focusing on cellular- and brain system-level effects of amphetamine and methylphenidate. The primary pharmacologic effect of both amphetamine and methylphenidate is to increase central dopamine and norepinephrine activity, which impacts executive and attentional function. Amphetamine actions include dopamine and norepinephrine transporter inhibition, vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT-2) inhibition, and monoamine oxidase activity inhibition. Methylphenidate actions include dopamine and norepinephrine transporter inhibition, agonist activity at the serotonin type 1A receptor, and redistribution of the VMAT-2. There is also evidence for interactions with glutamate and opioid systems. Clinical implications of these actions in individuals with ADHD with comorbid depression, anxiety, substance use disorder, and sleep disturbances are discussed.
Topics: Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; Amphetamine; Animals; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Brain; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Comorbidity; Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors; Humans; Mental Disorders; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 29428394
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.02.001 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Sep 2016The best treatment options for binge-eating disorder are unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The best treatment options for binge-eating disorder are unclear.
PURPOSE
To summarize evidence about the benefits and harms of psychological and pharmacologic therapies for adults with binge-eating disorder.
DATA SOURCES
English-language publications in EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Academic OneFile, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through 18 November 2015, and in MEDLINE through 12 May 2016.
STUDY SELECTION
9 waitlist-controlled psychological trials and 25 placebo-controlled trials that evaluated pharmacologic (n = 19) or combination (n = 6) treatment. All were randomized trials with low or medium risk of bias.
DATA EXTRACTION
2 reviewers independently extracted trial data, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Therapist-led cognitive behavioral therapy, lisdexamfetamine, and second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) decreased binge-eating frequency and increased binge-eating abstinence (relative risk, 4.95 [95% CI, 3.06 to 8.00], 2.61 [CI, 2.04 to 3.33], and 1.67 [CI, 1.24 to 2.26], respectively). Lisdexamfetamine (mean difference [MD], -6.50 [CI, -8.82 to -4.18]) and SGAs (MD, -3.84 [CI, -6.55 to -1.13]) reduced binge-eating-related obsessions and compulsions, and SGAs reduced symptoms of depression (MD, -1.97 [CI, -3.67 to -0.28]). Headache, gastrointestinal upset, sleep disturbance, and sympathetic nervous system arousal occurred more frequently with lisdexamfetamine than placebo (relative risk range, 1.63 to 4.28). Other forms of cognitive behavioral therapy and topiramate also increased abstinence and reduced binge-eating frequency and related psychopathology. Topiramate reduced weight and increased sympathetic nervous system arousal, and lisdexamfetamine reduced weight and appetite.
LIMITATIONS
Most study participants were overweight or obese white women aged 20 to 40 years. Many treatments were examined only in single studies. Outcomes were measured inconsistently across trials and rarely assessed beyond end of treatment.
CONCLUSION
Cognitive behavioral therapy, lisdexamfetamine, SGAs, and topiramate reduced binge eating and related psychopathology, and lisdexamfetamine and topiramate reduced weight in adults with binge-eating disorder.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Binge-Eating Disorder; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Fructose; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Topiramate
PubMed: 27367316
DOI: 10.7326/M15-2455 -
Journal of Child and Adolescent... Jun 2019In the last 15 years, there has been a marked increase in the number of available stimulant formulations with the emphasis on long-acting formulations, and the... (Review)
Review
In the last 15 years, there has been a marked increase in the number of available stimulant formulations with the emphasis on long-acting formulations, and the introduction of several novel delivery systems such as orally dissolving tablets, chewable tablets, extended-release liquid formulations, transdermal patches, and novel "beaded" technology. All of these formulations involve changes to the pharmaceutical delivery systems of the two existing compounds most commonly employed to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), amphetamine (AMP) and methylphenidate (MPH). In addition to these new formulations, our knowledge about the individual differences in response has advanced and contributes to a more nuanced approach to treatment. The clinician can now make increasingly informed choices about these formulations and more effectively individualize treatment in a way that had not been possible before. In the absence of reliable biomarkers that can predict individualized response to ADHD treatment, clinical knowledge about differences in MPH and AMP pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and metabolism can be utilized to personalize treatment and optimize response. Different properties of these new formulations (delivery modality, onset of action, duration of response, safety, and tolerability) will most likely weigh heavily into the clinician's choice of formulation. To manage the broad range of options that are now available, clinicians should familiarize themselves in each of these categories for both stimulant compounds. This review is meant to serve as an update and a guide to newer stimulant formulations and includes a brief review of ADHD and stimulant properties.
Topics: Amphetamine; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Delayed-Action Preparations; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Methylphenidate; Tablets
PubMed: 31038360
DOI: 10.1089/cap.2019.0043 -
F1000Research 2019Eating disorders are serious psychiatric illnesses with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Effective treatments have traditionally included behaviorally focused... (Review)
Review
Eating disorders are serious psychiatric illnesses with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Effective treatments have traditionally included behaviorally focused therapies as well as several medication strategies. Recent years have seen promising developments in these treatments, including additional support for family-based approaches for children and adolescents, new evidence for "third-wave" behavioral therapies, and new support for the use of lisdexamfetamine for binge eating disorder and olanzapine for anorexia nervosa. Case study and pilot data are beginning to show limited support for neuromodulatory interventions targeting brain regions thought to be involved in eating disorders. This review summarizes treatment developments over the last several years and points towards future directions for the field.
Topics: Adolescent; Anorexia Nervosa; Behavior Therapy; Binge-Eating Disorder; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Feeding and Eating Disorders; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate
PubMed: 31598212
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.19847.1 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Mar 2019The prescription use of the stimulants methylphenidate and amphetamine for the treatment of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been increasing. In 2007,... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
BACKGROUND
The prescription use of the stimulants methylphenidate and amphetamine for the treatment of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been increasing. In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration mandated changes to drug labels for stimulants on the basis of findings of new-onset psychosis. Whether the risk of psychosis in adolescents and young adults with ADHD differs among various stimulants has not been extensively studied.
METHODS
We used data from two commercial insurance claims databases to assess patients 13 to 25 years of age who had received a diagnosis of ADHD and who started taking methylphenidate or amphetamine between January 1, 2004, and September 30, 2015. The outcome was a new diagnosis of psychosis for which an antipsychotic medication was prescribed during the first 60 days after the date of the onset of psychosis. To estimate hazard ratios for psychosis, we used propensity scores to match patients who received methylphenidate with patients who received amphetamine in each database, compared the incidence of psychosis between the two stimulant groups, and then pooled the results across the two databases.
RESULTS
We assessed 337,919 adolescents and young adults who received a prescription for a stimulant for ADHD. The study population consisted of 221,846 patients with 143,286 person-years of follow up; 110,923 patients taking methylphenidate were matched with 110,923 patients taking amphetamines. There were 343 episodes of psychosis (with an episode defined as a new diagnosis code for psychosis and a prescription for an antipsychotic medication) in the matched populations (2.4 per 1000 person-years): 106 episodes (0.10%) in the methylphenidate group and 237 episodes (0.21%) in the amphetamine group (hazard ratio with amphetamine use, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.31 to 2.09).
CONCLUSIONS
Among adolescents and young adults with ADHD who were receiving prescription stimulants, new-onset psychosis occurred in approximately 1 in 660 patients. Amphetamine use was associated with a greater risk of psychosis than methylphenidate. (Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and others.).
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Amphetamine; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cohort Studies; Databases, Factual; Female; Humans; Incidence; Insurance, Health; Male; Methylphenidate; Psychoses, Substance-Induced; United States; Young Adult
PubMed: 30893533
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1813751 -
PloS One 2020Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD.
METHODS
We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework.
RESULTS
Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049.
Topics: Adult; Amphetamine; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bayes Theorem; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dextroamphetamine; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Guanfacine; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Male; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33085721
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240584 -
JAMA Oncology Jul 2017Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) remains one of the most prevalent and troublesome adverse events experienced by patients with cancer during and after therapy. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) remains one of the most prevalent and troublesome adverse events experienced by patients with cancer during and after therapy.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a meta-analysis to establish and compare the mean weighted effect sizes (WESs) of the 4 most commonly recommended treatments for CRF-exercise, psychological, combined exercise and psychological, and pharmaceutical-and to identify independent variables associated with treatment effectiveness.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of each database to May 31, 2016.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials in adults with cancer were selected. Inclusion criteria consisted of CRF severity as an outcome and testing of exercise, psychological, exercise plus psychological, or pharmaceutical interventions.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Studies were independently reviewed by 12 raters in 3 groups using a systematic and blinded process for reconciling disagreement. Effect sizes (Cohen d) were calculated and inversely weighted by SE.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Severity of CRF was the primary outcome. Study quality was assessed using a modified 12-item version of the Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database scale (range, 0-12, with 12 indicating best quality).
RESULTS
From 17 033 references, 113 unique studies articles (11 525 unique participants; 78% female; mean age, 54 [range, 35-72] years) published from January 1, 1999, through May 31, 2016, had sufficient data. Studies were of good quality (mean Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database scale score, 8.2; range, 5-12) with no evidence of publication bias. Exercise (WES, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.25-0.36; P < .001), psychological (WES, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.21-0.33; P < .001), and exercise plus psychological interventions (WES, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.38; P < .001) improved CRF during and after primary treatment, whereas pharmaceutical interventions did not (WES, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.00-0.19; P = .05). Results also suggest that CRF treatment effectiveness was associated with cancer stage, baseline treatment status, experimental treatment format, experimental treatment delivery mode, psychological mode, type of control condition, use of intention-to-treat analysis, and fatigue measures (WES range, -0.91 to 0.99). Results suggest that the effectiveness of behavioral interventions, specifically exercise and psychological interventions, is not attributable to time, attention, and education, and specific intervention modes may be more effective for treating CRF at different points in the cancer treatment trajectory (WES range, 0.09-0.22).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Exercise and psychological interventions are effective for reducing CRF during and after cancer treatment, and they are significantly better than the available pharmaceutical options. Clinicians should prescribe exercise or psychological interventions as first-line treatments for CRF.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Dexmethylphenidate Hydrochloride; Dextroamphetamine; Exercise Therapy; Fatigue; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Methylphenidate; Methylprednisolone; Modafinil; Neoplasms; Paroxetine; Psychotherapy; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 28253393
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6914 -
CNS Drugs Apr 2020Stimulant drugs are second only to cannabis as the most widely used class of illicit drug globally, accounting for 68 million past-year consumers. Dependence on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Stimulant drugs are second only to cannabis as the most widely used class of illicit drug globally, accounting for 68 million past-year consumers. Dependence on amphetamines (AMPH) or methamphetamine (MA) is a growing global concern. Yet, there is no established pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence. A comprehensive assessment of the research literature on pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence may inform treatment guidelines and future research directions.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature via the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS for randomised controlled trials reported in the English language examining a pharmacological treatment for AMPH/MA dependence or use disorder. We included all studies published to 19 June 2019. The selected studies were evaluated for design; methodology; inclusion and exclusion criteria; sample size; pharmacological and (if included) psychosocial interventions; length of follow-up and follow-up schedules; outcome variables and measures; results; overall conclusions and risk of bias. Outcome measures were any reported impact of treatment related to AMPH/MA use.
RESULTS
Our search returned 43 studies that met our criteria, collectively enrolling 4065 participants and reporting on 23 individual pharmacotherapies, alone or in combination. Disparate outcomes and measures (n = 55 for the primary outcomes) across studies did not allow for meta-analyses. Some studies demonstrated mixed or weak positive signals (often in defined populations, e.g. men who have sex with men), with some variation in efficacy signals dependent on baseline frequency of AMPH/MA use. The most consistent positive findings have been demonstrated with stimulant agonist treatment (dexamphetamine and methylphenidate), naltrexone and topiramate. Less consistent benefits have been shown with the antidepressants bupropion and mirtazapine, the glutamatergic agent riluzole and the corticotropin releasing factor (CRF-1) antagonist pexacerfont; whilst in general, antidepressant medications (e.g. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]) have not been effective in reducing AMPH/MA use.
CONCLUSIONS
No pharmacotherapy yielded convincing results for the treatment of AMPH/MA dependence; mostly studies were underpowered and had low treatment completion rates. However, there were positive signals from several agents that warrant further investigation in larger scale studies; agonist therapies show promise. Common outcome measures should include change in use days. Future research must address the heterogeneity of AMPH/MA dependence (e.g. coexisting conditions, severity of disorder, differences between MA and AMPH dependence) and the role of psychosocial intervention.
Topics: Amphetamine; Amphetamine-Related Disorders; Animals; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Humans; Methamphetamine; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 32185696
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-020-00711-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid psychiatric disorders that complicate tic disorders. Medications commonly used to treat ADHD symptoms include stimulants such as methylphenidate and amphetamine; non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine; tricyclic antidepressants; and alpha agonists. Alpha agonists are also used as a treatment for tics. Due to the impact of ADHD symptoms on the child with tic disorder, treatment of ADHD is often of greater priority than the medical management of tics. However, for many decades, clinicians have been reluctant to use stimulants to treat children with ADHD and tics for fear of worsening their tics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for ADHD in children with comorbid tic disorders on symptoms of ADHD and tics.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 12 other databases. We also searched two trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for ADHD used specifically in children with comorbid tic disorders. We included both parallel-group and cross-over study designs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane, in that two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data using standardized forms, assessed risk of bias, and graded the overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight randomized controlled trials (four of which were cross-over trials) with 510 participants (443 boys, 67 girls) in this review. Participants in these studies were children with both ADHD and a chronic tic disorder. All studies took place in the USA and ranged from three to 22 weeks in duration. Five of the eight studies were funded by charitable organizations or government agencies, or both. One study was funded by the drug manufacturer. The other two studies did not specify the source of funding. Risk of bias of included studies was low for blinding; low or unclear for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and attrition bias; and low or high for selective outcome reporting. We were unable to combine any of the studies in a meta-analysis due to important clinical heterogeneity and unit-of-analysis issues.Several of the trials assessed multiple agents. Medications assessed included methylphenidate, clonidine, desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine, atomoxetine, and deprenyl. There was low-quality evidence for methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine, and very low-quality evidence for desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine and deprenyl in the treatment of ADHD in children with tics. All studies, with the exception of a study using deprenyl, reported improvement in symptoms of ADHD. Tic symptoms also improved in children treated with guanfacine, desipramine, methylphenidate, clonidine, and a combination of methylphenidate and clonidine. In one study, tics limited further dosage increases of methylphenidate. High-dose dextroamphetamine appeared to worsen tics in one study, although the length of this study was limited to three weeks. There was appetite suppression or weight loss in association with methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, atomoxetine, and desipramine. There was insomnia associated with methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine, and sedation associated with clonidine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Following an updated search of potentially relevant studies, we found no new studies that matched our inclusion criteria and thus our conclusions have not changed.Methylphenidate, clonidine, guanfacine, desipramine, and atomoxetine appear to reduce ADHD symptoms in children with tics though the quality of the available evidence was low to very low. Although stimulants have not been shown to worsen tics in most people with tic disorders, they may, nonetheless, exacerbate tics in individual cases. In these instances, treatment with alpha agonists or atomoxetine may be an alternative. Although there is evidence that desipramine may improve tics and ADHD in children, safety concerns will likely continue to limit its use in this population.
Topics: Adolescent; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Child, Preschool; Clonidine; Desipramine; Dextroamphetamine; Female; Guanfacine; Humans; Male; Methylphenidate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selegiline; Tic Disorders
PubMed: 29944175
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007990.pub3 -
JAMA Psychiatry Feb 2018Given the rapidly increasing use of stimulant medications during pregnancy and among women of reproductive age who may become pregnant inadvertently, there is a need to...
Association Between Methylphenidate and Amphetamine Use in Pregnancy and Risk of Congenital Malformations: A Cohort Study From the International Pregnancy Safety Study Consortium.
IMPORTANCE
Given the rapidly increasing use of stimulant medications during pregnancy and among women of reproductive age who may become pregnant inadvertently, there is a need to better understand their safety.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the risk of congenital malformations associated with intrauterine exposure to stimulants.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Cohort study of the Medicaid-insured population in the United States nested in the 2000-2013 US Medicaid Analytic eXtract, with follow-up of safety signals detected in the Medicaid Analytic eXtract data using the Nordic Health registries (2003-2013) (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). A total of 1 813 894 publicly insured pregnancies in the United States and 2 560 069 singleton pregnancies in the 5 Nordic countries ending in live births were included. Relative risks were estimated accounting for underlying psychiatric disorders and other potential confounders. Relative risk estimates for the US and Nordic data were pooled using a fixed-effects meta-analytic approach. The study was conducted from July 1, 2015, to March 31, 2017.
EXPOSURES
Methylphenidate and amphetamines dispensed during the first trimester.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Major congenital malformations and subgroup of cardiac malformations.
RESULTS
In the US data, of the 1 813 894 pregnancies evaluated, 35.0 per 1000 infants not exposed to stimulants were diagnosed as having congenital malformations, compared with 45.9 per 1000 infants for methylphenidate and 45.4 for amphetamines. For cardiac malformations, the risks were 12.7 (95% CI, 12.6-12.9), 18.8 (95% CI, 13.8-25.6), and 15.4 (95% CI, 12.5-19.0) per 1000 infants, respectively. The adjusted relative risks for methylphenidate were 1.11 (95% CI, 0.91-1.35) for any malformation and 1.28 (95% CI, 0.94-1.74) for cardiac malformations. No increased risks were observed for amphetamines: 1.05 (95% CI, 0.93-1.19) for any malformations and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.78-1.19) for cardiac malformations. Findings were confirmed in sensitivity analyses accounting for proxies of unmeasured confounders and increasing the specificity of the exposure and outcome definitions. Replication of the analyses for methylphenidate using the Nordic data including 2 560 069 pregnancies yielded a relative risk of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.83-1.97) for cardiac malformations, resulting in a pooled estimate of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.00-1.64).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest a small increase in the risk of cardiac malformations associated with intrauterine exposure to methylphenidate but not to amphetamines. This information is important when weighing the risks and benefits of alternative treatment strategies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in women of reproductive age and during early pregnancy.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Adolescent; Adult; Amphetamine; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Cohort Studies; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Heart Defects, Congenital; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Methylphenidate; Middle Aged; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Risk; Risk Assessment; Scandinavian and Nordic Countries; United States; Young Adult
PubMed: 29238795
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.3644