-
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 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Sep 2022This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache.
METHODS
We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to January 2021 and identified randomized controlled trials comparing ketorolac to any other medications in treating patients presenting with migraine headache.
RESULTS
Thirteen trials were included in our review, comprising 944 participants. We derived seven comparisons: ketorolac versus phenothiazines, metoclopramide, sumatriptan, dexamethasone, sodium valproate, caffeine, and diclofenac. There were no significant differences in the reduction of pain intensity at 1 h under the comparisons between ketorolac and phenothiazines (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.09, p = 0.74) or metoclopramide (SMD = 0.02, p = 0.95). We also found no difference in the outcome recurrence of headache (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines (risk ratio [RR] =0.98, p = 0.97)], ability to return to work or usual activity (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 0.64, p = 0.13]), need for rescue medication (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines [RR = 1.72, p = 0.27], ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR 2.20, p = 0.18]), and frequency of adverse effects (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 1.07, p = 0.82]). Limited trials suggested that ketorolac offered better pain relief at 1 h compared to sumatriptan and dexamethasone; had lesser frequency of adverse effects than phenothiazines; and was superior to sodium valproate in terms of reduction of pain intensity at 1 h, need for rescue medication, and sustained headache freedom within 24 h.
CONCLUSIONS
Ketorolac may have similar efficacy to phenothiazines and metoclopramide in treating acute migraine headache. Ketorolac may also offer better pain control than sumatriptan, dexamethasone, and sodium valproate. However, given the lack of evidence due to inadequate number of trials available, future studies are warranted.
Topics: Caffeine; Dexamethasone; Diclofenac; Humans; Ketorolac; Metoclopramide; Migraine Disorders; Pain; Phenothiazines; Sumatriptan; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35138658
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14457 -
European Review For Medical and... Nov 2021This systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of oral anti-inflammatory drugs used in Brazil for osteoarthritis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of oral anti-inflammatory drugs used in Brazil for osteoarthritis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Randomized clinical trials evaluating ultramicronised diclofenac, diclofenac, celecoxib, etodolac and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis were identified. A search was conducted in May 2021 through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. A network meta-analysis was developed for efficacy outcome related to analgesia measured by the pain subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities tool. In addition, surface under the cumulative ranking was performed to rank the drugs in relation to this outcome.
RESULTS
Twelve randomized clinical trials were included. Overall, ultramicronised diclofenac 105 mg/day (UD105) was better than all the others, including ultramicronised diclofenac 70 mg/day (UD70). In addition, surface under the cumulative ranking resulted in the following order: 1) ultramicronised diclofenac 105 mg/day (100%), 2) ultramicronised diclofenac 70 mg/day (80%), 3) celecoxib 200 mg/day (49%), 4) diclofenac 100 mg/day (48%), 5) placebo (19%) and 6) diclofenac 150 mg/day (6%).
CONCLUSIONS
Ultramicronised diclofenac demonstrated superior efficacy compared to other conventional anti-inflammatory drugs and placebo in relieving osteoarthritis pain.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Diclofenac; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34859865
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202111_27252 -
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 -
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 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Aug 2021Tibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
Tibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its evidence for low back pain (LBP) has not been evaluated.
AIM OF THE STUDY
This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of CZPRP for both acute, subacute and chronic LBP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, CENTRAL, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang databases were searched through April 20, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of CZPRP for LBP. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, or usual care. Clinical outcomes included pain severity, lower back function score, pain-free rate, and adverse events (AEs). Qualitative evaluations were conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Quantitative analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
This study includes 1674 LBP patients from nine clinical studies. Pooled analyses among subjects with acute LBP show 1) significant pain reductions (mean difference -0.84, 95% confidence interval[CI] -1.31, -0.37) in CZPRP plus diclofenac versus diclofenac, 2) significant improvements in lower back function (standard mean difference -1.50, 95% CI -2.16, -0.85) in CZPRP versus diclofenac, and 3) a higher pain-free rate in CZPRP alone (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.16, 1.89; I = 61%) or CZPRP plus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (risk ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.14, 2.40; I = 0%) versus NSAIDs. However, in a heterogeneous population with mixed LBP subtypes, there was no significant difference in pain outcomes between CZPRP and diclofenac. Additionally, CZPRP use did not increase AEs compared with no CZPRP (p = 0.40). All nine studies are associated with moderate to high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of CZPRP is associated with improved acute LBP outcomes compared to diclofenac. However, due to the moderate to high risk of bias of the studies, future rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effects of CZPRP for acute and chronic LBP.
Topics: Analgesics; Animals; Diclofenac; Humans; Low Back Pain; Medicine, Traditional; Plant Preparations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tibet
PubMed: 34015584
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.111727 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Diclofenac; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Isoxazoles; Ketorolac; Middle Aged; Numbers Needed To Treat; Pain, Postoperative; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 33998669
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013263.pub2 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Nov 2021Although instrumental learning deficits are, among other deficits, assumed to contribute to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), no comprehensive systematic...
OBJECTIVE
Although instrumental learning deficits are, among other deficits, assumed to contribute to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), no comprehensive systematic review of instrumental learning deficits in ADHD exists. This review examines differences between ADHD and typically developing (TD) children in basic instrumental learning and the effects of reinforcement form, magnitude, schedule, and complexity, as well as effects of medication, on instrumental learning in children with ADHD.
METHOD
A systematic search of PubMed, PsyINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE+EMBASE CLASSIC, ERIC, and Web of Science was conducted for articles up to March 16, 2020. Experimental studies comparing instrumental learning between groups (ADHD versus TD) or a manipulation of reinforcement/medication within an ADHD sample were included. Quality of studies was assessed with an adapted version of the Hombrados and Waddington criteria to assess risk of bias in (quasi-) experimental studies.
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies from among 3,384 non-duplicate screened articles were included. No difference in basic instrumental learning was found between children with ADHD and TD children, nor effects of form or magnitude of reinforcement. Results regarding reinforcement schedule and reversal learning were mixed, but children with ADHD seemed to show deficits in conditional discrimination learning compared to TD children. Methylphenidate improved instrumental learning in children with ADHD. Quality assessment showed poor quality of studies with respect to sample sizes and outcome and missing data reporting.
CONCLUSION
The review identified very few and highly heterogenous studies, with inconsistent findings. No clear deficit was found in instrumental learning under laboratory conditions. Children with ADHD do show deficits in complex forms of learning, that is, conditional discrimination learning. Clearly more research is needed, using more similar task designs and manipulations.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Conditioning, Operant; Humans; Learning; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 33862167
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2021.03.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration, inflammation, and swelling. This causes pain and restricted movement of the affected finger. Non-surgical treatment options include activity modification, oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), splinting, and local injections with anti-inflammatory drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To review the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus placebo, glucocorticoids, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route for trigger finger.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO trials portal until 30 September 2020. We applied no language or publication status restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of adult participants with trigger finger that compared NSAIDs administered topically, orally, or by injection versus placebo, glucocorticoid, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two or more review authors independently screened the reports, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The seven major outcomes were resolution of trigger finger symptoms, persistent moderate or severe symptoms, recurrence of symptoms, total active range of finger motion, residual pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Treatment effects were reported as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
Two RCTs conducted in an outpatient hospital setting were included (231 adult participants, mean age 58.6 years, 60% female, 95% to 100% moderate to severe disease). Both studies compared a single injection of a non-selective NSAID (12.5 mg diclofenac or 15.0 mg ketorolac) given at lower than normal doses with a single injection of a glucocorticoid (triamcinolone 20 mg or 5 mg), with maximum follow-up duration of 12 weeks or 24 weeks. In both studies, we detected risk of attrition and performance bias. One study also had risk of selection bias. The effects of treatment were sensitive to assumptions about missing outcomes. All seven outcomes were reported in one study, and five in the other. NSAID injection may offer little to no benefit over glucocorticoid injection, based on low- to very low-certainty evidence from two trials. Evidence was downgraded for bias and imprecision. There may be little to no difference between groups in resolution of symptoms at 12 to 24 weeks (34% with NSAIDs, 41% with glucocorticoids; absolute effect 7% lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% lower to 5% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). The rate of persistent moderate to severe symptoms may be higher at 12 to 24 weeks in the NSAIDs group (28%) compared to the glucocorticoid group (14%) (absolute effect 14% higher, 95% CI 2% to 33% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.46; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs result in fewer recurrences at 12 to 24 weeks (1%) compared to glucocorticoid (21%) (absolute effect 20% lower, 95% CI 21% to 13% lower; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in mean total active motion at 24 weeks (235 degrees with NSAIDs, 240 degrees with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 5% lower, 95% CI 34.54% lower to 24.54% higher; 1 study, 99 participants; MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.54 to 24.54; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in residual pain at 12 to 24 weeks (20% with NSAIDs, 24% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 11% lower to 7% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in participant-reported treatment success at 24 weeks (64% with NSAIDs, 68% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 18% lower to 15% higher; 1 study, 121 participants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAID injection has an effect on adverse events at 12 to 24 weeks (1% with NSAIDs, 1% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 0% difference, 95% CI 2% lower to 3% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.42; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For adults with trigger finger, by 24 weeks' follow-up, results from two trials show that compared to glucocorticoid injection, NSAID injection offered little to no benefit in the treatment of trigger finger. Specifically, there was no difference in resolution, symptoms, recurrence, total active motion, residual pain, participant-reported treatment success, or adverse events.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Diclofenac; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Ketorolac; Male; Middle Aged; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Triamcinolone; Trigger Finger Disorder
PubMed: 33849080
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012789.pub2