From past to future: 50 years of pharmacological interventions to treat narcolepsy.

The history of narcolepsy research began with the pioneering work of Jean-Baptiste-Édouard Gélineau in the late 19th century. In the 1880s, Gélineau introduced the term "narcolepsy" to describe a condition characterized by sudden and uncontrollable episodes of sleep. His clinical descriptions laid the foundation for our understanding of this complex disorder. Over the last half-century, the pharmacological landscape for narcolepsy treatment has evolved remarkably, shifting from merely managing symptoms to increasingly targeting its underlying pathophysiology. By the 1930s, treatments such as ephedrine and amphetamine were introduced to alleviate excessive daytime sleepiness, marking significant advancements in narcolepsy management. These stimulants provided temporary relief, helping patients maintain wakefulness during the day. As research progressed, the focus shifted towards understanding the disorder's underlying mechanisms. The discovery of orexin (also known as hypocretin) in the late 1990s revolutionized the field. This breakthrough underscored the importance of orexin in regulating sleep-wake cycles and provided new targets for pharmacological intervention. Looking ahead, the future of narcolepsy pharmacotherapy is poised for further innovation. The ongoing exploration of orexin receptor agonists and the potential development of neuroprotective therapeutic targets underscore a promising horizon. Emerging research into the genetic and immunological underpinnings of narcolepsy opens new avenues for personalized medicine approaches and the identification of biomarkers for more precise treatment strategies. Additionally, the refinement of existing treatments through improved delivery systems and the investigation of combination therapies offer opportunities for enhanced efficacy and improved quality of life for patients with narcolepsy.

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

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

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

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

The role of adrenergic neurotransmitter reuptake inhibitors in the ADHD armamentarium.

INTRODUCTION: Adrenergic neurotransmitter reuptake inhibitors are gaining attention in treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Due to their effects on norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin neurotransmission, they benefit both ADHD and comorbid disorders and have some other advantages including longer duration of action and fewer adverse effects compared to stimulants. There is continued interest in these agents with novel mechanisms of action in treatment of ADHD. AREAS COVERED: The authors conducted a PubMed literature search using the following key words: 'ADHD' AND 'adrenergic reuptake inhibitors' OR 'nonstimulants' OR 'atomoxetine' OR 'Viloxazine' OR 'Dasotraline' OR 'Centanafadine' OR 'PDC-1421' OR 'Reboxetine' OR 'Edivoxetine' OR 'Bupropion' OR 'Venlafaxine' OR 'Duloxetine.' They reviewed FDA fact sheets of available medications for safety/tolerability studies and reviewed published clinical studies of these medications for treatment of ADHD. EXPERT OPINION: Adrenergic neurotransmitter reuptake inhibitors fit the diverse needs of children and adolescents with ADHD with 1) poor tolerability to stimulants (e.g. due to growth suppression, insomnia, rebound irritability, co-morbid depression, anxiety and tic disorders, substance abuse or diversion concerns), 2) cardiac risks, and/or 3) need for extended duration of action. Their differences in receptor affinities and modulating effects support the unique benefits of individual agents.

Phase-specific strategies and interventions to enhance medication adherence across different phases in ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the characteristics, types, and impact of interventions to improve adherence to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications within the context of the three phases of adherence, namely, initiation, implementation, and discontinuation. METHODS: PubMed, Psychological Information Database, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Google Scholar were systematically searched for relevant trials using appropriate search terms. Interventions were classified as educational, behavioural, affective, and multifaceted. Data was pooled using odds ratios and proportions. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in this review. In a pooled analysis of four RCTs, interventions did not significantly improve medication adherence (OR = 2.32; 95%-Confidence Interval=CI = 0.91-5.90; p = 0.08). In seven non-randomized trials, a pooled proportion of people who adhered to ADHD medication was considerably higher in the intervention group (85%, 95%CI = 78%-91%) than in the control group (47%, 95%CI = 33%-61%). Interventions varied in terms of study design, methods and their impact on different phases of adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some promising results, the lack of consideration of phase-specific adherence factors may limit the effectiveness and sustainability of interventions to improve adherence in clinical practice. Future interventions should be phase-specific, guided by factors which are pertinent to each phase. Meanwhile, clinicians should choose or tailor interventions based on individual needs and preferences.

Effects of 2 months of methylphenidate on energy expenditure in individuals with obesity: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study.

Methylphenidate (MPH) has been previously shown to increase resting energy expenditure (REE) in individuals of normal weight; however, the effects on individuals living with obesity are currently unknown. Ten individuals living with obesity were randomly assigned to undergo 60 days of MPH administration with a daily dose of 0.5 mg/kg body weight or a placebo control. REE was measured before and after the 60-day intervention. There was a trend toward significance for group × time interaction on REE (p = 0.082) with a large effect size (η2 = 0.331), with MPH administration increasing REE compared to a decrease in placebo control. Preliminary findings from this pilot study show that MPH has the potential to counter the adaptive thermogenic process commonly seen in weight loss. This is a unique finding among pharmacotherapies, as no approved obesity drugs measurably impact REE.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Suboptimal Medication Adherence in Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Literature Review.

Introduction: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition with severe and life-long consequences. Adolescents and young adults represent a particularly vulnerable subgroup because of the unique demands of their developmental stage. Despite the well-known efficacy of medication treatment for ADHD, there remains a notable concern regarding poor medication adherence in this population. Objectives: This systematic literature review aimed to synthesize the existing empirical evidence on the outcomes and consequences of medication nonadherence among adolescents and young adults with ADHD. Methods: An extensive database search was conducted on September 26, 2022, with no time limits applied. The databases included Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and PsycINFO. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Each study revealed that medication nonadherence was associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including decreased academic performance, heightened familial, and psychological stress, and an increased likelihood of substance use, pregnancy, obesity, and injury. Conversely, adherence led to improvements in at least one ADHD-related outcome. Conclusions: Research exploring the consequences of suboptimal medication adherence in adolescents and young adults with ADHD is currently limited, and effective strategies to address this issue remain scarce. A thorough understanding of such consequences is critical for developing interventions aimed at improving medication adherence and mitigating the risk of adverse outcomes, especially considering the susceptibility of this population.

Dispensing of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder medications for adults in Aotearoa New Zealand.

AIM: To report dispensing trends for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Aotearoa New Zealand, focussing on adults in order to highlight increasing demand for ADHD treatment by adults and to prompt discussion. METHOD: Demographic and dispensing data for ADHD were obtained from the Pharmaceutical Collection between the years 2006 and 2022. This was stratified according to child (<18 years) and adult (≥18 years) populations. Population dispensing rates for methylphenidate and atomoxetine were calculated. Key findings are reported to reveal demographic and dispensing trends for medication treated ADHD in Aotearoa New Zealand. RESULTS: More males are dispensed ADHD medication than females, although this is less evident for adults (54.8% male). Maori adults are dispensed ADHD medication at a lower rate (10.1%) than Maori children (22.9%). There was a 10-fold increase in dispensing of ADHD medication for adults compared to a three-fold increase for children over the study period. New dispensing for adults doubled between 2011 and 2022. CONCLUSION: Medication treatment for adult ADHD is increasing in Aotearoa New Zealand and includes treatment for persisting childhood ADHD and new diagnoses made in adulthood. Despite increases, dispensing rates for ADHD remain lower than prevalence estimates, suggesting a significant treatment gap. Addressing the treatment gap for ADHD may reduce negative effects of ADHD, but wider social influences should also be considered.

Recent advances in pharmacological management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: moving beyond stimulants.

INTRODUCTION: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurobehavioral disorder characterized by impairing inattention and/or hyperactivity and impulsivity in children and adults. Although medications have been available to treat ADHD symptoms for decades, many are stimulant formulations. Stimulants, such as amphetamine and methylphenidate, are available in more than two dozen formulations, but all have similar adverse effects and carry a risk of misuse and dependence. AREAS COVERED: In the United States (US), several nonstimulants are available to treat ADHD. Two, including atomoxetine and viloxazine extended-release (ER), are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of ADHD in children and adults. Two others, clonidine ER and guanfacine ER, are only approved for children and adolescents in the US. Several other compounds are under investigation. Drugs in Phase 3 trials include centanafadine, solriamfetol, and L-threonic acid magnesium salt. Efficacy and safety data for nonstimulants is presented. EXPERT OPINION: Although many effective formulations for the treatment of ADHD are available, more than 33% of children and 50% of adults discontinue treatment during the first year. The lack of individual drug response and tolerability are reasons many stop treatment. The development of new nonstimulants may offer hope for patients who need medication alternatives.

Adults with both bipolar disorder and ADHD.

ADHD and bipolar disorder (BP) commonly coexist, and both share key symptoms, depending on affective state and emotional dysregulation. The overlap poses diagnostic challenges and may lead to underdiagnoses. Comorbid cases exhibit worsened symptom burden, increased psychiatric morbidity, admissions, and suicide attempts. Treating BP before ADHD is recommended. Stimulant use combined with mood stabilisers may be effective and relatively safe; however, this review finds that well-designed randomised controlled studies in the area is warranted.

The Use of Methylphenidate During Inpatient Rehabilitation After Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury: Population Characteristics and Prescribing Patterns.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how methylphenidate (MPH) is used in youth with traumatic brain injury (TBI) during inpatient pediatric rehabilitation. SETTING: Inpatient pediatric rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 234 children with TBI; 62 of whom received MPH and 172 who did not. Patients were on average 11.6 years of age (range, 2 months to 21 years); 88 of 234 were female; the most common mechanism of injury was motor vehicle collision (49%); median (IQR) acute hospital length of stay (LOS) and inpatient rehabilitation LOS were 16 (10-29) and 23 (14-39), respectively; 51 of 234 were in a disorder of consciousness cognitive state at time of inpatient rehabilitation admission. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective medical record review. MAIN MEASURES: Patient demographic data, time to inpatient pediatric rehabilitation admission (TTA), cognitive state, MPH dosing (mg/kg/day). RESULTS: Patients who received MPH were older (P = .011); TTA was significantly longer in patients who received MPH than those who did not (P =.002). The lowest recorded dose range by weight was 0.05 to 0.89 mg/kg/d, representing an 18-fold difference; the weight-based range for the maximum dose was 0.11 to 0.97 mg/kg/d, a 9-fold difference. Patients in lower cognitive states at admission (P = .001) and at discharge (P = .030) were more likely to receive MPH. Five patients had side effects known to be associated with MPH; no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This multicenter study indicates that there is variable use of MPH during acute inpatient rehabilitation for children with TBI. Children who receive MPH tend to be older with lower cognitive states. Dosing practices are likely consistent with underdosing. Clinical indications for MPH use during inpatient pediatric rehabilitation should be better defined. The use of MPH, as well as its combination with other medications and treatments, during inpatient rehabilitation needs to be further explored.

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

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

Long-Term Cardiovascular Risk Associated With Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Adults.

BACKGROUND: Incrementing numbers of patients treated for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) call for scrutiny concerning long-term drug-safety. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate associations between long-term use of ADHD treatment and cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: Using nationwide registers, adult patients first-time initiated on ADHD treatment between 1998 and 2020 were identified. Exposure groups were prior users, <1 defined daily dose (DDD) per day, ≥1 DDD per day determined at start of follow-up, and 1 year after patients' first claimed prescription. Outcomes were acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, and a composite of the above. RESULTS: At start of follow-up, 26,357, 31,211, and 15,696 individuals were correspondingly categorized as prior users (42% female, median age: 30 years [Q1-Q3: 23-41 years]), <1 DDD per day (47% female, median age: 31 years [Q1-Q3: 24-41 years]), and ≥1 DDD per day (47% female, median age: 33 years [Q1-Q3: 25-41 years]), respectively. Comparing ≥1 DDD per day with prior users, elevated standardized 10-year absolute risk of stroke (2.1% [95% CI: 1.8%-2.4%] vs 1.7% [95% CI: 1.5%-1.9%]), heart failure (1.2% [95% CI: 0.9%-1.4%] vs 0.7% [95% CI: 0.6%-0.8%]), and the composite outcome (3.9% [95% CI: 3.4%-4.3%] vs 3.0% [95% CI: 2.8 %-3.2%]) was found-with corresponding risk ratios of 1.2 (95% CI: 1.0-1.5), 1.7 (95% CI: 1.3-2.2), and 1.3 (95% CI: 1.1-1.5). No apparent associations were found for acute coronary syndrome (1.0% [95% CI: 0.8%-1.2%] vs 0.9% [95% CI: 0.8%-1.0%]). CONCLUSIONS: Possible associations between elevated long-term cardiovascular risk and increasing dosage of ADHD treatment use in a young patient group should warrant further investigation.

[Wakefulness-promoting agents for severe fatigue: to use or not to use?] / Medicatie tegen ernstige aanhoudende vermoeidheid.

About 20% of adults experience excessive daytime sleepiness or severe fatigue. Causes include somatic conditions, psychiatric disorders, and medication or drug use. Treatment depends on the underlying cause. If sleepiness persists despite optimal treatment of the underlying condition, exclusion of other causes, and behavioral interventions, wakefulness-promoting agents may be considered. However, no established pharmacological strategy exists for symptomatic treatment. Modafinil and stimulants like methylphenidate may offer some benefit based on experiences with narcolepsy or idiopathic hypersomnia. Studies in specific patient groups (e.g., multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, traumatic brain injury, cancer-related fatigue) show variable results. The use of wakefulness-promoting agents is discouraged for addressing unexplained fatigue, as seen in the context of chronic fatigue syndrome.