Can exposure to lisdexamfetamine dimesylate from juvenile period to peripubertal compromise male reproductive parameters in adult rats?

Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) is a d-amphetamine prodrug used to treat attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, a common neurodevelopmental disorder in children and adolescents. Due to its action mediated by elevated levels of catecholamines, mainly dopamine and noradrenaline, which influence hormonal regulation and directly affect the gonads, this drug may potentially disrupt reproductive performance. This study evaluated the effects of exposure to LDX from the juvenile to peripubertal period (critical stages of development) on systemic and reproductive toxicity parameters in male rats. Male Wistar rats (23 days old) were treated with 0; 5.2; 8.6 or 12.1 mg/kg/day of LDX from post-natal day (PND) 23 to 53, by gavage. LDX treatment led to reduced daily food and water consumption, as well as a decrease in social behaviors. The day of preputial separation remained unaltered, although the treated animals exhibited reduced weight. At PND 54, the treated animals presented signs of systemic toxicity, evidenced by a reduction in body weight gain, increase in the relative weight of the liver, spleen, and seminal gland, reduction in erythrocyte and leukocyte counts, reduced total protein levels, and disruptions in oxidative parameters. In adulthood, there was an increase in immobile sperm, reduced sperm count, morphometric changes in the testis, and altered oxidative parameters, without compromising male sexual behavior and fertility. These findings showed that LDX-treatment during the juvenile and peripubertal periods induced immediate systemic toxicity and adversely influenced reproductive function in adult life, indicating that caution is necessary when prescribing this drug during the peripubertal phase.

Interventions for the management of fatigue in adults with a primary brain tumour.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom in people with a primary brain tumour (PBT). The effectiveness of interventions for treating clinically significant levels of fatigue in this population is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for adults with PBT and clinically significant (or high levels) of fatigue. SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and checked the reference lists of included studies in April 2022. We also searched relevant conference proceedings, and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention in adults with PBT and fatigue, where fatigue was the primary outcome measure. We restricted inclusion specifically to studies that enrolled only participants with clinically significant levels of fatigue to improve the clinical utility of the findings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (JD, DC) independently evaluated search results for the updated search. Two review authors (JD, SYK) extracted data from selected studies, and carried out a risk of bias assessment. We extracted data on fatigue, mood, cognition, quality of life and adverse events outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: The original review identified one study and this update identified a further two for inclusion. One study investigated the use of modafinil, one study the use of armodafinil and one study the use of dexamfetamine. We identified three ongoing studies. In the original review, the single eligible trial compared modafinil to placebo for 37 participants with a high- or low-grade PBT. One new study compared two doses of armodafinil (150 mg and 250 mg) to placebo for 297 people with a high-grade glioma. The second new study compared dexamfetamine sulfate to placebo for 46 participants with a low- or high-grade PBT. The evidence was uncertain for both modafinil and dexamfetamine regarding fatigue outcome measures, compared to controls, at study endpoint. Two trials did not reach the planned recruitment target and therefore may not, in practice, have been adequately powered to detect a difference. These trials were at a low risk of bias across most areas. There was an unclear risk of bias related to the use of mean imputation for one study because the investigators did not analyse the impact of imputation on the results and information regarding baseline characteristics and randomisation were not clear. The certainty of the evidence measured using GRADE was very low across all three studies. There was one identified study awaiting classification once data are available, which investigated the feasibility of 'health coaching' for people with a PBT experiencing fatigue. There were three ongoing studies that may be eligible for an update of this review, all investigating a non-pharmacological intervention for fatigue in people with PBT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to draw reliable and generalisable conclusions regarding potential effectiveness or harm of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments for fatigue in people with PBT. More research is needed on how best to treat people with brain tumours with high fatigue.

The 10-year trend in drug prescriptions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Germany.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyse whether the global trend in drug prescriptions for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD), as observed during the last years and often criticized as medicalization, have remained stable or shifted. METHODS: This observational study was based on a secondary analysis of data from a large German database including patients with an ADHD diagnosis between 2008 and 2018. Prescription data comprised all important ADHD drugs. RESULTS: A total of 620 practices delivered data from a total of 77,504 patients (31% of them females) with a diagnosis of AHDH. Nearly 38% (29,396/77,504) of all patients received, at least, one prescription for an ADHS medicine between 2008 and 2018. The number of patients receiving a drug steadily increased annually until 2012 and then slowly fell, but unevenly distributed across the age groups. While the number of younger patients ( ≤ 16 years) receiving a prescription fell by 24% and the defined daily doses (DDDs) remained stable, the number of patients between 17 and 24 years receiving a prescription increased by 113% and the DDDs by 150%. Respectively, the number of older adults (≥ 25 years) with a prescription increased by 355% and the DDDs by 515%. Nearly one-third of older adults received an ADHD medicine only once. CONCLUSION: The ever-increasing prescription of ADHD medicines stopped some years ago for children. ADHS and its pharmacological management are increasingly observed among older adolescents and adults, with a different pattern of drug persistence compared with children.

Use of sustained release dextroamphetamine for the treatment of stimulant use disorder in the setting of injectable opioid agonist treatment in Canada: a case report.

BACKGROUND: For people with opioid use disorder who are not responding to oral opioid agonist treatment, evidence supports the effectiveness of injectable opioid agonist treatment with injectable hydromorphone (an opioid analgesic) and diacetylmorphine (pharmaceutical grade heroin). While this treatment is effective at reducing illicit opioid use, concurrent cocaine use is prevalent. Dextroamphetamine (a central nervous system stimulant) has been found to be a safe and effective treatment for cocaine dependence among people receiving injectable opioid agonist treatment in Europe. We present the first report of dextroamphetamine prescribing offered for the treatment of stimulant use disorder among a patient receiving iOAT outside of a clinical trial. This case report can be used to inform clinical practice in the treatment of cocaine use disorder, an area where interventions are currently lacking. CASE PRESENTATION: Dextroamphetamine was prescribed to a 51-year-old male who was diagnosed with concurrent opioid and stimulant use disorder in an injectable opioid agonist treatment clinic in Vancouver, Canada. He reported smoking crack cocaine daily for more than two decades and was experiencing health consequences associated with this use. He presented to his routine physician visit with the goal of reducing his cocaine use and was prescribed dextroamphetamine for the treatment of stimulant use disorder. After 4-weeks the patient was tolerating the medication with no observed adverse events and was achieving his therapeutic goal of reducing his cocaine use. CONCLUSIONS: Dextroamphetamine can be prescribed to support patients with stimulant use disorder to reduce or stop their use of cocaine. The case demonstrated that when dextroamphetamine was prescribed, a significant reduction in cocaine use was experienced among a patient that had been regularly using cocaine on a daily basis for many years. Daily contact with care for the opioid medication promoted adherence to the stimulant medication and allowed for monitoring of dose and tolerance. Settings where patients are in regular contact with care such as oral and injectable opioid agonist treatment clinics serve as a suitable location to integrate dextroamphetamine prescribing for patients that use illicit stimulants to reduce use and associated harms.

The importance of specialized sleep investigations in children with a suprasellar tumor.

PURPOSE: Disruption of sleep has great impact on quality of life. In children with a suprasellar tumor and hypothalamic-pituitary dysfunction, the circadian rhythm may be disturbed causing sleep problems. However, also other factors may influence sleep. Awareness of these different etiologies and careful history taking with appropriate additional diagnostics will aid in restoring sleep quality. METHODS: We present the workup of 4 cases with a suprasellar tumor and disturbances of sleep initiation, sleep maintenance, and daytime sleepiness. In parallel, we developed a flowchart, to aid clinicians in the diagnostics of sleep problems in children after treatment for a (supra) sellar brain tumor. RESULTS: All four patients, known with hypopituitarism, presented with sleep complaints and increased daytime sleepiness. In all four, the cause of sleep problems showed to be different. In the first case, sleep evaluation revealed a severe obstructive sleep apnea, whereupon nocturnal ventilation was started. The second case revealed poor sleep hygiene in combination with an obsessive compulsive disorder. Sleep hygiene was addressed and psychiatric consultation was offered. Dexamphetamine treatment was started to reduce her obsessive compulsive complaints. The third case showed a delayed sleep phase syndrome, which improved by educational support. The fourth case revealed a secondary organic hypersomnia for which modafinil treatment was started. CONCLUSION: Sleep disturbances in children with hypopituitarism due to a (supra) sellar tumor can have different entities which require specific therapy. Awareness of these different entities is important to enable appropriate counseling. Referral to an expertise sleep center may be advised, if standard educational support is insufficient.

The use of stimulants in depression: Results from a self-controlled register study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of stimulants in patients with depression, by using naturalistic outcome measures, such as psychiatric admissions, psychiatric bed-days and incidents of intentional self-harm or suicide attempts. METHODS: Via linkage of the Danish nationwide health registers, we identified all patients with a diagnosis of depression initiating stimulants, including methylphenidate, modafinil, amphetamine, dexamphetamine or lisdexamphetamine, from 1995 to 2012. We used a mirror-image model to test whether redemption of a stimulant prescription was associated with a reduction in psychiatric admissions, inpatient days and incidents of intentional self-harm or suicide attempts. Specifically, the number of these outcomes in the 2 years leading up to redemption of a stimulant prescription was compared to the two subsequent years. Similar outcomes were used in a reverse mirror-image model to investigate the effect of stimulant termination. RESULTS: A total of 3354, 935 and 105 patients diagnosed with depression redeemed prescriptions for methylphenidate, modafinil or amphetamine/dexamphetamine/lisdexamphetamine, respectively. Initiation of methylphenidate was not associated with a significant change in psychiatric admissions (mean: -0.02 admissions, p = 0.11) or inpatient days (mean: 0.13 days, p = 0.74). Similar findings were made for modafinil and the amphetamines. In addition, no clinically relevant change in psychiatric admissions or inpatient days was found after termination of a stimulant. After initiation of methylphenidate, the incidents of self-harm or suicide attempts were reduced by 54%, from 68 to 31 events (p = 0.004). No significant change in incidents of self-harm or suicide attempts were found for modafinil or the amphetamines. CONCLUSION: This nationwide study, using naturalistic outcomes, does not support the use of stimulants in patients with depression. However, the use of methylphenidate was associated with a 54% reduction in incidents of self-harm or suicide attempts, indicating that methylphenidate may potentially be useful in patients with depression with suicidal- or self-harming behaviour. However, further studies are needed, before any firm conclusions can be made.

Home induction and outpatient treatment of kratom use disorder with buprenorphine-naloxone: A case report in a young adult.

Background: The use of the natural product, kratom, has increased significantly in recent years. The active compounds in kratom have been shown to produce both opioid and stimulant-like effects. While kratom is marketed as a safe, non-addictive method to treat pain and opioid withdrawal, there have been reports demonstrating that kratom is physiologically addictive and linked to overdose deaths. A limited number of case-reports are available describing treatment of kratom use disorder in middle-aged adults, generally in the context of chronic pain and in inpatient settings. Our case is unique in that we describe outpatient treatment of kratom use disorder in a young adult with comorbid attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and in the absence of chronic pain. Case: A 20-year-old college student with ADHD presented to an office-based opioid agonist treatment clinic (OBOT) for treatment of kratom use disorder. He was unable to attend inpatient or residential substance use treatment due to work and school obligations. Additionally, he had stopped taking his prescribed stimulant due to cardiac side effects. The OBOT team successfully initiated buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP/NAL) sublingual films via home induction to treat his kratom use disorder. The patient is being monitored monthly with plans to slowly taper his BUP/NAL dose as tolerated. Discussion: We present a case of a young adult male with kratom use disorder, complicated by a diagnosis of ADHD, successfully treated with BUP/NAL via home induction. The patient is currently kratom-free, reports improved mood and sleep patterns since initiating BUP/NAL, and is able to once again tolerate his ADHD stimulant medication. Healthcare providers should be aware of the use of kratom and consider utilizing BUP/NAL to treat dependence to this botanical drug.

Effects of dextroamphetamine in subacute traumatic brain injury: A randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study.

Psychostimulants that affect neurotransmitters implicated in cognitive function and neural plasticity have potential to enhance the rate and extent of recovery after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Ten milligrams dextroamphetamine (DEX) or an identical placebo was administered daily for 3 weeks to 32 participants with moderate to severe TBI, engaged in inpatient rehabilitation, at a mean of 2 months post injury. A variety of outcome measures assessing cognitive function and overall functional status was administered at weekly intervals, to examine effect sizes that may inform a larger trial, and to evaluate safety. Results indicated trivial-to-small effect sizes for DEX-placebo differences, with the largest effects seen on speed of information processing (more improvement with DEX) and agitation (exacerbation with DEX). Examination of adverse events and vital signs suggested safety of DEX, but the pattern of results did not suggest accelerated recovery due to the drug. Future trials of DEX in this population need to consider the impact of floor effects of commonly used measures of cognitive and physical function, and the heterogeneity of TBI. Although the small sample precludes definitive conclusions, these findings are not encouraging with regard to clinical trials of DEX in subacute TBI.

Response-inhibition capacity in spontaneously hypertensive and Wistar rats: acquisition of fixed minimum interval performance and responsiveness to D-amphetamine.

Reduced response-inhibition capacity is a defining feature of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The fixed minimum interval (FMI) schedule has been systematically validated to assess such capacity in rats. On each FMI trial, the first lever press initiates an inter-response time (IRT); a potentially consummatory response terminates the IRT; only IRTs longer than a target interval result in access to food. Despite task validity, steady-state FMI performance in the most common animal model of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, the spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR), is similar to normotensive control performance, even though SHR performs at lower levels, especially during acquisition, in similar response-withholding tasks. To determine whether such limitations of the model are specific to stable-state performance, this experiment compared FMI 6-s performance in SHR and Wistar rats during acquisition and in steady state, and assessed the effect of acute D-amphetamine (AMP) administration (0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 mg/kg) on steady-state performance. Median latencies to first lever press were consistently shorter in SHR than in Wistar rats; IRTs were shorter for SHR than for Wistar rats during acquisition, but substantially less so during asymptotic performance. AMP dose-dependently reduced latencies, shortened IRTs, and, at the highest dose, increased the proportion of IRTs under schedule control. These results suggest that, relative to Wistar rats, SHR have a reduced capacity to learn to withhold a reinforced response; once the FMI is acquired, high doses of D-AMP disrupt withholding performance in both strains, but they also enhance the responsiveness of both strains to reinforcement contingencies.

Amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into adulthood and can affects individuals' social and occupational functioning, as well as their quality of life and health. ADHD is frequently associated with other mental disorders such as substance use disorders and anxiety and affective disorders. Amphetamines are used to treat adults with ADHD, but uncertainties about their efficacy and safety remain. OBJECTIVES: To examine the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for adults with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: In August 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and two trials registers, and we ran citation searches for included studies. We also contacted the corresponding authors of all included studies, other experts in the field, and the pharmaceutical company, Shire, and we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews for other published, unpublished, or ongoing studies. For each included study, we performed a citation search in Web of Science to identify any later studies that may have cited it. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of amphetamines (at any dose) for ADHD in adults aged 18 years and over against placebo or an active intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data from each included study. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) to assess continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We conducted a stratified analysis to determine the influence of moderating variables. We assessed trials for risk of bias and drew a funnel plot to investigate the possibility of publication bias. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, which yielded high, moderate, low, or very low quality ratings based on evaluation of within-trial risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity of data; precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies that investigated three types of amphetamines: dexamphetamine (10.2 mg/d to 21.8 mg/d), lisdexamfetamine (30 mg/d to 70 mg/d), and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS; 12.5 mg/d to 80 mg/d). These studies enrolled 2521 participants; most were middle-aged (35.3 years), Caucasian males (57.2%), with a combined type of ADHD (78.8%). Eighteen studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was conducted in both Canada and the USA. Ten were multi-site studies. All studies were placebo-controlled, and three also included an active comparator: guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine. Most studies had short-term follow-up and a mean study length of 5.3 weeks.We found no studies that had low risk of bias in all domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, mainly because amphetamines have powerful subjective effects that may reveal the assigned treatment, but also because we noted attrition bias, and because we could not rule out the possibility of a carry-over effect in studies that used a cross-over design.Sixteen studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, one study was publicly funded, and two studies did not report their funding sources.Amphetamines versus placeboSeverity of ADHD symptoms: we found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians (SMD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to -0.75; 13 studies, 2028 participants) and patients (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.28; six studies, 120 participants).Retention: overall, we found low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines did not improve retention in treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; 17 studies, 2323 participants).Adverse events: we found that amphetamines were associated with an increased proportion of patients who withdrew because of adverse events (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 4.45; 17 studies, 2409 participants).Type of amphetamine: we found differences between amphetamines for the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians. Both lisdexamfetamine (SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.85; seven studies, 896 participants; low-quality evidence) and MAS (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.66; five studies, 1083 participants; low-quality evidence) reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms. In contrast, we found no evidence to suggest that dexamphetamine reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.32; one study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence). In addition, all amphetamines were efficacious in reducing the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients (dexamphetamine: SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.40; two studies, 35 participants; low-quality evidence; lisdexamfetamine: SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01; three studies, 67 participants; low-quality evidence; MAS: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.12; one study, 18 participants; very low-quality evidence).Dose at study completion: different doses of amphetamines did not appear to be associated with differences in efficacy.Type of drug-release formulation: we investigated immediate- and sustained-release formulations but found no differences between them for any outcome.Amphetamines versus other drugsWe found no evidence that amphetamines improved ADHD symptom severity compared to other drug interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Amphetamines improved the severity of ADHD symptoms, as assessed by clinicians or patients, in the short term but did not improve retention to treatment. Amphetamines were associated with higher attrition due to adverse events. The short duration of studies coupled with their restrictive inclusion criteria limits the external validity of these findings. Furthermore, none of the included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Overall, the evidence generated by this review is of low or very low quality.

Pharmacological treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children with comorbid tic disorders.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid psychiatric disorders that complicate tic disorders. Medications commonly used to treat ADHD symptoms include stimulants such as methylphenidate and amphetamine; non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine; tricyclic antidepressants; and alpha agonists. Alpha agonists are also used as a treatment for tics. Due to the impact of ADHD symptoms on the child with tic disorder, treatment of ADHD is often of greater priority than the medical management of tics. However, for many decades, clinicians have been reluctant to use stimulants to treat children with ADHD and tics for fear of worsening their tics.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for ADHD in children with comorbid tic disorders on symptoms of ADHD and tics. SEARCH METHODS: In September 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 12 other databases. We also searched two trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any ongoing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for ADHD used specifically in children with comorbid tic disorders. We included both parallel-group and cross-over study designs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane, in that two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data using standardized forms, assessed risk of bias, and graded the overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight randomized controlled trials (four of which were cross-over trials) with 510 participants (443 boys, 67 girls) in this review. Participants in these studies were children with both ADHD and a chronic tic disorder. All studies took place in the USA and ranged from three to 22 weeks in duration. Five of the eight studies were funded by charitable organizations or government agencies, or both. One study was funded by the drug manufacturer. The other two studies did not specify the source of funding. Risk of bias of included studies was low for blinding; low or unclear for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and attrition bias; and low or high for selective outcome reporting. We were unable to combine any of the studies in a meta-analysis due to important clinical heterogeneity and unit-of-analysis issues.Several of the trials assessed multiple agents. Medications assessed included methylphenidate, clonidine, desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine, atomoxetine, and deprenyl. There was low-quality evidence for methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine, and very low-quality evidence for desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine and deprenyl in the treatment of ADHD in children with tics. All studies, with the exception of a study using deprenyl, reported improvement in symptoms of ADHD. Tic symptoms also improved in children treated with guanfacine, desipramine, methylphenidate, clonidine, and a combination of methylphenidate and clonidine. In one study, tics limited further dosage increases of methylphenidate. High-dose dextroamphetamine appeared to worsen tics in one study, although the length of this study was limited to three weeks. There was appetite suppression or weight loss in association with methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, atomoxetine, and desipramine. There was insomnia associated with methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine, and sedation associated with clonidine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Following an updated search of potentially relevant studies, we found no new studies that matched our inclusion criteria and thus our conclusions have not changed.Methylphenidate, clonidine, guanfacine, desipramine, and atomoxetine appear to reduce ADHD symptoms in children with tics though the quality of the available evidence was low to very low. Although stimulants have not been shown to worsen tics in most people with tic disorders, they may, nonetheless, exacerbate tics in individual cases. In these instances, treatment with alpha agonists or atomoxetine may be an alternative. Although there is evidence that desipramine may improve tics and ADHD in children, safety concerns will likely continue to limit its use in this population.

The Efficacy of Psychostimulants in Major Depressive Episodes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psychostimulants are frequently prescribed off-label for adults with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. The frequent and increasing usage of stimulants in mood disorders warrants a careful appraisal of the efficacy of this class of agents. Herein, we aim to estimate the efficacy of psychostimulants in adults with unipolar or bipolar depression. METHODS: The PubMed/Medline database was searched from inception to January 16, 2016 for randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials investigating the antidepressant efficacy of psychostimulants in the treatment of adults with unipolar or bipolar depression. RESULTS: Psychostimulants were associated with statistically significant improvement in depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder (odds ratio [OR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.78; P = 0.003) and bipolar disorder (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.78; P = 0.003). Efficacy outcomes differed across the psychostimulants evaluated as a function of response rates: ar/modafinil (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.20-1.81; P = 0.0002); dextroamphetamine (OR, 7.11; 95% CI, 1.09-46.44; P = 0.04); lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.94-1.56; P = ns); methylphenidate (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.88-2.54; P = ns). Efficacy outcomes also differed between agents used as adjunctive therapy (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.19-1.64) or monotherapy (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 0.67-7.52). CONCLUSIONS: Psychostimulants are insufficiently studied as adjunctive or monotherapy in adults with mood disorders. Most published studies have significant methodological limitations (eg, heterogeneous samples, dependent measures, type/dose of agent). In addition to improvements in methodological factors, a testable hypothesis is that psychostimulants may be more appropriately tested in select domains of psychopathology (eg, cognitive emotional processing), rather than as "broad-spectrum" antidepressants.

Genetic variation associated with euphorigenic effects of d-amphetamine is associated with diminished risk for schizophrenia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Here, we extended our findings from a genome-wide association study of the euphoric response to d-amphetamine in healthy human volunteers by identifying enrichment between SNPs associated with response to d-amphetamine and SNPs associated with psychiatric disorders. We found that SNPs nominally associated (P ≤ 0.05 and P ≤ 0.01) with schizophrenia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder were also nominally associated with d-amphetamine response. Furthermore, we found that the source of this enrichment was an excess of alleles that increased sensitivity to the euphoric effects of d-amphetamine and decreased susceptibility to schizophrenia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In contrast, three negative control phenotypes (height, inflammatory bowel disease, and Parkinson disease) did not show this enrichment. Taken together, our results suggest that alleles identified using an acute challenge with a dopaminergic drug in healthy individuals can be used to identify alleles that confer risk for psychiatric disorders commonly treated with dopaminergic agonists and antagonists. More importantly, our results show the use of the enrichment approach as an alternative to stringent standards for genome-wide significance and suggest a relatively novel approach to the analysis of small cohorts in which intermediate phenotypes have been measured.

Sympathetic neural hyperalgesia edema syndrome as a cause of autoimmune hearing loss.

PURPOSE: To describe another previous unreported manifestation of the sympathetic neural hyperalgesia edema syndrome - autoimmune hearing loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dextroamphetamine sulfate 30 mg extended release capsules was given to a woman to try to help her conceive since, with her pelvic pain, chronic fatigue syndrome, and diarrhea, it was thought that an inflammatory condition related to permeation of unwanted chemicals into endometrial tissue related to the sympathetic neural hyperalgesia edema syndrome could be inhibiting her failure from conceiving despite three cycles of embryo transfer. RESULTS: Not only did the symptoms mentioned above disappear, but she also noted marked improvement of hearing loss that had been present for several years. The improvement in hearing was documented by audiology tests and had not responded to many months of 15 mg/day prednisone. CONCLUSIONS: Autoimmune hearing loss (diagnosis established by her ear nose and throat specialist) should be added to the long list of manifestation of the sympathetic neural hyperalgesia edema syndrome.

Use of drugs for ADHD among adults-a multinational study among 15.8 million adults in the Nordic countries.

PURPOSE: The use of ADHD drugs among adults is controversial and has until recently not been approved for use in adults in most countries. The aim was to investigate use of ADHD drugs (stimulants and atomoxetine) among the entire adult population in the Nordic countries. METHODS: We conducted a multinational population-based prescription register study based on the entire adult population in the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden). All users of ADHD drugs aged 18-64 years during 2008-2012 were included, which for 2012 comprised 76,896 drug users among 15.8 million adult inhabitants. RESULTS: Annual prevalence of drug use increased during the study period for both genders and all age groups. The overall prevalence increased from 2.4 to 5.3 per 1000 men and 1.8 to 4.4 per 1000 women. Incidence also increased, but to a lesser extent in the last part of the study period. Methylphenidate was used by 88 % of drug users. Treatment was discontinued within the first year by 21 % of new drug users. Among all users of ADHD drugs, 53 % of men and 64 % of women concurrently used other psychotropic drugs, most frequently antidepressants and hypnotics. Psychotropic co-medication increased with age and was more pronounced among women than men. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ADHD drug among adults more than doubled over a 5-year period, and a majority were concurrently treated with other psychotropics. Adults constitute a substantial proportion of persons treated with ADHD drugs. Thus, evidence for long-term efficacy and safety in adults is urgently needed.

Stimulants for depression: On the up and up?

The use of traditional psychostimulants (methylphenidate and dexamphetamine) and stimulant-like drugs (modafinil and armodafinil) for the treatment of depression is a growing concern given the lack of research evidence supporting their effectiveness. The current article describes the role of stimulants in treating depression--specifically their risks and benefits and their potential use alongside antidepressants. Clinically, the rapid amelioration of depressive symptoms with traditional psychostimulants is often dramatic but short-lived, and this suggests that they likely operate via different mechanisms to conventional antidepressants. More importantly, there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials supporting their efficacy in treating depression, although modafinil has been shown to be effective in reducing prominent depressive symptoms, such as fatigue. Research is urgently required to clarify psychostimulants' mechanisms of action and to evaluate their long-term benefits and risks in the treatment of major and bipolar depression. Ultimately, specificity of action needs to be determined to inform the sophisticated clinical use of psychostimulants in the management of depression. Until then they should only be prescribed if absolutely necessary, and even then their prescription should be facilitatory and time limited unless it is for investigational purposes.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy in medication-treated adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and co-morbid psychopathology: a randomized controlled trial using multi-level analysis.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by high rates of co-morbid psychopathology. Randomized controlled trials of multimodal interventions, combining pharmacological and psychological treatments, have shown a robust treatment effect for ADHD symptoms but outcomes for co-morbid symptoms have been mixed. This may be accounted for by the type of intervention selected and/or by methodological problems including lack of follow-up and low power. The current study addressed these limitations in a parallel-group randomized controlled trial conducted in Iceland. METHOD: A total of 95 adult ADHD patients who were already being treated with medication (MED) were randomly assigned to receive treatment as usual (TAU/MED) or 15 sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT/MED) using the R&R2ADHD intervention which employs both group and individual modalities. Primary measures of ADHD symptoms and severity of illness, and secondary measures of anxiety, depression and quality of life were given at baseline, end of treatment and 3-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were rated by clinicians blind to treatment condition assignment. RESULTS: CBT/MED showed overall (combined outcome at end of treatment and 3-month follow-up) significantly greater reduction in primary outcomes for clinician-rated and self-rated ADHD symptoms. Treatment effect of primary outcomes was maintained at follow-up, which suggests robust and lasting findings. In contrast to the primary outcomes, the secondary outcomes showed significant improvement over time. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence for the effectiveness of R&R2ADHD and demonstrates that there are differential effects over time for ADHD symptoms versus co-morbid problems, the latter taking longer to show positive effects.