Response to methylphenidate by adult and pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the Spanish multicenter DIHANA study

Salience and hedonic experience as predictors of central stimulant treatment response in ADHD - A resting state fMRI study

BACKGROUND

Roughly 20-30% of patients with Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) fail to respond to central stimulant (CS) medication. Genetic, neuroimaging, biochemical and behavioral biomarkers for CS response have been investigated, but currently there are no biomarkers available for clinical use that help identify CS responders and non-responders.

METHODS

In the present paper, we studied if incentive salience and hedonic experience evaluated after a single-dose CS medication could predict response and non-response to CS medication. We used a bipolar visual analogue 'wanting' and 'liking' scale to gauge incentive salience and hedonic experience in 25 healthy controls (HC) and 29 ADHD patients. HC received 30 mg methylphenidate (MPH) and ADHD patients received either MPH or lisdexamphetamine (LDX) as selected by their clinician, with dosage individually determined for optimal effect. Clinician-evaluated global impression - severity (CGI-S) and improvement (CGI-I) and patient-evaluated improvement (PGI-I) were used to assess response to CS medication. Resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was conducted before and after single-dose CS to correlate wanting and liking scores to changes in functional connectivity.

RESULTS

Roughly 20% of the ADHD patients were CS non-responders (5 of 29). CS responders had significantly higher incentive salience and hedonic experience scores compared to healthy controls and CS non-responders. Resting state fMRI showed that wanting scores were significantly associated to changes in functional connectivity in ventral striatum including nucleus accumbens.

CONCLUSION

Incentive salience and hedonic experience evaluated after a single-dose CS medication segregate CS responders and non-responders, with corresponding neuroimaging biomarkers in the brain reward system.

Overdiagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Scoping Review

IMPORTANCE

Reported increases in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses are accompanied by growing debate about the underlying factors. Although overdiagnosis is often suggested, no comprehensive evaluation of evidence for or against overdiagnosis has ever been undertaken and is urgently needed to enable evidence-based, patient-centered diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in contemporary health services.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify, appraise, and synthesize the evidence on overdiagnosis of ADHD in children and adolescents using a published 5-question framework for detecting overdiagnosis in noncancer conditions.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic scoping review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews and Joanna Briggs Methodology, including the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published in English between January 1, 1979, and August 21, 2020. Studies of children and adolescents (aged ≤18 years) with ADHD that focused on overdiagnosis plus studies that could be mapped to 1 or more framework question were included. Two researchers independently reviewed all abstracts and full-text articles, and all included studies were assessed for quality.

FINDINGS

Of the 12 267 potentially relevant studies retrieved, 334 (2.7%) were included. Of the 334 studies, 61 (18.3%) were secondary and 273 (81.7%) were primary research articles. Substantial evidence of a reservoir of ADHD was found in 104 studies, providing a potential for diagnoses to increase (question 1). Evidence that actual ADHD diagnosis had increased was found in 45 studies (question 2). Twenty-five studies showed that these additional cases may be on the milder end of the ADHD spectrum (question 3), and 83 studies showed that pharmacological treatment of ADHD was increasing (question 4). A total of 151 studies reported on outcomes of diagnosis and pharmacological treatment (question 5). However, only 5 studies evaluated the critical issue of benefits and harms among the additional, milder cases. These studies supported a hypothesis of diminishing returns in which the harms may outweigh the benefits for youths with milder symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review found evidence of ADHD overdiagnosis and overtreatment in children and adolescents. Evidence gaps remain and future research is needed, in particular research on the long-term benefits and harms of diagnosing and treating ADHD in youths with milder symptoms; therefore, practitioners should be mindful of these knowledge gaps, especially when identifying these individuals and to ensure safe and equitable practice and policy.

Gut microbiota profiles of autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A systematic literature review

Accumulating evidence has implicated an involvement of the gut-brain axis in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), however with highly diverse results. This systematic review aims to describe and evaluate studies investigating the gut microbiota composition in individuals with ASD or ADHD and to evaluate if variations in gut microbiota are associated with these disorders. Twenty-four articles were identified in a systematic literature search of PubMed and Embase up to July 22, 2019. They consisted of 20 studies investigating ASD and four studies investigating ADHD. For ASD, several studies agreed on an overall difference in β-diversity, although no consistent bacterial variation between all studies was reported. For ADHD, the results were more diverse, with no clear differences observed. Several common characteristics in gut microbiota function were identified for ASD compared to controls. In contrast, highly heterogeneous results were reported for ADHD, and thus the association between gut microbiota composition and ADHD remains unclear. For both disorders, methodological differences hampered the comparison of studies.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Predominantly Inattentive Subtype/Presentation: Research Progress and Translational Studies

Research on the predominantly inattentive attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD-PI) subtype/presentation is important given its high prevalence, but paradoxically it is under-recognized and undertreated. The temporal stability of the inattention symptom could impact the high worldwide prevalence of ADHD-PI. Some evidence suggests differences in the nature of attentional deficit in ADHD-PI vs. that in other subtypes. Impairments in neuropsychological, neurocognitive, and social functioning are also evident in ADHD-PI, which could be specific to the subtype (e.g., processing speed, social perception, and skills), or differ from others in severity. Neuroimaging studies have also revealed ADHD-PI-specific neuropathological abnormalities and those that are shared with other subtypes. ADHD-PI is highly comorbid with learning and internalizing (e.g., anxiety and depression) disorders. There is no solid evidence for ADHD-PI-specific genetic etiologies and differential responses of subtypes to ADHD medications. Translational studies have used the Wistar Kyoto/NCrl substrain which requires further characterizations as an ADHD-PI model. Overall, ADHD-PI research has been conducted in the context of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which arguably does not conform to the widely recognized "dimensional" view of ADHD. The Research Domain Criteria has been proposed to provide a novel framework for understanding the nature of neuropsychiatric illnesses and ultimately improve their diagnosis and treatment.

Methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents - assessment of adverse events in non-randomised studies

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Fourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.Primary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.In the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).Secondary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).With non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.Given the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.

Changes in behavior as side effects in methylphenidate treatment: review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Our review of the scientific literature focused on an analysis of studies describing instances of methylphenidate treatment leading (or not) to behavioral changes in the pediatric, adolescent, and adult populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Medline, and Google using the keywords "methylphenidate", "behavioral changes", "adverse effects", and "side effects". A total of 44 studies were identified as reporting on the effects and adverse effects of methylphenidate administration, and were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Five studies specifically set out to study, record, and discuss changes in behavior. Eight studies did not set out to study behavioral effects, but record and discuss them. A total of 28 studies recorded behavioral effects, but failed to discuss these further. Three studies did not include behavioral effects.

CONCLUSION

This review records what data have been published in respect of changes in behavior in association with the use of methylphenidate. While there is some evidence to suggest that methylphenidate causes changes in behavior, the majority of the studies reviewed paid little or no attention to this issue. Based on the available data, it is impossible to determine the point at which such behavioral effects occur. The frequency of occurrence of behavioral effects is also impossible to determine with certainty. Based on the available data, it is not possible to rule out whether behavioral effects may persist or not persist once treatment is discontinued. In conclusion, despite countless publications and extensive administration, especially to children, we have insufficient data to judge the long-term effects and risks of methylphenidate taking.