Efficacy and safety of Ritalin LA, a new, once daily, extended-release dosage form of methylphenidate, in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

A Post-Hoc Analysis of Emotional Lability With Delayed-Release/Extended-Release Methylphenidate in Children Aged 6 to 12 Years of Age Participating in Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

DR/ER-MPH (formerly HLD200) is an evening-dosed delayed-release and extended-release methylphenidate approved for the treatment of ADHD in patients ≥6 years. Post hoc analyses of two pivotal Phase 3 trials: HLD200-107 (NCT02493777) and HLD200-108 (NCT02520388) evaluated emotional lability (EL) with DR/ER-MPH treatment.

METHODS

Differences in Conners Global Index-Parent (CGI-P) EL subscale scores and age- and gender-adjusted T-scores over an open-label titration phase (HLD200-107) and between treatment and placebo groups at endpoint (HLD200-108) were evaluated.

RESULTS

In HLD200-107 (N = 117) mean CGI-P EL subscale scores improved from 5.3 to 1.3 (p < .0001) after 6 weeks; in HLD200-108 significant improvements were observed in the treatment group (n = 81) versus placebo (n = 80; 3.11 vs. 4.08; p = .0053). T-scores showed an improvement with DR/ER-MPH treatment in both trials. Few emotional adverse events (AEs) were reported.

CONCLUSION

DR/ER-MPH treatment resulted in statistically significant improvements in EL to the level of non-ADHD peers as contextualized by T-scores.

In Memoriam: Professor Joseph Biederman's Contributions to Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of Joe Biederman's contributions to child and adolescent psychiatry.

METHOD

Nine colleagues described his contributions to: psychopharmacology, comorbidity and genetics, pediatric bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorders, Tourette's and tic disorders, clinical and neuro biomarkers for pediatric mood disorders, executive functioning, and adult ADHD.

RESULTS

Joe Biederman left us with many concrete indicators of his contributions to child and adolescent psychiatry. He set up the world's first pediatric psychopharmacology clinic and clinical research program in child adolescent psychiatry. As a young faculty member he began a research program that led to many awards and eventual promotion to full professor at Harvard Medical School. He was for many years the most highly cited researcher in ADHD. He achieved this while maintaining a full clinical load and was widely respected for his clinical acumen.

CONCLUSION

The world is a better place because Joe Biederman was here.

Adverse Events During Dosing of Delayed-release/Extended-release Methylphenidate: Learnings From the Open-label Phase of a Registration Trial and a Real-world Postmarketing Surveillance Program

PURPOSE

Delayed-release/extended-release methylphenidate (DR/ER-MPH) (formerly HLD200) is an evening-dosed agent used for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Postmarketing surveillance data from approximately 74,000 patients exposed to DR/ER-MPH (up to June 17, 2022) were reported and compared with the open-label, treatment-optimization phase of a Phase III clinical trial to derive possible learnings on how to approach adverse events (AEs) that emerge during dose titration.

METHODS

An analysis of AEs spontaneously reported to Ironshore in postmarketing surveillance included, where available, age, dose, timing, and discontinuations. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics.

FINDINGS

A total of 395 children, adolescents, and adults reported 601 AEs in postmarketing surveillance. Five AEs were classified as serious. AEs preceded drug use discontinuation in 172 patients. Many AEs occurred early (52% were reported within 30 days) and at lower doses (54% were reported at 20 to 40 mg), similar to the trial data. Reported AEs included those similar in type but orders of magnitude lower in number than those from the clinical trial.

IMPLICATIONS

No new safety concerns were revealed in this real-world setting compared with the safety profile identified in DR/ER-MPH trial data. In real-world practices, clinicians tended to discontinue DR/ER-MPH treatment after AE onset, whereas trial investigators continued to optimize treatment and found that AEs were generally tolerable, suggesting that health care practitioners may consider developing strategies to manage tolerability issues with DR/ER-MPH treatment on AE emergence rather than immediately discontinuing use of the drug to provide optimal therapeutic benefit.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier: NCT02493777.

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.

Benefits and limitations of nanomedicine treatment of brain cancers and age-dependent neurodegenerative disorders

The treatment of central nervous system (CNS) malignancies, including brain cancers, is limited by a number of obstructions, including the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the heterogeneity and high invasiveness of tumors, the inaccessibility of tissues for early diagnosis and effective surgery, and anti-cancer drug resistance. Therapies employing nanomedicine have been shown to facilitate drug penetration across the BBB and maintain biodistribution and accumulation of therapeutic agents at the desired target site. The application of lipid-, polymer-, or metal-based nanocarriers represents an advanced drug delivery system for a growing group of anti-cancer chemicals. The nanocarrier surface is designed to contain an active ligand (cancer cell marker or antibody)-binding structure which can be modified to target specific cancer cells. Glioblastoma, ependymoma, neuroblastoma, medulloblastoma, and primary CNS lymphomas were recently targeted by easily absorbed nanocarriers. The metal- (such as transferrin drug-loaded systems), polymer- (nanocapsules and nanospheres), or lipid- (such as sulfatide-containing nanoliposomes)-based nano-vehicles were loaded with apoptosis- and/or ferroptosis-stimulating agents and demonstrated promising anti-cancer effects. This review aims to discuss effective nanomedicine approaches designed to overcome the current limitations in the therapy of brain cancers and age-dependent neurodegenerative disorders. To accent current obstacles for successful CNS-based cancer therapy, we discuss nanomedicine perspectives and limitations of nanodrug use associated with the specificity of nervous tissue characteristics and the effects nanocarriers have on cognition.

Thermoresponsive gating membranes embedded with liquid crystal(s) for pulsatile transdermal drug delivery: An overview and perspectives

Due to the circadian rhythm regulation of almost every biological process in the human body, physiological and biochemical conditions vary considerably over the course of a 24-h period. Thus, optimal drug delivery and therapy should be effectively controlled to achieve the desired therapeutic plasma concentrations and therapeutic drug responses at the required time according to chronopharmacological concepts, rather than continuous maintenance of constant drug concentrations for an extended time period. For many drugs, it is not always necessary to constantly deliver a drug into the human body under disease conditions due to rhythmic variations. Pulsatile drug delivery systems (PDDSs) have been receiving more attention in pharmaceutical development by providing a predetermined lag period, followed by a fast or rate-controlled drug release after application. PDDSs are characterized by a programmed drug release, which may release a drug at repeatable pulses to match the biological and clinical needs of a given disease therapy. This review article focuses on thermoresponsive gating membranes embedded with liquid crystals (LCs) for transdermal drug delivery using PDDS technology. In addition, the principal rationale and the advanced approaches for the use of PDDSs, the marketed products of chronotherapeutic DDSs with pulsatile function designed by various PDDS technologies, pulsatile drug delivery designed with thermoresponsive polymers, challenges and opportunities of transdermal drug delivery, and novel approaches of LC systems for drug delivery are reviewed and discussed. A brief overview of all academic research articles concerning single LC- or binary LC-embedded thermoresponsive membranes with a switchable on-off permeation function through topical application by an external temperature control, which may modulate the dosing interval and administration time according to the therapeutic needs of the human body, is also compiled and presented. In the near future, since thermal-based approaches have become a well-accepted method to enhance transdermal delivery of different water-soluble drugs and macromolecules, a combination of the thermal-assisted approach with thermoresponsive LCs membranes will have the potential to improve PDDS applications but still poses a great challenge.

Oral Drug Delivery Technologies-A Decade of Developments

Advanced drug delivery technologies, in general, enable drug reformulation and administration routes, together contributing to life-cycle management and allowing the innovator to maintain the product monopoly. Over the years, there has been a steady shift from mere life-cycle management to drug repurposing-applying delivery technologies to tackle solubility and permeability issues in early stages or safety and efficacy issues in the late stages of drug discovery processes. While the drug and the disease in question primarily drive the choice of route of administration, the oral route, for its compliance and safety attributes, is the most preferred route, particularly when it comes to chronic conditions, including pain, which is not considered a disease but a symptom of a primary cause. Therefore, the attempt of this review is to take a stock of the advances in oral delivery technologies that are applicable for injectable to oral transformation, improve risk-benefit profiles of existing orals, and apply them in the early discovery program to minimize the drug attrition rates.

Evaluation of Methylphenidate Safety and Maximum-Dose Titration Rationale in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Evidence on the titration of stimulant medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is lacking. However, this lack of evidence has not prevented medication guidelines from specifying apparently arbitrary dose limitations, which could discourage clinicians from titrating methylphenidate to higher and, perhaps for some patients, more efficacious doses.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the evidence on dose titration and adverse events associated with dose titration of stimulants for ADHD.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE from 1946, Embase from 1974, and PsycINFO from 1806 through April 1, 2019, were searched to identify relevant articles.

STUDY SELECTION

The inclusion criteria were that (1) the study was conducted on children up to 18 years of age; (2) children had a diagnosis of ADHD according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or hyperkinetic disorder according to the International Classification of Diseases codes; and (3) the dose of methylphenidate was determined by titration.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The PRISMA guidelines for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity were followed. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Jadad scoring system. Statistical analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes of interest were (1) the doses used in published clinical trials, (2) the clinical justification given by researchers for their selected dose range, and (3) the adverse effects associated with methylphenidate when the dose is established by titration.

RESULTS

A total of 11 randomized clinical trials and 38 cohort studies were analyzed. The randomized clinical trials involved 1304 participants treated with methylphenidate and 887 controls; the 38 cohort studies included 5524 participants. Maximum doses of methylphenidate ranged from 0.8 to 1.8 mg/kg/d. Some studies detailed their method of titration, including starting dose, titration interval, increment dose, and maximum dose. Not all of these studies reported justification for the chosen dose range. Common adverse effects of methylphenidate included insomnia (odds ratio, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.99-10.92; P < .001), anorexia (5.11 higher than for those who took placebo; 95% CI, 1.99-13.14; P < .001), abdominal pain (1.9 times more likely; 95% CI, 0.77-4.77; P = .16), and headache (14% of participants; 95% CI, 10%-20%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A range of maximum doses for methylphenidate was recommended in clinical studies; no discernable scientific justification for any particular dose was given. Reports of life-threatening adverse events were absent; further studies of the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of methylphenidate titrated purely on clinical grounds, without reference to any set maximum dose, are needed.

Sleep-Associated Adverse Events During Methylphenidate Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Sleep disturbances are a feature of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and an adverse event (AE) of methylphenidate treatment. The authors sought to clarify methylphenidate-associated sleep problems and how studies are affected by confounding factors.

DATA SOURCES

Published studies in English collected via online databases and unpublished data from www.clinicaltrials.gov and US Food and Drug Administration websites. Sources were searched from inception to August 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Included were blinded placebo-controlled studies of youth with ADHD conducted in naturalistic settings, leading to 35 studies yielding 75 observations of sleep-related AEs. These studies comprised 3,079 drug-exposed and 2,606 placebo-treated patients.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two PhD-level reviewers reviewed each study for inclusion. Four PhD/PharmD-level reviewers extracted data in duplicate. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion or, if needed, by the senior author.

RESULTS

Increased pooled relative risks (RRs) were found for methylphenidate-associated sleep-related AEs for insomnia (general), initial insomnia, middle insomnia, combined insomnia, and sleep disorder. Several sample or study design features were significantly associated with the RR for sleep-related AEs and the methylphenidate formulation studied (P < .05). After correction for confounding variables, significant differences among drugs were found for initial insomnia, insomnia (general), and sleep disorder (P < .0001) as the other categories could not be tested due to insufficient studies. The findings also show that the RR and its interpretation are constrained by the placebo AE rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Several types of insomnia and sleep problems are associated with methylphenidate treatment. Study design and sample features influence the RR statistic. By showing that the rate of placebo AEs impacts the RR, this study provides the field with a useful covariate for adjusting RR statistics.

Lens opacities in children using methylphenidate hydrochloride

PURPOSE

To assess clinical findings of eye examination in children having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) administered with methylphenidate hydrochloride.

METHODS

Fifty-seven consecutive patients diagnosed of ADHD and administered with oral methylphenidate hydrochloride treatment for at least one year were involved in this study (Group 1). Sixty healthy subjects (Group 2) having demographic features similar to group 1 were involved as a control group. All patients underwent detailed ophthalmological examination.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventeen consecutive subjects with a mean age of 11.2 ± 2.4 years (7-18 years) were enrolled. Fifty-seven consecutive patient (32 males, 25 females) under oral methylphenidate hydrochloride treatment (Group 1) and 60 healthy control subjects (30 males, 30 females) (Group 2)) were recruited for this prospective study. The mean methylphenidate hydrochloride dosage was 0.9 ± 0.1 mg/kg/day and the mean duration of methylphenidate hydrochloride usage was for 2.73 ± 0.73 years (1-7 years). High intraocular pressure was not observed in any of the patients in our study. We detected lens opacities in five eyes of five patients in group 1 (p = 0.019). The patient with the highest degree of cataract formation had been using MPH for 84 months and this patient's cataract score was P4.

CONCLUSION

Long-term use of methylphenidate may cause lens opacities. In particular, patients who have been using methylphenidate for more than two years should go for regular eye examination.

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.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Different Interventions in Children and Adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

BACKGROUND

Our study is an analysis of multiple publications involving assessing the comparable efficacy and tolerability of six interventions, which are lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), atomoxetine (ATX), methylphenidate (MPH), clonidine hydrochloride (CLON), guanfacine extended release (GXR), and bupropion, for young patients (6-18 years old) suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

A conventional meta-analysis (MA) was performed to give direct comparisons and a network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to show the combination of direct and indirect evidence. Ranking preference for all the interventions under a certain outcome was given by the surface of cumulative ranking curve area (SUCRA).

RESULTS

Overall, 15,025 participants from 73 studies were involved in our analysis. In the pairwise MA, LDX was associated with less withdrawal than ATX for lack of efficacy. MPH showed less effectiveness than LDX according to ADHD Rating Scale score. Based on the analysis of our NMA, significant results of efficacy that LDX is a competitive drug were observed when evaluating LDX in comparison with other drugs except for CLON. ATX and GXR presented higher rates of abdominal pain morbidity versus inactive treatment.

CONCLUSION

The stimulants LDX and MPH are still highly recommended because they are highly effective and are tolerated well by patients. Among the non-stimulants, CLON can be taken into consideration for its appreciable effectiveness and tolerability. ATX and GXR can be seen as moderate choices.

Trust, but verify. The errors and misinterpretations in the Cochrane analysis by O. J. Storebo and colleagues on the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate for the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD

Objective

A recent Cochrane review published by O. J. Storebo and colleagues (2015) raised substantial doubts about the benefit from stimulant medication with methylphenidate in the treatment of childhood ADHD due to the overall poor quality of studies. The systematic review thus contradicts all previous reviews and meta-analyses.

Method

We here detail various examples of errors, inconsistencies, and misinterpretations in the review which led to false results and inadequate conclusions.

Results

We demonstrate that the study selection is flawed and undertaken without sufficient scientific justification resulting in an underestimation of effect sizes, which, furthermore, are inadmissibly clinically interpreted. The methodology of the assessment of bias and quality is not objective and cannot be substantiated by the data.

Conclusions

Cochrane reviews lay claim to a high scientific quality and substantial relevance for evidence-based clinical decisions. The systematic review by Storebo and colleagues (2015) illustrates that, despite adhering to strict standards and high-quality protocols, even Cochrane works should be critically read and verified, sometimes with surprising results.

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.

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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

Systematically review and synthesize the clinical evidence of treatments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by indirectly comparing established treatments in the UK with a drug recently approved in Europe (lisdexamfetamine [LDX]).

POPULATION

children and adolescents.

SETTING

Europe. Comparators: methylphenidate (MPH), atomoxetine (ATX), and dexamphetamine (DEX). Electronic databases and relevant conference proceedings were searched for randomized, controlled clinical trials evaluating efficacy and safety of at least one of the comparators and LDX. Quality assessments for each included trial were performed using criteria recommended by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Network meta-analysis methods for dichotomous outcomes were employed to evaluate treatment efficacy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Response, as defined by either a reduction from baseline of at least 25% in the ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] total score or, separately, as assessed on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement [CGI-I] scale, and safety (all-cause withdrawals and withdrawal due to adverse events).

RESULTS

The systematic review found 32 trials for the meta-analysis, including data on LDX, ATX, and different formulations of MPH. No trials for DEX meeting the inclusion criteria were found. Sufficient data were identified for each outcome: ADHD-RS, 16 trials; CGI-I, 20 trials; all-cause withdrawals, 28 trials; and withdrawals due to adverse events, 27 trials. The relative probability of treatment response for CGI-I (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for ATX versus LDX was 0.65 (0.53-0.78); for long-acting MPH versus LDX, 0.82 (0.69-0.97); for intermediate release MPH versus LDX, 0.51 (0.40-0.65); and for short-acting MPH versus LDX, 0.62 (0.51-0.76). The relative probabilities of ADHD-RS treatment response also favored LDX.

CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of ADHD, the synthesis of efficacy data showed statistically significant better probabilities of response with LDX than for formulations of MPH or ATX. The analysis of safety data proved inconclusive due to low event rates. These results may be limited by the studies included, which only investigated the short-term efficacy of medications in patients without comorbid disorders.

An evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of methylphenidate for the treatment of attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder

INTRODUCTION

Methylphenidate (MPH) plays a principal role in the multimodal treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Controlled studies have demonstrated an effective reduction in the core symptoms of the disorder following MPH therapy, although long-term studies also demonstrate that the therapeutic benefits dissipate in the absence of combined psychosocial interventions.

AREAS COVERED

This review article focuses on the pharmacological characteristics of MPH, examining its effects on brain metabolism and the neurotransmitter system. Neuropsychological and clinical effects of different immediate and extended release MPH formulations are discussed to aid clinicians in choosing the appropriate formulation. The drug's addictive potency and abuse potential is also discussed. Data came from a literature search of relevant studies performed using the PubMed database up to June 2013.

EXPERT OPINION

MPH is effective in the treatment of the core symptoms of ADHD. Considerable clinical expertise is required to identify an individually well-adapted dosage which will produce the optimal clinical effects with potential side effects minimized. Due to low adherence to medication, especially in adolescents, motivation to treatment and attentive clinical monitoring is mandatory, as is the consideration of risks of abuse or the presence of a comorbid addictive disorder.

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.

Drug therapy of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: current trends

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is a developmental disorder with an age onset prior to 7 years. Children with ADHD have significantly lower ability to focus and sustain attention and also score higher on impulsivity and hyperactivity. Stimulants, such as methylphenidate, have remained the mainstay of ADHD treatment for decades with evidence supporting their use. However, recent years have seen emergence of newer drugs and drug delivery systems, like osmotic release oral systems and transdermal patches, to mention a few. The use of nonstimulant drugs like atomoxetine and various other drugs, such as α-agonists, and a few antidepressants, being used in an off-label manner, have added to the pharmacotherapy of ADHD. This review discusses current trends in drug therapy of ADHD and highlights the promise pharmacogenomics may hold in the future.

Gamma-frequency neuronal activity is diminished in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a pharmaco-MEG study

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurobehavioral disorder affecting approximately 4-7% of children and persisting in 2-5% of adults. The core symptoms include pervasive inattention and inappropriate levels of hyperactivity-impulsivity. High-frequency gamma activity has been implicated in the temporal binding of stimulus properties across cortical areas, and is known to be crucial for complex information processing and attentional processes in particular. Thus, we evaluated the amplitude of gamma-frequency neural responses in adults with and those without ADHD, and tested whether stimulant medications, the most common treatment for ADHD, modulate gamma activity in affected adults. Participants underwent two sessions (~75 min apart) of auditory stimulation using stimuli known to elicit 40 Hz gamma-band responses as magnetoencephalography data were acquired. Between sessions, the ADHD group (who were in maintenance therapy) were administered their daily stimulant medication and both groups were told to relax. The primary results indicated that gamma activity was weaker in the ADHD group during session one (pre-drug), but not session two (post-drug), and that gamma activity significantly increased following stimulant administration in adults with ADHD. These results suggest that ADHD is associated with reduced cortical gamma activity and that stimulants may ameliorate this abnormality.

Understanding the effect size of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate for treating ADHD in children and adults

OBJECTIVE

An earlier meta-analysis of pediatric clinical trials indicated that lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) had a greater effect size than other stimulant medications. This work tested the hypothesis that the apparent increased efficacy was artifactual.

METHOD

The authors assessed two potential artifacts: an unusually high precision of measurement and an unusually low placebo effect. The authors evaluated generalizability from children of adults.

RESULTS

The LDX effect sizes for children were significantly larger than the pooled stimulant effect sizes from studies using the same outcome measures. However, although no other individual stimulant study had an effect size greater than LDX, there was overlap between the 95% confidence intervals for some of these studies and the LDX study. The high LDX effect sizes were not due measurement or placebo effect artifacts. LDX effect sizes for adults were not larger than the stimulant effect sizes from other studies.

CONCLUSION

The high LDX effect size for children could not attributed to measurement artifacts. The superiority of LDX in the pediatric clinical trial reflected the greater efficacy of amphetamine products, compared with methylphenidate products but required replication in children because (a) the results were based on only one trial of LDX in children, and (b) the finding did not generalize to adults.

Methylphenidate transdermal system: a multisite, open-label study of dermal reactions in pediatric patients diagnosed with ADHD

OBJECTIVE

To characterize dermal reactions and examine methylphenidate (MPH) sensitization in subjects receiving methylphenidate transdermal system (MTS).

METHOD

This multicenter, open-label, dose-optimization study utilized MTS doses of 10, 15, 20, and 30 mg in children aged 6 to 12 years, inclusive (N = 305), with a DSM-IV-TR primary diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The study was conducted between January 8, 2007, and August 23, 2007. Subjects wore MTS on their hips for 9 hours per day, alternating sides daily for a total of 7 weeks. Assessments included the Experience of Discomfort scale, Transdermal System Adherence scale, and Dermal Response Scale (DRS; 0 = no irritation, 7 = strong reaction). On-study reevaluations were conducted to characterize DRS scores ≥ 4. Epicutaneous allergy patch testing was conducted for DRS scores ≥ 6, persistent DRS scores ≥ 4, DRS score increase following an assessment of ≥ 4, or DRS scores of 4 or 5 following elective discontinuation.

RESULTS

Approximately half of subjects experienced definite erythema at the patch site that generally dissipated within 24 hours. Four subjects experienced a DRS score of 4 (1%): erythema in 1 subject resolved on study treatment, 2 cases resolved poststudy and subjects tolerated oral MPH, and 1 subject discontinued treatment. The latter subject was referred for patch testing and was diagnosed with allergic contact sensitization to MPH.

CONCLUSIONS

Few severe dermal effects were seen with MTS treatment. Dermal reactions were characterized as contact dermatitis and dissipated rapidly. On patch testing, 1 subject (0.3%) manifested sensitization to MPH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00434213.

Intranasal versus oral administration of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate: a randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover, single-dose, single-centre pharmacokinetic study in healthy adult men

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Data on pharmacokinetic parameters of the prodrug stimulant lisdexamfetamine dimesylate via alternate routes of administration are limited. The pharmacokinetics of d-amphetamine derived from lisdexamfetamine dimesylate after single oral (PO) versus intranasal (IN) administration of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate were compared.

METHODS

In this randomized, two-period, crossover study, healthy men without a history of substance abuse were administered single PO or IN (radiolabelled with ≤100 μCi (99m)Tc-diethylenetriamine-pentaacetic acid and confirmed by scintigraphy) lisdexamfetamine dimesylate 50 mg ≥7 days apart. Serial blood samples were drawn to measure d-amphetamine and intact lisdexamfetamine at 0 (pre-dose), 15, 30 and 45 minutes and at 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48 and 72 hours post-dose for PO administration and at 0 (pre-dose), 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45 minutes and 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48 and 72 hours post-dose for IN administration. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed.

RESULTS

Eighteen subjects were enrolled and completed the study. The mean ± SD maximum observed plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to time of last measurable concentration (AUC(last)) of d-amphetamine following PO administration of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate were 37.6 ± 4.54 ng/mL and 719.1 ± 157.05 ng · h/mL, respectively; after IN administration, these parameters were 35.9 ± 6.49 ng/mL and 690.5 ± 157.05 ng · h/mL, respectively. PO and IN administration demonstrated similar median time to reach C(max) (t(max)) for d-amphetamine: 5 hours for PO administration versus 4 hours for IN administration. Mean ± SD elimination half-life (t(1/2)) values were also similar for PO (11.6 ± 2.8 hours) and IN (11.3 ± 1.8 hours) lisdexamfetamine dimesylate. TEAEs after PO and IN administration were reported by 27.8% of subjects (5/18) and 38.9% of subjects (7/18), respectively; all AEs were mild or moderate in severity, and TEAEs such as anorexia, dry mouth, headache and nausea were consistent with known amphetamine effects.

CONCLUSION

IN administration of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate resulted in d-amphetamine plasma concentrations and systemic exposure to d-amphetamine comparable to those seen with PO administration. Subject variability for d-amphetamine pharmacokinetic parameters was low. Both PO and IN lisdexamfetamine dimesylate demonstrated a tolerability profile similar to that of other long-acting stimulants.

Safety of stimulant treatment in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: part II

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common childhood psychiatric disorder and in at least 50% of cases persists into adulthood. Treatment of ADHD with stimulants is one of the oldest and most effective pharmacological treatments in psychiatry. Yet, there continues to be controversy over the safety of stimulant medications in the treatment of ADHD.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This paper is a continuation of an earlier paper that reviewed the safety profile of newer stimulant agents, especially in relation to special populations. This part II reviews, through essentially an organ-system approach, the various clinical concerns that have been raised over the safety of stimulant medications. This includes neuropsychiatric, cardiovascular effects on growth and development, and a number of other less common concerns.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

A thorough review of safety concerns in stimulants that emphasizes clinical information, case reports, open series or controlled trials relating to stimulant use in the treatment of ADHD.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

While many safety concerns have been raised in the use of stimulants, the vast majority of treatment complications are either quickly reversible or easily manageable with appropriate clinical care. The negative consequences of untreated ADHD clearly outweigh the risks of the stimulant medicines when used in an appropriate and careful manner.

Achieving remission as a routine goal of pharmacotherapy in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Remission should be the goal of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment. However, there is no universally accepted definition of remission in ADHD, although clinical studies use a number of criteria. This article examines current research into the concept of remission in ADHD by reviewing the literature for definition and achievement of remission in children and adults with ADHD. Results demonstrate that the concept of remission in ADHD has been proposed by several study groups, using thresholds of validated rating scales to indicate syndromic, symptomatic and functional remission. Several studies have demonstrated the achievement of remission in ADHD children utilizing methylphenidate delivered by an osmotic, controlled-release formulation (OROS®) and atomoxetine. However, none has defined a time period over which these criteria must be met for an individual with ADHD to be considered 'in remission'. Standardized remission criteria in ADHD will provide a tool for assessing the effectiveness of treatments for ADHD, and raise treatment standards.

The occurrence of adverse drug reactions reported for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications in the pediatric population: a qualitative review of empirical studies

BACKGROUND

To review empirical studies of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported to be associated with the use of medications generally licensed for treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in the pediatric population.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO(®) databases were searched from origin until June 2011. Studies reporting ADRs from amphetamine derivates, atomoxetine, methylphenidate, and modafinil in children from birth to age 17 were included. Information about ADR reporting rates, age and gender of the child, type, and seriousness of ADRs, setting, study design, ADR assessors, authors, and funding sources were extracted.

RESULTS

The review identified 43 studies reporting ADRs associated with medicines for treatment of ADHD in clinical studies covering approximately 7000 children, the majority of 6- to 12-year-old boys, and particularly in the United States of America (USA). The most frequently reported ADRs were decrease in appetite, gastrointestinal pain, and headache. There were wide variations in reported ADR occurrence between studies of similar design, setting, included population, and type of medication. Reported ADRs were primarily assessed by the children/their parents, and very few ADRs were rated as being serious. A large number of children dropped out of studies due to serious ADRs, and therefore, the actual number of serious ADRs from use of psychostimulants is probably higher. A large number of studies were conducted by the same groups of authors and sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the respective medications.

CONCLUSION

Reported ADRs from use of psychostimulants in children were found in clinical trials of short duration. Since ADHD medications are prescribed for long-term treatment, there is a need for long-term safety studies. The pharmaceutical companies should make all information about ADRs reported for these medications accessible to the public, and further studies are needed on the impact of the link between researchers and the manufacturers of the respective products.

The neurobiological basis of ADHD

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is not a single pathophysiological entity and appears to have a complex etiology. There are multiple genetic and environmental risk factors with small individual effect that act in concert to create a spectrum of neurobiological liability. Structural imaging studies show that brains of children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder are significantly smaller than unaffected controls. The prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia and cerebellum are differentially affected and evidence indicating reduced connectivity in white matter tracts in key brain areas is emerging. Genetic, pharmacological, imaging, and animal models highlight the important role of dopamine dysregulation in the neurobiology of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. To date, stimulants are the most effective psychopharmacological treatments available for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Currently only immediate release methylphenidate and atomoxetine are approved for the treatment of ADHD in Italy. Drug treatment should always be part of a comprehensive plan that includes psychosocial, behavioural and educational advice and interventions.

Pharmacokinetic variability of long-acting stimulants in the treatment of children and adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Methylphenidate- and amfetamine-based stimulants are first-line pharmacotherapies for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, a common neurobehavioural disorder in children and adults. A number of long-acting stimulant formulations have been developed with the aim of providing once-daily dosing, employing various means to extend duration of action, including a transdermal delivery system, an osmotic-release oral system, capsules with a mixture of immediate- and delayed-release beads, and prodrug technology. Coefficients of variance of pharmacokinetic measures can estimate the levels of pharmacokinetic variability based on the measurable variance between different individuals receiving the same dose of stimulant (interindividual variability) and within the same individual over multiple administrations (intraindividual variability). Differences in formulation clearly impact pharmacokinetic profiles. Many medications exhibit wide interindividual variability in clinical response. Stimulants with low levels of inter- and intraindividual variability may be better suited to provide consistent levels of medication to patients. The pharmacokinetic profile of stimulants using pH-dependent bead technology can vary depending on food consumption or concomitant administration of medications that alter gastric pH. While delivery of methylphenidate with the transdermal delivery system would be unaffected by gastrointestinal factors, intersubject variability is nonetheless substantial. Unlike the beaded formulations and, to some extent (when considering total exposure) the osmotic-release formulation, systemic exposure to amfetamine with the prodrug stimulant lisdexamfetamine dimesylate appears largely unaffected by such factors, likely owing to its dependence on systemic enzymatic cleavage of the precursor molecule, which occurs primarily in the blood involving red blood cells. The high capacity but as yet unidentified enzymatic system for conversion of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate may contribute to its consistent pharmacokinetic profile. The reasons underlying observed differential responses to stimulants are likely to be multifactorial, including pharmacodynamic factors. While the use of stimulants with low inter- and intrapatient pharmacokinetic variability does not obviate the need to titrate stimulant doses, stimulants with low intraindividual variation in pharmacokinetic parameters may reduce the likelihood of patients falling into subtherapeutic drug concentrations or reaching drug concentrations at which the risk of adverse events increases. As such, clinicians are urged both to adjust stimulant doses based on therapeutic response and the risk for adverse events and to monitor patients for potential causes of pharmacokinetic variability.

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

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate efficacy of Ritalin(®) LA 20 mg by showing superiority to placebo and noninferiority to Medikinet(®) Retard in a laboratory classroom setting. Secondary objectives included safety/tolerability and further efficacy parameters.

METHODS

A total of 147 children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosed by the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS) and aged 6-14 (81% males) and known to be methylphenidate (MPH) responders were enrolled in this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo/active-controlled, three-period (7 days each) crossover study. The Swanson, Kotlin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham (SKAMP) scale was used for efficacy ratings. The mean of SKAMP Combined ratings performed at 10:30 a.m., at 12:00 a.m., and at 1:30 p.m. was defined as the primary parameter.

RESULTS

In all, 146 patients completed all treatment periods. Intensity and frequency of adverse events were comparable between the two formulations. Ritalin(®) LA demonstrated superiority compared to placebo (p<0.0001). The observed difference in the SKAMP scores between Ritalin(®) LA and Medikinet(®) Retard between the hours 1.5 until 4.5 did not exceed the noninferiority margin (p=0.0003); therefore, the difference is regarded as not clinically relevant. Similar results were obtained for the secondary efficacy variables.

CONCLUSION

Ritalin(®) LA is an efficacious, well-tolerated treatment option for children aged 6-14 with ADHD.

Safety of stimulant treatment in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Part I

BACKGROUND

The safety profile of newer stimulant products is of interest. Because most studies focus on school-age children, there is also an increased interest in the treatment of other populations. Concern continues for the risk of substance abuse in the use of stimulants.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this paper is to review published data on the safety and tolerability of the newer forms of stimulants, treatment in special populations, and the risks of substance abuse and dependence in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

METHODS

Literature obtained through Medline and Pubmed from 1995 were reviewed as well as key articles referenced in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the newer stimulant agents shows a safety profile of frequent, but usually mild side effects. They are generally safe in special populations. The risk of developing long-term substance abuse with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, without co-morbidities, is small and may decrease with proper treatment. More research is needed.

HRQL and medication satisfaction in children with ADHD treated with the methylphenidate transdermal system

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of methylphenidate transdermal system (MTS) on health-related quality of life (HRQL) and medication satisfaction in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as to identify potential moderators of HRQL and medication satisfaction.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Children aged 6-12 years diagnosed with ADHD were enrolled (N = 128) and 115 children completed the study. MTS dose was optimized over 5 weeks using 10-, 15-, 20-, or 30-mg patches worn for 9 hours. The efficacy of 4- and 6-hour wear times was then assessed in an analog classroom setting in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-way crossover design study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The ADHD Impact Module-Children (AIM-C), a validated HRQL instrument, was used to assess the impact of ADHD symptoms on children and their families. Satisfaction with MTS use was assessed via a Medication Satisfaction Survey (MSS). A parent or legally appointed representative (LAR) completed the measures. Tolerability was monitored by spontaneous adverse event reporting.

RESULTS

Mean scores on AIM-C child and family HRQL scales improved from baseline to endpoint across all MTS doses and the magnitude of improvement increased with time from baseline. Improvement was noted for behavior, missed doses, worry, and economic impact AIM-C scores. Overall, parents/LARs indicated a high level of satisfaction with their child's use of MTS (Visit 7 [92.1%]; Visit 10 [89.1%]). Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate. The most frequent TEAEs included decreased appetite (28%), headache (21%), insomnia (20%), and abdominal pain (12%).

CONCLUSIONS

At study endpoint, MTS treatment of ADHD was associated with robust improvement in child and family HRQL, key economic impact items, and overall medication satisfaction with the effectiveness and ease of use of MTS as an ADHD treatment. Also, the majority of MTS TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity. Limitations of this study included the potential for a significant halo effect when measuring HRQL and medication satisfaction as well as the uncertainty regarding whether the improvements seen over this relatively short study duration would be sustainable long term.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

#NCT00151970.

Opening the white boxes: the licensing documentation of efficacy and safety of psychotropic medicines for children

PURPOSE

The objective of the present study was to explore the available evidence in a regulatory agency on the safety and efficacy of two types of psychotropic medicine frequently prescribed to children and adolescents.

METHODS

We analysed the documentation in registration files, renewal registration files, summaries of product characteristics and scientific assessment reports in the Danish Medicines Agency for two psychotropic medications prescribed for children: methylphenidate and citalopram to discover what data pertaining to the pediatric population are available to the regulatory agency.

RESULTS

The licensing of methylphenidate for treating attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) in children from the age of six was based on a single-dose crossover study and, a 2-week double blind, parallel group clinical trial in 100 patients from ages 6 to 12 and published literature. Citalopram is not licensed for pediatric use in Denmark. Citalopram was being investigated in three ongoing clinical trials lasting 8-24 weeks in 423 patients aged 7-18 years. The registration files contained no data on the long-term efficacy and safety of citalopram in pediatric use. Registration material also contained information on planned clinical trials with methylphenidate and citalopram among children/adolescents.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate and citalopram for pediatric use in the Danish Medicine Agency is limited and supports the need for further clinical trials. Medicine prescription for the pediatric population should be monitored in order to identify risks that were not identified at the time of licensing. The results of clinical trials already conducted should be made publicly available.

Effects of MPH-OROS on the organizational, time management, and planning behaviors of children with ADHD

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of stimulant medication on organizational, time management, and planning (OTMP) in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and ascertain whether OTMP is normalized with medication.

METHOD

Participants included 19 stimulant-naïve children with ADHD (aged 8-13 years) and impaired OTMP functioning, defined as greater than 1 SD below norms on the Children's Organizational Skills Scale. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design, with 4 weeks of each condition, evaluated medication (methylphenidate-osmotic-release oral system [MPH-OROS]) effects on OTMP, based on the parent and teacher versions of the Children's Organizational Skills Scale. The parent and teacher Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham, Version IV, rating scales assessed ADHD symptoms. "Not impaired" in OTMP was defined as no longer meeting study entry criteria, and "not impaired" in ADHD symptoms was defined as having mean Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham, Version IV, scores of < or = 1.0.

RESULTS

MPH-OROS significantly improved children's OTMP behaviors. These improvements were correlated with significant reductions in ADHD symptoms. However, most of the children (61%) continued to show significant OTMP impairments on MPH-OROS.

CONCLUSIONS

The MPH-OROS reduced children's OTMP deficits, and these improvements were associated with improvements in ADHD symptoms. Some children remained impaired in OTMP even after effective stimulant treatment of ADHD symptoms. These youngsters may require other treatments that target OTMP deficits.

Guanfacine extended release in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy of guanfacine extended release (GXR), a selective alpha(2A)-adrenoceptor agonist, with placebo in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHOD

This double-blind, 9-week, dose-ranging, parallel-design, multicenter trial randomized 6- to 17-year-olds with ADHD to once-daily oral GXR in 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-mg doses or placebo. Primary outcome was change in total ADHD Rating Scale-IV score from baseline to endpoint. Secondary outcomes included changes in scores of hyperactive/impulsive and inattentive subscales; clinician and parent ratings; duration of clinical effect; and safety measures.

RESULTS

Statistically significant reductions in ADHD Rating Scale-IV scores were observed from baseline to endpoint at all doses of GXR, with effect sizes ranging from 0.43 to 0.62. In subjects receiving GXR, mean heart rate and systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased as the dose of GXR increased and then returned toward baseline during the dose-maintenance and dose-tapering phases of the trial. Most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (> or = 5%) were somnolence, headache, fatigue, sedation, dizziness, irritability, upper abdominal pain, and nausea. Somnolence, sedation, and fatigue adverse events emerged within the first 2 weeks of dosing and generally resolved by study end.

CONCLUSIONS

: Guanfacine extended-release was effective in reducing symptoms of ADHD. Adverse events were mild to moderate, did not interfere with improvements in attention, and rarely led to discontinuation.

Predicting positive and negative treatment responses to stimulants with brain SPECT imaging

The goal of this study was to test whether clinician-rated regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) as rendered by SPECT imaging is a meaningful predictor of patient response to CNS stimulants. Chart reviews were used to identify patients who reported prior significant positive and negative responses to CNS stimulants. Each patient in the study had received resting and concentration SPECT scans using Tc99m exametazime. Differences in cerebral blood flow for frontal regions of interest were assessed in three conditions (resting, concentration, and their difference, or "delta") using ANCOVAs and age-matched ANOVAs. Prefrontal pole deltas were found to be highly sensitive and specific predictors of response to CNS stimulants, with pole activation predicting adverse responses and pole deactivation predicting good responses. Positive and negative predictive values were greater than .75 for both poles. We conclude that SPECT renderings of rCBF, particularly in the prefrontal cortex, are a potentially powerful clinical tool for anticipating response to stimulant medications, both positive and adverse.

Effect of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate on parent-rated measures in children aged 6 to 12 years with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a secondary analysis

To evaluate the efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in school-aged children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), using the Conners' Parent Rating Scale, Revised Short Version (CPRS-R:S) and its subscales.

METHODS

This was a secondary post hoc analysis of data from a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, forced dose-escalation trial. Boys and girls aged 6 to 12 years with a primary diagnosis of ADHD were randomly assigned to LDX (30, 50, or 70 mg/d) or placebo. Improvement on the CPRS-R:S and its subscales (ADHD Index, hyperactivity, oppositional, and cognition) at 10:00 AM, 2:00 PM, and 6:00 PM was analyzed. Safety assessments included the identification of adverse events and were conducted throughout the study.

RESULTS

Of the 290 patients randomized, 285 were included in the intent-to-treat population. Parents noted significant improvements at all 3 assessment times on the CPRS-R:S total score and for the CPRS-R:S ADHD Index, hyperactivity, and cognition subscales, regardless of the subject baseline disease severity. For the CPRS-R:S oppositional subscale, significant improvement was noted at 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM (P < 0.01), and overall, significant improvement occurred in subjects who were more severely ill at baseline. The tolerability of LDX was comparable to that of other stimulants.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily treatment with LDX was associated with significant improvement in parent-rated assessments of ADHD-related behavior throughout the day at approximately 10:00 AM, 2:00 PM, and 6:00 PM. Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was effective and well tolerated in this study population of children aged 6 to 12 years with ADHD.

Impact of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder on the patient and family: results from a European survey

BACKGROUND

Children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often experience problems with education, interaction with others and emotional disturbances. Families of ADHD children also suffer a significant burden, in terms of strain on relationships and reduced work productivity. This parent survey assessed daily life for children with ADHD and their families.

METHOD

This pan-European survey involved the completion of an on-line questionnaire by parents of children (6-18 years) with ADHD (ADHD sample) and without ADHD (normative population sample). Parents were questioned about the impact of their child's ADHD on everyday activities, general behaviour and family relationships.

RESULTS

The ADHD sample comprised 910 parents and the normative population sample 995 parents. 62% of ADHD children were not currently receiving medication; 15% were receiving 6-8 hour stimulant medication and 23% 12-hour stimulant medication. Compared with the normative population sample, parents reported that ADHD children consistently displayed more demanding, noisy, disruptive, disorganised and impulsive behaviour. Significantly more parents reported that ADHD children experienced challenges throughout the day, from morning until bedtime, compared with the normative population sample. Parents reported that children with ADHD receiving 12-hour stimulant medication experienced fewer challenges during early afternoon and late afternoon/early evening than children receiving 6-8 hour stimulant medication; by late evening and bedtime however, this difference was not apparent. ADHD was reported to impact most significantly on activities such as homework, family routines and playing with other children. All relationships between ADHD children and others were also negatively affected, especially those between parent and child (72% of respondents). Parents reported that more children with ADHD experienced a personal injury in the preceding 12 months, including those requiring the attention of healthcare professionals. Although 68% of parents were satisfied with their child's current treatment, 35-40% stated that their child's ADHD symptoms needed to be more effectively treated during the afternoon and evening.

CONCLUSION

This parent survey highlights the breadth of problems experienced by ADHD children and the impact throughout the day on both activities and relationships. Therefore, there is a need for treatment approaches that take into account the 24-hour impact of the disorder and include all-day coverage with effective medication.

Varying the wear time of the methylphenidate transdermal system in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVE

Children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder often have varying needs for coverage of their symptoms throughout the day. The objectives of this study were to determine the efficacy, duration of action, and safety of methylphenidate transdermal system worn for variable times by children (ages 6-12) diagnosed with ADHD.

METHOD

Methylphenidate dose was optimized over 5 weeks using 10-, 15-, 20-, or 30-mg patches worn for 9 hours. The efficacy of 4- and 6-hour wear times was then assessed in an Analog Classroom setting during a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-way crossover phase. The main efficacy measures were the Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham Rating Scale deportment scale and the Permanent Product Measure of Performance math test.

RESULTS

All of the efficacy measures indicated that 4- and 6-hour wear times improved ADHD symptoms and that medication effects on the Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham Rating Scale deportment scale and Permanent Product Measure of Performance math test decreased between 2 and 4 hours after patch removal. The majority of adverse events were transient and mild to moderate in severity.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the duration of medication effect is related to the wear time of the patch and may be tailored to accommodate the schedules of patients.