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.

Assessment of centanafadine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, atomoxetine hydrochloride, and viloxazine extended-release.

BACKGROUND: Head-to-head trials comparing centanafadine, an investigational therapy for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with other treatment options are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine sustained-release vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), and viloxazine extended-release (viloxazine ER), respectively, using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). METHODS: This MAIC included patient-level data pooled from 2 centanafadine trials (NCT03605680 and NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from comparable trials of 3 comparators-lisdexamfetamine (NCT00334880), atomoxetine (NCT00190736), and viloxazine ER (NCT04016779)-in adult patients with ADHD. Propensity score weighting was used to match characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials to aggregate baseline characteristics from the respective comparator trials. Safety outcomes were rates of adverse events for which information was available in the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. Efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score (ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] was used as proxy in the comparison with lisdexamfetamine). Anchored indirect comparisons were conducted across matched populations of the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. RESULTS: After matching, baseline characteristics in the centanafadine trials were the same as those in the respective comparator trials. Compared with lisdexamfetamine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of lack of appetite (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: 23.42), dry mouth (19.27), insomnia (15.35), anxiety (5.21), nausea (4.90), feeling jittery (3.70), and diarrhea (3.47) (all P < 0.05) but a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score (6.58-point difference; P < 0.05). Compared with atomoxetine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of nausea (RD in percentage points: 18.64), dry mouth (17.44), fatigue (9.21), erectile dysfunction (6.76), lack of appetite (6.71), and urinary hesitation (5.84) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. Compared with viloxazine ER, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of fatigue (RD in percentage points: 11.07), insomnia (10.67), nausea (7.57), and constipation (4.63) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. CONCLUSIONS: In an anchored MAIC, centanafadine showed a significantly better short-term safety profile than lisdexamfetamine, atomoxetine, and viloxazine ER; efficacy was lower than with lisdexamfetamine and comparable (ie, nondifferent) with atomoxetine and viloxazine ER. This MAIC provides important insights on the relative safety and efficacy of common treatment options to help inform treatment decisions in adults with ADHD. Safety assessment was limited to rates of adverse events reported in both trials of a given comparison. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03605680, NCT03605836, NCT00334880, NCT00190736, and NCT04016779.