Association between methylphenidate use and long-term cardiovascular risk in paediatric patients with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: There have been concerns about the potential cardiovascular (CV) adverse effects associated with methylphenidate (MTH) use. However, only limited evidence exists on the long-term safety of MTH. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether MTH use is associated with long-term CV risk. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using 2003-2017 data from the Health and Welfare Database in Taiwan. Patients newly diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and between 3 and 18 years of age were included. Two treatment statuses were assessed: initial treatment ≥7 days and ≥180 days. Patients treated with MTH were compared with those receiving non-medication therapy. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to balance between-group differences. Study outcomes included major CV events, chronic CV disease, cardiogenic shock and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate HRs between the two groups. RESULTS: We began with 307 459 patients with ADHD. After exclusion, 224 732 patients were included in the final cohort. The results showed that compared with non-ADHD medication users, patients who were treated with MTH for more than 7 days had a similar risk of major CV events (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99; p=0.040). Identical trends were found in groups who were treated for more than 180 days (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00; p=0.050). The results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main analyses across all groups and individual outcomes. CONCLUSION: Short-term MTH use did not increase CV risk among patients with ADHD. More evidence on long-term MTH use and risk of cardiogenic shock and death is warranted.

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: long-term safety and efficacy.

Aim: To compare long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), respectively, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Patients & methods: Patient-level data from a centanafadine trial (NCT03605849) and published aggregate data from a lisdexamfetamine trial (NCT00337285), a methylphenidate trial (NCT00326300) and an atomoxetine trial (NCT00190736) were used. Patient characteristics were matched in each comparison using propensity score weighting. Study outcomes were assessed up to 52 weeks and included safety (rates of adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] or ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] score). Results: In all comparisons of matched populations, risks of AEs were statistically significantly lower with centanafadine or non-different between centanafadine and comparator; the largest differences in AE rates included upper respiratory tract infection (risk difference in percentage points: 18.75), insomnia (12.47) and dry mouth (12.33) versus lisdexamfetamine; decreased appetite (20.25), headache (18.53) and insomnia (12.65) versus methylphenidate; and nausea (26.18), dry mouth (25.07) and fatigue (13.95) versus atomoxetine (all p < 0.05). Centanafadine had a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score versus lisdexamfetamine (6.15-point difference; p < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score versus methylphenidate (1.75-point difference; p = 0.13) and versus atomoxetine (1.60-point difference; p = 0.21). Conclusion: At up to 52 weeks, centanafadine showed significantly lower incidence of several AEs than lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine; efficacy was lower than lisdexamfetamine and non-different from methylphenidate and atomoxetine.

Exploring the complex relationship between caffeine consumption and schizophrenia: A review of epidemiological and clinical studies.

This review delves into the intricate interplay between caffeine consumption and schizophrenia, examining evidence from epidemiological and clinical studies. While epidemiological research offers conflicting findings regarding the association between coffee intake and schizophrenia risk, clinical studies reveal diverse impacts of caffeine on symptomatology and cognition in individuals with schizophrenia. Some epidemiological studies suggest a potential protective effect of coffee consumption against schizophrenia, whereas others fail to establish a significant correlation. Clinical investigations highlight the complexity of caffeine's influence, with varied effects on symptom severity and cognitive function observed among schizophrenia patients. Notably, caffeine may exacerbate positive symptoms while alleviating negative symptoms and cognitive deficits in this population. However, limitations such as small sample sizes and reliance on self-reported data hinder the generalizability of these findings. Furthermore, genetic factors, prenatal exposure, and substance abuse contribute to the complexity of the relationship between caffeine and schizophrenia. Studies indicate that individuals with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia may be more vulnerable to the effects of caffeine, while prenatal exposure to caffeine may elevate the risk of schizophrenia in offspring. Additionally, substance abuse, including high caffeine and nicotine consumption, is prevalent among individuals with schizophrenia, exacerbating symptom severity. Future research directions include addressing methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes and reliance on self-reported data, and exploring the effects of caffeine on schizophrenia using larger, more diverse cohorts and controlled methodologies. A deeper understanding of caffeine's impact on schizophrenia is crucial for informing clinical practice and developing personalized interventions for patients. Ultimately, this review underscores the need for further investigation into the complex relationship between caffeine consumption and schizophrenia to improve patient outcomes and inform evidence-based interventions.

Trends in toxicological findings in unintentional opioid or stimulant toxicity deaths in Québec, Canada, 2012-2021: Has Québec entered a new era of drug-related deaths?

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to describe rates and toxicological findings of unintentional opioid and stimulant toxicity deaths, 2012-2021. METHODS: The dataset included accidental deaths determined by the Coroner to be due to opioids or stimulants. We calculated annual crude mortality rates and described combinations of drugs identified in toxicological examinations of these deaths. We described temporal trends in the detection of specific opioids, stimulants, benzodiazepines (including novel benzodiazepines), gabapentinoids and z-drugs in deaths due to opioids and stimulants. RESULTS: Mortality rates increased over time, reaching their peak in 2020 and remaining high in 2021. In deaths due to opioids, there was a decline in the proportion of deaths involving pharmaceutical opioids after 2019, and a corresponding increase in the proportion of deaths with fentanyl detected. Benzodiazepines were often present in deaths due to opioids, with novel benzodiazepines increasing rapidly from 2019 onwards. Cocaine was the most frequently detected drug in deaths due to stimulants, but amphetamine/methamphetamine was detected in around half of all stimulant deaths from 2016 onwards. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Despite availability of a multitude of overdose prevention interventions, mortality rates due to drug toxicity have increased in Québec. Toxicological findings of these deaths suggest concerning shifts in the illicit drug market, with Québec potentially having entered a new era of elevated overdose mortality. Intervention scale-up is essential, but unlikely to be sufficient, to reduce drug-related mortality. Policy reform to address the root causes of drug toxicity deaths, including an unpredictable drug supply, strained health systems and socio-economic precarity, is essential.

Enhancing spatial memory and pattern separation: Long-term effects of stimulant treatment in individuals with ADHD.

This study explores the under-researched domain of long-term stimulant treatment in children and adolescents diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The necessity for extended treatment duration, often accompanied by safety concerns and side effects leading to treatment discontinuation, underscores the significance of this investigation. Concurrently, comparative studies have revealed adverse impacts on vulnerable regions within the hippocampal formation, accompanied by behavioral perturbations. We employed computerized tests and virtual reality to assess spatial memory, pattern separation, and object recognition memory in a cohort of children diagnosed with ADHD receiving stimulant treatment. We compared their performance to a group of neurotypical peers. Our findings indicate that the ADHD group exhibited a lower performance in spatial memory, pattern separation, and object recognition memory than ND group. Intriguingly, a positive relationship emerged between the duration of stimulant treatment and performance in these variables. Notably, this improvement was not immediate to MPH treatment but becomes significant after 24 months of treatment. In contrast to previous comparative investigations, our study did not reveal a detrimental impact on spatial navigation, object recognition memory, or pattern separation, despite the known interplay of these cognitive processes with the hippocampal formation. These results shed new light on the nuanced effects of stimulant treatment in ADHD, underscoring the need for a more comprehensive understanding of long-term treatment outcomes.

Assessment of centanafadine in adults with ADHD: a matching adjusted indirect comparison versus methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release (Concerta).

OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and efficacy of centanafadine versus methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release (ER; Concerta) in adults with ADHD. METHODS: Without head-to-head trials, anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) of adverse event rates reported across trials and mean change from baseline in Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER were conducted. Pooled patient-level data from two centanafadine trials (NCT03605680/NCT03605836) and aggregate data from one published methylphenidate hydrochloride ER trial (NCT00937040) were used. Characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials were matched to aggregate baseline characteristics from the methylphenidate hydrochloride ER trial using propensity score weighting. A sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the results to the capping of extreme weights (i.e. >99th percentile). RESULTS: Compared with methylphenidate hydrochloride ER, centanafadine was associated with significantly lower risk of dry mouth (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: -11.95), initial insomnia (-11.10), decreased appetite (-8.05), anxiety (-5.39), palpitations (-5.25), and feeling jittery (-4.73) though a significantly smaller reduction in AISRS score (4.16-point). In the sensitivity analysis, the safety results were consistent with the primary analysis but there was no significant difference in efficacy between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER. CONCLUSION: In this MAIC, centanafadine had better safety and possibly lower efficacy than methylphenidate hydrochloride ER. While safety results were robust across analyses, there was no efficacy difference between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER in the sensitivity analysis. Considering its favorable safety profile, centanafadine may be preferred among patients for whom treatment-related adverse events are a concern.

Adolescent Use, Diversion Sources, and Perceived Procurement Difficulty of Prescription Medications.

This study examines trends in medical use, nonmedical use, diversion sources, and perceived procurement difficulty of prescription medications for nonmedical use among US adolescents.

Predictors for poor daily weight gain in preterm neonates exposed to different dose regimens of caffeine in ICU- a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: With a wide therapeutic index, efficacy, ease of use, and other neuroprotective and respiratory benefits, caffeine citrate(CC) is currently the drug of choice for preterm neonates (PTNs). Caffeine-induced excessive energy expenditure, diuresis, natriuresis, and other CC-associated potential side-effects (CC-APSEs) result in lower daily-weight gain (WG) in premature neonates. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors for daily-WG in neonates exposed to different dose regimens of caffeine in ICU. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study included neonates of ≤ 36weeks gestational age (GA) and received CC-therapy. The same participants were followed for data analysis in two postnatal phases: 15-28 and 29-42 days of life (DOL). Based on daily CC-dose, formed group-I (received; standard-doses = 5 mg/kg/day), group-II (received;>5-7 mg/kg/day), and group-III (received;>7 mg/kg/day). Prenatal and postnatal clinical characteristics, CC-regimen, daily-WG, CC-APSEs, and concomitant risk-factors, including daily-caloric intake, Parenteral-Nutrition duration, steroids, diuretics, and ibuprofen exposure, were analyzed separately for group-II and group-III using group-I as standard. Regression analysis was performed to evaluate the risk factors for daily-WG. RESULTS: Included 314 PTNs. During 15-28 DOL, the mean-daily-WG(MD-WG) was significantly higher in group-I than group-II [19.9 ± 0.70 g/kg/d vs. 17.7 ± 0.52 p = 0.036] and group-III [19.9 ± 0.70 g/kg/d vs. 16.8 ± 0.73 p < 0.001]. During 29-42 DOL the MD-WG of group-I was only significantly higher than group-III [21.7 ± 0.44 g/kg/d vs. 18.3 ± 0.41 g/kg/d p = 0.003] and comparable with group-II. During 15-28 DOL, observed CC-APSEs was significantly higher in group-II and III but during 29-42 DOL it was only significant in group-III. In the adjusted regression analysis for daily-WG during 15-28DOL, with respect to standard-dose, 5-7 mg/kg/day (ß=-1.04; 95%CI:-1.62,-0.93) and > 7-10 mg/kg/day (ß=-1.36; 95%CI:-1.56,-1.02) were associated with a lower daily-WG. However, during 29-42DOL, this association was present only for > 7-10 mg/kg/day (ß=-1.54; 95%CI:-1.66,-1.42). The GA ≤ 27weeks (ß=-1.03 95%CI:-1.24, -0.88) was associated with lower daily-WG only during 15-28DOL. During both periods of therapy, higher cumulative-caffeine dose and presence of culture proven sepsis, tachypnea, hyponatremia, and feeding intolerance were significantly associated with lower daily-WG. Conversely, daily kcal intake was found to be linked with an increase in daily-WG in both periods. CONCLUSION: In this study cohort exposure to higher caffeine daily and cumulative doses is associated with lower postnatal daily-WG in PTNs than standard-daily doses, which may be due to its catabolic effects and CC-APSEs.

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.

Neurological Effects of Stimulants and Hallucinogens.

In this article, we will discuss the history, pharmacodynamics, and neurotoxicity of psychostimulants and hallucinogens. The drugs discussed are widely used and have characteristic toxidromes and potential for neurological injuries with which the practicing clinician should be familiar. Psychostimulants are a class of drugs that includes cocaine, methamphetamine/amphetamines, and cathinones, among others, which produce a crescendoing euphoric high. Seizures, ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, rhabdomyolysis, and a variety of movement disorders are commonly encountered in this class. Hallucinogens encompass a broad class of drugs, in which the user experiences hallucinations, altered sensorium, distorted perception, and cognitive dysfunction. The experience can be unpredictable and dysphoric, creating a profound sense of anxiety and panic in some cases. Recognizing the associated neurotoxicities and understanding the appropriate management is critical in caring for these patient populations. Several of these agents are not detectable by standard clinical laboratory analysis, making identification and diagnosis an even greater challenge.

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.

Amphetamine use for attention deficit hyperactive disorder during breastfeeding and children's neurodevelopmental outcomes: A pilot study.

Attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) medication use rises among women of childbearing age and during pregnancy. Little is known on the safety of amphetamine stimulants for ADHD treatment during breastfeeding. Most data on the safety of these medications are from recreational abuse of methamphetamine. This study followed children (N = 13) exposed to amphetamine stimulants during breastfeeding. Assessments by Pediatric Quality of Life and Denver Developmental Scale evaluated neurodevelopment and outcomes. Study results showed normal neurodevelopment with no significant adverse effects. Findings suggest amphetamines are likely compatible with breastfeeding; however larger studies are needed.

Evaluation of methamphetamine assist packs: As-needed antipsychotics for self-management of methamphetamine-associated psychiatric toxicity.

BACKGROUND: Methamphetamine frequently causes substance-induced psychosis and related symptoms. There are currently no interventions to prevent or assist in self-management of these symptoms. METHODS: We evaluated a program providing "Methamphetamine Assist Packs" to patients who were seen in a psychiatric emergency services program for methamphetamine-induced psychosis. Methamphetamine Assist Packs included a small number of tablets of an antipsychotic medication (olanzapine), administration instructions, and referral information. We reviewed medical charts of patients who received Methamphetamine Assist Packs from January 2022 through May 2023 for sociodemographic and emergency visit characteristics. We assessed the changes between the number of psychiatric emergency visits before and after Methamphetamine Assist Pack receipt at two, six, and 12 months using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients received a Methamphetamine Assist Pack, with a mean age of 40 years; 79 % were male and 49 % Black/African American; 77 % experienced housing instability or homelessness. The most common symptoms were suicidal ideation (54 %), paranoia or delusions (45 %), and hallucinations (40 %); 55 % were on involuntary psychiatric hold, 38 % required medications for agitation, and 18 % required seclusion or physical restraints. The rate of psychiatric emergency visits after Methamphetamine Assist Pack receipt was 0.68 and 0.87 times the rate prior to receipt at two and six months, respectively (p < 0.001). There was no difference at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Methamphetamine Assist Packs were associated with fewer psychiatric emergency visits for six months after receipt, and represent a promising intervention to address acute psychiatric toxicity from methamphetamine in need of further research.

[Stimulants : Current insights into the principles, diagnostics and treatment]. / Stimulanzien : Aktuelle Erkenntnisse zu Grundlagen, Diagnostik und Therapie.

BACKGROUND: Consumption of stimulant drugs, a heterogeneous group of addictive substances, has significantly increased in recent years with rising numbers of stimulant-associated intoxication and deaths. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of recent scientific evidence of the diagnosis and treatment of stimulant use disorders. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature review of the neuropathology, clinical presentation, diagnostic criteria and evidence-based treatment for stimulant use disorders. RESULTS: The chronic use of stimulant drugs is associated with significant physical (e.g., hypertension, tachycardia and dyspnoea) and psychological harm (e.g., dependence, psychotic disorders and affective disorders). Despite major advances in the research of the neuropathology of stimulant use disorder and the refinement of diagnostic criteria, the disorder still presents a challenge, not least because of the lack of effective treatments. There are currently no approved pharmacotherapeutic interventions for stimulant use disorder and meta-analyses show that the efficacy of behavioural interventions is low to moderate, similar to cognitive behavioural treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite growing insights into the neuropathology associated with stimulant use disorder, treatment remains a challenge. The lack of effective interventions makes it difficult to give clear recommendations for the clinical practice. Further scientific research is thus warranted.

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.

Use of methylphenidate and reporting of valvular heart disease: Global pharmacovigilance analysis in children and adults.

INTRODUCTION: Methylphenidate (MPH) is a common treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Concern has been raised regarding its cardiovascular safety, partly in relation with its micromolar affinity for the 5-HT2B receptor, whose activation may result in valvular heart disease (VHD). METHODS: To explore the association between the use of MPH and VHD reporting, we performed a disproportionality analysis within the WHO global safety database (VigiBase) using data, since inception until March 6th 2024, from: (i) the full database and (ii) different age groups (children/adolescents 6-17 years; adults 18-64 years). To avoid competition bias, safety reports with amphetamine-like appetite suppressants were excluded. Disproportionality was expressed using reporting odds-ratio (ROR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Of 29 129 spontaneous reports with MPH, 23 VHD cases (7.9 per 10 000 reports) were identified, including 13 adults and 10 children. Most cases concerned injury on the mitral valve. A disproportionate reporting was observed overall (ROR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4). Analysis according to age group found that disproportionality in VHD reporting was found in adults only (ROR 2.7, 95% CI 1.6-4.7) but not in children/adolescents (ROR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-3.2). Furthermore, amongst MPH users only, VHD reporting was higher in adults compared to children (ROR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-6.3). CONCLUSION: VHD reporting appears rare with MPH compared to other adverse events and is increased in adults only. Our findings support a potential safety signal of VHD in adults exposed to MPH. A risk in that population cannot be excluded and requires further assessment.

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.