-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of cognitive deficits in this population is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing or ameliorating cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation.
SEARCH METHODS
For this review update we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo via Ovid to 12 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled (RCTs) trials that evaluated pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in cranial irradiated adults, with objective cognitive functioning as a primary or secondary outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MK, JD) independently extracted data from selected studies and carried out a risk of bias assessment. Cognitive function, fatigue and mood outcomes were reported. No data were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this updated review. Six were from the original version of the review, and two more were added when the search was updated. Nineteen further studies were assessed as part of this update but did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. Of the eight included studies, four studies investigated "prevention" of cognitive problems (during radiotherapy and follow-up) and four studies investigated "amelioration" (interventions to treat cognitive impairment as a late complication of radiotherapy). There were five pharmacological studies (two studies on prevention and three in amelioration) and three non-pharmacological studies (two on prevention and one in amelioration). Due to differences between studies in the interventions being evaluated, a meta-analysis was not possible. Studies in early radiotherapy treatment phase (five studies) Pharmacological studies in the "early radiotherapy treatment phase" were designed to prevent or ameliorate cognitive deficits and included drugs used in dementia (memantine) and fatigue (d-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride). Non-pharmacological studies in the "early radiotherapy treatment phase" included a ketogenic diet and a two-week cognitive rehabilitation and problem-solving programme. In the memantine study, the primary cognitive outcome of memory at six months did not reach significance, but there was significant improvement in overall cognitive function compared to placebo, with similar adverse events across groups. The d-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride study found no statistically significant difference between arms, with few adverse events. The study of a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet found no effect, although a lower than expected calorie intake in the control group complicates interpretation of the results. The study investigating the utility of a rehabilitation program did not carry out a statistical comparison of cognitive performance between groups. Studies in delayed radiation or late effect phase (four studies) The "amelioration" pharmacological studies to treat cognitive complications of radiotherapy included drugs used in dementia (donepezil) or psychostimulants (methylphenidate and modafinil). Non-pharmacological measures included cognitive rehabilitation and problem solving (Goal Management Training). These studies included patients with cognitive problems at entry who had "stable" brain cancer. The donepezil study did not find an improvement in the primary cognitive outcome of overall cognitive performance, but did find improvement in an individual test of memory, compared to placebo; adverse events were not reported. A study comparing methylphenidate with modafinil found improvements in cognitive function in both the methylphenidate and modafinil arms; few adverse events were reported. Another study comparing two different doses of modafinil combined treatment arms and found improvements across all cognitive tests, however, a number of adverse events were reported. Both studies were limited by a small sample size. The Goal Management Training study suggested a benefit of the intervention, a behavioural intervention that combined mindfulness and strategy training, on executive function and processing speed. There were a number of limitations across studies and few were without high risks of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this update, limited additional evidence was found for the treatment or amelioration of cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation. As concluded in the original review, there is supportive evidence that memantine may help prevent cognitive deficits for adults with brain metastases receiving cranial irradiation. There is supportive evidence that donepezil, methylphenidate and modafinil may have a role in treating cognitive deficits in adults with brain tumours who have been treated with cranial irradiation; patient withdrawal affected the statistical power of these studies. Further research that tries to minimise the withdrawal of consent, and subsequently reduce the requirement for imputation procedures, may offer a higher certainty of evidence. There is evidence from only a single small study to support non-pharmacological interventions in the amelioration of cognitive deficits. Further research is required.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Modafinil; Donepezil; Memantine; Quality of Life; Cognitive Dysfunction; Cranial Irradiation; Cognition; Methylphenidate; Brain Neoplasms; Fatigue; Dementia
PubMed: 36427235
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011335.pub3 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2022Approximately 10−20% of patients who have sustained a mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) show persistent post-concussion symptoms (PCS). This review aims to summarize... (Review)
Review
Approximately 10−20% of patients who have sustained a mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) show persistent post-concussion symptoms (PCS). This review aims to summarize the level of evidence concerning interventions for PCS. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review regarding interventions for PCS post-mTBI until August 2021 using the Medline, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Inclusion criteria were the following: (1) intervention focusing on PCS after mTBI, (2) presence of a control group, and (3) adult patients (≥18 y.o). Quality assessment was determined using the Incog recommendation level, and the risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We first selected 104 full-text articles. Finally, 55 studies were retained, including 35 that obtained the highest level of evidence. The risk of bias was high in 22 out of 55 studies. Cognitive training, psycho-education, cognitive behavioral therapy, and graded return to physical activity demonstrated some effectiveness on persistent PCS. However, there is limited evidence of the beneficial effect of Methylphenidate. Oculomotor rehabilitation, light therapy, and headache management using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation seem effective regarding somatic complaints and sleep disorders. The preventive effect of early (<3 months) interventions remains up for debate. Despite its limitations, the results of the present review should encourage clinicians to propose a tailored treatment to patients according to the type and severity of PCS and could encourage further research with larger groups.
PubMed: 36294545
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206224 -
Drugs & Aging Nov 2022Cognitive decline is common in older people. Numerous studies point to the detrimental impact of polypharmacy and inappropriate medication on older people's cognitive...
A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials on the Impact of Medication Optimisation or Pharmacological Interventions on Quantitative Measures of Cognitive Function in Geriatric Patients.
BACKGROUND
Cognitive decline is common in older people. Numerous studies point to the detrimental impact of polypharmacy and inappropriate medication on older people's cognitive function. Here we aim to systematically review evidence on the impact of medication optimisation and drug interventions on cognitive function in older adults.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE and Web of Science on May 2021. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the impact of medication optimisation or pharmacological interventions on quantitative measures of cognitive function in older adults (aged > 65 years) were included. Single-drug interventions (e.g., on drugs for dementia) were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed by using the Jadad score.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. In five studies a positive impact of the intervention on metric measures of cognitive function was observed. Only one study showed a significant improvement of cognitive function by medication optimisation. The remaining four positive studies tested methylphenidate, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, folic acid and antipsychotics. The mean Jadad score was low (2.7).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review identified a small number of heterogenous RCTs investigating the impact of medication optimisation or pharmacological interventions on cognitive function. Five trials showed a positive impact on at least one aspect of cognitive function, with comprehensive medication optimisation not being more successful than focused drug interventions. More prospective trials are needed to specifically assess ways of limiting the negative impact of certain medication in particular and polypharmacy in general on cognitive function in older patients.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Cognition; Polypharmacy; Cognitive Dysfunction; Antipsychotic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36284081
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-022-00980-9 -
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2022The pharmacological management of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in children remains a challenge due to limited effective management options and the absence of approved... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The pharmacological management of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in children remains a challenge due to limited effective management options and the absence of approved drugs to manage the core symptoms. This review aims to describe and highlight effective pharmacological management options employed in managing the core symptoms and comorbidities of ASD from eligible studies over the past decade.
METHODS
A search of databases; PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and PsychInfo for pharmacotherapeutic options for ASD was conducted in this systematic review. Duplicate studies were removed by utilizing the EndNote citation manager. The studies were subsequently screened independently by two authors. Eligible studies from 01 January 2012 to 01 January 2022 were included based on established eligibility criteria. A narrative synthesis was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
The systematic review provides a comprehensive list of effective management options for ASD comorbidities and core symptoms from 33 included studies. The management options for ASD comorbidities; insomnia, hyperactivity, irritability and aggression, gastrointestinal disturbances, and subclinical epileptiform discharges, were reviewed. Risperidone, aripiprazole, methylphenidate, guanfacine, levetiracetam, and atomoxetine are examples of effective pharmacological drugs against ASD comorbidities. Additionally, this review identified various drugs that improve the core symptoms of ASD and include but are not limited to, bumetanide, buspirone, intranasal oxytocin, intranasal vasopressin, and prednisolone.
CONCLUSION
This review has successfully summarized the pharmacological advancements made in the past decade to manage ASD. Although there is still no pharmacological cure for ASD core symptoms or additional drugs that have obtained regulatory approval for use in ASD, the availability of promising pharmacological agents are under evaluation and study.
PubMed: 35968512
DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S371013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) can co-occur in up to 40% of people with epilepsy. There is debate about the efficacy and tolerability of stimulant and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) can co-occur in up to 40% of people with epilepsy. There is debate about the efficacy and tolerability of stimulant and non-stimulant drugs used to treat people with ADHD and co-occurring epilepsy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of stimulant and non-stimulant drugs on children and adults with ADHD and co-occurring epilepsy in terms of seizure frequency and drug withdrawal rates (primary objectives), as well as seizure severity, ADHD symptoms, cognitive state, general behaviour, quality of life, and adverse effects profile (secondary objectives).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 12 October 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 9 October 2020), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, 1937 onwards). There were no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of stimulant and non-stimulant drugs for people of any age, gender or ethnicity with ADHD and co-occurring epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected articles and extracted data according to predefined criteria. We conducted primary analysis on an intention-to-treat basis. We presented outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), except for individual adverse effects where we quoted 99% CIs. We conducted best- and worst-case sensitivity analyses to deal with missing data. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two studies that matched our inclusion criteria: a USA study compared different doses of the stimulant drug osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) with a placebo in 33 children (mean age 10.5 ± 3.0 years), and an Iranian study compared the non-stimulant drug omega-3 taken in conjunction with risperidone and usual anti-seizure medication (ASM) with risperidone and ASM only in 61 children (mean age 9.24 ± 0.15 years). All children were diagnosed with epilepsy and ADHD according to International League Against Epilepsy and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, criteria, respectively. We assessed both studies to be at low risk of detection and reporting biases, but assessments varied from low to high risk of bias for all other domains. OROS-MPH No participant taking OROS-MPH experienced significant worsening of epilepsy, defined as: 1. a doubling of the highest 14-day or highest two-day seizure rate observed during the 12 months before the trial; 2. a generalised tonic-clonic seizure if none had been experienced in the previous two years; or 3. a clinically meaningful intensification in seizure duration or severity (33 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, higher doses of OROS-MPH predicted an increased daily risk of a seizure (P < 0.001; 33 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). OROS-MPH had a larger proportion of participants receiving 'much improved' or 'very much improved' scores for ADHD symptoms on the Clinical Global Impressions for ADHD-Improvement tool (33 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). OROS-MPH also had a larger proportion of people withdrawing from treatment (RR 2.80; 95% CI 1.14 to 6.89; 33 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Omega-3 Omega-3 with risperidone and ASM were associated with a reduction in mean seizure frequency by 6.6 seizures per month (95% CI 4.24 to 8.96; 56 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and an increase in the proportion of people achieving 50% or greater reduction in monthly seizure frequency (RR 2.79, 95% CI 0.84 to 9.24; 56 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) compared to people on risperidone and ASM alone. Omega-3 with risperidone and ASM also had a smaller proportion of people withdrawing from treatment (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.59; 61 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) but a larger proportion of people experiencing adverse drug events (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.44 to 4.42; 56 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) compared to people on risperidone and ASM alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In children with a dual-diagnosis of epilepsy and ADHD, there is some evidence that use of the stimulant drug OROS-MPH is not associated with significant worsening of epilepsy, but higher doses of it may be associated with increased daily risk of seizures; the evidence is of low-certainty. OROS-MPH is also associated with improvement in ADHD symptoms. However, this treatment was also associated with a large proportion of treatment withdrawal compared to placebo. In relation to the non-stimulant drug omega-3, there is some evidence for reduction in seizure frequency in children who are also on risperidone and ASM, compared to children who are on risperidone and ASM alone. Evidence is inconclusive whether omega-3 increases or decreases the risk of adverse drug events. We identified only two studies - one each for OROS-MPH and omega-3 - with low to high risk of bias. We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for the outcomes of both OROS-MPH and omega-3 as low to moderate. More studies are needed. Future studies should include: 1. adult participants; 2. a wider variety of stimulant and non-stimulant drugs, such as amphetamines and atomoxetine, respectively; and 3. additional important outcomes, such as seizure-related hospitalisations and quality of life. Clusters of studies which assess the same drug - and those that build upon the evidence base presented in this review on OROS-MPH and omega-3 - are needed to allow for meta-analysis of outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Epilepsy; Humans; Iran; Quality of Life; Risperidone
PubMed: 35844168
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013136.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis increasingly used in adults. The recommended first-line pharmacological treatment is central... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis increasingly used in adults. The recommended first-line pharmacological treatment is central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, such as methylphenidate, but uncertainty remains about its benefits and harms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of extended-release formulations of methylphenidate in adults diagnosed with ADHD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and four clinical trial registries up to February 2021. We searched 12 drug regulatory databases for clinical trial data up to 13 May 2020. In addition, we cross-referenced all available trial identifiers, handsearched reference lists, searched pharmaceutical company databases, and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trials comparing extended-release methylphenidate formulations at any dose versus placebo and other ADHD medications in adults diagnosed with ADHD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and rating scales and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risks of bias, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We meta-analysed the data using a random-effects model. We assessed three design characteristics that may impair the trial results' 'generalisability'; exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity; responder selection based on previous experience with CNS stimulants; and risk of withdrawal effects. Our prespecified primary outcomes were functional outcomes, self-rated ADHD symptoms, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes included quality of life, ADHD symptoms rated by investigators and by peers such as family members, cardiovascular variables, severe psychiatric adverse events, and other adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 trials (5066 participants), of which 21 reported outcome data for this review. We also identified one ongoing study. We included documents from six drug regulatory agencies covering eight trials. Twenty-one trials had an outpatient setting and three were conducted in prisons. They were primarily conducted in North America and Europe. The median participant age was 36 years. Twelve trials (76% of participants) were industry-sponsored, four (14% of participants) were publicly funded with industry involvement, seven (10% of participants) were publicly funded, and one had unclear funding. The median trial duration was eight weeks. One trial was rated at overall unclear risk of bias and 20 trials were rated at overall high risk of bias, primarily due to unclear blinding of participants and investigators, attrition bias, and selective outcome reporting. All trials were impaired in at least one of the three design characteristics related to 'generalisability'; for example, they excluded participants with psychiatric comorbidity such as depression or anxiety, or included participants only with a previous positive response to methylphenidate, or similar drugs. This may limit the trials' usefulness for clinical practice, as they may overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms. Extended-release methylphenidate versus placebo (up to 26 weeks) For the primary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' at 13-week follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.15 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.11 to 1.81; 1 trial, 409 participants) or serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.43, CI 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 14 trials, 4078 participants), whereas methylphenidate improved self-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.30; 16 trials, 3799 participants). For secondary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate improved self-rated quality of life (small effect; SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05; 6 trials, 1888 participants), investigator-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.36; 18 trials, 4183 participants), ADHD symptoms rated by peers such as family members (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; 3 trials, 1005 participants), and increased the risk of experiencing any adverse event (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.37; 14 trials, 4214 participants). We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, primarily due to high risk of bias and 'indirectness of the evidence'. One trial (419 participants) had follow-up at 52 weeks and two trials (314 participants) included active comparators, hence long-term and comparative evidence is limited.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found very low-certainty evidence that extended-release methylphenidate compared to placebo improved ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effects) measured on rating scales reported by participants, investigators, and peers such as family members. Methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' or serious adverse events, the effect on quality of life was small, and it increased the risk of several adverse effects. We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, due to high risk of bias, short trial durations, and limitations to the generalisability of the results. The benefits and harms of extended-release methylphenidate therefore remain uncertain.
Topics: Adult; Anxiety Disorders; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Humans; Methylphenidate; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35201607
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012857.pub2 -
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 -
PloS One 2021Regular visit to psychiatric clinic is essential for successful treatment of any psychiatric condition including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD)....
BACKGROUND
Regular visit to psychiatric clinic is essential for successful treatment of any psychiatric condition including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD). However, cancellation of outpatient appointments in patients with AD/HD, which represents a significant medical loss, has not been systematically investigated to our knowledge.
METHODS
A systematic chart review was conducted for patients visiting the Shimada Ryoiku medical Center for Challenged Children in Japan at the age of ≤15 years from January to December 2013. The primary outcome measure was the cancellation rate, defined as the number of missed visits divided by the number of scheduled visits. The cancellation rates during 24 months after the first visit were compared between outpatients with AD/HD and other psychiatric disorders, including pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), and developmental coordination disorders and/or communication disorders (DCD-CD). A generalized linear model with binomial distribution was used to examine factors associated with cancellation rates exclusively in the AD/HD group.
RESULTS
We included 589 patients (mean ± SD age, 5.6 ± 3.4 years; 432 males) in the analysis. The cancellation rate in patients with AD/HD was 12.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.0-15.1), which was significantly higher than in those with PDD (5.6%, 95% CI: 3.8-8.3) and DCD-CD (5.3%, 95% CI: 3.6-7.8). Prescriptions of osmotic-release oral system-methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) and antipsychotics were associated with fewer cancellations in AD/HD patients (odds ratios: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39-0.95 and 0.49, 95% CI: 0.25-0.95, respectively), although these significances did not find in the subgroup analysis including only patients with ≥ 6 years old.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with AD/HD were more likely to miss appointments compared to those with other psychiatric disorders. The impact of AD/HD medications as well as potential psychiatric symptoms of their parents or caregivers on appointment cancellations needs to be evaluated in more detail in future investigations.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Female; Humans; Japan; Male; Outpatients
PubMed: 34797891
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260431 -
Medicine Nov 2021Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common childhood-onset neurodevelopmental disorder, and methylphenidate (MPH) is considered one of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common childhood-onset neurodevelopmental disorder, and methylphenidate (MPH) is considered one of the first-line medicine for ADHD. Unfortunately, this medication is only effective for some children with ADHD. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate whether noradrenergic gene polymorphisms impact the efficacy of MPH in children with ADHD.
METHODS
Candidate gene studies published in English until March 1, 2020, were identified through literature searches on PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Data were pooled from individual clinical trials considering MPH pharmacogenomics. According to the heterogeneity, the odds ratio and mean differences were calculated by applying fixed-effects or random-effects models.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis includes 15 studies and 1382 patients. Four polymorphisms of the NET gene (rs5569, rs28386840, rs2242446, rs3785143) and 2 polymorphisms of the α2A-adrenergic receptor gene (ADRA2A) gene (MspI and DraI) were selected for the analysis. In the pooled data from all studies, T allele carriers of the rs28386840 polymorphism were significantly more likely to respond to MPH (P < .001, ORTcarriers = 2.051, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.316, 3.197) and showed a relationship with significantly greater hyperactive-impulsive symptoms improvement (P < .001, mean difference:1.70, 95% CI:0.24, 3.16). None of the ADRA2A polymorphisms correlated significantly with MPH response as a whole. However, G allele carriers of the MspI polymorphism showed a relationship with significantly inattention symptoms improvement (P < .001, mean difference:0.31, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.47).
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis results indicate that the noradrenergic gene polymorphisms may impact MPH response. The NET rs28386840 is linked to improved MPH response in ADHD children. And the ADRA2A MspI is associated with inattention symptom improvements. Further investigations with larger samples will be needed to confirm these results.Registration: PROSPERO (no. CRD42021265830).
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Humans; Methylphenidate; Norepinephrine; Norepinephrine Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins; Pharmacogenetics; Polymorphism, Genetic; Receptors, Adrenergic, alpha-2; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34797323
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027858 -
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Mar 2022To assess whether drug regulatory agencies decided on applications for extended-release methylphenidate for use in adult ADHD based on select samples of trials.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether drug regulatory agencies decided on applications for extended-release methylphenidate for use in adult ADHD based on select samples of trials.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
Case series of publicly available regulatory documents. We matched an index of extended-release methylphenidate trials for adult ADHD with trials appearing in regulatory documents of extended-release methylphenidate applications. Trials and regulatory documents were identified as part of this systematic review (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012857). We sought to identify missing trials in the regulatory documents and to clarify regulatory submission requirements.
RESULTS
We indexed 18 trials and matched those with 13 drug applications (11 approved, 2 rejected) published by 7 agencies. There were trials missing in 7 (54%) of 13 applications, median 4 trials (range 1-6). The median proportion of missing trial participants was 45% (range 23% - 72%). Regulators seemingly require that all trials must be included in new drug applications, but wording is ambiguous.
CONCLUSION
In this sample of extended-release methylphenidate drug applications for adult ADHD, 7 of 13 regulatory decisions were missing entire trials according to public documents, even though regulatory requirements seem to stipulate that all available trials should be included in drug applications.
Topics: Adult; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Delayed-Action Preparations; Humans; Methylphenidate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34752938
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.027