RESUMEN
Importance: Stimulants (methylphenidate and amphetamines) are often prescribed at unlicensed doses for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Whether dose escalation beyond US Food and Drug Administration recommendations is associated with positive risk benefits is unclear. Objective: To investigate the impact, based on averages, of stimulant doses on treatment outcomes in adults with ADHD and to determine, based on averages, whether unlicensed doses are associated with positive risk benefits compared with licensed doses. Data Sources: Twelve databases, including published (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Sciences) and unpublished (ClinicalTrials.gov) literature, up to February 22, 2023, without language restrictions. Study Selection: Two researchers independently screened records to identify double-blinded randomized clinical trials of stimulants against placebo in adults (18 years and older) with ADHD. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Aggregate data were extracted and synthesized in random-effects dose-response meta-analyses and network meta-analyses. Main Outcome Measures: Change in ADHD symptoms and discontinuations due to adverse events. Results: A total of 47 randomized clinical trials (7714 participants; mean age, 35 (SD, 11) years; 4204 male [56%]) were included. For methylphenidate, dose-response curves indicated additional reductions of symptoms with increments in doses, but the gains were progressively smaller and accompanied by continued additional risk of adverse events dropouts. Network meta-analyses showed that unlicensed doses were associated with greater reductions of symptoms compared with licensed doses (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.23; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.02; very low certainty of evidence), but the additional gain was small and accompanied by increased risk of adverse event dropouts (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.19-3.43; moderate certainty of evidence). For amphetamines, the dose-response curve approached a plateau and increments in doses did not indicate additional reductions of symptoms, but there were continued increments in the risk of adverse event dropouts. Network meta-analysis did not identify differences between unlicensed and licensed doses for reductions of symptoms (SMD, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.08; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusions and Relevance: Based on group averages, unlicensed doses of stimulants may not have positive risk benefits compared with licensed doses for adults with ADHD. In general, practitioners should consider unlicensed doses cautiously. Practitioners may trial unlicensed doses if needed and tolerated but should be aware that there may not be large gains in the response to the medication with those further increments in dose. However, the findings are averages and will not generalize to every patient.
Asunto(s)
Trastorno por Déficit de Atención con Hiperactividad , Estimulantes del Sistema Nervioso Central , Metilfenidato , Adulto , Masculino , Humanos , Trastorno por Déficit de Atención con Hiperactividad/tratamiento farmacológico , Estimulantes del Sistema Nervioso Central/efectos adversos , Metilfenidato/uso terapéutico , Anfetaminas/uso terapéutico , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Clinical guidelines currently recommend practitioners titrate stimulant medications, i.e., methylphenidate (MPH) and amphetamines (AMP), to the dose that maximizes symptom control without eliciting intolerable adverse events (AEs) when treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in school-aged children/adolescents. However, robust evidence-base regarding the effects of doses and dosing strategies of stimulants on clinical outcomes in the treatment of children/adolescents with ADHD is currently lacking and stimulants are often underdosed in clinical practice. To address this gap and provide rigorous evidence-base in relation to the dose and dosing strategy of stimulants, we conducted the largest systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis examining change in ADHD symptoms (efficacy), and treatment discontinuations due to AEs (tolerability) and any reason (acceptability). We conducted one-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analyses examining MPH and AMP separately, stratifying trials based on fixed-dose and flexible-dose design. Daily doses of stimulants were converted to MPH- and AMP-equivalent doses by adjusting for different pharmacokinetics across formulations. We also conducted pairwise meta-analyses to provide indirect comparisons between flexible-dose versus fixed-dose trials. Our study included 65 RCTs involving 7 877 children/adolescents. Meta-analyses of fixed-dose trials for both MPH and AMP demonstrated increased efficacy and increased likelihood of discontinuation due to AEs with increasing doses of stimulants. The incremental benefits of stimulants in terms of efficacy decreased beyond 30 mg of MPH or 20 mg of AMP in fixed-dosed trials. In contrast, meta-analyses of flexible-dose trials for both MPH and AMP demonstrated increased efficacy and reduced likelihood of discontinuations for any reason with increasing stimulant doses. The incremental benefits of stimulants in terms of efficacy remained constant across the FDA-licensed dose range for MPH and AMP in flexible-dose trials. Our results suggest that flexible titration as needed, i.e., considering the presence of ADHD symptoms, and tolerated, i.e., considering the presence of dose-limiting AEs, to higher doses of stimulants is associated with both improved efficacy and acceptability because practitioners can increase/reduce doses based on control of ADHD symptoms/dose-limiting AEs. Although fixed-dose trials that are required by the FDA are valuable to characterize dose-dependency, they may underestimate the true potential benefit of trialing dose-increases of stimulants in clinical practice by not allowing dose adjustment based on response and tolerability. Additional research is required to investigate potential long-term effects of using high doses of stimulants in clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Trastorno por Déficit de Atención con Hiperactividad , Estimulantes del Sistema Nervioso Central , Metilfenidato , Adolescente , Niño , Humanos , Trastorno por Déficit de Atención con Hiperactividad/tratamiento farmacológico , Estimulantes del Sistema Nervioso Central/uso terapéutico , Metilfenidato/uso terapéutico , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Chloroquine (CQ) is an old antimalarial drug currently being investigated for its anti-tumor properties. As chloroquine has been shown to inhibits several potassium channels, we decided to study its effect on the tumor-related Kv10.1 channel by using patch-clamp electrophysiology and cell migration assays. We found that chloroquine inhibited Kv10.1 channels transiently expressed in HEK-293â¯cells in a concentration- and voltage-dependent manner acting from the cytoplasmic side of the plasma membrane. Chloroquine also inhibited the outward potassium currents from MDA-MB-231â¯cells, which are mainly carried through Kv10.1 channels as was confirmed using astemizole. Additionally, chloroquine decreased MDA-MB-231â¯cell migration in the in vitro scratch wound healing assay. In conclusion, our data suggest that chloroquine decreases MDA-MB-231â¯cell migration by inhibiting Kv10.1 channels. The inhibition of Kv10.1 channels could represent another mechanism of the antitumoral action of chloroquine, besides autophagy inhibition and tumor vessel normalization.