-
Molecular Psychiatry Jan 2023A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to treat adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the maintenance phase. This study searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases and included only double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with an enrichment design: patients were stabilized on the antidepressant of interest during the open-label study and then randomized to receive the same antidepressant or placebo. The outcomes were the 6-month relapse rate (primary outcome, efficacy), all-cause discontinuation (acceptability), discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), and the incidence of individual adverse events. The risk ratio with a 95% credible interval was calculated. The meta-analysis comprised 34 studies (n = 9384, mean age = 43.80 years, and %females = 68.10%) on 20 antidepressants (agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine) and a placebo. In terms of the 6-month relapse rate, amitriptyline, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, sertraline had a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Compared to placebo, venlafaxine was associated with a lower incidence of dizziness, while desvenlafaxine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were associated with a higher incidence of nausea/vomiting. In conclusion, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had reasonable efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability in the treatment of adults with stable MDD.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adult; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Sertraline; Citalopram; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine; Fluoxetine; Paroxetine; Mirtazapine; Amitriptyline; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Fluvoxamine; Reboxetine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36253442
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01824-z -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Oct 2022Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise the evidence of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of treatments for individuals with rapid cycling bipolar disorder (RCBD).
METHOD
A systematic search was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials assigning participants with RCBD to pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological interventions. Study inclusion and data extraction were undertaken by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was continuous within-subject RCBD illness severity before and after treatment. Pre-post random effects meta-analyses were conducted for each outcome/intervention arm studied, generating a standardised effect size (hedge's g) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 34 articles describing 30 studies were included. A total of 16 separate pharmacological treatments were examined in contrast to 1 psychological therapy study. Only quetiapine and lamotrigine were assessed in >5 studies. By assessing 95% CI overlap of within-subject efficacy effects compared to placebo, the only interventions suggesting significant depression benefits (placebo g = 0.60) were olanzapine (with/without fluoxetine; g = 1.01), citalopram (g = 1.10) and venlafaxine (g = 2.48). For mania, benefits were indicated for quetiapine (g = 1.01), olanzapine (g = 1.19) and aripiprazole (g = 1.09), versus placebo (g = 0.33). Most of these effect sizes were from only one trial per treatment. Heterogeneity between studies was variable, and 20% were rated to have a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
While many interventions appeared efficacious, there was a lack of robust evidence for most treatments. Given the limited and heterogeneous evidence base, the optimal treatment strategies for people with RCBD are yet to be established.
Topics: Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Citalopram; Fluoxetine; Humans; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 35778967
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13471 -
Molecular Psychiatry Mar 2022The gabapentinoids, gabapentin, and pregabalin, target the αδ subunits of voltage-gated calcium channels. Initially licensed for pain and seizures, they have become... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The gabapentinoids, gabapentin, and pregabalin, target the αδ subunits of voltage-gated calcium channels. Initially licensed for pain and seizures, they have become widely prescribed drugs. Many of these uses are off-label for psychiatric indications, and there is increasing concern about their safety, so it is particularly important to have good evidence to justify this usage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for three of their common psychiatric uses: bipolar disorder, anxiety, and insomnia. Fifty-five double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 open-label studies were identified. For bipolar disorder, four double-blind RCTs investigating gabapentin, and no double-blind RCTs investigating pregabalin, were identified. A quantitative synthesis could not be performed due to heterogeneity in the study population, design and outcome measures. Across the anxiety spectrum, a consistent but not universal effect in favour of gabapentinoids compared to placebo was seen (standardised mean difference [SMD] ranging between -2.25 and -0.25). Notably, pregabalin (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.18) and gabapentin (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.52) were more effective than placebo in reducing preoperative anxiety. In insomnia, results were inconclusive. We conclude that there is moderate evidence of the efficacy of gabapentinoids in anxiety states, but minimal evidence in bipolar disorder and insomnia and they should be used for these disorders only with strong justification. This recommendation applies despite the attractive pharmacological and genetic rationale for targeting voltage-gated calcium channels.
Topics: Amines; Anxiety; Bipolar Disorder; Calcium Channels; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Gabapentin; Humans; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 34819636
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-021-01386-6 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Oct 2023To review the available literature regarding the treatment effects and efficacy of benzonatate needed to better inform patients, providers, and regulators evaluating its... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review the available literature regarding the treatment effects and efficacy of benzonatate needed to better inform patients, providers, and regulators evaluating its role in modern medical therapies.
DATA SOURCES
Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Library, and Scopus for original research articles evaluating the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety profile of benzonatate from January 1956 through August 2022.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
The identified studies were screened for relevance and then assessed for inclusion through a full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment by multiple reviewers using the online software Covidence.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The selection process resulted in 37 articles consisting of 21 cohort studies, 5 experimental studies, and 11 case studies and series. Initial clinical studies exploring potential therapeutic benefits collected data from very small populations and limited clinical settings. Safety is primarily assessed in terms of toxicity due to overdose or inappropriate use. Quality assessment raised concerns for high degrees of biases primarily related to the limited sample size, data collection, generalizability, and study design.
RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
This review reveals substantial limitations within existing evidence pertaining to the safety and clinical effectiveness of benzonatate and thus, a need for large observational studies or randomized trials to better characterize its role and value in modern medical practice.
CONCLUSIONS
Rising safety concerns should bring closer scrutiny upon the prescription of benzonatate whose approval is founded upon evidence that would not stand up to current regulatory review.
Topics: Humans; Butylamines; Drug Overdose; Text Messaging
PubMed: 36688284
DOI: 10.1177/10600280221135750 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Dec 2017In the last ten years, gabapentin and pregabalin have been becoming dispensed broadly and sold on black markets, thereby, exposing millions to potential side-effects.... (Review)
Review
In the last ten years, gabapentin and pregabalin have been becoming dispensed broadly and sold on black markets, thereby, exposing millions to potential side-effects. Meanwhile, several pharmacovigilance-databases have warned for potential abuse liabilities and overdose fatalities in association with both gabapentinoids. To evaluate their addiction risk in more detail, we conducted a systematic review on PubMed/Scopus and included 106 studies. We did not find convincing evidence of a vigorous addictive power of gabapentinoids which is primarily suggested from their limited rewarding properties, marginal notes on relapses, and the very few cases with gabapentinoid-related behavioral dependence symptoms (ICD-10) in patients without a prior abuse history (N=4). In support, there was no publication about people who sought treatment for the use of gabapentinoids. Pregabalin appeared to be somewhat more addictive than gabapentin regarding the magnitude of behavioral dependence symptoms, transitions from prescription to self-administration, and the durability of the self-administrations. The principal population at risk for addiction of gabapentinoids consists of patients with other current or past substance use disorders (SUD), mostly opioid and multi-drug users, who preferred pregabalin. Pure overdoses of gabapentinoids appeared to be relative safe but can become lethal (pregabalin > gabapentin) in mixture with other psychoactive drugs, especially opioids again and sedatives. Based upon these results, we compared the addiction risks of gabapentin and pregabalin with those of traditional psychoactive substances and recommend that in patients with a history of SUD, gabapentinoids should be avoided or if indispensable, administered with caution by using a strict therapeutic and prescription monitoring.
Topics: Amines; Analgesics; Behavior, Addictive; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Databases, Bibliographic; Drug Overdose; Gabapentin; Humans; Pregabalin; Self Administration; Substance-Related Disorders; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 28988943
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2017.08.430 -
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 Network Open Oct 2021New therapeutic classes of migraine-specific treatment have been developed, including 5-hydroxytryptamine1F receptor agonists (lasmiditan) and calcitonin gene-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
New therapeutic classes of migraine-specific treatment have been developed, including 5-hydroxytryptamine1F receptor agonists (lasmiditan) and calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists (rimegepant and ubrogepant).
OBJECTIVE
To compare outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant vs triptans for acute management of migraine headaches.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to March 5, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Double-blind randomized clinical trials examining current available migraine-specific acute treatments were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was applied to extract the data according to a predetermined list of variables of interest, and all network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) for freedom from pain (hereafter referred to as pain freedom) at 2 hours after the dose, and the secondary outcomes were ORs for pain relief at 2 hours after the dose and any adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 64 randomized clinical trials were included (46 442 participants; 74%-87% women; age range, 36-43 years). Most of the included treatments were associated with reduced pain at 2 hours compared with placebo. Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.06-2.80] to OR, 3.40 [95% CI, 2.12-5.44]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.07-2.33] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.16-4.52]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.00-2.37] to OR, 3.05 [95% CI, 2.02-4.60]). Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain relief at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.09-1.96] to OR, 3.31 [95% CI, 2.41-4.55]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.01-1.76] to OR, 3.01 [95% CI, 2.33-3.88]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.02-1.88] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.35-4.15]). The comparisons between lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were not statistically significant for both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours. Lasmiditan was associated with the highest risk of any adverse events, and certain triptans (rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) were also associated with a higher risk of any adverse events than the calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
For pain freedom or pain relief at 2 hours after the dose, lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were associated with higher ORs compared with placebo but lower ORs compared with most triptans. However, the lack of cardiovascular risks for these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may offer an alternative to triptans.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Tryptamines
PubMed: 34633423
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28544 -
Paediatric Drugs May 2023The prescription of antidepressant drugs during pregnancy has been steadily increasing for several decades. Meta-analyses (MAs), which increase the statistical power and...
BACKGROUND
The prescription of antidepressant drugs during pregnancy has been steadily increasing for several decades. Meta-analyses (MAs), which increase the statistical power and precision of results, have gained interest for assessing the safety of antidepressant drugs during pregnancy.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to provide a meta-review of MAs assessing the benefits and risks of antidepressant drug use during pregnancy.
METHODS
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a literature search on PubMed and Web of Science databases was conducted on 25 October, 2021, on MAs assessing the association between antidepressant drug use during pregnancy and health outcomes for the pregnant women, embryo, fetus, newborn, and developing child. Study selection and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate by two authors. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated with the AMSTAR-2 tool. Overlap among MAs was assessed by calculating the corrected covered area. Data were presented in a narrative synthesis, using four levels of evidence.
RESULTS
Fifty-one MAs were included, all but one assessing risks. These provided evidence for a significant increase in the risks for major congenital malformations (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, paroxetine, fluoxetine, no evidence for sertraline; eight MAs), congenital heart defects (paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline; 11 MAs), preterm birth (eight MAs), neonatal adaptation symptoms (eight MAs), and persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (three MAs). There was limited evidence (only one MA for each outcome) for a significant increase in the risks for postpartum hemorrhage, and with a high risk of bias, for stillbirth, impaired motor development, and intellectual disability. There was inconclusive evidence, i.e., discrepant results, for an increase in the risks for spontaneous abortion, small for gestational age and low birthweight, respiratory distress, convulsions, feeding problems, and for a subsequent risk for autism with an early antidepressant drug exposure. Finally, MAs provided no evidence for an increase in the risks for gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and for a subsequent risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Only one MA assessed benefits, providing limited evidence for preventing relapse in severe or recurrent depression. Effect sizes were small, except for neonatal symptoms (small to large). Results were based on MAs in which overall methodological quality was low (AMSTAR-2 score = 54.8% ± 12.9%, [19-81%]), with a high risk of bias, notably indication bias. The corrected covered area was 3.27%, which corresponds to a slight overlap.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-review has implications for clinical practice and future research. First, these results suggest that antidepressant drugs should be used as a second-line treatment during pregnancy (after first-line psychotherapy, according to the guidelines). The risk of major congenital malformations could be prevented by observing guidelines that discourage the use of paroxetine and fluoxetine. Second, to decrease heterogeneity and bias, future MAs should adjust for maternal psychiatric disorders and antidepressant drug dosage, and perform analyses by timing of exposure.
Topics: Child; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Paroxetine; Sertraline; Fluoxetine; Premature Birth; Antidepressive Agents; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 36853497
DOI: 10.1007/s40272-023-00561-2 -
Genetics of borderline personality disorder: systematic review and proposal of an integrative model.Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Mar 2014Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is one of the most common mental disorders and is characterized by a pervasive pattern of emotional lability, impulsivity,... (Review)
Review
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is one of the most common mental disorders and is characterized by a pervasive pattern of emotional lability, impulsivity, interpersonal difficulties, identity disturbances, and disturbed cognition. Here, we performed a systematic review of the literature concerning the genetics of BPD, including familial and twin studies, association studies, and gene-environment interaction studies. Moreover, meta-analyses were performed when at least two case-control studies testing the same polymorphism were available. For each gene variant, a pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated using fixed or random effects models. Familial and twin studies largely support the potential role of a genetic vulnerability at the root of BPD, with an estimated heritability of approximately 40%. Moreover, there is evidence for both gene-environment interactions and correlations. However, association studies for BPD are sparse, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. According to our meta-analysis, no significant associations were found for the serotonin transporter gene, the tryptophan hydroxylase 1 gene, or the serotonin 1B receptor gene. We hypothesize that such a discrepancy (negative association studies but high heritability of the disorder) could be understandable through a paradigm shift, in which "plasticity" genes (rather than "vulnerability" genes) would be involved. Such a framework postulates a balance between positive and negative events, which interact with plasticity genes in the genesis of BPD.
Topics: Animals; Borderline Personality Disorder; Catechol O-Methyltransferase; Databases, Factual; Dopamine; Gene-Environment Interaction; Genetic Association Studies; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Genetics; Humans; Serotonin
PubMed: 24456942
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.003 -
CNS Drugs Mar 2017Many children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are treated with stimulant and non-stimulant medication. ADHD medication may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cardiovascular Effects of Stimulant and Non-Stimulant Medication for Children and Adolescents with ADHD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Trials of Methylphenidate, Amphetamines and Atomoxetine.
BACKGROUND
Many children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are treated with stimulant and non-stimulant medication. ADHD medication may be associated with cardiovascular effects. It is important to identify whether mean group effects translate into clinically relevant increases for some individual patients, and/or increase the risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events such as stroke or sudden death.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate potential cardiovascular effects of these treatments, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of methylphenidate (MPH), amphetamines (AMP), and atomoxetine (ATX) on diastolic and systolic blood pressure (DBP, SBP) and heart rate (HR) in children and adolescents with ADHD.
METHODS
We conducted systematic searches in electronic databases (PsychINFO, EMBASE and Medline) to identify published trials which involved individuals who were (i) diagnosed with ADHD and were aged between 0-18 years; (ii) treated with MPH, AMP or ATX and (iii) had their DBP and SBP and/or HR measured at baseline (pre) and the endpoint (post) of the study treatment. Studies with an open-label design or a double-blind randomised control design of any duration were included. Statistical analysis involved calculating differences between pre- and post-treatment measurements for the various cardiovascular parameters divided by the pooled standard deviation. Further, we assessed the percentage of clinically relevant increased BP or HR, or documented arrhythmias.
RESULTS
Eighteen clinical trials met the inclusion criteria (10 for MPH, 5 for AMP, and 7 for ATX) with data from 5837 participants (80.7% boys) and average duration of 28.7 weeks (range 4-96 weeks). All three medications were associated with a small, but statistically significant pre-post increase of SBP (MPH: standard mean difference [SMD] 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08-0.42, p < 0.01; AMP: SMD 0.09, 95% CI 0.03-0.15, p < 0.01; ATX: SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.27, p = 0.01). MPH did not have a pre-post effect on DBP and HR. AMP treatment was associated with a small but statistically significant pre-post increase of DBP (SMD 0.16, CI 0.03-0.29, p = 0.02), as was ATX treatment (SMD 0.22, CI 0.10-0.34, p < 0.01). AMP and ATX were associated with a small to medium statistically significant pre-post increase of HR (AMP: SMD 0.37, CI 0.13-0.60, p < 0.01; ATX: SMD 0.43, CI 0.26-0.60, p < 0.01). The head-to-head comparison of the three medications did not reveal significant differences. Sensitivity analyses revealed that AMP studies of <18 weeks reported higher effect sizes on DBP compared with longer duration studies (F(1) = 19.55, p = 0.05). Further, MPH studies published before 2007 reported higher effect sizes on SBP than studies after 2007 (F(1) = 5.346, p = 0.05). There was no effect of the following moderators: type of medication, doses, sample size, age, gender, type of ADHD, comorbidity or dropout rate. Participants on medication reported 737 (12.6%) other cardiovascular effects. Notably, 2% of patients discontinued their medication treatment due to any cardiovascular effect. However, in the majority of patients, the cardiovascular effects resolved spontaneously, medication doses were changed or the effects were not considered clinically relevant. There were no statistically significant differences between the medication treatments in terms of the severity of cardiovascular effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Statistically significant pre-post increases of SBP, DBP and HR were associated with AMP and ATX treatment in children and adolescents with ADHD, while MPH treatment had a statistically significant effect only on SBP in these patients. These increases may be clinically significant for a significant minority of individuals that experience larger increases. Since increased BP and HR in general are considered risk factors for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality during adult life, paediatric patients using ADHD medication should be monitored closely and regularly for HR and BP.
Topics: Adolescent; Amphetamines; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Blood Pressure; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical Trials as Topic; Heart Rate; Humans; Infant; Methylphenidate; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 28236285
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-017-0410-7