-
Clinical Psychology Review Apr 2014Smith, Waschbusch, Willoughby, and Evans (2000) reviewed a small treatment literature on ADHD in adolescents and concluded that methylphenidate stimulant medication was... (Review)
Review
Smith, Waschbusch, Willoughby, and Evans (2000) reviewed a small treatment literature on ADHD in adolescents and concluded that methylphenidate stimulant medication was a well-established treatment and behavior therapy (BT) demonstrated preliminary efficacy. This review extends and updates the findings of the prior one based on the previous 15years of research. Studies published since 1999 were identified and coded using standard criteria and effect sizes were calculated where appropriate. Highlights of the last 15years of research include an expansion of pharmacological treatment options and developmentally appropriate psychosocial treatment packages for adolescents with ADHD. Additionally, nonstimulant medications (e.g., atomoxetine) are now approved for the treatment of ADHD in adolescence. The review concludes that medication and BT produce a similar range of therapeutic effects on the symptoms of adolescents with ADHD. However, results suggest that BT may produce greater overall benefits on measures of impairment. There was no evidence that cognitive enhancement trainings, such as working memory training or neurofeedback improved the functioning of adolescents with ADHD. Whether to use medication, BT, or their combination to treat an adolescent with ADHD is complicated and we provide evidence-informed guidelines for treatment selection. The reviewed evidence does not support current American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry professional guidelines, which state that stimulant medication is the preferred treatment for adolescents with ADHD. Recommendations for assessment, practice guidelines, and future research are discussed.
Topics: Adolescent; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Behavior Therapy; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Methylphenidate; Propylamines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24632046
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.02.001 -
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Aug 2008Cancer-related fatigue is an important clinical problem. It is common, distressing, and often difficult to treat. There is a role for drug treatment of cancer-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer-related fatigue is an important clinical problem. It is common, distressing, and often difficult to treat. There is a role for drug treatment of cancer-related fatigue, but no consensus has been reached on which drugs are useful. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to review the available evidence and make recommendations for practice and research.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane register of controlled trials (through the second quarter 2007), Medline (January 1, 1966, through August 1, 2007), and EMBASE (January 1, 1980, through August 1, 2007) by use of a predetermined list of search terms. Cochrane Collaboration meta-analysis review methodology was used for this study. The change in fatigue score on the instrument used in each study and other outcomes of interest (adverse events and withdrawal rates) were compared between treatment and control arms by use of the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS
We identified 27 eligible trials of drug treatments for cancer-related fatigue (with a total of 6746 participants). The overall effect size for all drug classes was small. A meta-analysis of two studies (n = 264 patients) indicated that methylphenidate (a psychostimulant) was superior to placebo (standardized mean difference [SMD] in change in fatigue score = -0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.54 to -0.05; P = .02) for treating cancer-related fatigue. A meta-analysis of 10 studies (n = 2226 patients) evaluating erythropoietin in anemic cancer patients who were undergoing chemotherapy indicated that erythropoietin was superior to placebo (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -0.46 to -0.29; P = .008). Among anemic patients (four studies with n = 964 patients), improvement in fatigue was associated with darbepoetin treatment compared with placebo treatment (SMD = -0.13, 95% CI = -0.27 to 0.00; P = .05). Progestational steroids and paroxetine were no better than placebo in the treatment of cancer-related fatigue.
CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence that treatment of cancer-related fatigue with methylphenidate appears to be effective. More robust evidence indicates that treatment with hematopoietic agents appears to relieve cancer-related fatigue caused by chemotherapy-induced anemia. Further confirmatory trials are required for both observations.
Topics: Anemia; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Antineoplastic Agents; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Darbepoetin alfa; Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors; Erythropoietin; Fatigue; Hematinics; Humans; Methylphenidate; Neoplasms; Odds Ratio; Paroxetine; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 18695134
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djn250 -
European Archives of Psychiatry and... Jun 2022Ayahuasca is a hallucinogenic/psychedelic traditionally used for ritual and therapeutic purposes. One such therapeutic use is related to Substance Use Disorders (SUDs).... (Review)
Review
Ayahuasca is a hallucinogenic/psychedelic traditionally used for ritual and therapeutic purposes. One such therapeutic use is related to Substance Use Disorders (SUDs). A previous systematic review of preclinical and human studies published until 2016 suggested that ayahuasca and its alkaloids have therapeutic effects in the treatment of SUDs. To conduct an update of this previous review. A systematic review of quantitative studies which analyzed the effects of ayahuasca and its alkaloids on drug use (primary outcome) and other measures (secondary outcomes) related to SUDs was conducted, including articles from 2016 to 2020. Nine studies (four preclinical, five observational) were included in the review. Preclinical studies in rodents reported reductions in amphetamine self-administration and anxiety, and in alcohol- and methylphenidate-induced conditioned place preference. Observational studies among healthy ritual ayahuasca users and patients with SUDs reported reductions in drug use, anxiety, and depression, and increases in quality of life and well-being. We replicated the findings of the previous review suggesting that ayahuasca and its alkaloids have therapeutic effects in the treatment of SUDs. However, translation of preclinical data to humans is limited, observational studies do not allow us to infer causality, and there is a lack of standardization on ayahuasca doses. Although promising, randomized, controlled trials are needed to better elucidate these results. The PROSPERO ID for this study is CRD42020192046.
Topics: Alkaloids; Banisteriopsis; Hallucinogens; Humans; Quality of Life; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 33914164
DOI: 10.1007/s00406-021-01267-7 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Feb 2024There is currently no standard of care for pharmacological treatment of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) use disorder (ATSUD). This systematic review with meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
There is currently no standard of care for pharmacological treatment of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) use disorder (ATSUD). This systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022354492) aimed to pool results from randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate efficacy and safety of prescription psychostimulants (PPs) for ATSUD.
METHODS
Major indexing sources and trial registries were searched to include records published before 29 August 2022. Eligible studies were RCTs evaluating efficacy and safety of PPs for ATSUD. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Risk ratio (RR) and risk difference were calculated for random-effect meta-analysis of dichotomous variables. Mean difference and standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated for random-effect meta-analysis of continuous variables.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs (n = 561 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Trials studied methylphenidate (n = 7), with daily doses of 54-180 mg, and dextroamphetamine (n = 3), with daily doses of 60-110 mg, for 2-24 weeks. PPs significantly decreased end-point craving [SMD -0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.55, -0.03], while such a decrease did not reach statistical significance for ATS use, as evaluated by urine analysis (UA) (RR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.85-1.01). No effect was observed for self-reported ATS use, retention in treatment, dropout following adverse events, early-stage craving, withdrawal and depressive symptoms. In a sensitivity analysis, treatment was associated with a significant reduction in UA positive for ATS (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.79-0.99) after removing studies with a high risk of bias. In subgroup analyses, methylphenidate and high doses of PPs were negatively associated with ATS use by UA, while higher doses of PPs and treatment duration (≥ 20 weeks) were positively associated with longer retention.
CONCLUSIONS
Among individuals with amphetamine-type stimulant use disorder, treatment with prescription psychostimulants may decrease ATS use and craving. While effect size is limited, it may increase with a higher dosage of medications.
Topics: Humans; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Methylphenidate; Substance-Related Disorders; Amphetamines; Prescriptions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37880829
DOI: 10.1111/add.16347 -
Psychopharmacology Dec 2022Despite the reported efficacy of methylphenidate (MET) against Alzheimer's disease (AD)-associated apathy, a recent larger clinical trial was not included in pooled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
RATIONALE
Despite the reported efficacy of methylphenidate (MET) against Alzheimer's disease (AD)-associated apathy, a recent larger clinical trial was not included in pooled analysis.
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed at investigating the efficacy of MET for attenuating apathy in patients diagnosed with AD.
METHODS
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched from inception until March, 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was apathy improvement assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) apathy subscale, Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES), or Clinical Global Impressions of Change scale (CGI-C apathy).
RESULTS
Meta-analysis of four RCTs revealed an improvement in apathy among patients receiving MET compared to placebo (MD = - 5.12, p = 0.04, three trials, 144 participants) at follow-ups of 1-3 months assessed with AES score. Despite the absence of improvement on NPI-apathy subscale at follow-ups of 1-2 months (MD = - 0.74, p = 0.37, three trials, 265 participants), significant improvement was noted at follow-ups of 6 months (MD = - 1.4, p = 0.02, one trial, 180 participants). Assessment with CGI-C apathy revealed no significant association between improvement in apathy with MET use (RR = 1.38, p = 0.05, three trials, 265 participants). No significant differences in global cognitive function (using the Mini Mental State Exam) or adverse events were noted between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
While AES score suggested an early attenuation effect of MET on apathy in different domains, the NPI-apathy subscale did not show early improvement in apathy until the 6-month follow-up. Further studies with longer follow-ups are needed to elucidate the efficacy of MET for relieving caregiver burden and improving global functional performance.
Topics: Humans; Methylphenidate; Apathy; Alzheimer Disease; Cognition
PubMed: 36243827
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-022-06261-y -
Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials Mar 2013Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder in children and adolescents. Stimulants are commonly prescribed for ADHD management.... (Review)
Review
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder in children and adolescents. Stimulants are commonly prescribed for ADHD management. There is clinical trial evidence that some medications with noradrenergic properties such as atomoxetine are effective. It is of theoretical and practical importance if other agents with noradrenergic properties display a comparable pattern of efficacy. This paper is a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine for treating children and adolescents with ADHD. MEDLINE, Google scholar, Scopus, and Web of science (ISI) databases were electronically searched in July 2012, updated on November 2012. Time and language of publication were not exclusion criteria. Efficacy outcomes were assessed by a valid and reliable parent- and/or teacher-reported instrument to evaluate clinical symptoms. Adverse effects were also evaluated. There were three uncontrolled trials and only two double blind controlled clinical trials. Venlafaxine appeared effective for treating ADHD. The rates of some adverse effects of venlafaxine were less than those documented for methylphenidate. While one of the two small controlled trials did not find difference between venlafaxine ad methylphenidate, the other trial reported lower efficacy for venlafaxine. Headache, insomnia, and nausea were among the most common adverse effects. This systematic review provides preliminary support that venlafaxine may have short term utility in treating ADHD in children and adolescents. However, before recommending venlafaxine for treatment, more robust and larger clinical trials, in particular providing evidence of its long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability are required.
Topics: Adolescent; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cyclohexanols; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Methylphenidate; Research Design; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 23157376
DOI: 10.2174/1574887111308010002 -
Journal of Autism and Developmental... Oct 2013Many children with pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) exhibit behaviors and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We sought to determine the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological treatment of the symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children with pervasive developmental disorders.
Many children with pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) exhibit behaviors and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We sought to determine the relative efficacy of medications for treating ADHD symptoms in children with PDD by identifying all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials examining the efficacy of medications for treating ADHD symptoms in children with PDD. We located seven trials involving 225 children. A random effects meta-analysis of four methylphenidate trials showed methylphenidate to be effective for treating ADHD symptoms in children with PDD (ES = .67). Several adverse events were greater for children were taking methylphenidate compared to placebo. An individual trial of clonidine and two trials of atomoxetine suggest these agents may also be effective in treating ADHD symptoms in children with PDD.
Topics: Adolescent; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Child Development Disorders, Pervasive; Child, Preschool; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Methylphenidate; Propylamines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23468071
DOI: 10.1007/s10803-013-1793-z -
European Journal of Cancer Care Nov 2016Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common symptom affecting 60-90% of cancer survivors, and effective management for CRF is not yet available. Recently, an increasing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common symptom affecting 60-90% of cancer survivors, and effective management for CRF is not yet available. Recently, an increasing number of trials examining the use of psychotropic drugs for the treatment of CRF have been performed, but these trials have yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aimed at assessing the effect and safety of psychotropic drugs for the management of CRF. Ten eligible trials of the psychotropic drugs methylphenidate and modafinil in a total of 1582 participants treated for CRF were subjected to statistical analyses. A meta-analysis of seven of these studies indicated that methylphenidate was superior to placebo for the treatment of CRF. Another meta-analysis of three studies evaluating modafinil found that this drug was no better than placebo. Adverse events were similar between both methylphenidate and modafinil and the placebo groups. Our meta-analysis indicated that the treatment of CRF with methylphenidate appears to be effective, whereas modafinil provides no benefit. These results of this analysis warrant further trials to confirm the efficacy and safety of psychotropic drugs for the treatment of CRF.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Fatigue; Humans; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Neoplasms; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 26490083
DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12397 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Oct 2021Evidence regarding the pharmacological interventions to manage cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is currently synthesized in several systematic reviews, portraying a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence regarding the pharmacological interventions to manage cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is currently synthesized in several systematic reviews, portraying a fragmented literature synthesis. Thus, we aimed to critically appraise the available systematic reviews on pharmacological intervention for improving CRF in adult cancer patients.
METHODS
Three databases were systematically searched from January 2010 to July 2020. The pooled meta-analyses' effect sizes (standardized mean difference, SMD) were quantitatively pooled using a random-effects model. Chi-squared (Q) and I-square statistics (I²) tested the heterogeneity.
RESULTS
The SMD of the effect of psychostimulants on CRF was -0.20 (95 % CI: -0.32, 0.08; p < 0.0001), along with significant higher improvement of fatigue (SMD=-0.69; 95 % CI=-1.29, -0,09, p < 0.0001) after methylphenidate administration. No statistical differences were found in the occurrences of adverse events between methylphenidate and placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
This study corroborated that psychostimulant therapy may be moderately effective in reducing CRF. Scarce evidence on the short- and long-term adverse events.
PROSPERO
CRD42020181879 (registration date: 26/07/2020).
Topics: Adult; Fatigue; Humans; Methylphenidate; Neoplasms; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 34051301
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103373 -
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Aug 2016To evaluate how data from n-of-1 trials may be used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses by examining the effects of amphetamine and methylphenidate for... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate how data from n-of-1 trials may be used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses by examining the effects of amphetamine and methylphenidate for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
Electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO for English language articles published from 1950 to 2013. N-of-1 trials of pediatric participants with ADHD that assessed either amphetamine or methylphenidate vs. placebo were included. The primary outcome was improvement of core symptoms of ADHD, which was assessed by multiple rating scales. Studies with obtainable individual participant data were included in the meta-analysis. Weighted mean differences were computed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included in the amphetamine-placebo comparison and 10 in the methylphenidate-placebo comparison. Meta-analyses were consistently in favor of amphetamine in 10 of 11 ADHD symptom domains and methylphenidate in 7 of 12 symptom domains. A high degree of heterogeneity across participant treatment response was observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Meta-analysis of n-of-1 trials suggests that amphetamine and methylphenidate are effective treatments for pediatric ADHD. Synthesizing n-of-1 trials enables assessment of individual responses to treatment as well as aggregate summaries across individuals and studies. It offers a promising general approach with applications across diverse treatments and disorders.
Topics: Adolescent; Amphetamine; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Male; Methylphenidate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27107878
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.026