A double-blind, randomized, placebo/active controlled crossover evaluation of the efficacy and safety of Ritalin ® LA in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a laboratory classroom setting

Pharmacokinetics of Long-Acting Methylphenidate: Formulation Differences, Bioequivalence, Interchangeability

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.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children and adolescents with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention and they are hyperactive and impulsive. Methylphenidate is the psychostimulant most often prescribed, but the evidence on benefits and harms is uncertain. This is an update of our comprehensive systematic review on benefits and harms published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to March 2022. In addition, we checked reference lists and requested published and unpublished data from manufacturers of methylphenidate.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. The search was not limited by publication year or language, but trial inclusion required that 75% or more of participants had a normal intellectual quotient (IQ > 70). We assessed two primary outcomes, ADHD symptoms and serious adverse events, and three secondary outcomes, adverse events considered non-serious, general behaviour, and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment for each trial. Six review authors including two review authors from the original publication participated in the update in 2022. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Data from parallel-group trials and first-period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses. We undertook separate analyses using end-of-last period data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA) to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 212 trials (16,302 participants randomised); 55 parallel-group trials (8104 participants randomised), and 156 cross-over trials (8033 participants randomised) as well as one trial with a parallel phase (114 participants randomised) and a cross-over phase (165 participants randomised). The mean age of participants was 9.8 years ranging from 3 to 18 years (two trials from 3 to 21 years). The male-female ratio was 3:1. Most trials were carried out in high-income countries, and 86/212 included trials (41%) were funded or partly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Methylphenidate treatment duration ranged from 1 to 425 days, with a mean duration of 28.8 days. Trials compared methylphenidate with placebo (200 trials) and with no intervention (12 trials). Only 165/212 trials included usable data on one or more outcomes from 14,271 participants. Of the 212 trials, we assessed 191 at high risk of bias and 21 at low risk of bias. If, however, deblinding of methylphenidate due to typical adverse events is considered, then all 212 trials were at high risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.61; I² = 38%; 21 trials; 1728 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -10.58 (95% CI -12.58 to -8.72) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points). The minimal clinically relevant difference is considered to be a change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS. Methylphenidate may not affect serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.67; I² = 0%; 26 trials, 3673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.31 to 2.68).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

methylphenidate may cause more adverse events considered non-serious versus placebo or no intervention (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; I² = 72%; 35 trials 5342 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.22 (CI 1.08 to 1.43). Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated general behaviour versus placebo (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.33; I² = 68%; 7 trials 792 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but may not affect quality of life (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.83; I² = 81%; 4 trials, 608 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The majority of our conclusions from the 2015 version of this review still apply. Our updated meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate versus placebo or no-intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour in children and adolescents with ADHD. There may be no effects on serious adverse events and quality of life. Methylphenidate may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events considered non-serious, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite. However, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is very low and therefore the true magnitude of effects remain unclear. Due to the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the blinding of participants and outcome assessors is particularly challenging. To accommodate this challenge, an active placebo should be sought and utilised. It may be difficult to find such a drug, but identifying a substance that could mimic the easily recognised adverse effects of methylphenidate would avert the unblinding that detrimentally affects current randomised trials. Future systematic reviews should investigate the subgroups of patients with ADHD that may benefit most and least from methylphenidate. This could be done with individual participant data to investigate predictors and modifiers like age, comorbidity, and ADHD subtypes.

Safety Profile of Methylphenidate Under Long-Term Treatment in Adult ADHD Patients - Results of the COMPAS Study

INTRODUCTION

The Comparison of Methylphenidate and Psychotherapy in adult ADHD Study (COMPAS) was a prospective, randomized multicenter clinical trial, comparing methylphenidate (MPH) with placebo (PLAC) in combination with cognitive behavioral group psychotherapy (GPT) or individual clinical management (CM) over the period of 1 year. Here, we report results on treatment safety.

METHODS

MPH and PLAC were flexibly dosed. Among 433 randomized patients, adverse events (AEs) were documented and analyzed on an "as received" basis during week 0-52. Electrocardiogram data were recorded at baseline and week 24.

RESULTS

Comparing 205 patients who received ≥1 dose of MPH with 209 patients who received PLAC, AEs occurring significantly more frequently in the MPH group were decreased appetite (22 vs. 3.8%), dry mouth (15 vs. 4.8%), palpitations (13 vs. 3.3%), gastrointestinal infection (11 vs. 4.8%), agitation (11 vs. 3.3%), restlessness (10 vs. 2.9%), hyperhidrosis, tachycardia, weight decrease (all 6.3 vs. 1.9%), depressive symptom, influenza (both 4.9 vs. 1.0%), and acute tonsillitis (4.4 vs. 0.5%). Syncope occurred significantly more often in the PLAC group (2.4 vs. 0%). Clinically relevant ECG changes occurred very rarely in both groups. Serious AEs were rare and without a significant group difference. The comparison of 206 patients treated with GPT versus 209 patients who received CM revealed no major differences. Serious AE classified as psychiatric occurred in 5 cases in the CM group and in 1 case in the GPT group.

CONCLUSION

In this so far longest-running clinical trial, methylphenidate treatment was safe and well-tolerated.

Oligoantigenic Diet Improves Children's ADHD Rating Scale Scores Reliably in Added Video-Rating

OBJECTIVES

The influence of food intake on behavioural disorders was already described in the early 20th century. Elimination of individually allergenic food items from individual diets ["oligoantigenic diet" (OD)] showed promise to improve attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms. However, only few of the positive results were evaluated by blinded symptom rating. Therefore the present study's purpose was to evaluate the reliability of a non-blinded rating of the ADHD Rating Scale IV (ARS) for the assessment of OD effects in comparison to a blinded rating of the ARS based on pseudonymized video recordings.

METHODS

Ten children (8m/2f) aged 8 to 14 with ADHD according to ICD-10 participated in an uncontrolled, open-label dietary intervention study. Food items, commonly related to intolerances, were eliminated for four weeks. Participants with > 40% improvement in the ARS between T1 (before the diet) and T2 (after the diet) were defined as responders. Nutrients with individual relevance to ADHD symptoms were identified in a following reintroduction phase (T3-T4) lasting 8-16 weeks. The ARS was completed by a non-blinded child and adolescent psychiatrist (T0-T4). Sessions were recorded on video, pseudonymized, and evaluated by three blinded raters. Complete data were captured for eight children. The inter-rater reliability between the non-blinded therapist and every blinded rater was determined by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Correlations according to Pearson and Spearman between the non-blinded and blinded rating were calculated for each rater.

RESULTS

Two blinded raters and the non-blinded rater considered 5 of 8 (62.5%) children as responders, whereas one blinded rater disagreed as to the success of one case thus considering only 4 of 8 children as responders to the diet. Inter-rater reliability was assessed after each rater having scored 33 videos: The intra-class coefficients were >.9 for all raters (rater 1: ICC=.997, rater 2: ICC=.996, rater 3: ICC=.996) and the Spearman rho between the raters were high (n=33; rater 1: rho =.989, p<.0001, rater 2: rho=.987, p<.0001, rater 3: rho=.984, p<.0001), respectively.

DISCUSSION

As both, blinded and non-blinded ratings of the ARS, revealed relevant significant improvement of ADHD scores in children following an OD in this uncontrolled trial, Randomized controlled trials appear as highly desirable in order to replicate these improvements and to establish reliable and unbiased effect sizes thereby fostering further more objective confirmatory measurements.

Development of Three Web-Based Computerized Versions of the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia Child Psychiatric Diagnostic Interview: Preliminary Validity Data

OBJECTIVE

To present initial validity data on three web-based computerized versions of the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (KSADS-COMP).

METHOD

The sample for evaluating the validity of the clinician-administered KSADS-COMP included 511 youths 6-18 years of age who were participants in the Child Mind Institute Healthy Brain Network. The sample for evaluating the parent and youth self-administered versions of the KSADS-COMP included 158 youths 11-17 years of age recruited from three academic institutions.

RESULTS

Average administration time for completing the combined parent and youth clinician-administered KSADS-COMP was less time than previously reported for completing the paper-and-pencil K-SADS with only one informant (91.9 ± 50.1 minutes). Average administration times for the youth and parent self-administered KSADS-COMP were 50.9 ± 28.0 minutes and 63.2 ± 38.3 minutes, respectively, and youths and parents rated their experience using the web-based self-administered KSADS-COMP versions very positively. Diagnoses generated with all three KSADS-COMP versions demonstrated good convergent validity against established clinical rating scales and dimensional diagnostic-specific ratings derived from the KSADS-COMP. When parent and youth self-administered KSADS-COMP data were integrated, good to excellent concordance was also achieved between diagnoses derived using the self-administered and clinician-administered KSADS-COMP versions (area under the curve = 0.89-1.00).

CONCLUSION

The three versions of the KSADS-COMP demonstrate promising psychometric properties, while offering efficiency in administration and scoring. The clinician-administered KSADS-COMP shows utility not only for research, but also for implementation in clinical practice, with self-report preinterview ratings that streamline administration. The self-administered KSADS-COMP versions have numerous potential research and clinical applications, including in large-scale epidemiological studies, in schools, in emergency departments, and in telehealth to address the critical shortage of child and adolescent mental health specialists.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

Computerized Screening for Comorbidity in Adolescents With Substance or Psychiatric Disorders; https://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT01866956.

A Review of the Clinical Utility of Systematic Behavioral Observations in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

This review evaluates the clinical utility of tools for systematic behavioral observation in different settings for children and adolescents with ADHD. A comprehensive search yielded 135 relevant results since 1990. Observations from naturalistic settings were grouped into observations of classroom behavior (n = 58) and of social interactions (n = 25). Laboratory observations were subdivided into four contexts: independent play (n = 9), test session (n = 27), parent interaction (n = 11), and peer interaction (n = 5). Clinically relevant aspects of reliability and validity of employed instruments are reviewed. The results confirm the usefulness of systematic observations. However, no procedure can be recommended as a stand-alone diagnostic method. Psychometric properties are often unsatisfactory, which reduces the validity of observational methods, particularly for measuring treatment outcome. Further efforts are needed to improve the specificity of observational methods with regard to the discrimination of comorbidities and other disorders.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention, they are hyperactive and impulsive.Methylphenidate is the drug most often prescribed to treat children and adolescents with ADHD but, despite its widespread use, this is the first comprehensive systematic review of its benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2015 we searched six databases (CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citations Index), and two trials registers. We checked for additional trials in the reference lists of relevant reviews and included trials. We contacted the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture methylphenidate to request published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. At least 75% of participants needed to have an intellectual quotient of at least 70 (i.e. normal intellectual functioning). Outcomes assessed included ADHD symptoms, serious adverse events, non-serious adverse events, general behaviour and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seventeen review authors participated in data extraction and risk of bias assessment, and two review authors independently performed all tasks. We used standard methodological procedures expected within Cochrane. Data from parallel-group trials and first period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses; separate analyses were undertaken using post-cross-over data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for high risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, heterogeneity and publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

The studies.We included 38 parallel-group trials (5111 participants randomised) and 147 cross-over trials (7134 participants randomised). Participants included individuals of both sexes, at a boys-to-girls ratio of 5:1, and participants' ages ranged from 3 to 18 years across most studies (in two studies ages ranged from 3 to 21 years). The average age across all studies was 9.7 years. Most participants were from high-income countries.The duration of methylphenidate treatment ranged from 1 to 425 days, with an average duration of 75 days. Methylphenidate was compared to placebo (175 trials) or no intervention (10 trials). Risk of Bias.All 185 trials were assessed to be at high risk of bias. Primary outcomes. Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.90 to -0.64; 19 trials, 1698 participants; very low-quality evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -9.6 points (95% CI -13.75 to -6.38) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points; DuPaul 1991a). A change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS is considered clinically to represent the minimal relevant difference. There was no evidence that methylphenidate was associated with an increase in serious (e.g. life threatening) adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.22; 9 trials, 1532 participants; very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.02 to 33.2).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Among those prescribed methylphenidate, 526 per 1000 (range 448 to 615) experienced non-serious adverse events, compared with 408 per 1000 in the control group. This equates to a 29% increase in the overall risk of any non-serious adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51; 21 trials, 3132 participants; very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.29 (CI 1.06 to 1.56). The most common non-serious adverse events were sleep problems and decreased appetite. Children in the methylphenidate group were at 60% greater risk for trouble sleeping/sleep problems (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.23; 13 trials, 2416 participants), and 266% greater risk for decreased appetite (RR 3.66, 95% CI 2.56 to 5.23; 16 trials, 2962 participants) than children in the control group.Teacher-rated general behaviour seemed to improve with methylphenidate (SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.71; 5 trials, 668 participants; very low-quality evidence).A change of seven points on the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ; range 0 to 100 points; Landgraf 1998) has been deemed a minimal clinically relevant difference. The change reported in a meta-analysis of three trials corresponds to a MD of 8.0 points (95% CI 5.49 to 10.46) on the CHQ, which suggests that methylphenidate may improve parent-reported quality of life (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80; 3 trials, 514 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate may improve teacher-reported ADHD symptoms, teacher-reported general behaviour, and parent-reported quality of life among children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. However, the low quality of the underpinning evidence means that we cannot be certain of the magnitude of the effects. Within the short follow-up periods typical of the included trials, there is some evidence that methylphenidate is associated with increased risk of non-serious adverse events, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite, but no evidence that it increases risk of serious adverse events.Better designed trials are needed to assess the benefits of methylphenidate. Given the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the particular difficulties for blinding of participants and outcome assessors point to the advantage of large, 'nocebo tablet' controlled trials. These use a placebo-like substance that causes adverse events in the control arm that are comparable to those associated with methylphenidate. However, for ethical reasons, such trials should first be conducted with adults, who can give their informed consent.Future trials should publish depersonalised individual participant data and report all outcomes, including adverse events. This will enable researchers conducting systematic reviews to assess differences between intervention effects according to age, sex, comorbidity, type of ADHD and dose. Finally, the findings highlight the urgent need for large RCTs of non-pharmacological treatments.

Effectiveness and safety of a long-acting, once-daily, two-phase release formulation of methylphenidate (Ritalin ® LA) in school children under daily practice conditions

Long-acting (LA) preparations of methylphenidate allow for once-daily dosing; however, pharmacokinetics may vary and depend on food intake. The objective was to evaluate effectiveness of a two-phase release formulation (Ritalin(®) LA) under daily practice conditions. This was a prospective, multicenter, observational study in Germany. Eligibility and dosing were determined by the physician based on the drug label. Outcomes included changes over 3 months of treatment in assessments of effect duration, clinical global impression (CGI), and quality of life (ILK). In 101 sites, 262 patients (197 boys, 63 girls, and two unknown) with a mean age of 10.9 years were enrolled; 50 were treated for the first time; 212 switched medication to Ritalin(®) LA. After 3 months, CGI improved in 59.4 % of patients, and well-being overall was rated as good by 61.0 % of parents and 63.7 % of children. Based on parents' assessment, the proportion of children suffering from strong disease burden decreased from 40.7 to 15.1 %. In 123 insufficient responders to previous ADHD medications, benefit from Ritalin(®) LA was above average and effect duration was significantly prolonged as compared to pretreatment. Overall, 28 patients (10.7 %) had treatment-related adverse events with one case being serious; 23 patients (8.8 %) discontinued therapy, 7 (2.7 %) due to poor treatment response; and 212 patients (81 %) continued treatment beyond the study. In line with clinical trial data, Ritalin(®) LA provides significant benefit also under routine practice conditions.

Open-label dose optimization of methylphenidate modified release long acting (MPH-LA): a post hoc analysis of real-life titration from a 40-week randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In the management of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults it is important to recognize that individual patients respond to a wide range of methylphenidate doses. Studies with methylphenidate modified release long acting (MPH-LA) in children have reported the need for treatment optimization for improved outcomes. We report the results from a post hoc analysis of a 5-week dose optimization phase from a large randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter 40-week study (9-week double-blind dose confirmation phase, 5-week open-label dose optimization phase, and 26-week double-blind maintenance of effect phase).

METHODS

Patients entering the open-label dose optimization phase initiated treatment with MPH-LA 20 mg/day; up/down titrated to their optimal dose (at which there was balance between control of symptoms and side effects) of 40, 60, or 80 mg/day in increments of 20 mg/week by week 12 or 13. Safety was assessed by monitoring the adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. Efficacy was assessed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale (DSM-IV ADHD RS) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total scores.

RESULTS

At the end of the dose confirmation phase, similar numbers of patients were treated optimally with each of the 40, 60, and 80 mg/day doses (152, 177, and 160, respectively) for MPH-LA. Mean improvement from baseline in the dose confirmation phase in total scores of DSM-IV ADHD RS and SDS were 23.5 ± 9.90 and 9.7 ± 7.36, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose optimization with MPH-LA (40, 60, or 80 mg/day) improved treatment outcomes and was well-tolerated in adult ADHD patients.

Comparative efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of lisdexamfetamine in child and adolescent ADHD: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

Background

Several studies have shown that lisdexamfetamine (LDX) is efficacious in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Objectives

Aims of this study were to systematically review the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of LDX in child and adolescent ADHD. Any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of LDX versus placebo carried out in children and adolescents with ADHD were included.

Data sources

The searches of the SCOPUS, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were performed in September 2014. Additional searches in the ClinicalTrials. gov and EU Clinical Trials Register database were conducted.

Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions

This review included all RCTs of LDX versus placebo which were carried out in children and adolescents up to 18 years old. Additionally, the included studies must have reported the final outcomes of: i) severity of ADHD symptoms with standardized scales, ii) rates of improvement, iii) rates of discontinuation. To be more thorough, the languages of such RCTs were not limited.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

The abstracts from databases were inspected and the full text versions of relevant trials were examined and extracted for important outcomes. The efficacious measurements included either the pooled mean end-point or changed scores of ADHD rating scales, and the rate of improvement. Acceptability and tolerability were measured by the pooled overall discontinuation rate and the pooled discontinuation rate due to adverse events, respectively. A random effect model technique was utilized to synthesize the mean differences (either standardized mean differences or weighted mean differences) and relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

A total of 1,016 children and adolescents with ADHD were included. The dosage of LDX was 30 to 70 mg/day. The pooled mean change scores of LDX-treated group was significantly greater than that of the placebo (weighted mean difference [95% CI] of −15.20 [−19.95, −10.46], I²=94%). The pooled improvement rate of the LDX-treated group was also significantly higher than that of the placebo (RR [95% CI] of 0.34 [0.24, 0.47], I²=80%). The pooled overall discontinuation rate between the two groups was not significantly different (RR [95% CI] of 0.78 [0.46, 1.31], I²=63%). Similarly, the pooled discontinuation rate due to adverse events between the two groups showed no significant difference (RR [95% CI] of 1.99 [0.70, 5.64], I²=0%).

Limitations

The number of included studies was limited (five RCTs).

Conclusion

According to the present review, LDX was effective and well-tolerated in the treatment of child and adolescent ADHD. Unfortunately, the acceptability of LDX was not better than the placebo. Since the number of included studies was limited, the outcome from this review should be carefully interpreted and considered as preliminary. Further studies, therefore, should be conducted to confirm these findings.

Implication of key findings

Lisdexamfetamine is an efficacious stimulant for treating child and adolescent ADHD.

Comparative efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of dexmethylphenidate versus placebo in child and adolescent ADHD: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH) has been proven in the treatment of children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to determine the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of d-MPH in child and adolescent ADHD.

METHODS

The searches of SCOPUS, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were performed in February 2015. All randomized controlled trials of d-MPH versus placebo that were performed in children and adolescents with ADHD up to 18 years of age were included in the study. The efficacy was measured by using the pooled mean-endpoint or mean-changed scores of ADHD rating scales and the response rate. Acceptability and tolerability were measured by using the pooled rates of overall discontinuation and discontinuation due to adverse events, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 1,124 children and adolescents diagnosed as having ADHD were included in this review. In a laboratory school setting, the pooled mean-change and mean-endpoint scores in the d-MPH-treated group were significantly greater than those of the placebo-treated group with standardized mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of -1.20 (-1.73, -0.67), I (2)=95%. Additionally, the pooled mean-changed scores of the ADHD rating scales for teachers and parents in the d-MPH-treated group were significantly greater than that of the placebo-treated group with weighted mean difference (95% CI) of -13.01 (-15.97, -10.05), I (2)=0% and (95% CI) of -12.99 (-15.57, -10.42), I (2)=0%, respectively. The pooled response rate in the d-MPH-treated groups had a significance higher than that of the placebo-treated group. The rates of pooled overall discontinuation and discontinuation due to adverse events between the two groups were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings in this review, it can be concluded that d-MPH medication is efficacious and tolerable in child and adolescent ADHD. However, the acceptability of d-MPH is no greater than that of the placebo. Further systematic studies may confirm these findings.

Methylphenidate in children with ADHD with or without learning disability

OBJECTIVE

To explore treatment response to Osmotic Release Oral System(®) (OROS) methylphenidate in children with ADHD with and without comorbid learning disability (LD).

METHOD

Data were analyzed from two 6-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover studies evaluating individually determined doses of OROS methylphenidate versus placebo in 135 children (ages 9 to 12 years) with ADHD with or without an LD in reading, math, or both. The sample was demographically diverse, with 31% females and more than 40% minority, predominantly African American and Hispanic. On two laboratory school days, participants received either OROS methylphenidate or placebo and were given a battery of cognitive and behavioral tests.

RESULTS

Treatment with OROS methylphenidate led to improvement in ADHD Rating Scale scores for participants with or without comorbid LD. Both groups performed better during treatment with OROS methylphenidate than placebo on measures of cognitive skills (i.e., Test of Variables of Attention, Finger Windows Backwards), academically related tasks (i.e., Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Test of Handwriting Skills-Revised, Permanent Product Math Test), and observed classroom behavior (i.e., Swanson, Kotkin, Alger, M-Flynn, and Pelham Scale).

CONCLUSION

In children with ADHD with or without comorbid LD, behavior and performance improved during treatment with OROS methylphenidate.

Long-term (1 year) safety and efficacy of methylphenidate modified-release long-acting formulation (MPH-LA) in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a 26-week, flexible-dose, open-label extension to a 40-week, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled core study

INTRODUCTION

Previously, in a 40-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled core study comprising three phases (9-week dose confirmation, 5-week open-label dose optimisation and 6-month maintenance of effect) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), methylphenidate modified-release long-acting formulation (MPH-LA) at 40-80 mg/day controlled ADHD symptoms as well as decreased functional impairment with a good tolerability profile (NCT01259492). Here, we report the long-term efficacy and safety from a 26-week, open-label extension phase of the same study (NCT01338818).

METHODS

Patients in the extension study (n = 298) initiated treatment with MPH-LA (20 mg/day), up-titrated in increments of 20 mg/week to reach individual patient's daily optimal dose of 40-80 mg. Adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported at the end of extension study for events monitored from (1) maintenance of effect phase baseline (core study; 12 months) and (2) extension study baseline (6 months). Mean changes in DSM-IV ADHD Rating Scale (DSM-IV ADHD RS) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total scores are reported for both the timelines. Efficacy was also evaluated using clinician-rated instruments, namely Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Scale (CGI-I) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S).

RESULTS

No unexpected AEs were reported in the extension study. Incidence of SAEs reported during 6 months and 12 months were similar (0.7 %), and no deaths were reported. No SAEs were considered attributable to the drug at the end of 12 months. There were no reports of patients with QT, QTcB or QTcF >500 ms. The mean improvement in DSM-IV ADHD RS and SDS total scores at the end of 12 months were 0.9 and 1.4 points, respectively; and at the end of 6 months were 7.2 and 4.8, respectively. The proportion of patients with improvement in CGI-S scale was 31.4 % and 52.1 % at the end of 12 and 6 months, respectively. Overall, 69.4 % of patients showed clinical improvement in CGI-I scale at the end of 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In adult patients with ADHD, use of MPH-LA up to 1 year continued to be well tolerated while maintaining the clinical efficacy.

Long-acting methylphenidate formulations in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review of head-to-head studies

BACKGROUND

The stimulant methylphenidate (MPH) has been a mainstay of treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for many years. Owing to the short half-life and the issues associated with multiple daily dosing of immediate-release MPH formulations, a new generation of long-acting MPH formulations has emerged. Direct head-to-head studies of these long-acting MPH formulations are important to facilitate an evaluation of their comparative pharmacokinetics and efficacy; however, to date, relatively few head-to-head studies have been performed.The objective of this systematic review was to compare the evidence available from head-to-head studies of long-acting MPH formulations and provide information that can guide treatment selection.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and PsycINFO in March 2012 using the MeSH terms: attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity/drug therapy; methylphenidate/therapeutic use and All Fields: Concerta; Ritalin LA; OROS and ADHD; Medikinet; Equasym XL and ADHD; long-acting methylphenidate; Diffucaps and ADHD; SODAS and methylphenidate. No filters were applied and no language, publication date or publication status limitations were imposed. Articles were selected if the title indicated a comparison of two or more long-acting MPH preparations in human subjects of any age; non-systematic review articles and unpublished data were not included.

RESULTS

Of 15,295 references returned in the literature search and screened by title, 34 articles were identified for inclusion: nine articles from pharmacokinetic studies (nine studies); nine articles from laboratory school studies (six studies); two articles from randomized controlled trials (two studies); three articles from switching studies (two studies) and three articles from one observational study.

CONCLUSIONS

Emerging head-to-head studies provide important data on the comparative efficacy of the formulations available. At a group level, efficacy across the day generally follows the pharmacokinetic profile of the MPH formulation. No formulation is clearly superior to another; careful consideration of patient needs and subtle differences between formulations is required to optimize treatment. For patients achieving suboptimal symptom control, switching long-acting MPH formulations may be beneficial. When switching formulations, it is usually appropriate to titrate the immediate-release component of the formulation; a limitation of current studies is a focus on total daily dose rather than equivalent immediate-release components. Further studies are necessary to provide guidance in clinical practice, particularly in the treatment of adults and pre-school children and the impact of comorbidities and symptom severity on treatment response.

Time course of treatment effect of OROS® methylphenidate in children with ADHD

OBJECTIVE

The authors evaluated the time course of the treatment effect of Osmotic-Release Oral System methylphenidate (OROS(®) MPH) HCl (Concerta(®), Raritan, NJ) CII in children with ADHD.

METHOD

Data were combined from two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over, analog classroom studies in children (9-12 years) with ADHD. Participants received an individualized dose of placebo or OROS(®) MPH on two laboratory school days. Permanent Product Math Test and Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham scores were evaluated 0.5 hr before dosing and 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 12.5 hr post dose. Analysis used a repeated-measures mixed model.

RESULTS

Treatment effects were present at all postdose assessment points (p < .0001 for all comparisons, n = 139). Adverse events were similar to previous reports for OROS(®) MPH.

CONCLUSION

A robust treatment effect occurred with OROS(®) MPH; onset was at 1 hr and persisted for at least 12.5 hr after dosing.