Combined Methylphenidate and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Importance: Depression is a common comorbidity of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and the combination of methylphenidate and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is a frequently prescribed treatment. However, there is limited clinical evidence on the safety of this medication combination in adults with ADHD. Objective: To evaluate the safety of administering a combination of SSRI and methylphenidate in adults with ADHD and comorbid depression. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study obtained data from a nationwide claims database in South Korea from January 2016 to February 2021. Participants were adults aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of ADHD and depressive disorder who were prescribed methylphenidate. Comparisons of 4 groups who received prescriptions were conducted: (1) SSRI plus methylphenidate (hereafter, SSRI) group vs methylphenidate-only group and (2) methylphenidate plus fluoxetine (hereafter, fluoxetine) group vs methylphenidate plus escitalopram (hereafter, escitalopram) group (compared to find a preferable treatment option). Data analysis was conducted between July and December 2023. Exposures: New users of the methylphenidate and SSRI combination among adults with both ADHD and depressive disorder. Main Outcomes and Measures: A total of 17 primary and secondary outcomes, including neuropsychiatric and other events, were assessed, with respiratory tract infection used as a control outcome. Groups were matched at a 1:1 ratio using a propensity score to balance confounders. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to calculate hazard ratio (HRs) and 95% CIs. Subgroup analysis by sex and sensitivity analyses in varying epidemiologic settings were conducted. Results: The study included 17 234 adults with ADHD (mean [SD] age at study entry, 29.4 [10.8] years; 9079 females [52.7%]). There was no difference in the risk of outcomes between the methylphenidate-only and SSRI groups, except for a lower risk of headache in the SSRI group (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.24-0.99). In sensitivity analyses of fluoxetine vs escitalopram, the risk of hypertension (HR: 1:n matching, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.67) and hyperlipidemia (HR: 1:n matching, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.04-0.81) was lower in the fluoxetine group than in the escitalopram group. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study revealed no significant increase in adverse event risk associated with use of SSRI plus methylphenidate vs methylphenidate alone in adults with ADHD and comorbid depression. Instead, the combination was associated with a lower risk of headache.

Cumulative ADHD medication use and risk of type 2 diabetes in adults: a Swedish Register study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of cumulative attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication use on the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). OBJECTIVE: The objective is to examine the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication and risk of incident T2D. METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted in a national cohort of individuals aged 18-70 years with incident ADHD (n=138 778) between 2007 and 2020 through Swedish registers. Individuals with incident T2D after ADHD were selected as cases (n=2355) and matched with up to five controls (n=11 681) on age at baseline, sex and birth year. Conditional logistic regression models examined the association between cumulative duration of ADHD medication use and T2D. FINDINGS: Compared with no use, a decreased risk of T2D was observed for those on cumulative use of ADHD medications up to 3 years (ORs: 03 years, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.12)). When investigating medication types separately, methylphenidate showed results similar to main analyses, lisdexamfetamine showed no association with T2D, whereas long-term (>3 years) use of atomoxetine was associated with an increased risk of T2D (OR: 1.44 (95% CI, 1.01 to 2.04)). CONCLUSION: Cumulative use of ADHD medication does not increase the risk for T2D, with the exception of long-term use of atomoxetine. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Findings suggest that clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of T2D associated with the cumulative use of atomoxetine among patients with ADHD; however, further replication is strongly needed.

Appetite hormones, neuropsychological function and methylphenidate use in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Appetite hormones may play a significant role in neuronal excitability and synaptic plasticity and may also affect brain function development. This study aimed to explore the role of appetite hormones in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including aspects of pathophysiology, pharmacotherapy, and side effects. We recruited 119 patients with ADHD who were undergoing methylphenidate treatment (ADHD+MPH), 77 unmedicated ADHD patients (ADHD-MPH), and 87 healthy controls. Blood samples were collected from all participants to examine serum levels of orexin A, ghrelin, leptin, and adiponectin. Behavioral symptoms were assessed using the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Rating Scale, and visual and auditory attention were evaluated using computerized neuropsychological tests. The side effects of methylphenidate treatment were measured using Barkley's Side Effects Rating Scale. Orexin levels in the control group were significantly higher than in the ADHD-MPH (p=0.037) and ADHD+MPH (p<0.001) groups; additionally, orexin levels in the ADHD-MPH group were significantly higher than in the ADHD+MPH group (p=0.032). Leptin levels in both the ADHD+MPH (p=0.011) and ADHD-MPH (p=0.011) groups were significantly lower than in the control group. Ghrelin levels were positively associated with auditory attention across all ADHD groups (p=0.015). Furthermore, ghrelin levels were positively correlated with methylphenidate dosage (p=0.024), and negatively correlated with methylphenidate side effects (p=0.044) in the ADHD+MPH group. These findings provide further insight into the relationships between appetite hormones, pharmacotherapy, and ADHD. Orexin A and leptin are associated with the etiology of ADHD, while orexin A and ghrelin play important roles in attention deficits and methylphenidate usage in ADHD.

Risk of Incident Psychosis and Mania With Prescription Amphetamines.

OBJECTIVE: Amphetamine prescribing has increased in the United States in recent years. Previous research identified an increased risk of incident psychosis with prescription amphetamines. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of dose levels of prescription amphetamines on the risk of this rare but serious adverse outcome. METHODS: A case-control study using electronic health records was conducted to compare the odds of incident psychosis or mania with past-month exposure to prescription amphetamines. Case subjects were patients ages 16-35 hospitalized at McLean Hospital for incident psychosis or mania between 2005 and 2019. Control subjects were patients with an initial psychiatric hospitalization for other reasons, most commonly depression and/or anxiety. Amphetamine doses were converted to dextroamphetamine equivalents and divided into terciles. Secondary analyses evaluated the odds of psychosis or mania with methylphenidate use. RESULTS: Among 1,374 case subjects and 2,748 control subjects, the odds of psychosis and mania were increased for individuals with past-month prescription amphetamine use compared with no use (adjusted odds ratio=2.68, 95% CI=1.90-3.77). A dose-response relationship was observed; high doses of amphetamines (>30 mg dextroamphetamine equivalents) were associated with 5.28-fold increased odds of psychosis or mania. Past-month methylphenidate use was not associated with increased odds of psychosis or mania compared with no use (adjusted odds ratio=0.91, 95% CI=0.54-1.55). CONCLUSIONS: Although use of hospitalized control subjects excludes individuals with less severe disease, leading to selection bias, the study results suggest that caution should be exercised when prescribing high doses of amphetamines, with regular screening for symptoms of psychosis or mania.

Association between methylphenidate use and long-term cardiovascular risk in paediatric patients with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: There have been concerns about the potential cardiovascular (CV) adverse effects associated with methylphenidate (MTH) use. However, only limited evidence exists on the long-term safety of MTH. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether MTH use is associated with long-term CV risk. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using 2003-2017 data from the Health and Welfare Database in Taiwan. Patients newly diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and between 3 and 18 years of age were included. Two treatment statuses were assessed: initial treatment ≥7 days and ≥180 days. Patients treated with MTH were compared with those receiving non-medication therapy. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to balance between-group differences. Study outcomes included major CV events, chronic CV disease, cardiogenic shock and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate HRs between the two groups. RESULTS: We began with 307 459 patients with ADHD. After exclusion, 224 732 patients were included in the final cohort. The results showed that compared with non-ADHD medication users, patients who were treated with MTH for more than 7 days had a similar risk of major CV events (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99; p=0.040). Identical trends were found in groups who were treated for more than 180 days (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00; p=0.050). The results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main analyses across all groups and individual outcomes. CONCLUSION: Short-term MTH use did not increase CV risk among patients with ADHD. More evidence on long-term MTH use and risk of cardiogenic shock and death is warranted.

Enhancing spatial memory and pattern separation: Long-term effects of stimulant treatment in individuals with ADHD.

This study explores the under-researched domain of long-term stimulant treatment in children and adolescents diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The necessity for extended treatment duration, often accompanied by safety concerns and side effects leading to treatment discontinuation, underscores the significance of this investigation. Concurrently, comparative studies have revealed adverse impacts on vulnerable regions within the hippocampal formation, accompanied by behavioral perturbations. We employed computerized tests and virtual reality to assess spatial memory, pattern separation, and object recognition memory in a cohort of children diagnosed with ADHD receiving stimulant treatment. We compared their performance to a group of neurotypical peers. Our findings indicate that the ADHD group exhibited a lower performance in spatial memory, pattern separation, and object recognition memory than ND group. Intriguingly, a positive relationship emerged between the duration of stimulant treatment and performance in these variables. Notably, this improvement was not immediate to MPH treatment but becomes significant after 24 months of treatment. In contrast to previous comparative investigations, our study did not reveal a detrimental impact on spatial navigation, object recognition memory, or pattern separation, despite the known interplay of these cognitive processes with the hippocampal formation. These results shed new light on the nuanced effects of stimulant treatment in ADHD, underscoring the need for a more comprehensive understanding of long-term treatment outcomes.

Exploring Methylphenidate-Induced Intraocular Pressure: A Cautionary Tale in Pediatric ADHD Management.

OBJECTIVES: This case report explores the intricate relationship between methylphenidate (MTX) use and increased intraocular pressure (IOP) in a pediatric patient with a preexisting history of eye disease. Despite existing literature presenting cases of IOP elevation linked to MTX, a significant gap remains in understanding nuanced risk factors. METHODS: This case study used patients' medical records and a comprehensive literature review. RESULTS: A 6-year-old girl with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and a family history of eye conditions exhibited elevated IOP after 12 days of MTX use, prompting discontinuation. The patient successfully transitioned to atomoxetine with normalized IOP and improved attention duration. CONCLUSIONS: Existing cases emphasize the potential link between sympathetic nerve activity and IOP elevation induced by central nervous system stimulants like MTX. Notably, the patient's high hyperopia contributed to the impact of MTX on IOP, suggesting the need for cautious use in susceptible individuals. This case underscores the importance of individualized treatment strategies, particularly in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder patients with family history and additional eye findings, emphasizing safety and comprehensive patient care.

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: long-term safety and efficacy.

Aim: To compare long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), respectively, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Patients & methods: Patient-level data from a centanafadine trial (NCT03605849) and published aggregate data from a lisdexamfetamine trial (NCT00337285), a methylphenidate trial (NCT00326300) and an atomoxetine trial (NCT00190736) were used. Patient characteristics were matched in each comparison using propensity score weighting. Study outcomes were assessed up to 52 weeks and included safety (rates of adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] or ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] score). Results: In all comparisons of matched populations, risks of AEs were statistically significantly lower with centanafadine or non-different between centanafadine and comparator; the largest differences in AE rates included upper respiratory tract infection (risk difference in percentage points: 18.75), insomnia (12.47) and dry mouth (12.33) versus lisdexamfetamine; decreased appetite (20.25), headache (18.53) and insomnia (12.65) versus methylphenidate; and nausea (26.18), dry mouth (25.07) and fatigue (13.95) versus atomoxetine (all p < 0.05). Centanafadine had a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score versus lisdexamfetamine (6.15-point difference; p < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score versus methylphenidate (1.75-point difference; p = 0.13) and versus atomoxetine (1.60-point difference; p = 0.21). Conclusion: At up to 52 weeks, centanafadine showed significantly lower incidence of several AEs than lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine; efficacy was lower than lisdexamfetamine and non-different from methylphenidate and atomoxetine.

Assessment of centanafadine in adults with ADHD: a matching adjusted indirect comparison versus methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release (Concerta).

OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and efficacy of centanafadine versus methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release (ER; Concerta) in adults with ADHD. METHODS: Without head-to-head trials, anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) of adverse event rates reported across trials and mean change from baseline in Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER were conducted. Pooled patient-level data from two centanafadine trials (NCT03605680/NCT03605836) and aggregate data from one published methylphenidate hydrochloride ER trial (NCT00937040) were used. Characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials were matched to aggregate baseline characteristics from the methylphenidate hydrochloride ER trial using propensity score weighting. A sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the results to the capping of extreme weights (i.e. >99th percentile). RESULTS: Compared with methylphenidate hydrochloride ER, centanafadine was associated with significantly lower risk of dry mouth (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: -11.95), initial insomnia (-11.10), decreased appetite (-8.05), anxiety (-5.39), palpitations (-5.25), and feeling jittery (-4.73) though a significantly smaller reduction in AISRS score (4.16-point). In the sensitivity analysis, the safety results were consistent with the primary analysis but there was no significant difference in efficacy between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER. CONCLUSION: In this MAIC, centanafadine had better safety and possibly lower efficacy than methylphenidate hydrochloride ER. While safety results were robust across analyses, there was no efficacy difference between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER in the sensitivity analysis. Considering its favorable safety profile, centanafadine may be preferred among patients for whom treatment-related adverse events are a concern.

Adverse effects of methylphenidate for apathy in patients with Alzheimer's disease (ADMET2 trial).

OBJECTIVES: To examine clinically important adverse events (AEs) associated with methylphenidate (MPH) treatment of apathy in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) versus placebo, including weight loss, vital signs, falls, and insomnia. METHODS: The Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (ADMET2) trial was a multicenter randomized, placebo-controlled trial of MPH to treat apathy in individuals with apathy and AD. Participants in ADMET2 had vital signs and weight measured at monthly visits through 6 months. AEs, including insomnia, falls, and cardiovascular events, were reported at every visit by participants and families using a symptom checklist. RESULTS: The study included 98 participants in the MPH group and 101 in the placebo group. Participants in the MPH group experienced greater weight loss on average than the placebo through the 6-month follow-up, with a difference in change between MPH and placebo of 2.8 lb (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.7, 4.9 lb). No treatment group differences in change during the trial were found in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. More participants in the MPH group reported falls during the follow-up, 10 versus 6 in MPH and placebo groups, respectively. No differences in post-baseline insomnia were observed between the treatment groups. No participants reported instances of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, arrhythmia, stroke, or cardiomyopathy throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: MPH use in AD patients for treating apathy is relatively safe, particularly notable given the many medical comorbidities in this population. There was a statistically significant but modest weight loss associated with MPH use, and clinicians are thus advised to monitor weight during MPH treatment.

Use of methylphenidate and reporting of valvular heart disease: Global pharmacovigilance analysis in children and adults.

INTRODUCTION: Methylphenidate (MPH) is a common treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Concern has been raised regarding its cardiovascular safety, partly in relation with its micromolar affinity for the 5-HT2B receptor, whose activation may result in valvular heart disease (VHD). METHODS: To explore the association between the use of MPH and VHD reporting, we performed a disproportionality analysis within the WHO global safety database (VigiBase) using data, since inception until March 6th 2024, from: (i) the full database and (ii) different age groups (children/adolescents 6-17 years; adults 18-64 years). To avoid competition bias, safety reports with amphetamine-like appetite suppressants were excluded. Disproportionality was expressed using reporting odds-ratio (ROR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Of 29 129 spontaneous reports with MPH, 23 VHD cases (7.9 per 10 000 reports) were identified, including 13 adults and 10 children. Most cases concerned injury on the mitral valve. A disproportionate reporting was observed overall (ROR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4). Analysis according to age group found that disproportionality in VHD reporting was found in adults only (ROR 2.7, 95% CI 1.6-4.7) but not in children/adolescents (ROR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-3.2). Furthermore, amongst MPH users only, VHD reporting was higher in adults compared to children (ROR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-6.3). CONCLUSION: VHD reporting appears rare with MPH compared to other adverse events and is increased in adults only. Our findings support a potential safety signal of VHD in adults exposed to MPH. A risk in that population cannot be excluded and requires further assessment.

Association between Early Guanfacine Discontinuation and Somnolence for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Guanfacine, used as a medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), leads to a high incidence of somnolence, in contrast to methylphenidate, which leads to a high incidence of insomnia. The impact of somnolence on continuing guanfacine treatment is unclear. Therefore, we investigated the reasons for discontinuing guanfacine and analyzed the factors associated with discontinuation caused by somnolence. We surveyed 96 patients under guanfacine from July 2017 to December 2021 at the Saga University Hospital. Patients who discontinued guanfacine by the end date of our study were divided into a median early and late group. We compared the reasons for discontinuation in both groups. Of all patients, 47 continued and 49 discontinued guanfacine. A higher percentage of patients discontinued guanfacine caused by somnolence for ≤70 d than for >70 d of treatment (44.0 vs. 8.3%; p = 0.008). When stratified by the concomitant use of other ADHD drugs, somnolence resulted in a higher discontinuation rate for ≤70 d than for >70 d of treatment without concomitant use (55.0 vs. 7.1%; p = 0.009). Nonetheless, concomitant use resulted in no difference. In conclusion, somnolence affects the early discontinuation of guanfacine as an ADHD drug. The combination of methylphenidate or atomoxetine may decrease withdrawal caused by somnolence.

Medications for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder associated with increased risk of developing glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) therapies including atomoxetine, methylphenidate, and amphetamines are some of the most prescribed medications in North America. Due to their sympathomimetic action, these drugs are contraindicated in patients with a history of angle closure glaucoma (ACG). This study aims to determine the risk of ACG and open angle glaucoma (OAG) among users of these treatments. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study with a case control analysis using the PharMetrics Plus Database (IQVIA, USA). We created a cohort of new users of atomoxetine, methylphenidate, and amphetamines and they were followed to the first diagnosis of (1) ACG or OAG; or (2) end of follow up. For each case, four age-matched controls were selected. A conditional logistic regression model was used to adjust for confounders and to calculate adjusted incidence-rate-ratios (aIRRs). RESULTS: A total of 240,257 new users of the ADHD medications were identified. The mean age was 45.0 ± 19.4 years and 55% of the cohort was female. Regular users of atomoxetine and amphetamines had a higher aIRR for developing ACG compared with non-users (aIRR = 2.55 95% CI [1.20-5.43] and 2.27 95% CI [1.42-3.63], respectively); while users of methylphenidate had a higher aIRR for developing OAG (aIRR = 1.23 95% CI [1.05-1.59]). CONCLUSIONS: Use of amphetamines and atomoxetine had a higher risk for ACG, while use of methylphenidate was associated with a higher risk for OAG. Given the prevalence of ADHD medication use (medically and recreationally), our current data on their associated risk of glaucoma have profound public health implications.

Effect of MDMA-assisted therapy on mood and anxiety symptoms in advanced-stage cancer (EMMAC): study protocol for a double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of anxiety and depression are common in patients with terminal illness and multiple challenges exist with timely and effective care in this population. Several centres have reported that one dose of the serotonergic psychedelic psilocybin, combined with therapeutic support, improves these symptoms for up to 6 months in this patient group. Drawing upon related therapeutic mechanisms, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted therapy may have the potential to achieve similar, positive mental health outcomes in this group. Preliminary evidence also supports the tolerability of MDMA-assisted therapy for anxiety and depression in advanced-stage cancer. METHODS: Up to 32 participants with advanced-stage cancer and associated depression and anxiety will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio into one of two blinded parallel treatment arms. The intervention group will receive 120 mg (+ 60 mg optional supplemental dose) MDMA-assisted therapy. The psychoactive control group will receive 20 mg oral (+ 10 mg optional supplemental dose) methylphenidate-assisted therapy. For each medication-assisted therapy session, participants will undergo two 90-min therapeutic support sessions in the week preceding, and one 90-min support session the day after the experimental session. A battery of measures (mood, anxiety, quality of life, mystical experience, spiritual wellbeing, attitudes towards death, personality traits, holistic health and wellbeing, connectedness, demoralisation, expectations, qualitative data and safety measures) will be assessed at baseline and through to the end of the protocol. Participants will be followed up until either 12 months post-randomisation or death, whichever occurs first. DISCUSSION: This study will examine the effect of MDMA-assisted therapy on symptoms of anxiety and depression in advanced-stage cancer. Potential therapeutic implications include establishing the safety and effectiveness of a novel treatment that may relieve mental suffering in patients with life-threatening illness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered on Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619001334190p. Date registered: 30/09/2019. URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=378153&showOriginal=true&isReview=true.

Methylphenidate Versus Placebo for Treating Fatigue in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare effects and side effects of 6 weeks of individually dose-titrated methylphenidate or placebo on fatigue in palliative care patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Eligible patients had advanced incurable cancer and fatigue >3/10. Principal exclusions were hypertension; psychiatric, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, renal, liver, or blood disorders; substance dependency; and epilepsy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 methylphenidate or placebo starting at 5 mg twice daily. Dose of methylphenidate/placebo was titrated once per week, over 6 weeks, up to a maximum of 20 mg three times daily. Trial ended at 10 weeks. Primary outcome was the difference in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F) scores between groups at 6 ± 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects, quality of life, and mood. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients (73 men; mean, 65.8; standard deviation [SD], 10.3 years) were randomly assigned, and three were excluded from analysis. Seventy-seven were allocated placebo (baseline FACIT-F = 22 [SD, 10]); 82 were allocated methylphenidate (FACIT-F = 20 [SD, 9]). After 6 ± 2 weeks, FACIT-F scores were 1.97 points (95% CI, -0.95 to 4.90; P = .186) higher (better) on methylphenidate than placebo. Across 10 weeks of the study, FACIT-F was nominally higher in the methylphenidate group versus placebo (Diff, 2.20 [95% CI, 0.39 to 4.01]), but this did not reach the minimally clinically important difference (5-points). At 6 weeks, there were no differences between groups in quality-of-life or symptom domains except for depression scores (nominally reduced in the methylphenidate group: Diff, -1.35 [95% CI, -2.41 to -0.30]). There were no differences in mortality or serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: After 6 ± 2 weeks of treatment, methylphenidate was not superior to placebo for treating fatigue in advanced cancer. Methylphenidate was safe and well-tolerated.