-
Psychological Medicine Jan 2022There is mixed evidence on the association between headache and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as headache and ADHD medications. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There is mixed evidence on the association between headache and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as headache and ADHD medications. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the co-occurrence of headache in children with ADHD, and the effects of ADHD medications on headache. Embase, Medline and PsycInfo were searched for population-based and clinical studies comparing the prevalence of headache in ADHD and controls through January 26, 2021. In addition, we updated the search of a previous systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ADHD medications on June 16, 2020. Trials of amphetamines, atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with a placebo arm and reporting data on headache as an adverse event, were included. Thirteen epidemiological studies and 58 clinical trials were eligible for inclusion. In epidemiological studies, a significant association between headache and ADHD was found [odds ratio (OR) = 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.63-2.46], which remained significant when limited to studies reporting ORs adjusted for possible confounders. The pooled prevalence of headaches in children with ADHD was 26.6%. In RCTs, three ADHD medications were associated with increased headache during treatment periods, compared to placebo: atomoxetine (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.06-1.56), guanfacine (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.12-1.82), and methylphenidate (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.09-1.63). The summarized evidence suggests that headache is common in children with ADHD, both as part of the clinical presentation as such and as a side effect of some standard medications. Monitoring and clinical management strategies of headache in ADHD, in general, and during pharmacological treatment are recommended.
Topics: Child; Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Guanfacine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Methylphenidate; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Comorbidity; Headache; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34635194
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291721004141 -
Journal of Attention Disorders Dec 2022Dysregulated emotional behavior occurs often in adults with ADHD. Analysis of clinical trials may guide clinical intervention and future research.
OBJECTIVE
Dysregulated emotional behavior occurs often in adults with ADHD. Analysis of clinical trials may guide clinical intervention and future research.
METHOD
Controlled trials of adult ADHD measuring emotional behavior were included if another study offered a comparable analysis of the same treatment method. Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) of effects were calculated, and the size of effects for emotional and non-emotional ADHD behavior were compared.
RESULTS
13 out of 14 studies of methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and lisdexamfetamine demonstrated significant improvement in emotional behavior measures, with small to high SMDs. The proportional effect on emotional versus non-emotional behavior ranged from 46% to 110% for methylphenidate, 56% to 129% for atomoxetine, and 36% to 96% for lisdexamfetamine.
CONCLUSION
Psychopharmacological treatments for ADHD are likely to improve emotional behavior, and available scales are sensitive to these effects. Studies dedicated to treatment of this domain of function can further refine clinical approaches.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Methylphenidate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35822610
DOI: 10.1177/10870547221110926 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2022: Assessing the abuse potential of new substances with central nervous system activity is essential for preventing possible risks of misuse and addiction. The same... (Review)
Review
: Assessing the abuse potential of new substances with central nervous system activity is essential for preventing possible risks of misuse and addiction. The same methodology is recommended for the evaluation of the abuse potential of recreational drugs. This systematic review aims to assess the pharmacological effects related to the abuse potential and pharmacokinetics of cathinones, which are evaluated in both experimental and prospective observational studies in humans. : A systematic search of the published literature was conducted to retrieve studies that had administered cathinone, mephedrone, methylone, and diethylpropion to evaluate their acute pharmacological effects related to abuse potential. : The search yielded 583 results, 18 of which were included to assess the abuse potential of cathinone ( = 5), mephedrone ( = 7), methylone ( = 1), and diethylpropion ( = 5). All four substances induce stimulant and euphorigenic effects that resemble those of amphetamines and MDMA, and their different intensities may be associated with varying levels of abuse potential. : Cathinone, mephedrone, methylone, and diethylpropion induce a range of desirable and reinforcing effects that may, to some extent, result in abuse potential. Further investigation is needed to minimize and prevent their impact on society and public health.
PubMed: 35207278
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11041004 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2019Among individuals experiencing amphetamine psychosis, it may be difficult to rule out schizophrenia. The use of antipsychotics for the treatment of amphetamine...
Among individuals experiencing amphetamine psychosis, it may be difficult to rule out schizophrenia. The use of antipsychotics for the treatment of amphetamine psychosis is sparse due to possible side effects. Some arguments disfavor their use, stating that the psychotic episode is self-limited. Without treatment, some individuals may not fully recover from the psychosis and may develop full-blown psychosis, emotional, and cognitive disturbance. This review aims to investigate the clinical benefits and risks of antipsychotics for the treatment of amphetamine psychosis. Electronic search on trials on antipsychotic drugs for amphetamine psychosis from their inception to November 2018 was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Cochrane Review Database, Medline Ovid, and EMBASE following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool assessed the risk of bias, the methodological quality of individual trials was assessed by the Oxford Quality Scoring System, and the quality of evidence for recommendations was judged by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). The results were synthesized qualitatively and quantitatively. The investigation of six randomized controlled trials of 314 participants showed that aripiprazole, haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone were able to reduce or control the psychotic episode (positive and negative symptoms) induced by amphetamine use with no adverse event. Although the side-effect profile of these agents varied, no drug was clinically superior to others. This review suggests that antipsychotics seem to be efficacious for amphetamine psychosis on both positive and negative symptoms. Practitioners need to tailor their use based on risks for side effects individually.
PubMed: 31681046
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00740 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jun 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the change in inflammation biomarkers level among chronic psychoactive substance users. To meet the required inclusion... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the change in inflammation biomarkers level among chronic psychoactive substance users. To meet the required inclusion criteria, all studies had to describe human participants with an age ≥18y., experiencing chronic psychostimulant (nicotine, amphetamine, cocaine), sedative (benzodiazepine, opioids) and/or cannabinoid use. The comparison group was defined as healthy participants. Studies where included if they reported at least one of the pro/inflammatory biomarkers. Study bias was examined by Funnel plots and heterogeneity by computing the I statistics. Only 21 eligible studies were selected based on 26,216 study participants. A small and significant effect size of 0.18 mg/l (95 % CI:0.10-0.27) was detected in favour of chronic smokers (z = 4.33;P < 0.0001). There was evidence of publication bias for studies measuring IL-6 and IL-10 association with cocaine and IL-6 in association with cannabis. In summary, except for chronic tobacco users, there was no evidence of association between other chronic substances abuse and inflammatory levels. More studies are needed to inform policy and decision makers about the utility of anti-inflammatory based targeted intervention programmes.
Topics: Amphetamines; Analgesics, Opioid; Cannabis; Cocaine; Humans; Inflammation
PubMed: 33639179
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.031 -
Child Maltreatment May 2022State and federal policies regarding substance use in pregnancy, specifically whether a notification to child protective services is required, continue to evolve. To...
State and federal policies regarding substance use in pregnancy, specifically whether a notification to child protective services is required, continue to evolve. To inform practice, policy, and future research, we sought to synthesize and critically evaluate the existing literature regarding the association of prenatal substance exposure with child maltreatment. We conducted a comprehensive electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, CHINAL, Social Work Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts. We identified 30 studies that examined the association of exposure to any/multiple substances, cocaine, alcohol, opioids, marijuana, and amphetamine/methamphetamine with child maltreatment. Overall, results indicated that substance exposed infants have an increased likelihood of child protective services involvement, maternal self-reported risk of maltreatment behaviors, hospitalizations and clinic visits for suspected maltreatment, and adolescent retrospective self-report of maltreatment compared to unexposed infants. While study results suggest an association of prenatal substance exposure with child maltreatment, there are several methodological considerations that have implications for results and interpretation, including definitions of prenatal substance exposure and maltreatment, study populations used, and potential unmeasured confounding. As each may bias study results, careful interpretation and further research are warranted to appropriately inform programs and policy.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child Abuse; Child Protective Services; Family; Female; Humans; Infant; Pregnancy; Retrospective Studies; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 33550839
DOI: 10.1177/1077559521990116 -
Psychopharmacology Mar 2022±3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is a recreational drug that shows substantial promise as a psychotherapeutic agent. Still, there is some concern regarding its... (Review)
Review
RATIONALE
±3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is a recreational drug that shows substantial promise as a psychotherapeutic agent. Still, there is some concern regarding its behavioral toxicity, and its dose-effect relationship is poorly understood. We previously explored the role of dose in the cognitive effects of MDMA in a systematic review of existing literature and found no evidence in animals that MDMA impairs memory at low doses (< 3 mg/kg) but mixed results at high doses (≥ 3 mg/kg). Since this review comprised mostly of single-dose studies and an assortment of methodologies, an empirical dose-ranging study on this topic is warranted.
OBJECTIVES
The current study aims to evaluate the conclusion from our systematic review that 3 mg/kg may be the threshold for MDMA-induced amnesia, and to further understand the dose-effect relationship of MDMA on behavioral assays of memory, addiction, and depression.
METHODS
We systematically examined the effects of 0.01 to 10 mg/kg MDMA on Pavlovian fear conditioning; behavioral sensitization, conditioned place preference, and conditioned responding; and the Porsolt forced swim test in mice.
RESULTS
High doses of MDMA (≥ 3 mg/kg) produced amnesia of fear conditioning memory, some evidence of an addictive potential, and antidepressant effects, while low doses of MDMA (≤ 1 mg/kg) had no effect on these behaviors.
CONCLUSIONS
The present dose-ranging study provides further evidence that 3 mg/kg is the threshold for MDMA-induced amnesia. These findings, in addition to our systematic review, demonstrate that careful selection of MDMA dose is critical. High doses (≥ 3 mg/kg) should likely be avoided due to evidence that they can produce amnesia and addiction. Conversely, there is little evidence to suggest that low doses, which are usually administered in clinical studies (approximately 1-2 mg/kg), will lead to these same adverse effects. Ultra-low doses (< 1 mg/kg) are likely even safer and should be investigated for therapeutic effects in future studies.
Topics: Amnesia; Animals; Conditioning, Classical; Depression; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Fear; Mice; N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine
PubMed: 35179622
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-022-06086-9 -
Bipolar Disorders May 2024Abnormalities in dopamine and norepinephrine signaling are implicated in cognitive impairments in bipolar disorder (BD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder... (Review)
Review
Efficacy and safety of established and off-label ADHD drug therapies for cognitive impairment or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in bipolar disorder: A systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force.
BACKGROUND
Abnormalities in dopamine and norepinephrine signaling are implicated in cognitive impairments in bipolar disorder (BD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force therefore aimed to investigate the possible benefits on cognition and/or ADHD symptoms and safety of established and off-label ADHD therapies in BD.
METHODS
We included studies of ADHD medications in BD patients, which involved cognitive and/or safety measures. We followed the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO from inception until June 2023. Two authors reviewed the studies independently using the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for Randomized trials.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were identified (N = 2136), investigating armodafinil (k = 4, N = 1581), methylphenidate (k = 4, N = 84), bupropion (k = 4, n = 249), clonidine (k = 1, n = 70), lisdexamphetamine (k = 1, n = 25), mixed amphetamine salts (k = 1, n = 30), or modafinil (k = 2, n = 97). Three studies investigated cognition, four ADHD symptoms, and 10 the safety. Three studies found treatment-related ADHD symptom reduction: two involved methylphenidate and one amphetamine salts. One study found a trend towards pro-cognitive effects of modafinil on some cognitive domains. No increased risk of (hypo)mania was observed. Five studies had low risk of bias, eleven a moderate risk, and one a serious risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Methylphenidate or mixed amphetamine salts may improve ADHD symptoms in BD. However, there is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness on cognition. The medications produced no increased mania risk when used alongside mood stabilizers. Further robust studies are needed to assess cognition in BD patients receiving psychostimulant treatment alongside mood stabilizers.
Topics: Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bipolar Disorder; Cognitive Dysfunction; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Off-Label Use; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 38433530
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.13414 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events).. Secondary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and on body weight reduction.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The searches had no language restrictions. We contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration in adults with hypertension that compared approved long-term weight-loss medications to placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of the heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
This third update of the review added one new trial, investigating the combination of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo. Two medications, which were included in the previous versions of this review (rimonabant and sibutramine) are no longer considered relevant for this update, since their marketing approval was withdrawn in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The number of included studies in this review update is therefore six (12,724 participants in total): four RCTs comparing orlistat to placebo, involving a total of 3132 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 46 to 55 years; one trial comparing phentermine/topiramate to placebo, involving 1305 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 53 years; and one trial comparing naltrexone/bupropion to placebo, involving 8283 participants with hypertension and a mean age of 62 years. We judged the risks of bias to be unclear for the trials investigating orlistat or naltrexone/bupropion. and low for the trial investigating phentermine/topiramate. Only the study of naltrexone/bupropion included cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as predefined outcomes. There were no differences in the rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly higher in participants treated with naltrexone/bupropion. For orlistat, the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher compared to placebo. The most frequent side effects with phentermine/topiramate were dry mouth and paraesthesia. After six to 12 months, orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by mean difference (MD) -2.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -1.4 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants) and diastolic blood pressure by MD -2.0 mm Hg (95% CI -2.7 to -1.2 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants). After 13 months of follow-up, phentermine/topiramate decreased systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by -2.0 to -4.2 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage), and diastolic blood pressure by -1.3 to -1.9 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage). There was no difference in the change in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo (1 trial, 8283 participants). We identified no relevant studies investigating liraglutide or lorcaserin in people with hypertension.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate and naltrexone/bupropion reduced body weight; the magnitude of the effect was greatest with phentermine/topiramate. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate, but not naltrexone/bupropion, reduced blood pressure. One RCT of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo showed no differences in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality or morbidity after two years. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while for lorcaserin the application for European marketing authorisation was withdrawn due to a negative overall benefit/risk balance. In 2020 lorcaserin was also withdrawn from the US market. Two other medications (rimonabant and sibutramine) had already been withdrawn from the market in 2009 and 2010, respectively.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Appetite Depressants; Bias; Blood Pressure; Body Weight; Bupropion; Diet, Reducing; Drug Combinations; Female; Fructose; Humans; Hypertension; Lactones; Male; Middle Aged; Naltrexone; Orlistat; Phentermine; Piperidines; Pyrazoles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Time; Topiramate
PubMed: 33454957
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007654.pub5 -
Sports Medicine - Open Jan 2022Stimulant medications used for the treatment of Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are believed to provide a physical advantage in athletics, but several of...
BACKGROUND
Stimulant medications used for the treatment of Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are believed to provide a physical advantage in athletics, but several of these medications are not regulated by the World Anti-Doping Association. Given the prevalence of ADHD among the athlete population and concern for abuse of ADHD medications, this review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate effects of ADHD medications on athletic performance, thereby appraising the validity of claims of performance enhancement.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Review databases was performed for all randomized controlled trials evaluating athletic performance after ingestion of placebo or ADHD treatment medications from August 2020 through November 2020. All RCTs identified from these search criteria were included for screening, with exclusion of any animal studies. Two reviewers (JB, CK) assessed methodological quality and risk of bias using CONSORT 2010 and Cochrane Collaboration tools. Study results were compiled with corresponding p values for each finding. Effect sizes (Cohen's D) for athletic performance and physiological changes were aggregated for each study. Studies were further screened for homogeneity that would allow for meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was calculated using I2.
RESULTS
A total of 13,033 abstracts evaluating amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylphenidate, and bupropion were screened. The final analysis included nine studies, six of which found significant improvement in athletic performance with use of stimulant medications (p < 0.05). Methylphenidate and amphetamine were consistently identified to have a performance effect. Secondary effects identified included significant increase in heart rate, core temperature, and elevation of various serum hormone levels (p < 0.05). Effect size evaluation found seven studies demonstrating small to large effects on physical performance, as well as in categories of cardiometabolic, temperature, hormone, and ratings of perceived exertion, to varying degrees. A meta-analysis was performed on two studies, demonstrating conflicting results.
CONCLUSIONS
Dopaminergic/noradrenergic agonist medications appear to have a positive effect on athletic performance, as well as effects on physiological parameters. Further consideration of medications currently not regulated, i.e. bupropion, is warranted given evidence of athletic performance enhancement. PROSPERO trial registration number: CRD42020211062; 10/29/2020 retrospectively registered.
PubMed: 35022919
DOI: 10.1186/s40798-021-00374-y