Comparative short term efficacy and tolerability of methylphenidate and atomoxetine in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

A systematic review of evidence-based interventions for child and adolescent mental health problems in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Treatments for mental health problems in childhood and adolescence have advanced in the last 15 years. Despite advances in research, most of the evidence on effective interventions comes from high-income countries, while evidence is scarce in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where 90% of world's children and adolescents live. The aim of this review was to identify evidence-based interventions tested in LMICs to treat or prevent child and adolescent mental health problems.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of seven major electronic databases, from January 2007 to July 2019. We included randomised or non-randomised clinical trials that evaluated interventions for children or adolescents aged 6 to 18 years living in LMICs and who had, or were at risk of developing, one or more mental health problems. Results were grouped according to the studied conditions. Due to the heterogeneity of conditions, interventions and outcomes, we performed a narrative synthesis. The review was registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42019129376.

FINDINGS

Of 127,466 references found through our search strategy, 107 studies were included in narrative synthesis after the eligibility verification processes. Nineteen different conditions and nine types of interventions were addressed by studies included in the review. Over 1/3 of studied interventions were superior to comparators, with psychoeducation and psychotherapy having the highest proportion of positive results. One-third of studies were classified as presenting low risk of bias.

INTERPRETATION

This review shows that different interventions have been effective in LMICs and have the potential to close the mental health care gap among children and adolescents in low-resource settings.

The effects of stimulant and non-stimulant medications on the autonomic nervous system (ANS) functioning in people with ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of stimulant and non-stimulant medications on autonomic functioning in people with ADHD (PROSPERO: CRD42020212439). We searched (9th August 2021) PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library, for randomised and non-randomised studies reporting indices of autonomic activity, (electrodermal, pupillometry and cardiac), pre- and post-medication exposure in people meeting DSM/ICD criteria for ADHD. In the narrative syntheses, we included 5 electrodermal studies, 1 pupillometry study and 57 studies investigating heart rate and blood pressure. In the meta-analyses, 29 studies were included on blood pressure and 32 on heart rate. Administration of stimulants, and to a lesser degree, non-stimulants increased heart rate and blood pressure in people with ADHD. Similarly, an upregulation of arousal, reflected in increased electrodermal activity and pupil diameter was observed following stimulant use. Yet, the methodological diversity of studies presented in this review reinforces the need for more standardised and rigorous research to fully understand the relationship between arousal, medication, and behaviour in ADHD.

Treatments for child and adolescent attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in low and middle-income countries: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects approximately 2-7 % of children globally and is associated with a myriad of difficulties that have long-term consequences. Most children and adolescents live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but there are few reports and no consolidation of findings on ADHD treatment outcomes in this population. We conducted a review of ADHD treatment literature for children and adolescents living in LMICs.

METHODS

Studies were identified using databases (PsychoINFO, Pubmed, MEDLINER, EMBASE, Global Health, Academic Search Complete, Google Scholar). The initial search produced 139 articles. These were filtered for language, title, abstract, and full-text keyword identification to yield a final 20 articles to be included in this review.

RESULTS

Reports on outcomes of both psychological and pharmacological treatment were relatively sparse, particularly the former, which mostly referred to parent training and multimodal programs in pre-school children. Most evidence exists for the benefit of methylphenidate-IR with a few reports on other agents, including clonidine, atomoxetine, and lisdexamfetamine. Methylphenidate is the most common agent to treat ADHD in youth in LMICs. Younger age, combined subtype, and comorbid oppositional defiant disorder were associated with poorer treatment outcome.

CONCLUSION

Access to treatment for ADHD is overall limited in LMICs and varied among individual countries. Pharmacological treatments were generally more available than psychological interventions. Several barriers including stigma, cost, and lack of resources were reported to impact treatment acceptance. More research in LMICs is needed to improve and expand mental health services in these regions.

Personalization of pharmacological treatments for ADHD: Why it is advisable and possible options to achieve it

Abstract:

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosed primarily in children, although it is also present in adults. Patients present inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity symptoms that create difficulties in their daily lives. Pharmacological treatment with stimulants or non-stimulants is used most commonly to reduce ADHD symptoms. Although generally effective and safe, pharmacological treatments have different effects among patients, including lack of response and adverse reactions. The reasons for these differences are not fully understood, but they may derive from the highly diverse etiology of ADHD. Strategies to guide optimal pharmacological treatment selection on the basis of individual patients’ physiological markers are being developed. In this review, we describe the main pharmacological ADHD treatments used and their main drawbacks. We present alternatives under study that would allow the customization of pharmacological treatments to overcome these drawbacks and achieve more reliable improvement of ADHD symptoms.

ADHD: Reviewing the Causes and Evaluating Solutions

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder in which patients present inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. The etiology of this condition is diverse, including environmental factors and the presence of variants of some genes. However, a great diversity exists among patients regarding the presence of these ADHD-associated factors. Moreover, there are variations in the reported neurophysiological correlates of ADHD. ADHD is often treated pharmacologically, producing an improvement in symptomatology, albeit there are patients who are refractory to the main pharmacological treatments or present side effects to these drugs, highlighting the importance of developing other therapeutic options. Different non-pharmacological treatments are in this review addressed, finding diverse results regarding efficacy. Altogether, ADHD is associated with different etiologies, all of them producing changes in brain development, leading to the characteristic symptomatology of this condition. Given the heterogeneous etiology of ADHD, discussion is presented about the convenience of personalizing ADHD treatment, whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological, to reach an optimum effect in the majority of patients. Approaches to personalizing both pharmacological therapy and neurofeedback are presented.

Can EEG Predict Response to Atomoxetine in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder at 1 Week?

Objective: The objective of the study is to predict the early changes in electroencephalography (EEG) at 1 week and its correlation to clinical response at 6 weeks after treatment with atomoxetine in children with ADHD. Method: In 50 children (6-14 years) with ADHD (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [5th ed.; DSM-5]), Vanderbilt ADHD Parent Rating Scale (VADPRS) and Vanderbilt ADHD Teachers Rating Scale (VADTRS) were applied at baseline, 1, 4, and 6 weeks. EEG was recorded using International 10-20 System of electrode placement at baseline and at 1 week after atomoxetine treatment. EEG changes at 1 week after atomoxetine therapy was correlated to clinical response at 6 weeks. Results: Patients were classified as responders or nonresponders based on the VADPRS/VADTRS findings. After 1 week of treatment, responders' theta cordance values were decreased, whereas nonresponders' values didn't decrease significantly. Conclusion: Patients with decreased theta cordance values, especially in the left temporoparietal region, at 1 week were likely to respond to atomoxetine while those without any such change were likely to be nonresponders.

The Effect of Methylphenidate and Atomoxetine on Heart Rate and Systolic Blood Pressure in Young People and Adults with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression

Objectives: This meta-analysis aims to study the effects of atomoxetine and methylphenidate on heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and a number of adverse cardiac events on patients receiving treatment for attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) in comparison to placebo and between atomoxetine and methylphenidate. Methods: We searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that examined the relationships between methylphenidate or atomoxetine and HR, SBP, as well as a number of adverse cardiac events. These studies were either placebo-controlled or comparison studies between methylphenidate and atomoxetine. Meta-regression identified patient- and treatment-related factors that may contribute to heterogeneity. Results: Twenty-two studies were included and the total number of participants was 46,107. Children/adolescents and adults treated with methylphenidate had more significant increases in post- vs. pre-treatment HR (p < 0.001) and SBP (p < 0.001) than those treated by placebo. Children and adolescents treated with atomoxetine had more significant increases post- vs. pre-treatment HR (p = 0.025) and SBP (p < 0.001) than those treated with methylphenidate. Meta-regression revealed mean age of participants, mean dose, and duration of atomoxetine and methylphenidate as significant moderators that explained heterogeneity. There were no differences in the number of adverse cardiac events between participants with methylphenidate treatment and placebo or atomoxetine. Conclusions: Children/adolescents and adults treated with methylphenidate resulted in significant increases in post- vs. pre-treatment HR and SBP as compared to placebo. Similarly, children and adolescents treated with atomoxetine had significant increases in post- vs. pre-treatment HR and SBP than those treated with methylphenidate. These findings have potential implications for continuous monitoring of HR and SBP throughout the course of treatment although the risk for adverse cardiac events were insignificant.

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

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Fourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.Primary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.In the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).Secondary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).With non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.Given the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.

ADHD research in India: A narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder with no clear etiopathogenesis. Owing to unique socio cultural milieu of India, it is worthwhile reviewing research on ADHD from India and comparing findings with global research. Thereby, we attempted to provide a comprehensive overview of research on ADHD from India.

METHODS

A boolean search of articles published in English from September 1966 to January 2017 on electronic search engines Google Scholar, PubMed, IndMED, MedIND, using the search terms "ADHD", "Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder", "Hyperactivity" ,"Child psychiatry", "Hyperkinetic disorder", "Attention Deficit Disorder", "India"was carried out and peer - reviewed studies conducted among human subjects in India were included for review. Case reports, animal studies, previous reviews were excluded from the current review.

RESULTS

Results of 73 studies found eligible for the review were organized into broad themes such as epidemiology, etiology, course and follow up, clinical profile and comorbidity, assessment /biomarkers, intervention/treatment parameters, pathways to care and knowledge and attitude towards ADHD.

DISCUSSION

There was a gap noted in research from India in the domains of biomarkers, course and follow up and non-pharmacological intervention. The prevalence of ADHD as well as comorbidity of Bipolar Disorder was comparatively lower compared to western studies. The studies found unique to India include comparing the effect of allopathic intervention with Ayurvedic intervention, yoga as a non pharmacological intervention. There is a need for studies from India on biomarkers, studies with prospective research design, larger sample size and with matched controls.

Comparative efficacy and safety of methylphenidate and atomoxetine for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: Meta-analysis based on head-to-head trials

INTRODUCTION

Comparative efficacy and safety are important issues for appropriate drug selection for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment. Therefore we conducted a meta-analysis, where we compared atomoxetine (ATX) and methylphenidate (MPH) for ADHD treatment in children and adolescents.

METHOD

Literature retrieval was conducted in relevant databases from their inception to April 2016 to select head-to-head trials that compared ATX and MPH in children and adolescents. Outcomes like response rate, ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) score, and adverse events were compared between ATX and MPH treatments. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as the effect size for continuous data or dichotomous data, respectively.

RESULTS

Eleven eligible randomized-controlled trials were included, and two of them were double-blind, while the remaining were open-label. Compared to ATX, MPH showed a higher response rate (RR = 1.14, 95% CI [1. 09, 1.20]), decreased inattention (SMD = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.25, -0.01]) and lower risk of adverse events (drowsiness: RR = 0.17, 95% CI [0.11, 0.26; nausea: RR = 0.49; 95% CI [0.29, 0.85; vomiting: RR = 0.41, 95% CI [0.27, 0.63]). However, MPH presented a higher risk of insomnia than ATX (RR = 2.27, 95% CI [1.63, 3.15], p < .01).

CONCLUSION

Results of the meta-analysis add additional evidence of the effectiveness of both ATX and MPH and suggest that MPH should be a first treatment option in most patients with ADHD.

Comparative efficacy and safety of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder pharmacotherapies, including guanfacine extended release: a mixed treatment comparison

This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) pharmacotherapy in children and adolescents 6-17 years of age. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacologic monotherapies among children and adolescents with ADHD. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to compare change in symptoms using the ADHD Rating Scale Version IV (ADHD-RS-IV), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) response, all-cause discontinuation, and adverse event-related discontinuation. Thirty-six RCTs were included in the analysis. The mean (95% credible interval [CrI]) ADHD-RS-IV total score change from baseline (active minus placebo) was -14.98 (-17.14, -12.80) for lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), -9.33 (-11.63, -7.04) for methylphenidate (MPH) extended release, -8.68 (-10.63, -6.72) for guanfacine extended release (GXR), and -6.88 (-8.22, -5.49) for atomoxetine (ATX); data were unavailable for MPH immediate release. The relative risk (95% CrI) for CGI-I response (active versus placebo) was 2.56 (2.21, 2.91) for LDX, 2.13 (1.70, 2.54) for MPH extended release, 1.94 (1.59, 2.29) for GXR, 1.77 (1.31, 2.26) for ATX, and 1.62 (1.05, 2.17) for MPH immediate release. Among non-stimulant pharmacotherapies, GXR was more effective than ATX when comparing ADHD-RS-IV total score change (with a posterior probability of 93.91%) and CGI-I response (posterior probability 76.13%). This study found that LDX had greater efficacy than GXR, ATX, and MPH in the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD. GXR had a high posterior probability of being more efficacious than ATX, although their CrIs overlapped.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Different Interventions in Children and Adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

BACKGROUND

Our study is an analysis of multiple publications involving assessing the comparable efficacy and tolerability of six interventions, which are lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), atomoxetine (ATX), methylphenidate (MPH), clonidine hydrochloride (CLON), guanfacine extended release (GXR), and bupropion, for young patients (6-18 years old) suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

A conventional meta-analysis (MA) was performed to give direct comparisons and a network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to show the combination of direct and indirect evidence. Ranking preference for all the interventions under a certain outcome was given by the surface of cumulative ranking curve area (SUCRA).

RESULTS

Overall, 15,025 participants from 73 studies were involved in our analysis. In the pairwise MA, LDX was associated with less withdrawal than ATX for lack of efficacy. MPH showed less effectiveness than LDX according to ADHD Rating Scale score. Based on the analysis of our NMA, significant results of efficacy that LDX is a competitive drug were observed when evaluating LDX in comparison with other drugs except for CLON. ATX and GXR presented higher rates of abdominal pain morbidity versus inactive treatment.

CONCLUSION

The stimulants LDX and MPH are still highly recommended because they are highly effective and are tolerated well by patients. Among the non-stimulants, CLON can be taken into consideration for its appreciable effectiveness and tolerability. ATX and GXR can be seen as moderate choices.

Safety of Methylphenidate and Atomoxetine in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Data from the Italian National ADHD Registry

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the type and frequency of adverse events (AEs) in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treated with methylphenidate or atomoxetine over a 5-year period in a large naturalistic study.

METHODS

We draw on data from the Italian ADHD Registry, a national database for postmarketing phase IV pharmacovigilance of ADHD medications across 90 centers. AEs were defined as severe or mild as per the classification of the Italian Medicines Agency. AE frequency in the two treatment groups was compared using incidence rates per 100 person-years (IR100PY) and incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Mantel-Haenszel adjusted IRRs were calculated to control for psychiatric comorbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 1350 and 753 participants (aged 6-18 years, mean age 10.7 ± 2.8) were treated with methylphenidate and atomoxetine, respectively, from 2007 to 2012. Ninety participants (7 %) were switched from methylphenidate to atomoxetine, and 138 (18 %) from atomoxetine to methylphenidate. Thirty-seven children treated with atomoxetine and 12 with methylphenidate had their medication withdrawn. Overall, 645 patients (26.8 %) experienced at least one mild AE (including decreased appetite and irritability, for both drugs) and 95 patients (3.9 %) experienced at least one severe AE (including severe gastrointestinal events). IR100PY were significantly higher in the atomoxetine-treated group compared with the methylphenidate-treated group for a number of mild and severe AEs and for any severe or mild AEs. After controlling for comorbidities, IRR was still significantly higher in the atomoxetine group compared with the methylphenidate group for a number of mild (decreased appetite, weight loss, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, stomach ache, irritability, mood disorder and dizziness) and severe (gastrointestinal, neuropsychiatric, and cardiovascular) AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this naturalistic study, methylphenidate had a better safety profile than atomoxetine.

The Safety of Atomoxetine for the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Comprehensive Review of Over a Decade of Research

Atomoxetine is a noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) that first gained approval in the USA in 2002 and has been authorized in 97 countries worldwide. The aim of this paper is to comprehensively review publications that addressed one or more of seven major safety topics relevant to atomoxetine treatment of children and adolescents (aged ≥6 years) diagnosed with ADHD. While the review focuses on children and adolescents, publications in which data from patients aged >18 years and from 6 to 18 years were analyzed in the same dataset were included. Using a predefined search strategy, including agreement of two reviewers when selecting papers, reduced the potential for bias. Using this process, we identified 70 eligible papers (clinical trials, epidemiological studies, and case reports) across the seven topics. We also referred to the European Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) and US label. We found 15 papers about suicidality, three about aggression/hostility, seven about psychosis/mania, six about seizures, seven about hepatic effects, 29 about cardiovascular effects, and 28 about growth and development. The main findings (i.e., those from the largest and most well-conducted studies/analyses) are as follows. A large register-based study of pediatric and adult patients (6818 received atomoxetine) calculated a hazard ratio of 0.96 for suicide-related events during treatment with atomoxetine, and a meta-analysis of 23 placebo-controlled studies (N = 3883), published in 2014, found no completed suicides and no statistically significant association between atomoxetine and suicidality. The frequency of aggression/hostility was not statistically significantly higher with atomoxetine, e.g., experienced by 1.6 % (N = 21/1308) of atomoxetine-treated patients versus 1.1 % (N = 9/806) of placebo-treated patients in one meta-analysis. Symptoms of psychosis and mania were mainly observed in patients with comorbid bipolar disorder/depression. Based on spontaneous reports, during a 2-year period when 2.233 million adult and pediatric patients were exposed to atomoxetine, the reporting rate for seizures was 8 per 100,000 patients. In the manufacturer's database, atomoxetine was a "probable cause" of three hepatic adverse events (AEs) (all reversible hepatitis), and 133 hepatic AEs had possible confounding factors and were "possibly related" to atomoxetine, during 4 years when atomoxetine exposure had reached about 4.3 million patients. Rare cases of severe liver injury are described in the US label and European SPC; a case requiring liver transplantation is described in the US label. In a comprehensive review of a clinical trials database (N = 8417 received atomoxetine), most pediatric patients experienced modest increases in heart rate and blood pressure, and 8-12 % experienced more pronounced changes (≥20 bpm, ≥15 to 20 mmHg). However, in three long-term analyses (≥2 years), blood pressure was within age norms, and few patients discontinued due to cardiovascular AEs. As described in the European SPC, QT interval prolongation is uncommon, e.g., in an open-label study, 1.4 % of 711 children and adolescents had prolonged QTc intervals (≥450 ms in males, ≥470 ms in females) that were not clinically significant at ≥3 years of treatment with atomoxetine. The European SPC warns about potential QT interval prolongation in patients with a personal or family history, or if atomoxetine is administered with other drugs that potentially affect the QT interval. Decreases in growth (weight and height gain) occurred and were greatest in patients of above average weight and height, but appeared to recover over 2-5 years of atomoxetine treatment. In conclusion, suicidality, aggression/hostility, psychosis, seizures, liver injuries, and prolonged QT interval are uncommon or rare in children and adolescents treated with atomoxetine, based on data from the predefined search and from the European SPC. Overall, the data that we assessed from our search do not suggest that associations exist between atomoxetine and suicidality or seizures. The data also suggest that an association may not exist between atomoxetine and aggression/hostility. While atomoxetine may affect the cardiovascular system, the data suggest these effects are not clinically significant in most patients. Reductions in growth appear to be reversible in the long term.

Changes in behavior as side effects in methylphenidate treatment: review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Our review of the scientific literature focused on an analysis of studies describing instances of methylphenidate treatment leading (or not) to behavioral changes in the pediatric, adolescent, and adult populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Medline, and Google using the keywords "methylphenidate", "behavioral changes", "adverse effects", and "side effects". A total of 44 studies were identified as reporting on the effects and adverse effects of methylphenidate administration, and were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Five studies specifically set out to study, record, and discuss changes in behavior. Eight studies did not set out to study behavioral effects, but record and discuss them. A total of 28 studies recorded behavioral effects, but failed to discuss these further. Three studies did not include behavioral effects.

CONCLUSION

This review records what data have been published in respect of changes in behavior in association with the use of methylphenidate. While there is some evidence to suggest that methylphenidate causes changes in behavior, the majority of the studies reviewed paid little or no attention to this issue. Based on the available data, it is impossible to determine the point at which such behavioral effects occur. The frequency of occurrence of behavioral effects is also impossible to determine with certainty. Based on the available data, it is not possible to rule out whether behavioral effects may persist or not persist once treatment is discontinued. In conclusion, despite countless publications and extensive administration, especially to children, we have insufficient data to judge the long-term effects and risks of methylphenidate taking.

Probabilistic Markov Model Estimating Cost Effectiveness of Methylphenidate Osmotic-Release Oral System Versus Immediate-Release Methylphenidate in Children and Adolescents: Which Information is Needed?

BACKGROUND

Incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents has been increasing. The disorder results in high societal costs. Policymakers increasingly use health economic evaluations to inform decisions on competing treatments of ADHD. Yet, health economic evaluations of first-choice medication of ADHD in children and adolescents are scarce and generally do not include broader societal effects.

OBJECTIVES

This study presents a probabilistic model and analysis of methylphenidate osmotic-release oral system (OROS) versus methylphenidate immediate-release (IR). We investigate and include relevant societal aspects in the analysis so as to provide cost-effectiveness estimates based on a broad societal perspective.

METHODS

We enhanced an existing Markov model and determined the cost effectiveness of OROS versus IR for children and adolescents responding suboptimally to treatment with IR. Enhancements included screening of a broad literature base, updated utility values, inclusion of costs and effects on caregivers and a change of the model type from deterministic to probabilistic.

RESULTS

The base case scenario resulted in lower incremental costs (€-5815) of OROS compared with IR and higher incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains (0.22). Scenario analyses were performed to determine sensitivity to changes in transition rates, utility of caregivers, medical costs of caregivers and daily medication dose.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that, for children responding suboptimally to treatment with IR, the beneficial effect of OROS on compliance may be worth the additional costs of medication. The presented model adds to the health economic information available for policymakers and to considerations on a broader perspective in cost-effectiveness analyses.