Systematic evidence synthesis of treatments for ADHD in children and adolescents: indirect treatment comparisons of lisdexamfetamine with methylphenidate and atomoxetine

Trends in Prescription of Stimulants and Narcoleptic Drugs in Switzerland: Longitudinal Health Insurance Claims Analysis for the Years 2014-2021

Background

Stimulants are potent treatments for central hypersomnolence disorders or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders/attention deficit disorders but concerns have been raised about their potential negative consequences and their increasing prescription rates.

Objective

We aimed to describe stimulant prescription trends in Switzerland from 2014 to 2021. Second, we aimed to analyze the characteristics of individuals who received stimulant prescriptions in 2021 and investigate the link between stimulant prescriptions and hospitalization rates in 2021, using hospitalization as a potential indicator of adverse health outcomes.

Methods

Longitudinal and cross-sectional data from a large Swiss health care insurance were analyzed from all insureds older than 6 years. The results were extrapolated to the Swiss general population. We identified prescriptions for methylphenidate, lisdexamfetamine, modafinil, and sodium oxybate and calculated prevalences of each drug prescription over the period from 2014 to 2021. For 2021 we provide detailed information on the prescribers and evaluate the association of stimulant prescription and the number and duration of hospitalization using logistic regression models.

Results

We observed increasing prescription rates of all stimulants in all age groups from 2014 to 2021 (0.55% to 0.81%, 43,848 to 66,113 insureds with a prescription). In 2021, 37.1% (28,057 prescriptions) of the medications were prescribed by psychiatrists, followed by 36.1% (n=27,323) prescribed by general practitioners and 1% (n=748) by neurologists. Only sodium oxybate, which is highly specific for narcolepsy treatment, was most frequently prescribed by neurologists (27.8%, 37 prescriptions). Comorbid psychiatric disorders were common in patients receiving stimulants. Patients hospitalized in a psychiatric institution were 5.3 times (odds ratio 5.3, 95% CI 4.63-6.08, P<.001) more likely to have a stimulant prescription than those without hospitalization. There were no significant associations between stimulant prescription and the total length of inpatient stay (odds ratio 1, 95% CI 1-1, P=.13).

Conclusions

The prescription of stimulant medication in Switzerland increased slightly but continuously over years, but at lower rates compared to the estimated prevalence of central hypersomnolence disorders and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders/attention deficit disorders. Most stimulants are prescribed by psychiatrists, closely followed by general practitioners. The increased odds for hospitalization to psychiatric institutions for stimulant receivers reflects the severity of disease and the higher psychiatric comorbidities in these patients.

Micronutrients for ADHD in youth (MADDY) study: comparison of results from RCT and open label extension

BACKGROUND

The Micronutrients for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Youth (MADDY) study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a multinutrient formula for children with ADHD and emotional dysregulation. The post-RCT open-label extension (OLE) compared the effect of treatment duration (8 weeks vs 16 weeks) on ADHD symptoms, height velocity, and adverse events (AEs).

METHODS

Children aged 6-12 years randomized to multinutrients vs. placebo for 8 weeks (RCT), received an 8-week OLE for a total of 16 weeks. Assessments included the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), Child and Adolescent Symptom Inventory-5 (CASI-5), Pediatric Adverse Events Rating Scale (PAERS), and anthropometric measures (height and weight).

RESULTS

Of the 126 in the RCT, 103 (81%) continued in the OLE. For those initially assigned to placebo, CGI-I responders increased from 23% in the RCT to 64% in the OLE; those who took multinutrients for 16 weeks increased from 53% (RCT) to 66% responders (OLE). Both groups improved on the CASI-5 composite score and subscales from week 8 to week 16 (all p-values < 0.01). The group taking 16 weeks of multinutrients had marginally greater height growth (2.3 cm) than those with 8 weeks (1.8 cm) (p = 0.07). No difference in AEs between groups was found.

CONCLUSION

The response rate to multinutrients by blinded clinician ratings at 8 weeks was maintained to 16 weeks; the response rate in the group initially assigned to placebo improved significantly with 8 weeks of multinutrients and almost caught up with 16 weeks. Longer time on multinutrients did not result in greater AEs, confirming an acceptable safety profile.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of lisdexamfetamine versus methylphenidate for patients under 18 with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Iran

BACKGROUND

Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) and Methylphenidate (MPH) are stimulant agents that have been shown to provide significant benefits in the management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in patients.

AIM

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness and the budget impact of LDX compared to MPH as the first-line treatment for ADHD.

METHODS

A one-year cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted to compare the effects of LDX and MPH in reducing disease symptoms and patient costs and improving quality of life (QoL) from a social perspective. Clinical data were obtained using the EQ-5D questionnaire. In contrast, economic data were sourced from the official website of the Iranian Food and Drug Association (FDA), the national book of tariffs, and specific questionnaires designed to evaluate patients' direct and indirect costs. 197 patients were included in the study, including individuals who sought psychiatric evaluation at a hospital in Mashhad and those who obtained ADHD medications from governmental pharmacies. The cost-effectiveness of the study medicine was assessed using the decision tree method, and the results were presented as the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis (DSA) and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the findings. Additionally, a Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) was conducted over five years, considering three different scenarios, to evaluate the financial implications of incorporating LDX into the national pharmaceutical system.

RESULTS

The ICER for LDX therapy compared to MPH was estimated at USD 264.28 (with an incremental cost of USD 54.9, incremental effectiveness of 0.208, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) gained of 0.765). The PSA indicated a 0.994% probability of LDX being cost-effective, considering a threshold of USD 2450 per QALY. Furthermore, the DSA revealed that the acquisition cost of LDX influenced the model's sensitivity. The BIA demonstrated that incorporating LDX into Iran's healthcare system would result in a financial burden of approximately $368,566 in the first year, representing an additional cost of $11,154 compared to the non-availability of this medicine and the use of previous medications. It is projected that by 2027, the financial burden of treating ADHD with LDX will reach approximately USD 443,879 over five years, amounting to an increase of $71,154 compared to the absence of this medicine.

CONCLUSION

From a social perspective, the inclusion of LDX in the treatment regimen for ADHD is associated with higher costs and an increased financial burden. However, based on our analysis, LDX appears to be a cost-effective choice for managing ADHD in Iran when compared to MPH.

In silico clinical trial evaluating lisdexamfetamine's and methylphenidate's mechanism of action computational models in an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder virtual patients' population

Introduction

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is an impairing psychiatric condition with the stimulants, lisdexamfetamine (LDX), and methylphenidate (MPH), as the first lines pharmacological treatment.

Methods

Herein, we applied a novel in silico method to evaluate virtual LDX (vLDX) and vMPH as treatments for ADHD applying quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) models. The objectives were to evaluate the model's output, considering the model characteristics and the information used to build them, to compare both virtual drugs' efficacy mechanisms, and to assess how demographic (age, body mass index, and sex) and clinical characteristics may affect vLDX's and vMPH's relative efficacies.

Results and Discussion

We molecularly characterized the drugs and pathologies based on a bibliographic search, and generated virtual populations of adults and children-adolescents totaling 2,600 individuals. For each virtual patient and virtual drug, we created physiologically based pharmacokinetic and QSP models applying the systems biology-based Therapeutic Performance Mapping System technology. The resulting models' predicted protein activity indicated that both virtual drugs modulated ADHD through similar mechanisms, albeit with some differences. vMPH induced several general synaptic, neurotransmitter, and nerve impulse-related processes, whereas vLDX seemed to modulate neural processes more specific to ADHD, such as GABAergic inhibitory synapses and regulation of the reward system. While both drugs' models were linked to an effect over neuroinflammation and altered neural viability, vLDX had a significant impact on neurotransmitter imbalance and vMPH on circadian system deregulation. Among demographic characteristics, age and body mass index affected the efficacy of both virtual treatments, although the effect was more marked for vLDX. Regarding comorbidities, only depression negatively impacted both virtual drugs' efficacy mechanisms and, while that of vLDX were more affected by the co-treatment of tic disorders, the efficacy mechanisms of vMPH were disturbed by wide-spectrum psychiatric drugs. Our in silico results suggested that both drugs could have similar efficacy mechanisms as ADHD treatment in adult and pediatric populations and allowed raising hypotheses for their differential impact in specific patient groups, although these results require prospective validation for clinical translatability.

Symptoms associated with ADHD/treatment-related adverse side effects and their impact on quality of life and work productivity in adults with ADHD

OBJECTIVE

Describe symptoms associated with ADHD/treatment-related adverse side effects among adults with ADHD in the US and assess their impact on quality of life (QoL) and work productivity.

METHODS

An online survey among adults receiving ADHD medications in the US was conducted to collect information relating to symptoms associated with ADHD/treatment-related adverse side effects. Participants were recruited from the panel of a well-established market research firm, Dynata, from 26 July to 30 July 2021 and were included in the study if they met the eligibility criteria and were willing to participate in the survey. Correlations between symptoms and key outcomes (QoL/employment/work impairment) were estimated using linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of 585 participants, 95.2% experienced ≥1 symptom associated with ADHD/treatment-related adverse side effects in the past month (average = 5.8 symptoms). The number of symptoms was significantly correlated with reduced QoL, reduced probability of being employed, and increased work/activity impairment. Among subgroups with insomnia/other sleep disturbances and emotional impulsivity/mood lability, 50.4% and 44.7% reported their symptoms had "a lot" or "extremely" negative impact on their overall well-being, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptoms associated with ADHD/treatment-related adverse side effects are common and have a substantial negative impact on QoL and reduces patients' probability of employment. Improved management of ADHD/treatment-related adverse side effects and more tolerable treatment options have the potential to improve QoL and work productivity among adults with ADHD.

Neuroprotection in late life attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A review of pharmacotherapy and phenotype across the lifespan

For decades, psychostimulants have been the gold standard pharmaceutical treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In the United States, an astounding 9% of all boys and 4% of girls will be prescribed stimulant drugs at some point during their childhood. Recent meta-analyses have revealed that individuals with ADHD have reduced brain volume loss later in life (>60 y.o.) compared to the normal aging brain, which suggests that either ADHD or its treatment may be neuroprotective. Crucially, these neuroprotective effects were significant in brain regions (e.g., hippocampus, amygdala) where severe volume loss is linked to cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. Historically, the ADHD diagnosis and its pharmacotherapy came about nearly simultaneously, making it difficult to evaluate their effects in isolation. Certain evidence suggests that psychostimulants may normalize structural brain changes typically observed in the ADHD brain. If ADHD itself is neuroprotective, perhaps exercising the brain, then psychostimulants may not be recommended across the lifespan. Alternatively, if stimulant drugs are neuroprotective, then this class of medications may warrant further investigation for their therapeutic effects. Here, we take a bottom-up holistic approach to review the psychopharmacology of ADHD in the context of recent models of attention. We suggest that future studies are greatly needed to better appreciate the interactions amongst an ADHD diagnosis, stimulant treatment across the lifespan, and structure-function alterations in the aging brain.

Influence of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate on Early Ejaculation-Results from a Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Among male sexual dysfunctions, erectile dysfunction and early ejaculation have the highest prevalence rates. Here, we tested the influence of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (Vyas®) on early ejaculation. To this end, we performed a double-blind randomized clinical trial among males with early ejaculation.

METHODS

A total of 46 males with early ejaculation (mean age: 35.23 years) and in stable marital relationships with regular weekly penile-vaginal intercourse were randomly assigned either to the lisdexamfetamine dimesylate condition (30 mg) or to the placebo condition. Compounds were taken about six hours before intended penile-vaginal intercourse. At baseline and four weeks later at the end of the study, participants completed a series of self-rating questionnaires covering early ejaculation. Female partners also rated participants' early ejaculation profile.

RESULTS

Compared to the placebo condition, dimensions of early ejaculation improved over time in the lisdexamfetamine condition, though improvements were also observed in the placebo condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Among male adults in stable marital relationships with regular weekly penile-vaginal intercourse, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate improved dimensions of early ejaculation. Given that improvements were also observed in the placebo condition, psychological factors such as increased attention to early ejaculation and favorable expectations of the compound should be considered.

Efficacy and Safety of Medication for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents with Common Comorbidities: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Comorbid psychiatric conditions in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) occur frequently, complicate management, and are associated with substantial burden on patients and caregivers. Very few systematic reviews have assessed the efficacy and safety of medications for ADHD in children and adolescents with comorbidities. Of those that were conducted, most focused on a particular comorbidity or medication. In this systematic literature review, we summarize the efficacy and safety of treatments for children and adolescents with ADHD and comorbid autism spectrum disorders, oppositional defiant disorder, Tourette’s disorder and other tic disorders, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov (to October 2019) for studies of patients (aged < 18 years) with an ADHD diagnosis and the specified comorbidities treated with amphetamines, methylphenidate and derivatives, atomoxetine (ATX), and guanfacine extended-release (GXR). For efficacy, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or meta-analyses of RCTs were eligible for inclusion; for safety, all study types were eligible. The primary efficacy outcome measure was ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score.

Results

Of 2177 publications/trials retrieved, 69 were included in this systematic literature review (5 meta-analyses, 37 placebo-controlled RCTs, 16 cohort studies, 11 case reports). A systematic narrative synthesis is provided because insufficient data were retrieved to combine ADHD-RS-IV total scores or effect sizes. Effect sizes for ADHD-RS-IV total scores were available for ten RCTs and ranged from 0.46 to 1.0 for ATX and from 0.92 to 2.0 for GXR across comorbidities. The numbers and types of adverse events in children with comorbidities were consistent with those in children without comorbidities, but treatment should be individualized to ensure children can tolerate the lowest effective dose.

Conclusion

Limited information is available from placebo-controlled RCTs on the efficacy (by ADHD-RS-IV) or safety of medication in children with ADHD and psychiatric comorbidities. Further studies are required to support evidence-based drug selection for these populations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-021-00249-0.

Pharmacotherapy of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: common quandaries, dilemmas and challenges

Multiple studies have shown that pharmacologic treatments for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), especially stimulants, are generally effective. There is yet a paucity of empirical data, however, for some common clinical conditions overlooked in the ADHD treatment guidelines. Some examples include: in cases of first line treatment failure, it is unclear whether switching from one type of stimulant to another is beneficial. In cases of comorbid ADHD and severe aggressive/disruptive behavior in children, it is unclear whether the best first-line treatment is stimulants or atypical antipsychotics like risperidone. In cases of ADHD with comorbid anxiety disorders, there is no clear evidence regarding optimal treatment. The objectives of this article are to review these issues and propose possible answers for such clinical dilemmas.

Review of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVE

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate is a stimulant prodrug with low abuse and diversion potential that is used in treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, adolescents and adults. This current literature review article aims to examine safety and efficacy of LDX in children and adolescents for the treatment of ADHD based on currently available data.

METHODS

Relevant English language articles were identified through computerized searches of the MEDLINE database (PubMed and EMBASE) and clinical trials registry up to January 2020 using the following search terms: lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, pro-drug stimulant, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders, ADHD, safety, efficacy, children, adolescents, Vyvanse. Forty-two articles were reviewed, 34 of which were included into this review, selected by the limit "clinical trials". This article represents the pharmacological profile, efficacy and safety data of LDX for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents.

RESULTS

The collection of studies reviewed identified that LDX was both safe and efficacious in the treatment of ADHD. The most commonly exhibited side effects were appetite suppression, weight loss, headache and insomnia. In comparison to placebo, LDX significantly improved ADHD symptoms and overall quality of life in children and adolescents. In comparison to atomoxetine, LDX showed statistically significant improvements in inattention, impulsivity, and activities of daily living. In comparison to OROS-MPH and placebo, LDX and OROS-MPH showed improvements with the CGI-I score, and ADHD-RS-IV, however, LDX was superior.

CONCLUSION

Patients have seen statistically significant improvements in their ADHD symptomatology in the classroom environment, health related quality of life, and their overall behavior in comparison to placebo, atomoxetine, and OROS-MPH. However, clinical judgment should be utilized when prescribing LDX due to patient specific needs and the side effect profile.

Age-related pharmacotherapy of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Slovenia in children and adolescents: A population-based study

Background

There are no data on age-related pharmacotherapy for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) medication in children and adolescents in the most European countries. The main aim of this paper was to obtain that data for children and adolescents in Slovenia.

Method

The number of ADHD drug prescriptions per patient was obtained from the health claims data on prescription drugs of the Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia for the study period (2003–2015). Three age groups were analyzed: 2–5 years, 6–12 years, and 13–17 years. Only immediate-release methylphenidate (IR-MPH), methylphenidate-osmotic release oral delivery system (OROS-MPH), and atomoxetine (ATX) were available and included in this study.

Results

Less than 50% of patients in Slovenia were treated with medication. The number of patients treated with MPH in the 6–12 age group remained approximately the same between 2007 and 2015 (604–729 patients). In the 13–17 age group, however that number increased 2-fold between 2003 and 2015, from 288 to 555. The number of patients treated with ATX in the 6–12 age group age group increased from 20 to 163 between 2007 and 2015. The number was similar in the 13–17 age group, increasing from 10 to 165 in the same period. In 2015, 21% of the patients from all age groups in this study were treated with ATX.

Conclusions

The number of patients treated for ADHD increased rapidly in all age groups. Patients under the age of six are prescribed medication in Slovenia, which should be avoided.

Treatment strategies for ADHD: an evidence-based guide to select optimal treatment

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common and impairing disorder affecting children, adolescents, and adults. Several treatment strategies are available that can successfully ameliorate symptoms, ranging from pharmacological to dietary interventions. Due to the increasing range of available options, an informed selection or prioritization of treatments is becoming harder for clinicians. This review aims to provide an evidence-based appraisal of the literature on ADHD treatment, supplemented by expert opinion on plausibility. We outline proposed mechanisms of action of established pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments, and we review targets of novel treatments. The most relevant evidence supporting efficacy and safety of each treatment strategy is discussed. We review the individualized features of the patient that should guide the selection of treatments in a shared decision-making continuum. We provide guidance for optimizing initiation of treatment and follow-up of patients in clinical settings.

Meta-Review: Network Meta-Analyses in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

OBJECTIVE

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) are gaining traction as the preferred method for evidence synthesis of intervention studies. This review aimed to summarize the basics of NMAs and conduct a meta-review of available NMAs on the treatment of child and adolescent psychiatric disorders by appraising their quality.

METHOD

PubMed (Medline), PsycInfo, Embase, Ovid Medline, and Web of Knowledge were systematically searched (last update January 9, 2018). The quality of each included NMA was appraised using the AMSTAR-2 tool and the PRISMA-NMA checklist, which includes specific items for NMAs.

RESULTS

Eighteen NMAs (6 on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; 4 on psychotic disorders; 2 on depression; 2 on anxiety disorders; 1 on obsessive-compulsive disorder; 1 on disruptive behavior disorder, 1 on bipolar disorder, and 1 on antipsychotics across disorders) were retrieved. Results from the AMSTAR-2 assessment showed that only 27% of appraised NMAs were rated as moderate quality; most were rated as low (33%) or critically low (40%) quality. Only 3 of the appraised NMAs reported on all PRISMA-NMA items specific for NMAs; the network structure was graphically presented in most NMAs (80%), and inconsistency was described in only 47%.

CONCLUSION

Given the paucity of head-to-head trials in child and adolescent psychiatry, NMAs have the potential to contribute to the field, because they provide evidence-based hierarchies for treatment decision making, even in the absence of trials directly comparing at least 2 treatments. However, because of important limitations in the included NMAs, additional methodologically sound NMAs are needed to inform future guidelines and clinical practice in child and adolescent psychiatry.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefits and safety of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remain controversial, and guidelines are inconsistent on which medications are preferred across different age groups. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of oral medications for ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults.

METHODS

We did a literature search for published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing amphetamines (including lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with each other or placebo. We systematically contacted study authors and drug manufacturers for additional information. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in severity of ADHD core symptoms based on teachers' and clinicians' ratings) and tolerability (proportion of patients who dropped out of studies because of side-effects) at timepoints closest to 12 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and confidence of estimates with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for network meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014008976.

FINDINGS

133 double-blind randomised controlled trials (81 in children and adolescents, 51 in adults, and one in both) were included. The analysis of efficacy closest to 12 weeks was based on 10 068 children and adolescents and 8131 adults; the analysis of tolerability was based on 11 018 children and adolescents and 5362 adults. The confidence of estimates varied from high or moderate (for some comparisons) to low or very low (for most indirect comparisons). For ADHD core symptoms rated by clinicians in children and adolescents closest to 12 weeks, all included drugs were superior to placebo (eg, SMD -1·02, 95% CI -1·19 to -0·85 for amphetamines, -0·78, -0·93 to -0·62 for methylphenidate, -0·56, -0·66 to -0·45 for atomoxetine). By contrast, for available comparisons based on teachers' ratings, only methylphenidate (SMD -0·82, 95% CI -1·16 to -0·48) and modafinil (-0·76, -1·15 to -0·37) were more efficacious than placebo. In adults (clinicians' ratings), amphetamines (SMD -0·79, 95% CI -0·99 to -0·58), methylphenidate (-0·49, -0·64 to -0·35), bupropion (-0·46, -0·85 to -0·07), and atomoxetine (-0·45, -0·58 to -0·32), but not modafinil (0·16, -0·28 to 0·59), were better than placebo. With respect to tolerability, amphetamines were inferior to placebo in both children and adolescents (odds ratio [OR] 2·30, 95% CI 1·36-3·89) and adults (3·26, 1·54-6·92); guanfacine was inferior to placebo in children and adolescents only (2·64, 1·20-5·81); and atomoxetine (2·33, 1·28-4·25), methylphenidate (2·39, 1·40-4·08), and modafinil (4·01, 1·42-11·33) were less well tolerated than placebo in adults only. In head-to-head comparisons, only differences in efficacy (clinicians' ratings) were found, favouring amphetamines over modafinil, atomoxetine, and methylphenidate in both children and adolescents (SMDs -0·46 to -0·24) and adults (-0·94 to -0·29). We did not find sufficient data for the 26-week and 52-week timepoints.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings represent the most comprehensive available evidence base to inform patients, families, clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the choice of ADHD medications across age groups. Taking into account both efficacy and safety, evidence from this meta-analysis supports methylphenidate in children and adolescents, and amphetamines in adults, as preferred first-choice medications for the short-term treatment of ADHD. New research should be funded urgently to assess long-term effects of these drugs.

FUNDING

Stichting Eunethydis (European Network for Hyperkinetic Disorders), and the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Efficacy, Acceptability, and Tolerability of Lisdexamfetamine, Mixed Amphetamine Salts, Methylphenidate, and Modafinil in the Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective: Psychostimulants are the first-line treatment in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of lisdexamfetamine (LDX), mixed amphetamine salts (MASs), modafinil (MDF), and methylphenidate (MPH) in comparison with placebo. Data Sources: We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Clinicaltrials.gov in May 2016, along with CENTRAL and EU Clinical Trials Register in February 2016, for the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials conducted on adults diagnosed with ADHD. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Substantial comorbidity, substance abuse or dependence, and nonpharmacological interventions represented grounds for exclusion. Published reports were the sole source for data extraction. Improvement in ADHD symptoms was the primary outcome. Random-effects model meta-analysis was applied to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. Data Synthesis: The search retrieved 701 records, of which 20 studies were eligible for analysis. High effect size (expressed as SMD) in reducing ADHD symptoms was observed for LDX (−0.89; 95% CI = −1.09, −0.70), whereas MASs (−0.64; 95% CI = −0.83, −0.45) and MPH (−0.50; 95% CI = −0.58, −0.41) reduced symptoms moderately compared with placebo. No efficacy was shown for MDF (0.08; 95% CI; −0.18, 0.34). Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: In this meta-analysis, the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of psychostimulants were compared with that for placebo. Five of the included trials have not been evaluated in any of the previously published meta-analyses. Conclusions: The results suggest that LDX has the largest effect size and has a promising potential for treating adults with ADHD.

Clinical effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with atomoxetine in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with atomoxetine (ATX) in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

Sixty-four patients with newly diagnosed ADHD were enrolled from January 2016 to October 2017 from Psychological Centre for Adolescents and Children at 102th Hospital of People's Liberation Army of China. These patients were randomly assigned to three groups according to treatment method: the rTMS group, the ATX group, and the rTMS+ ATX group. Before treatment and 6 weeks after treatment, clinical symptoms and executive functions of ADHD patients were evaluated with the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham, Version IV (SNAP-IV) Questionnaire, continuous performance test, three subtests (arithmetic, digit span, and coding) of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, as well as Iowa Gambling Tasks (IGT). The effects of treatment were compared among three groups.

RESULTS

After 6 weeks of treatment, the scores of all factors in the SNAP-IV questionnaire were lower than those before treatment in the three groups; the scores of three subtests of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, continuous performance test, and IGT were also significantly higher than those before treatment. The rTMS+ ATX group had a better improvement in attention deficits and hyperactivity impulse on the SNAP-IV questionnaire compared with the other groups, and also had a higher efficacy on cold and hot executive functions such as arithmetic, forward numbers, coding, and IGT. In addition, the ATX group performed better than the rTMS group in coding and IGT.

CONCLUSION

rTMS, ATX, and the combination therapy are effective in improving core symptoms and executive function in patients with ADHD. The combined treatment has significant therapeutic advantages over the single treatment groups. Compared with rTMS, the drug therapy has a better improvement in coding and IGT.

Psychotherapy for Adolescents With Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Pediatrician's Guide

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) presents with high levels of inattention, impulsiveness, and hyperactivity. ADHD starts in childhood and results in impairments that continue into adulthood. ADHD symptoms lead to decreased functionality in various life domains and result in poor academics, behavioral challenges, delayed independence, and strained relationships. Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment, persistent residual symptoms are common, highlighting the need for novel treatment strategies. This article aims to provide a review of the psychotherapeutic interventions available for teens that receive pharmacotherapy but continue to struggle with the residual symptoms of ADHD that interfere with academic function, relationship formation, and psychological development.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents and adults: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a major public health issue. Pharmacological treatments play an important role in the multimodal treatment of ADHD. Currently, there is a lack of up-to-date and comprehensive evidence on how available ADHD drugs compare and rank in terms of efficacy and tolerability, in children or adolescents as well as in adults. We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA), integrating direct and indirect comparisons from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to rank pharmacological treatments for ADHD according to their efficacy and tolerability profiles.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search a broad range of electronic databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC and Web of Science, with no date or language restrictions. We will also search for unpublished studies using international clinical trial registries and contacting relevant drug companies. We will identify and include available parallel-group, cross-over and cluster randomised trials that compare methylphenidate, dexmethylphenidate, amphetamine derivatives (including lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine, clonidine, guanfacine, bupropion or modafinil (as oral therapy) either with each other or to placebo, in children, adolescents or adults with ADHD. Primary outcomes will be efficacy (indicated by reduction in severity of ADHD core symptoms measured on a standardised scale) and tolerability (the proportion of patients who left a study early due to side effects). Secondary outcomes will be global functioning, acceptability (proportion of patients who left the study early by any cause) and changes in blood pressure and body weight. NMA will be conducted in STATA within a frequentist framework. The quality of RCTs will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical issues are foreseen. Results from this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and possibly presented at relevant national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42014008976.

Comparative efficacy and safety of methylphenidate and atomoxetine for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: Meta-analysis based on head-to-head trials

INTRODUCTION

Comparative efficacy and safety are important issues for appropriate drug selection for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment. Therefore we conducted a meta-analysis, where we compared atomoxetine (ATX) and methylphenidate (MPH) for ADHD treatment in children and adolescents.

METHOD

Literature retrieval was conducted in relevant databases from their inception to April 2016 to select head-to-head trials that compared ATX and MPH in children and adolescents. Outcomes like response rate, ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) score, and adverse events were compared between ATX and MPH treatments. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as the effect size for continuous data or dichotomous data, respectively.

RESULTS

Eleven eligible randomized-controlled trials were included, and two of them were double-blind, while the remaining were open-label. Compared to ATX, MPH showed a higher response rate (RR = 1.14, 95% CI [1. 09, 1.20]), decreased inattention (SMD = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.25, -0.01]) and lower risk of adverse events (drowsiness: RR = 0.17, 95% CI [0.11, 0.26; nausea: RR = 0.49; 95% CI [0.29, 0.85; vomiting: RR = 0.41, 95% CI [0.27, 0.63]). However, MPH presented a higher risk of insomnia than ATX (RR = 2.27, 95% CI [1.63, 3.15], p < .01).

CONCLUSION

Results of the meta-analysis add additional evidence of the effectiveness of both ATX and MPH and suggest that MPH should be a first treatment option in most patients with ADHD.

Comparative efficacy and safety of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder pharmacotherapies, including guanfacine extended release: a mixed treatment comparison

This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) pharmacotherapy in children and adolescents 6-17 years of age. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacologic monotherapies among children and adolescents with ADHD. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to compare change in symptoms using the ADHD Rating Scale Version IV (ADHD-RS-IV), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) response, all-cause discontinuation, and adverse event-related discontinuation. Thirty-six RCTs were included in the analysis. The mean (95% credible interval [CrI]) ADHD-RS-IV total score change from baseline (active minus placebo) was -14.98 (-17.14, -12.80) for lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), -9.33 (-11.63, -7.04) for methylphenidate (MPH) extended release, -8.68 (-10.63, -6.72) for guanfacine extended release (GXR), and -6.88 (-8.22, -5.49) for atomoxetine (ATX); data were unavailable for MPH immediate release. The relative risk (95% CrI) for CGI-I response (active versus placebo) was 2.56 (2.21, 2.91) for LDX, 2.13 (1.70, 2.54) for MPH extended release, 1.94 (1.59, 2.29) for GXR, 1.77 (1.31, 2.26) for ATX, and 1.62 (1.05, 2.17) for MPH immediate release. Among non-stimulant pharmacotherapies, GXR was more effective than ATX when comparing ADHD-RS-IV total score change (with a posterior probability of 93.91%) and CGI-I response (posterior probability 76.13%). This study found that LDX had greater efficacy than GXR, ATX, and MPH in the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD. GXR had a high posterior probability of being more efficacious than ATX, although their CrIs overlapped.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Acute Comparator Trials of Lisdexamfetamine and Extended-Release Methylphenidate in Adolescents With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

BACKGROUND

Psychostimulants are considered first-line pharmacotherapy for youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but questions remain regarding the comparative efficacy of amphetamine- and methylphenidate-based agents.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to describe two acute randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, head-to-head studies of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) in adolescents with ADHD.

METHODS

Adolescents (13-17 years) diagnosed with ADHD according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria were enrolled in an 8-week flexible-dose study [LDX 30-70 mg/day (n = 186 randomized); OROS-MPH 18-72 mg/day (n = 185 randomized); placebo (n = 93 randomized)] or a 6-week forced-dose study [LDX 70 mg/day (n = 219 randomized); OROS-MPH 72 mg/day (n = 220 randomized); placebo (n = 110 randomized)]. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score changes from baseline (primary endpoint) at week 8 (flexible-dose study) or week 6 (forced-dose study) were assessed with mixed-effects models for repeated measures. Secondary endpoints included improvement on the dichotomized Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-I; key secondary endpoint) and changes from baseline on the ADHD-RS-IV subscales. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and vital signs.

RESULTS

Least squares (LS) mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) ADHD-RS-IV total score changes from baseline to end of treatment were -17.0 ± 1.03 with placebo, -25.4 ± 0.74 with LDX, and -22.1 ± 0.73 with OROS-MPH in the forced-dose study and -13.4 ± 1.19 with placebo, -25.6 ± 0.82 with LDX, and -23.5 ± 0.80 with OROS-MPH in the flexible-dose study. LS mean ± SEM treatment difference for the change from baseline significantly favored LDX over OROS-MPH in the forced-dose [-3.4 ± 1.04, p = 0.0013, effect size (ES) -0.33] but not the flexible-dose (-2.1 ± 1.15, p = 0.0717, ES -0.20) study. The percentage of improved participants on the dichotomized CGI-I at end of treatment was significantly greater with LDX than with OROS-MPH in the forced-dose study (81.4 vs. 71.3%, p = 0.0188) but not the flexible-dose study (LDX 83.1%, OROS-MPH 81.0%, p = 0.6165). The LS mean ± SEM treatment differences for change from baseline on the ADHD-RS-IV hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattentiveness subscales nominally favored LDX in the forced-dose study (hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale -1.3 ± 0.49, nominal p = 0.0081, ES -0.27; inattentiveness subscale -2.0 ± 0.63, nominal p = 0.0013, ES -0.33), but there were no significant differences between active treatments in the flexible-dose study. In both studies, LDX and OROS-MPH were superior to placebo for all efficacy-related endpoints (all nominal p < 0.0001; ES range -0.43 to -1.16). The overall frequency of TEAEs for LDX and OROS-MPH, respectively, were 66.5 and 58.9% in the forced-dose study and 83.2 and 82.1% in the flexible-dose study. TEAEs occurring in ≥ 5% of participants that were also reported at two or more times the rate of placebo were decreased appetite, decreased weight, insomnia, initial insomnia, dry mouth, and nasopharyngitis (LDX and OROS-MPH), irritability and dizziness (LDX only), and increased heart rate (OROS-MPH only) in the forced-dose study and decreased appetite, decreased weight, insomnia, and dizziness (LDX and OROS-MPH) and dry mouth and upper abdominal pain (LDX only) in the flexible-dose study. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) increases from baseline in vital signs (systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse) were observed in the forced-dose study [LDX 1.6 ± 9.65 and 3.3 ± 8.11 mmHg, 6.7 ± 12.78 beats per minute (bpm); OROS-MPH 2.6 ± 10.15 and 3.3 ± 9.13 mmHg, 7.6 ± 12.47 bpm] and the flexible-dose study (LDX 2.4 ± 9.46 and 2.8 ± 8.41 mmHg, 4.7 ± 11.82 bpm; OROS-MPH 0.4 ± 9.90 and 2.2 ± 8.64 mmHg, 6.0 ± 10.52 bpm) at the last on-treatment assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

LDX was superior to OROS-MPH in adolescents with ADHD in the forced-dose but not the flexible-dose study. Safety and tolerability for both medications was consistent with previous studies. These findings underscore the robust acute efficacy of both psychostimulant classes in treating adolescents with ADHD. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV REGISTRY NUMBERS

NCT01552915 and NCT01552902.

Gifts and influence: Conflict of interest policies and prescribing of psychotropic medications in the United States

The pharmaceutical industry spends roughly 15 billion dollars annually on detailing - providing gifts, information, samples, trips, honoraria and other inducements - to physicians in order to encourage them to prescribe their drugs. In response, several states in the United States adopted policies that restrict detailing. Some states banned gifts from pharmaceutical companies to doctors, other states simply required physicians to disclose the gifts they receive, while most states allowed unrestricted detailing. We exploit this geographic variation to examine the relationship between gift regulation and the diffusion of four newly marketed medications. Using a dataset that captures 189 million psychotropic prescriptions written between 2005 and 2009, we find that uptake of new costly medications was significantly lower in states with marketing regulation than in areas that allowed unrestricted pharmaceutical marketing. In states with gift bans, we observed reductions in market shares ranging from 39% to 83%. Policies banning or restricting gifts were associated with the largest reductions in uptake. Disclosure policies were associated with a significantly smaller reduction in prescribing than gift bans and gift restrictions. In states that ban gift-giving, peer influence substituted for pharmaceutical detailing when a relatively beneficial drug came to market and provided a less biased channel for physicians to learn about new medications. Our work suggests that policies banning or limiting gifts from pharmaceutical representatives to doctors are likely to be more effective than disclosure policies alone.

Sleep Problems in Children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Current Status of Knowledge and Appropriate Management

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 5 % of children and adolescents, and sleep problems are common in these patients. There is growing evidence informing the significant importance of sleep problems in youth with ADHD. The sleep problems in children with ADHD include specific sleep disorders and sleep disturbances due to comorbid psychiatric disorders or ADHD medications. The specific sleep disorders of ADHD children include behaviorally based insomnia, sleep-disordered breathing, and restless legs syndrome/periodic limb movement disorder. Current practices on the management of sleep problems for ADHD children are based mostly on expert consensus, whereas more evidence-based literature can be found only recently. Assessment of the sleep conditions in ADHD children before initiation of pharmacotherapy is the currently recommended guideline, and good sleep hygiene can be considered as the first-line treatment option. In addition to modifying the dose regimens, formulation, or alternative stimulants when sleep problems are encountered in ADHD children, atomoxetine, once daily guanfacine extended release, and melatonin are potential choices for ADHD children with more severe sleep problems. In this review, we aimed to provide the most updated information, preferably based on meta-analyses, systemic review, and randomized controlled trials published in the latest 3 years, in order to be clinically useful for practitioners and clinicians.

A network meta-analysis of atomoxetine and osmotic release oral system methylphenidate in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adult patients

The lack of head-to-head clinical studies powered to compare atomoxetine and osmotic release oral system (OROS) methylphenidate necessitates treatment comparison by methods that include indirect evidence such as network meta-analysis (NMA). A NMA assessing the relative treatment effects of atomoxetine and OROS methylphenidate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was conducted. Studies were identified by systematic literature review. Analyses summarised improvements in efficacy, measured by ADHD-specific scales, using Cohen'sdto calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD), and all cause discontinuations. Results showed effect sizes (SMD, 95% credible interval (CrI)) relative to placebo that did not differ significantly between atomoxetine (0.46, 0.36-0.56) and OROS methylphenidate (0.51, 0.40-0.63) in clinical studies of up to 12 weeks' duration (SMD, 95% CrI for atomoxetine versus OROS methylphenidate: -0.05, -0.18-0.08). Patients treated with these medications responded better than those given placebo across all analyses. There was also no significant difference in discontinuation rates between atomoxetine and OROS methylphenidate (odds ratio, 95% CrI: 0.85, 0.53-1.35). Between-study heterogeneity was low overall. Results of this NMA suggest that the efficacy of atomoxetine and OROS methylphenidate in adults does not differ significantly. Clinical guidelines may require amendment to reflect these recent data.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lisdexamfetamine Versus Atomoxetine in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Inadequate Response to Methylphenidate

BACKGROUND

An economic analysis from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) evaluated the cost effectiveness of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) compared with atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder who have had an inadequate response to methylphenidate.

METHODS

A 1-year decision-analytic model was constructed, with the health outcomes "response", "nonresponse", and "unable to tolerate". Clinical data were taken from a head-to-head, randomized controlled trial in inadequate responders to methylphenidate. Response to treatment was defined as a score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement subscale. Tolerability was assessed by discontinuation rates owing to adverse events. Utility weights were identified via a systematic literature review. Healthcare resource use estimates were obtained via a survey of clinicians. Daily drug costs were derived from British National Formulary 2012 costs and mean doses reported in the trial. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed.

RESULTS

The comparison of LDX with atomoxetine resulted in an estimate of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1802 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The result was robust in a wide range of sensitivity analyses; results were most sensitive to changes in drug costs and efficacy. In the PSA, assuming a maximum willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY, LDX versus atomoxetine had an 86 % probability of being cost effective. In 38 % of PSA runs, LDX was more effective and less costly than atomoxetine.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the UK NHS, LDX provides a cost-effective treatment option for children and adolescents who are inadequate responders to methylphenidate.

Treatment outcomes after methylphenidate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate or atomoxetine

PURPOSE

To compare treatment adherence, discontinuation, add-on, and daily average consumption (DACON) among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder receiving second-line lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) or atomoxetine (ATX), following methylphenidate.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using US commercial claims databases (Q2/2009-Q3/2013).

RESULTS

At month 12, the LDX cohort (N=2,718) had a higher adherence level (proportion of days covered: 0.48 versus 0.30, P<0.001) and was less likely to discontinue (Kaplan-Meier estimate: 63% versus 85%, P<0.001) than the ATX cohort (N=674). There were no statistical differences in treatment add-on rates between cohorts (Kaplan-Meier estimate: 26% versus 25%, P=0.297). The LDX cohort had a lower DACON (1.10 versus 1.31, P<0.001) and was less likely to have a DACON >1 (adjusted odds ratio: 0.20, 95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.25, P<0.001) than the ATX cohort.

CONCLUSION

Adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder treated with LDX following methylphenidate had a higher treatment adherence and lower discontinuation and DACON relative to those treated with ATX following methylphenidate.

Developing a Risk Score to Guide Individualized Treatment Selection in Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

OBJECTIVE

To develop a risk score for treatment failure that could potentially be used to individualize treatment selection between lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) in children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

The study used data from patients with ADHD receiving LDX (N = 104) or OROS-MPH (N = 107) in a phase III randomized clinical trial. A prediction model was developed to estimate risk scores for failing OROS-MPH, where treatment failure was defined as less than 25% improvement in the ADHD Rating Scale IV total score from baseline. Patients were ranked by their predicted risks of OROS-MPH failure to define high-risk subpopulations. Outcomes of LDX and OROS-MPH were compared within subpopulations.

RESULTS

The prediction model for OROS-MPH failure selected seven predictors (age, disease duration, and five ADHD Rating Scale IV item scores) and had an in-sample C statistic of 0.860. Among all patients, LDX had a 17% (95% confidence interval 7.1%-27.8%) lower treatment failure rate than that of OROS-MPH; differences in failure rates ranged from 17% to 43% across subpopulations, increasingly enriched for high-risk patients. Similar heterogeneity across subgroups was observed for other efficacy measures.

CONCLUSIONS

In the overall trial population, LDX was associated with a lower rate of treatment failure compared with OROS-MPH in patients with ADHD. A more pronounced benefit of LDX over OROS-MPH was observed among subpopulations with a higher predicted risk of failing OROS-MPH. The present study showed the feasibility of individualizing treatment selection. Future research is needed to prospectively verify these results.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of atomoxetine, lisdexamfetamine, bupropion and methylphenidate in treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis with focus on bupropion

OBJECTIVES

There is a lack of comparative effectiveness research among attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drugs in terms of efficacy and acceptability, where bupropion is compared with atomoxetine, lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate. The main aim of this work was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of these drugs in children and adolescents using a metaanalysis.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify double-blind, placebo-controlled, noncrossover studies of ADHD. PubMed/Medline and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Comparative drug efficacy to placebo was calculated based on the standardized mean difference (SMD), while the comparative drug acceptability (all cause discontinuation) to placebo was estimated on the odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

In total 28 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Efficacy in reducing ADHD symptoms compared to placebo was small for bupropion (SMD=-0.32, 95% CI; -0.69, 0.05), while modest efficacy was shown for atomoxetine (SMD=-0.68, 95% CI; -0.76, -0.59) and methylphenidate (SMD=-0.75, 95% CI; -0.98, -0.52) and high efficacy was observed for lisdexamfetamine (SMD=-1.28, 95% CI; -1.84, -0.71). Compared to placebo treatment discontinuation was statistically significantly lower for methylphenidate (OR=0.35, 95% CI; 0.24, 0.52), while it was not significantly different for atomoxetine (OR=0.91, 95% CI; 0.66, 1.24), lisdexamfetamine (OR=0.60, 95% CI, 0.22, 1.65), and bupropion (OR=1.64, 95% CI; 0.5, 5.43).

LIMITATIONS

The heterogeneity was high, except in atomoxetine trials. The crossover studies were excluded. The effect sizes at specific time points were not computed. Studies with comorbid conditions, except those reporting on oppositional defiant disorder, were also excluded. All studies involving MPH were combined.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that lisdexamfetamine has the best benefit risk balance and has promising potential for treating children and adolescents with ADHD. More research is needed for a better clinical evaluation of bupropion.

The pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders of children and adolescents, with a significant impact on health services and the community in terms of economic and social burdens. The objective of this systematic review will be to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in children and adolescents with ADHD.

METHODS

Searches involving PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be used to identify related systematic reviews and relevant randomized trials. Search results will be supplemented by reports from the regulatory and health technology agencies, clinical trials registers and by data requested from trialists and/or pharmaceutical companies. We will consider studies evaluating pharmacological interventions (e.g. stimulants, non-stimulants, antidepressants), psychological interventions (e.g. behavioural interventions, cognitive training and neurofeedback) and complementary and alternative medicine interventions (e.g. dietary interventions, supplement with fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, aminoacids, herbal treatment, homeopathy, and mind-body interventions including massage, chiropractic, acupuncture, yoga, meditation, Tai chi). Eligible control conditions will be placebo, waitlist, no treatment and usual care. Randomized controlled trials of a minimum of 3 weeks duration will be included. The primary outcomes of interest will be the proportion of patients who responded to treatment and who dropped out of the allocated treatment, respectively. Secondary outcomes will include treatment discontinuation due to adverse events, as well as the occurrences of serious adverse events and specific adverse events (decreased weight, anorexia, insomnia and sleep disturbances, anxiety, syncope and cardiovascular events). Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles in duplicate. Data will be abstracted and risk of bias will be appraised by two team members independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis will compare the efficacy and safety of treatments used for ADHD in children and adolescents. The findings will assist patients, clinicians and healthcare providers to make evidence-based decisions regarding treatment selection.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42014015008 .