Protocol of a monocentric, double-blind, randomized, superiority, controlled trial evaluating the effect of in-prison OROS-methylphenidate vs. placebo treatment in detained people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (BATIR).

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by difficulty paying attention, poor impulse control, and hyperactive behavior. It is associated with several adverse health and social outcomes and leads to an increased risk of criminality and recidivism. Worldwide, ADHD is thus highly prevalent in prisons. However, ADHD treatment has been neglected in such environments. Stimulant medications such as osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) are first-line treatments in the general population, but they are under-prescribed in prisons due to concerns about abuse, even though such claims are not empirically supported. This project aims to compare the efficacy of a 3-month in-prison OROS-MPH vs. placebo treatment on the severity of core ADHD symptoms and relevant in- and post-prison outcomes. METHODS: This study is a phase III, double-blinded, randomized, superiority, controlled trial of OROS-MPH vs. placebo. After randomization, the participants will receive 3 months of treatment with OROS-MPH or placebo (1:1 ratio) while incarcerated. Upon release, all participants will be offered the treatment (OROS-MPH) for 1 year but will remain blinded to their initial study group. The study will be conducted at the Division of Prison Health, Geneva, Switzerland, among incarcerated men (n = 150). Measures will include (1) investigator-rated ADHD symptoms, (2) acute events collected by the medical and prison teams, (3) assessment of the risk of recidivism, (4) medication side effects, (5) medication adherence, (6) study retention, (7) health care/prison costs, and (8) 1-year recidivism. Analyses will include bivariable and multivariable modeling (e.g., regression models, mixed-effects models, survival analyses) and an economic evaluation (cost-benefit analysis). DISCUSSION: We expect that early identification and treatment of ADHD in prison will be an important public health opportunity and a cost-effective approach that is likely to reduce the vulnerability of incarcerated individuals and promote pathways out of criminal involvement. The study will also promote standards of care for people with ADHD in prison and provide recommendations for continuity of care after release. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05842330 . Registered on June 5, 2023. Kofam.ch SNCTP000005388. Registered on July 17, 2023.

Prescription Stimulant Use During Pregnancy and Risk of Neurodevelopmental Disorders in Children.

Importance: Use of medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) during pregnancy is increasing in the US. Whether exposure to these medications in utero impacts the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in children is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the association of childhood neurodevelopmental disorders with in utero exposure to stimulant medications for ADHD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included health care utilization data from publicly insured (Medicaid data from 2000 to 2018) and commercially insured (MarketScan Commercial Claims Database data from 2003 to 2020) pregnant individuals aged 12 to 55 years in the US with enrollment from 3 months prior to pregnancy through 1 month after delivery, linked to children. Children were monitored from birth until outcome diagnosis, disenrollment, death, or end of the study (December 2018 for Medicaid and December 2020 for MarketScan). Exposures: Dispensing of amphetamine/dextroamphetamine or methylphenidate in the second half of pregnancy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, and a composite of any neurodevelopmental disorder were defined using validated algorithms. Hazard ratios were estimated comparing amphetamine/dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate to no exposure. Results: The publicly insured cohort included 2 496 771 stimulant-unexposed, 4693 amphetamine/dextroamphetamine-exposed, and 786 methylphenidate-exposed pregnancies with a mean (SD) age of 25.2 (6.0) years. The commercially insured cohort included 1 773 501 stimulant-unexposed, 2372 amphetamine/dextroamphetamine-exposed, and 337 methylphenidate-exposed pregnancies with a mean (SD) age of 31.6 (4.6) years. In unadjusted analyses, amphetamine/dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate exposure were associated with a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of the neurodevelopmental outcomes considered. After adjustment for measured confounders, amphetamine/dextroamphetamine exposure was not associated with any outcome (autism spectrum disorder: hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.14]; ADHD: HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.89-1.28; any neurodevelopmental disorder: HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81-1.28). Methylphenidate exposure was associated with an increased risk of ADHD (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.82]) but not other outcomes after adjustment (autism spectrum disorder: HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.62-1.81; any neurodevelopmental disorder: HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36). The association between methylphenidate and ADHD did not persist in sensitivity analyses with stricter control for confounding by maternal ADHD. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings in this study suggest that amphetamine/dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate exposure in utero are not likely to meaningfully increase the risk of childhood neurodevelopmental disorders.

Efficacy and safety of methylphenidate and behavioural parent training for children aged 3-5 years with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and sham behavioural parent training-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient evidence to support treatment recommendations for preschool children aged 3-5 years with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate and behavioural parent training in reducing the frequency and severity of symptoms and improving global functioning in preschool children with ADHD. METHODS: We did an 8-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and sham behavioural parent training-controlled clinical trial (the MAPPA Study) in children aged 3-5 years with moderate-to-severe ADHD. The trial was conducted at the Institute of Psychiatry, Hospital das Clinicas, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive immediate-release methylphenidate plus educational intervention (sham behavioural parent training), placebo medication plus behavioural parent training, or placebo medication plus educational intervention. Randomisation was done by an independent research manager by use of a permuted block randomisation procedure. Parents, teachers, study staff, and evaluators remained masked to group allocation. Methylphenidate and placebo were titrated to a maximum dose of 1·25 mg/kg per day administered orally twice daily, and behavioural parent training and the educational intervention were delivered weekly through 90 min sessions with both the child and parent, conducted by two psychologists or learning therapists. The primary outcomes were parents' and teachers' composite scores of the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham-IV scale (SNAP-IV-P/T), the Clinical Global Impressions Severity (CGI-S) scale, and the Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807870, and is now complete. All participants were invited to participate in an open observational follow-up, which is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 21, 2016, and Oct 21, 2019, 153 children were randomly assigned to receive methylphenidate plus the educational intervention (n=51), placebo plus behavioural parent training (n=51), or placebo plus the educational intervention (n=51). Nine (6%) children discontinued treatment. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Children in the methylphenidate plus educational intervention group showed greater reductions in the SNAP-IV-P/T (endpoint mean difference -3·93 [95% CI -7·14 to -0·73], p=0·049; effect size -0·55 [95% CI -0·99 to -0·10]) and CGI-S scores (endpoint mean difference -0·49 [-0·82 to -0·17], p=0·0088; effect size -0·70 [-1·16 to -0·24]) and a greater increase in CGAS scores (endpoint mean difference 5·25 [95% CI 2·09 to 8·40], p=0·0036; effect size 0·80 [95% CI 0·32 to 1·28]) than children in the placebo plus educational intervention group. Children in the placebo plus behavioural parent training group did not have significantly different SNAP-IV-P/T scores (endpoint mean difference -3·18 [95% CI -6·38 to 0·02], p=0·077; effect size -0·44 [95% CI -0·89 to 0·003]) or CGI-S scores (endpoint mean difference -0·35 [-0·68 to -0·03], p=0·052; effect size -0·50 [-0·96 to -0·04]) compared to children in the placebo plus educational intervention group, but they had a greater increase in CGAS scores compared to the placebo plus educational intervention group (endpoint mean difference 3·69 [0·53 to 6·85], p=0·033; effect size 0·56 [0·08 to 1·04]). Children in the methylphenidate plus educational intervention versus placebo plus behavioural parent training group did not have statistically or clinically significant differences in primary outcomes. Children in the methylphenidate plus educational intervention group had more mild adverse events than the other two groups, and there were no between-group differences for moderate or severe adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Methylphenidate was effective in reducing ADHD symptoms and improving functionality, and behavioural parent training was effective in improving functionality for preschool children with ADHD after 8 weeks of treatment. FUNDING: São Paulo Research Foundation and Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development.

[Increasing methylphenidate abuse: Tracking and profiles during 13-years]. / Augmentation de l'abus de méthylphénidate : repérage et profils sur 13 années.

BACKGROUND: Methylphenidate is indicated for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Several studies have evaluated its abuse in specific populations (students, drug users) and few in the general population. This work describes the extent of its abuse in a region of more than 5 million inhabitants. METHOD: Based on regional health insurance data from 2005 to 2017, the clustering method identifies different methylphenidate use profiles according to several characteristics (number of different prescribers and pharmacies, number of dispensations, number of defined daily dose dispensed). The groups characterised by high values of these variables will be qualified as "deviant". RESULTS: In 13 years, the number of patients with at least one dispensation in the first quarter has been multiplied by 5.8 times. The proportion of adults has increased (20% in 2017) and their number has been multiplied by 10. Five groups are identified, three of them are characterised by "deviant" behaviour. Group 5 (n=11, 0.04%) has higher values than 4 (n=112, 0.4%) and 3 (n=407, 1.6%). These patients are older and more frequently use benzodiazepines and opiate substitution drugs. Groups 1 (n=13,132, 51%) and 2 (n=11,941, 46.7%) are more likely to be taken up by young subjects. The number of subjects with "deviant" behaviour increased until 2011 and after a decrease, the highest number of subjects concerned has been observed since 2015. CONCLUSION: In view of the increase of subjects with "deviant" behaviour, it is necessary to make the medical community and patients aware on the risk of abuse of methylphenidate. The recent extension of the indication for ADHD in adults and the broadening of the conditions of prescription require increased vigilance.

Treatment with Methylphenidate for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the Risk of All-Cause Poisoning in Children and Adolescents: A Self-Controlled Case Series Study.

BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are at higher risk of all-cause poisoning by drugs and chemicals (intentional or accidental). Currently, there is limited data on whether medication treatment for ADHD can reduce the risk of all-cause poisoning. METHODS: Patients aged 5-18 years with a methylphenidate (MPH) prescription and an incident poisoning diagnosis between January 2001 and June 2020 were identified from the Hong Kong Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System. A self-controlled case series study design was used to compare the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of all-cause poisoning during different risk windows (30 days before the first MPH prescription, exposure periods within 30 days of the first prescription, and periods of subsequent exposure) compared with the reference window (other non-exposure periods). RESULTS: 42,203 patients were prescribed ADHD medication in Hong Kong during the study period. Of these, 417 patients who had both an MPH prescription and poisoning incident recorded were included in the main analysis. Compared with other non-exposed periods, a higher risk of poisoning was found in the 30 days before the first prescription (IRR 2.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33-5.22) and exposure periods within 30 days of the first prescription (IRR 2.18, 95% CI 1.06-4.48), but not during prolonged exposure. However, compared with 30 days before the first prescription as well as exposure periods within 30 days of the first prescription, there was a lower risk during the subsequent exposure (IRRs 0.49 and 0.60, respectively). Similar results to the main analysis were also found in the subgroup analysis of intentional poisoning and females, but not in that of accidental poisoning and males. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of all-cause poisoning was higher shortly before and after the first MPH prescription and became lower during the subsequent prescription period. Our results do not support an association between the use of MPH and an increased risk of all-cause poisoning in children and adolescents and, in fact, suggest that longer-term use of MPH may be associated with a lower risk of all-cause poisoning, although this latter finding requires further study.

Natural Health Product-Drug Interaction Causality Assessment in Pediatric Adverse Event Reports Associated with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Medication.

Background: Some pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) use natural health products (NHPs) such as herbal remedies. Although herbal remedies are generally considered to be safe when they are used appropriately, they may contain active components that can interact with medications being used concurrently, with potential for NHP-drug interactions leading to adverse events. Objectives: The objectives of this study were (1) to identify adverse event reports (AERs) involving commonly used herbal remedies and ADHD prescription medicines in children and adolescents; (2) to evaluate the quality of collected AERs; and (3) to assess whether NHP-drug interactions can be causally linked to reported adverse events. Methods: We systematically searched the FDAble database (FDAble.com) for herbal remedies commonly used by patients (4-18 years old) also taking ADHD drugs from 1997 to 2015. We assessed the completeness of the AERs and used three causality assessment tools modified for NHPs (Naranjo Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale, HORN Drug Interaction Probability Scale, and World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre Scale). Results: Of the 23 identified AERs involving both an herbal remedy and an ADHD prescription medication, most involved multiple (>3) substances with inadequate detail to assess multiple potential interactions. Following data extraction and evaluation of completeness, five AERs involving only one herbal remedy and one ADHD medication were evaluated for causality. An NHP-drug interaction was assessed to be probable in one case and to be possible in another. Both these reports involved a methylphenidate formulation and St. John's wort. Conclusions: Eighteen of the 23 identified AERs involving both an herbal remedy and an ADHD drug also involved other multiple ingredient products. The reporting quality was poor for the five AERs examined. Further research is needed to study the interaction between St. John's wort and methylphenidate.

Comprehensive Real-World Assessment of Marketed Medications to Guide Parkinson's Drug Discovery.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease is a disorder growing in prevalence, disability, and deaths. Healthcare databases provide a 'real-world' perspective for millions of individuals. We envisioned helping accelerate drug discovery by using these databases. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess the association of marketed medications with the risk of parkinsonism in four US claims databases and to evaluate the consistency of the association of ß-adrenoreceptor modulation with parkinsonism. METHODS: The study was conducted using a self-controlled cohort design in which subjects served as their own control. The time from treatment initiation until discontinuation or end of observation was the exposed period and a similar time preceding medication was the unexposed period. Medications were studied at ingredient and class level. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) and combined IRR were calculated. RESULTS: We assessed 2181 drugs and 117,015,066 people. Diphenhydramine, isradipine, methylphenidate, armodafinil, and modafinil were associated with reduced risk for parkinsonism in at least two databases. Armodafinil, modafinil, methylphenidate, and the ß-agonist albuterol were associated with a 56%, 54%, 39%, and 17% reduction in the risk of having parkinsonism, respectively. Isradipine results were heterogeneous and no significant association was found. Propranolol was associated with a 32% increased risk, the only ß-adrenoceptor antagonist (ß-blocker) associated with an increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: Armodafinil, modafinil, and methylphenidate were associated with a decreased risk of parkinsonism, as were ß-agonists. Of the ß-blockers, only propranolol was associated with increased risk. Healthcare database analyses that incorporate scientific rigor provide insight and direction for drug discovery efforts. These findings show association not causality; however, they offer considerable support to the association between ß-adrenergic receptor modulation and risk of Parkinson's disease.

Psychosis with Methylphenidate or Amphetamine in Patients with ADHD.

BACKGROUND: The prescription use of the stimulants methylphenidate and amphetamine for the treatment of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been increasing. In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration mandated changes to drug labels for stimulants on the basis of findings of new-onset psychosis. Whether the risk of psychosis in adolescents and young adults with ADHD differs among various stimulants has not been extensively studied. METHODS: We used data from two commercial insurance claims databases to assess patients 13 to 25 years of age who had received a diagnosis of ADHD and who started taking methylphenidate or amphetamine between January 1, 2004, and September 30, 2015. The outcome was a new diagnosis of psychosis for which an antipsychotic medication was prescribed during the first 60 days after the date of the onset of psychosis. To estimate hazard ratios for psychosis, we used propensity scores to match patients who received methylphenidate with patients who received amphetamine in each database, compared the incidence of psychosis between the two stimulant groups, and then pooled the results across the two databases. RESULTS: We assessed 337,919 adolescents and young adults who received a prescription for a stimulant for ADHD. The study population consisted of 221,846 patients with 143,286 person-years of follow up; 110,923 patients taking methylphenidate were matched with 110,923 patients taking amphetamines. There were 343 episodes of psychosis (with an episode defined as a new diagnosis code for psychosis and a prescription for an antipsychotic medication) in the matched populations (2.4 per 1000 person-years): 106 episodes (0.10%) in the methylphenidate group and 237 episodes (0.21%) in the amphetamine group (hazard ratio with amphetamine use, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.31 to 2.09). CONCLUSIONS: Among adolescents and young adults with ADHD who were receiving prescription stimulants, new-onset psychosis occurred in approximately 1 in 660 patients. Amphetamine use was associated with a greater risk of psychosis than methylphenidate. (Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and others.).

[Supervised off-label prescribing of methylphenidate in adult ADHD]. / Prescriptions hors AMM supervisées de méthylphénidate dans le TDAH de l'adulte.

OBJECTIVE: Off-label prescription is a common practice in psychiatry, raising health and economic concerns. Collegial consultation could allow a framed prescription of treatments that are not authorized in specific indications. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity in adult populations (ADHD) is a striking example of a pathology where off-label prescription is frequent. First considered to be a childhood disorder, the awareness of this condition in adults is increasing, leading to the development of new clinical practices and treatments. However, the adult ADHD diagnosis and its management are still emerging in France despite a high prevalence. Treatment of adult ADHD relies on methylphenidate prescription, but the initiation of this drug is not authorized in adult populations. Methylphenidate is a central nervous system stimulant that is structurally close to amphetamine and acts as a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor. Due to these pharmacological properties, neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular side-effects could occur. Furthermore, its addictive potential has led France to classify it as a psychoactive drug, dispensed via secured prescription. The first prescription and the one-year follow-up are restricted to neurologists, paediatrics, psychiatrists and sleep disorders specialists at hospital. The objective of this article is to propose a multidisciplinary framework for the off-label prescription of methylphenidate in adult ADHD. METHODS: The Multidisciplinary Advice Consultation for Exceptional Addiction Treatments (Consultation d'Avis Multidisciplinaire de Traitements d'Exception en Addictologie CAMTEA) was first set up in Lille for the prescription of baclofen in alcohol dependence and was then extended to topiramate in binge eating disorder. This procedure has been adapted to the particularities of ADHD in adult populations, the differential diagnosis (bipolar disorder, depressive disorder, anxious disorder, personality disorder, substance use disorder) and the co-morbidities requiring a full psychiatric and neuropsychological assessment. Moreover, a particular attention has been paid to the monitoring of neuropsychiatric, cardiovascular and misuse risk because of the potential side-effects of methylphenidate. RESULTS: The proposed prescription framework is structured into several specialized consultations. A first psychiatric evaluation aims to diagnose adult ADHD, using the French version of the Diagnostisch Interview Voor ADHD 2.0 questionnaire (DIVA 2.0), and to assess the quality of life impact with the Weiss Functional Inventory Rating Scale (WIFRS). It also searches for the presence of differential diagnosis or co-morbidities. The second appointment consists of a pharmacological evaluation that aims to search for contraindications and potential drug interaction. A neuropsychological evaluation based on standardized tests (Weschler Adulte Intelligence Scale [WAIS IV], Conner's Continuous Performance Test 3 [CPT] and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personnality Inventory [MMPI]) is also required to evaluate neurocognitive disabilities and personality features. Once the parameters of the different assessments have been collected, the synthesis is presented during a multidisciplinary meeting in order to assess the risk-benefit ratio for each patient. Several specialties are involved in this multidisciplinary meeting: psychiatry, addictology, general medicine, addictovigilance, pharmacovigilance and neuropsychology. One strategy among three possibilities can be decided: (1) contraindication to treatment with methylphenidate, (2) attention deficit disorder that does not require medication management, and (3) indication of treatment with methylphenidate with the choice of the pharmacological form (immediate or prolonged release). A biological check-up and an electrocardiogram are carried out systematically before any treatment. If the decision is made to initiate treatment, it is started at the lowest dosage and followed by a titration phase. A weekly follow-up is carried out during the titration phase in order to assess treatment efficacy and safety. After treatment stabilization, the general practitioner can carry out the renewal, and the patient will be reassessed within the framework of the multidisciplinary consultation every 3 months. CONCLUSION: When an off-label prescription is being considered, it must comply with the basic rules of good clinical practice, and the benefit/risk ratio should be constantly reassessed. The proposed multidisciplinary framework, adapted to the characteristics of adult ADHD and the pharmacological properties of methylphenidate, appears to be an interesting strategy to meet the requirements of the good clinical practice. The complementary assessments carried out and the collegial framework allow enhancing the patient's follow-up and minimize the drug risk, particularly in the psychiatric, addictive and cardiovascular adverse events. Finally, this framework could also help the monitoring of other off-label treatments for ADHD, such as atomoxetine or guanfacine.

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

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Fourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.Primary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.In the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).Secondary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).With non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.Given the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.

Suicide risk reduction in youths with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder prescribed methylphenidate: A Taiwan nationwide population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) youths have increased suicide risk. Nevertheless, the beneficial effects of methylphenidate (MPH) on suicide attempt have received relatively little attention. AIMS: To investigate the MPH usage and the risk of suicide attempt among ADHD youths. METHODS: We identified 84,898 youths less than 18 years old with ADHD diagnosis between 1997 and 2013 from National Health Insurance, and examined whether MPH use affected suicide attempt risk using Cox proportional-hazards models. OUTCOME AND RESULTS: Among ADHD youths, reduction of suicide risk was found in patients prescribed 90-180days of MPH after adjusting for confounding factors (hazard ratio (HR): 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19-0.90) and a greater reduction in those prescribed more than 180days of MPH (HR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.17-0.48). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We observed a 59% suicide attempt risk reduction among ADHD youths prescribed between 90 and 180days and a 72% risk reduction in those prescribed more than 180days of MPH. The protective benefit observed by the group prescribed MPH for longer duration underscores the importance of psychoeducation and compliance enhancement as part of ADHD management. Indication bias is identified as a limitation of this study, and future self-case control study to investigate the association between suicide attempt and ADHD medication is suggested. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: This nationwide population-based cohort study showed that among ADHD youths, reduction of suicide risk was observed in patients prescribed MPH for duration 90days and longer, underscoring the importance of appropriate ADHD pharmacotherapy and enhancing drug compliance.

The Neurocognitive Cost of Enhancing Cognition with Methylphenidate: Improved Distractor Resistance but Impaired Updating.

A balance has to be struck between supporting distractor-resistant representations in working memory and allowing those representations to be updated. Catecholamine, particularly dopamine, transmission has been proposed to modulate the balance between the stability and flexibility of working memory representations. However, it is unclear whether drugs that increase catecholamine transmission, such as methylphenidate, optimize this balance in a task-dependent manner or bias the system toward stability at the expense of flexibility (or vice versa). Here we demonstrate, using pharmacological fMRI, that methylphenidate improves the ability to resist distraction (cognitive stability) but impairs the ability to flexibly update items currently held in working memory (cognitive flexibility). These behavioral effects were accompanied by task-general effects in the striatum and opposite and task-specific effects on neural signal in the pFC. This suggests that methylphenidate exerts its cognitive enhancing and impairing effects through acting on the pFC, an effect likely associated with methylphenidate's action on the striatum. These findings highlight that methylphenidate acts as a double-edged sword, improving one cognitive function at the expense of another, while also elucidating the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying these paradoxical effects.

A Single-Dose, Single-Period Pharmacokinetic Assessment of an Extended-Release Orally Disintegrating Tablet of Methylphenidate in Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of a proprietary formulation of methylphenidate (MPH) in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a phase 1 study. Methylphenidate extended-release orally disintegrating tablets (MPH XR-ODTs) combine two technologies in a single-tablet formulation-an extended-release profile that was designed for once-daily dosing in an ODT that does not require water or chewing for ingestion. METHODS: This was a single-dose, open-label, single-period, single-treatment study, in which 32 children with ADHD who were receiving MPH in doses of 40 or 60 mg before beginning the study each received a 60-mg dose (2 × 30 mg) of MPH XR-ODT. The following plasma PK parameters of MPH were determined for participants grouped by age (6-7, 8-9, 10-12, and 13-17 years old): maximum concentration (Cmax), time to maximum concentration (Tmax), elimination half-life (T½), area under the curve from 0 hours to infinity (AUCinf), oral clearance (CL/F), and volume of distribution in the terminal phase (Vz/F). Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 32 participants received the study drug. For all participants, plasma concentration-time profiles of MPH exhibited a broad peak after administration of MPH XR-ODT through ∼8 hours, indicating extended release from the formulation, followed by an apparent first-order elimination phase. As age increased, MPH exposure decreased and mean estimates of CL/F increased; however, weight-normalized CL/F values were comparable across age groups. Similarly, mean estimates of Vz/F increased with age, but weight-normalization decreased differences across age groups, with the exception of the youngest age group, which had higher values. All adverse events (AEs) were mild. CONCLUSION: This XR-ODT formulation of MPH demonstrated weight-normalized clearance rates that were consistent across all age groups, a PK profile consistent with once-daily dosing, and an AE profile consistent with this class of medication in children and adolescents with ADHD.

Assessment of human abuse potential of dasotraline compared to methylphenidate and placebo in recreational stimulant users.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the abuse potential of dasotraline, a novel dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor with slow absorption (tmax, 10-12h) and elimination (t1/2=47-77 h) that is in development for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Recreational stimulant users (N=48) who had specific experience with cocaine, and who were able to distinguish methylphenidate (60 mg) versus placebo in a qualification session, were randomized, in a 6-period, double-blind, crossover design, to receive single doses of dasotraline 8 mg, 16 mg, and 36 mg, methylphenidate (MPH) 40 mg and 80 mg, and placebo. The primary endpoint was the Drug Liking Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score at the time of peak effect (Emax). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 3 doses of dasotraline and placebo on the drug liking VAS at Emax, and on most secondary endpoints. Both doses of MPH had significantly higher VAS-drug liking scores at Emax relative to both placebo (P<0.001 for all comparisons) and dasotraline 8 mg (P<0.001), 16 mg (P<0.001) and 36 mg (P<0.01). The increase in heart rate for MPH and dasotraline 36 mg showed a time-course that closely matched subject-rated measures such as Any Effects VAS. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, dasotraline was found to have low potential for abuse, which may be, in part, related to its established pharmacokinetics (PK) profile, which is characterized by slow absorption and gradual elimination.

Patterns of Methylphenidate Use and Assessment of Its Abuse among the General Population and Individuals with Drug Dependence.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the extent of methylphenidate (MPH) abuse and characterize its patterns by following several cases involving intravenous administration of crushed MPH tablets. METHODS: First, a drug reimbursement database (covering 4 million inhabitants) was explored to assess the magnitude of MPH abuse among the general population, and second, a specific study based on individuals with drug dependence was performed to describe abusers' characteristics (n = 64), patterns of abuse and clinical implications. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2011, the number of patients who were dispensed MPH at least once increased by 166%. The patients with 'deviant' patterns of MPH consumption were mainly male adults with opiate maintenance treatment reimbursements. MPH abusers had precarious living conditions. Half of them consumed MPH daily by intravenous route and reported amphetamine-like effects (cardiovascular events, weight loss, psychiatric adverse events). CONCLUSION: Given the increase of MPH use, it is important to warn the scientific community about possible MPH abuse, especially in individuals with drug dependence. This study has facilitated public health intervention and dissemination of information related to MPH abuse among health care professionals at local and national levels.

Stimulant use following the publicity of cardiovascular safety and the introduction of patient medication guides.

PURPOSE: To explore changes in stimulant utilization and pre-treatment electrocardiography (ECG) screening in response to cardiovascular (CV) safety concerns. METHODS: Two source populations were established from Florida Medicaid Fee-for-service beneficiaries between 2001 and 2008: approximately 44 571 newly diagnosed attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder patients and 33 000 new stimulant users. Time-series design and Joinpoint analysis were used to describe monthly trend changes in stimulant initiation, persistence, dosing, and pre-treatment ECG screening. RESULTS: Initial and maintenance daily dose declined 6 mg (95% confidence interval [CI] -14 to -1.9) methylphenidate (MPH) equivalent dose from a steady 27 mg after Canada withdrew Adderall XR in February 2005; the trend rebounded to a daily dose of 23 mg, after the remarketing of Adderall XR and a debate in the US over issuing a boxed warning on stimulant CV safety in early 2006. Monthly initiation increased 3.9% (CI -1.0 to 9.1) after the boxed warning debate to 54 per 100 patients per month (CI 44 to 68), but declined 2.4% (CI -3.6 to -1.2) after requirement of medication guides in February 2007. Monthly ECG screening increased 3.2% (CI 2.3 to 4.2) after Adderall XR withdrawal and further increased 13% (CI 4 to 23) after the American Heart Association recommended pre-treatment ECG screening to 40 per 100 patients per month (CI 17 to 48). CONCLUSIONS: The first signal of stimulant CV safety concerns was followed by varying responses depending on the outcome measure used, suggesting that patients and physicians responded at different times after the publicity of safety concerns. Clinical consequences of the changes are uncertain. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Assessment of potential cardiovascular risks of methylphenidate in comparison with sibutramine: do we need a SCOUT (trial)?

With the recent approval of methylphenidate (MPH) for treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults, the number of patients exposed will increase tremendously. The ongoing debate on the cardiovascular safety of MPH has triggered two large retrospective cohort studies in children and adolescents as well as in young to middle-aged adults. These studies looked into serious cardiovascular events (sudden cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction and stroke) as primary endpoints and concluded that MPH was safe after a mean duration of 2.1 years of follow-up in children and adolescents and mean duration of 0.33 years of current use in adults. The results are encouraging with respect to the short- and medium-term use of MPH. Without the inherent limitations of retrospective cohort studies, a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in individuals stratified for cardiovascular risk factors would allow for an optimized risk assessment. With many millions of patients treated per year and drawing parallels to the lately discovered risks of sibutramine, another sympathomimetic with an overlapping mode of action and similar side effects on heart rate and blood pressure, we hypothesize that such a trial might be a dedicated risk mitigation strategy for public health. A critical assessment of cardiovascular side effects of MPH appears particularly warranted, because ADHD is associated with obesity, smoking and poor health in general. We summarize recent findings with the focus on cardiovascular risks of MPH in humans; we additionally analyze the limited number of rodent studies that have addressed cardiovascular risks of MPH.

Impact of a restrictive drug access program on the risk of cardiovascular encounters in children exposed to ADHD medications.

BACKGROUND: ADHD medications increase clinical encounters for cardiovascular symptoms. Uncertain are the roles of differences in ADHD medications and restrictive practices by drug programs. METHODS: We conducted two nested case-control studies. The first was nested within a cohort of children de novo users of methylphenidate, amphetamines or atomoxetine and the second case-control study was nested within a subcohort of de novo amphetamine or atomoxetine users with no cardiovascular events prior to the first dispensing of either drug. The outcome for both studies was the composite of physician visits, emergency room visits or hospitalizations for cardiovascular reasons. Cases were matched on sex, age and date of entry within the cohorts, with up to 10 controls. Patients with an active dispensation of ADHD medications at the index date (and up to 90 days previously) were considered exposed. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odd ratios (OR). RESULTS: The full cohort comprised 38,495 patients. Among these patients, 3595 (9.3%) had no prior cardiovascular events (the subcohort). In the full cohort, an association was demonstrated with exposure to amphetamine and atomoxetine (but not methylphenidate) and the cardiovascular encounter outcomes. When the sub-cohort was analyzed the associations with amphetamine or atomoxetine were no longer evident. CONCLUSION: Reimbursement policies need to be considered when conducting observational studies. Had the analysis been conducted without consideration of these policies the results would have incorrectly identified amphetamine and atomoxetine as important risk factors for cardiovascular encounters.