-
Annals of Medicine Dec 2024Tension-type headache is the most common type of primary headache and results in a huge socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Tension-type headache is the most common type of primary headache and results in a huge socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of simple analgesics for the treatment of episodic tension-type headache (ETTH) in adults.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Chinese BioMedical Literature database and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases for eligible randomized clinical trials reporting the efficacy and/or safety of simple analgesics. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare relative efficacy and safety. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank interventions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018090554.
RESULTS
We highlighted six studies including 3507 patients. For the 2 h pain-free rate, the SUCRA ranking was ibuprofen > diclofenac-K > ketoprofen > acetaminophen > naproxen > placebo. All drugs except naproxen reported a higher 2 h pain-free rate than placebo, with a risk ratio (RR) of 2.86 (95% credible interval, CrI: 1.62-5.42) for ibuprofen and 2.61 (1.53-4.88) for diclofenac-K. For adverse events rate, the SUCRA ranking was: metamizol > diclofenac-K > ibuprofen > lumiracoxib > placebo > aspirin > acetaminophen > naproxen > ketoprofen. The adverse event rates of all analgesics were no higher than those of placebo, except for ketoprofen. Moreover, all drugs were superior to placebo in the global assessment of efficacy. In particular, the RR of lumiracoxib was 2.47 (1.57-4.57). Global heterogeneity between the studies was low.
CONCLUSIONS
Simple analgesics are considered more effective and safe as a placebo for ETTH in adults. Our results suggest that ibuprofen and diclofenac-K may be the two best treatment options for patients with ETTH from a comprehensive point of view (both high-quality evidence).
Topics: Humans; Tension-Type Headache; Analgesics; Adult; Network Meta-Analysis; Ibuprofen; Acetaminophen; Bayes Theorem; Treatment Outcome; Diclofenac; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Naproxen; Ketoprofen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Male
PubMed: 38813682
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2024.2357235 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jul 2024Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is associated with executive function deficits that are improved with medications. However, meta-analyses of stimulant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is associated with executive function deficits that are improved with medications. However, meta-analyses of stimulant effects on cognition have mostly tested single-dose effects, and there is no meta-analysis of non-stimulant effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis tested the clinically more relevant longer-term effects of Methylphenidate (20 studies; minimum 1 week) and Atomoxetine (8 studies; minimum 3 weeks) on reaction time, attention, inhibition, and working memory, searching papers on PubMed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. The meta-analysis of 18 studies in 1667 subjects showed that methylphenidate was superior to placebo in all cognitive domains with small to medium effect sizes (Hedges g of 0.34-0.59). The meta-analysis of atomoxetine included 7 studies in 829 subjects and showed no effects in working memory, but superior effects in the other domains with medium to large effect sizes (Hedge's g of 0.36-0.64). Meta-regression analysis showed no drug differences on cognitive effects. The meta-analyses show for the first time that chronic Methylphenidate and Atomoxetine have comparable effects of improving executive functions in people with ADHD.
Topics: Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Executive Function; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Methylphenidate; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Memory, Short-Term
PubMed: 38718988
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105703 -
Bipolar Disorders May 2024Abnormalities in dopamine and norepinephrine signaling are implicated in cognitive impairments in bipolar disorder (BD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder... (Review)
Review
Efficacy and safety of established and off-label ADHD drug therapies for cognitive impairment or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in bipolar disorder: A systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force.
BACKGROUND
Abnormalities in dopamine and norepinephrine signaling are implicated in cognitive impairments in bipolar disorder (BD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force therefore aimed to investigate the possible benefits on cognition and/or ADHD symptoms and safety of established and off-label ADHD therapies in BD.
METHODS
We included studies of ADHD medications in BD patients, which involved cognitive and/or safety measures. We followed the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO from inception until June 2023. Two authors reviewed the studies independently using the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for Randomized trials.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were identified (N = 2136), investigating armodafinil (k = 4, N = 1581), methylphenidate (k = 4, N = 84), bupropion (k = 4, n = 249), clonidine (k = 1, n = 70), lisdexamphetamine (k = 1, n = 25), mixed amphetamine salts (k = 1, n = 30), or modafinil (k = 2, n = 97). Three studies investigated cognition, four ADHD symptoms, and 10 the safety. Three studies found treatment-related ADHD symptom reduction: two involved methylphenidate and one amphetamine salts. One study found a trend towards pro-cognitive effects of modafinil on some cognitive domains. No increased risk of (hypo)mania was observed. Five studies had low risk of bias, eleven a moderate risk, and one a serious risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Methylphenidate or mixed amphetamine salts may improve ADHD symptoms in BD. However, there is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness on cognition. The medications produced no increased mania risk when used alongside mood stabilizers. Further robust studies are needed to assess cognition in BD patients receiving psychostimulant treatment alongside mood stabilizers.
Topics: Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bipolar Disorder; Cognitive Dysfunction; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Off-Label Use; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 38433530
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.13414 -
The Australian and New Zealand Journal... Apr 2024Binge spectrum disorders are prevalent worldwide. Psychiatric and medical comorbidities are common, and societal costs are significant. Evidence-based treatment remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Binge spectrum disorders are prevalent worldwide. Psychiatric and medical comorbidities are common, and societal costs are significant. Evidence-based treatment remains underutilized. Cognitive behavioral therapy is the recommended first-line treatment, but pharmacotherapy may be easier to access.
INTERVENTIONS
Meta-analytic evidence directly comparing cognitive behavioral therapy with pharmacotherapy is lacking. We aimed to compare the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy interventions with any pharmacological treatment for binge spectrum disorders. We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists for randomized controlled trials comparing cognitive behavioral therapy with any pharmacotherapy for bulimia nervosa/binge eating disorder and performed pairwise meta-analytic evaluations.
PRIMARY OUTCOMES
Primary outcomes are remission and frequency of binges. Secondary outcomes are frequency of purges, response, eating disorder psychopathology, weight/body mass index, depression, anxiety, quality of life and dropouts.
RESULTS
Eleven randomized controlled trials comparing cognitive behavioral therapy with fluoxetine/imipramine/desipramine/methylphenidate/sibutramine were identified ( = 531). Cognitive behavioral therapy was superior to antidepressants in terms of remission, frequency of binges and eating disorder psychopathology. There were no statistically significant differences for any of the individual cognitive behavioral therapy vs drug comparisons in terms of response/depression/anxiety/weight/quality of life/dropouts. Cognitive behavioral therapy was not superior to sibutramine/methylphenidate for the primary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Data are scarce, comparisons underpowered and, considering the inherent methodological limitations of psychotherapy trials, questions arise regarding the presumed superiority of cognitive behavioral therapy. Further research is needed.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Psychotherapy; Methylphenidate; Treatment Outcome; Cyclobutanes
PubMed: 38179705
DOI: 10.1177/00048674231219593 -
European Journal of Drug Metabolism and... Mar 2024BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is one of the most common neuropsychiatric conditions in children, and methylphenidate (MPH) is one...
UNLABELLED
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is one of the most common neuropsychiatric conditions in children, and methylphenidate (MPH) is one of the first-line therapies. MPH is available in a variety of extended-release (ER) formulations worldwide, and most formulations are not considered bioequivalent due to differences in pharmacokinetics. It is hypothesized that the current bioequivalence guidelines from the different regulatory bodies may generate inconsistent findings or recommendations when assessing the bioequivalence of ER MPH formulations. This manuscript aims to conduct a comprehensive and narrative critical literature review to analyze pharmacokinetic data pertaining to ER formulations of MPH in order to assess bioequivalence, differences in regulatory guidelines, and additional pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameters that may help define interchangeability.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library with no time limits. Study characteristics, non-compartmental pharmacokinetic parameters, and bioequivalence data were extracted for analysis.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies were identified with primary pharmacokinetic data after the administration of ER MPH, of which 10 were direct comparative studies (i.e., at least 2 formulations tested within a single setting) and 23 were indirect comparisons (i.e., different experimental settings). Two formulations were consistently reported as bioequivalent across the regulatory bodies using criteria from their guidance documents, although inconsistencies have been observed. However, when additional kinetic criteria (discussed in this manuscript) were imposed, only one study met the more stringent definition of bioequivalence. Various clinical factors also had inconsistent effects on the pharmacokinetics and interchangeability of the different formulations, which were associated with a lack of standardization for assessing covariates across the regulatory agencies.
CONCLUSION
Additional pharmacokinetic parameters and consistency in guidelines across the regulatory bodies may improve bioequivalence assessments. Based on our findings, more research is also required to understand whether bioequivalence is an appropriate measure for determining MPH interchangeability. This critical review is suitable for formulation scientists, clinical pharmacologists, and clinicians.
Topics: Child; Humans; Methylphenidate; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Therapeutic Equivalency; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Delayed-Action Preparations; Cross-Over Studies
PubMed: 38127227
DOI: 10.1007/s13318-023-00873-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2023Many children undergo various surgeries, which often lead to acute postoperative pain. This pain influences recovery and quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many children undergo various surgeries, which often lead to acute postoperative pain. This pain influences recovery and quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), specifically cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitors such as diclofenac, can be used to treat pain and reduce inflammation. There is uncertainty regarding diclofenac's benefits and harms compared to placebo or other drugs for postoperative pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of diclofenac (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo, other active comparators, or diclofenac administered by different routes (e.g. oral, rectal, etc.) or strategies (e.g. 'as needed' versus 'as scheduled').
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and trial registries on 11 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children under 18 years of age undergoing surgery that compared diclofenac (delivered in any dose and route) to placebo or any active pharmacological intervention. We included RCTs comparing different administration routes of diclofenac and different strategies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: pain relief (PR) reported by the child, defined as the proportion of children reporting 50% or better postoperative pain relief; pain intensity (PI) reported by the child; adverse events (AEs); and serious adverse events (SAEs). We presented results using risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 RCTs with 2250 children. All surgeries were done using general anaesthesia. Most studies (27) included children above age three. Only two studies had an overall low risk of bias; 30 had an unclear or high risk of bias in one or several domains. Diclofenac versus placebo (three studies) None of the included studies reported on PR or PI. We are very uncertain about the benefits and harms of diclofenac versus placebo on nausea/vomiting (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.80; 2 studies, 100 children) and any reported bleeding (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 26.45; 2 studies, 100 children), both very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported SAEs. Diclofenac versus opioids (seven studies) We are very uncertain if diclofenac reduces PI at 2 to 24 hours postoperatively compared to opioids (median pain intensity 0.3 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.0 to 2.5) for diclofenac versus median 0.7 (IQR 0.1 to 2.4) in the opioid group; 1 study, 50 children; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on PR or PI for other time points. Diclofenac probably results in less nausea/vomiting compared to opioids (41.0% in opioids, 31.0% in diclofenac; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96; 7 studies, 463 participants), and probably increases any reported bleeding (5.4% in opioids, 16.5% in diclofenac; RR 3.06, 95% CI 1.31 to 7.13; 2 studies, 222 participants), both moderate-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported SAEs. Diclofenac versus paracetamol (10 studies) None of the included studies assessed child-reported PR. Compared to paracetamol, we are very uncertain if diclofenac: reduces PI at 0 to 2 hours postoperatively (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.15; 2 studies, 180 children); reduces PI at 2 to 24 hours postoperatively (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.39; 3 studies, 300 children); reduces nausea/vomiting (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.87; 5 studies, 348 children); reduces bleeding events (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.62; 5 studies, 332 participants); or reduces SAEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.22; 1 study, 60 children). The evidence certainty was very low for all outcomes. Diclofenac versus bupivacaine (five studies) None of the included studies reported on PR or PI. Compared to bupivacaine, we are very uncertain about the effect of diclofenac on nausea/vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.78; 3 studies, 128 children) and SAEs (RR 4.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 88.38; 1 study, 38 children), both very low-certainty evidence. Diclofenac versus active pharmacological comparator (10 studies) We are very uncertain about the benefits and harms of diclofenac versus any other active pharmacological comparator (dexamethasone, pranoprofen, fluorometholone, oxybuprocaine, flurbiprofen, lignocaine), and for different routes and delivery of diclofenac, due to few and small studies, no reporting of key outcomes, and very low-certainty evidence for the reported outcomes. We are unable to draw any meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We remain uncertain about the efficacy of diclofenac compared to placebo, active comparators, or by different routes of administration, for postoperative pain management in children. This is largely due to authors not reporting on clinically important outcomes; unclear reporting of the trials; or poor trial conduct reducing our confidence in the results. We remain uncertain about diclofenac's safety compared to placebo or active comparators, except for the comparison of diclofenac with opioids: diclofenac probably results in less nausea and vomiting compared with opioids, but more bleeding events. For healthcare providers managing postoperative pain, diclofenac is a COX inhibitor option, along with other pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Healthcare providers should weigh the benefits and risks based on what is known of their respective pharmacological effects, rather than known efficacy. For surgical interventions in which bleeding or nausea and vomiting are a concern postoperatively, the risks of adverse events using opioids or diclofenac for managing pain should be considered.
Topics: Humans; Child; Adolescent; Diclofenac; Acetaminophen; Pain, Postoperative; Nausea; Vomiting; Analgesics, Opioid; Bupivacaine
PubMed: 38078559
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015087.pub2 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... Feb 2024Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most studied chemoprophylaxis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). While... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most studied chemoprophylaxis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). While previous systematic reviews have shown NSAIDs reduce PEP, their impact on moderate to severe PEP (MSPEP) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the impact of NSAIDs on MSPEP among patients who developed PEP. We later surveyed physicians' understanding of that impact.
DESIGN
A systematic search for randomized trials using NSAIDs for PEP prevention was conducted. Pooled-prevalence and Odds-ratio of PEP, MSPEP were compared between treated vs. control groups. Analysis was performed using R software. Random-effects model was used for all variables. Physicians were surveyed via email before and after reviewing our results.
RESULTS
7688 patients in 25 trials were included. PEP was significantly reduced to 0.598 (95%CI, 0.47-0.76) in the NSAIDs group. Overall burden of MSPEP was reduced among all patients undergoing ERCP: OR 0.59 (95%CI, 0.42-0.83). However, NSAIDs didn't affect the proportion of MSPEP among those who developed PEP (p = 0.658). Rectal Indomethacin and diclofenac reduced PEP but not MSPEP. Efficacy didn't vary by risk, timing of administration, or bias-risk. Survey revealed a change in the impression of the effect of NSAIDs on MSPEP after reviewing our results.
CONCLUSIONS
Rectal diclofenac or indomethacin before or after ERCP reduce the overall burden of MSPEP by reducing the pool of PEP from which it can arise. However, the proportion of MSPEP among patients who developed PEP is unaffected. Therefore, NSAIDs prevent initiation of PEP, but do not affect severity among those that develop PEP. Alternative modalities are needed to reduce MSPEP among patients who develop PEP.
Topics: Humans; Diclofenac; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Administration, Rectal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Indomethacin; Pancreatitis
PubMed: 37981523
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2023.11.003 -
Clinical NeuropharmacologyFatigue is a chronic and debilitating symptom of many long-term neurological conditions (LTNCs). Although methylphenidate provides some promise in alleviating fatigue in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Fatigue is a chronic and debilitating symptom of many long-term neurological conditions (LTNCs). Although methylphenidate provides some promise in alleviating fatigue in other clinical groups, little work has explored its potential utility within LTNCs. The current systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the utility of methylphenidate for symptoms of fatigue in LTNCs.
METHODS
Five databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) were searched for relevant articles from their inception to February 2022. A purpose-developed evaluation tool was used to assess each study's research quality (QuEST:F).
RESULTS
Of the 1698 articles identified, 11 articles were included within this review (n = 370). Meta-analytical findings reported an overall significant benefit of methylphenidate for symptoms of fatigue across a mixed neurological sample ( g = -0.44; 95% confidence interval, -0.77 to -0.11). Subgroup analyses identified a significantly greater benefit ( P < 0.001) of methylphenidate for fatigue in LTNCs with static pathogenic trajectories (eg, traumatic brain injury) (number needed to treat = 2.5) compared with progressive conditions (eg, multiple sclerosis) (number needed to treat = 40.2).
CONCLUSIONS
Methylphenidate may pose an effective intervention for the treatment of fatigue in a number of LTNCs. Nonetheless, given the quality of the current evidence base, there exists a clear need for further robust assessment of the utility of methylphenidate-with a focus on subgroup-specific variability.
Topics: Humans; Methylphenidate; Neoplasms; Fatigue; Multiple Sclerosis; Central Nervous System Stimulants
PubMed: 37962311
DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000572 -
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 -
JAMA Psychiatry Feb 2024Stimulants (methylphenidate and amphetamines) are often prescribed at unlicensed doses for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Whether dose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Stimulants (methylphenidate and amphetamines) are often prescribed at unlicensed doses for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Whether dose escalation beyond US Food and Drug Administration recommendations is associated with positive risk benefits is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the impact, based on averages, of stimulant doses on treatment outcomes in adults with ADHD and to determine, based on averages, whether unlicensed doses are associated with positive risk benefits compared with licensed doses.
DATA SOURCES
Twelve databases, including published (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Sciences) and unpublished (ClinicalTrials.gov) literature, up to February 22, 2023, without language restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION
Two researchers independently screened records to identify double-blinded randomized clinical trials of stimulants against placebo in adults (18 years and older) with ADHD.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Aggregate data were extracted and synthesized in random-effects dose-response meta-analyses and network meta-analyses.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Change in ADHD symptoms and discontinuations due to adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 47 randomized clinical trials (7714 participants; mean age, 35 (SD, 11) years; 4204 male [56%]) were included. For methylphenidate, dose-response curves indicated additional reductions of symptoms with increments in doses, but the gains were progressively smaller and accompanied by continued additional risk of adverse events dropouts. Network meta-analyses showed that unlicensed doses were associated with greater reductions of symptoms compared with licensed doses (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.23; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.02; very low certainty of evidence), but the additional gain was small and accompanied by increased risk of adverse event dropouts (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.19-3.43; moderate certainty of evidence). For amphetamines, the dose-response curve approached a plateau and increments in doses did not indicate additional reductions of symptoms, but there were continued increments in the risk of adverse event dropouts. Network meta-analysis did not identify differences between unlicensed and licensed doses for reductions of symptoms (SMD, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.08; very low certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Based on group averages, unlicensed doses of stimulants may not have positive risk benefits compared with licensed doses for adults with ADHD. In general, practitioners should consider unlicensed doses cautiously. Practitioners may trial unlicensed doses if needed and tolerated but should be aware that there may not be large gains in the response to the medication with those further increments in dose. However, the findings are averages and will not generalize to every patient.
Topics: Adult; Male; Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Methylphenidate; Amphetamines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37878348
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.3985