Methylphenidate-induced visual hallucinations

Ayahuasca blocks the reinstatement of methylphenidate-induced conditioned place preference in mice: behavioral and brain Fos expression evaluations

RATIONALE

Accumulating evidence suggests that ayahuasca, a hallucinogenic beverage used in traditional Amazonian communities for ritualistic and curative purposes, has been associated with reduced rates of substance use disorders. However, the brain mechanisms underlying the therapeutic effects of ayahuasca have not yet been fully elucidated.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of treatment with ayahuasca on the rewarding properties of the psychostimulant methylphenidate.

METHODS

The rewarding properties of ayahuasca (100 mg/kg, orally) and methylphenidate (10 mg/kg, i.p.) were investigated using the conditioned place preference (CPP) model. Furthermore, we evaluated the effects of repeated treatment with ayahuasca on the reinstatement of methylphenidate-induced CPP. Fos expression was evaluated in different limbic structures (cingulate cortex-area 1, prelimbic cortex, infralimbic cortex, orbitofrontal cortex-lateral orbital area, nucleus accumbens core and shell, ventral tegmental area, dorsal striatum, and basolateral amygdala) upon each experimental phase.

RESULTS

Both ayahuasca and methylphenidate induced CPP in mice. However, ayahuasca had limited effects on Fos expression, while methylphenidate altered Fos expression in several brain regions associated with the behavioral effects of drugs of abuse. Treatment with ayahuasca after conditioning with methylphenidate blocked the reinstatement of methylphenidate-induced CPP. Those behavioral effects were accompanied by changes in Fos expression patterns, with ayahuasca generally blocking the changes in Fos expression induced by conditioning with methylphenidate and/or reexposure to methylphenidate.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that ayahuasca restored normal brain function in areas associated with the long-term expression of drug wanting/seeking in animals conditioned to methylphenidate.

Hallucinations and other psychotic symptoms in response to methylphenidate in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a Cochrane systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Scand J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Psychol 2018;6:52-71. [PMID: 33520751 PMCID: PMC7750702 DOI: 10.21307/sjcapp-2018-003]

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence in the literature on the association between methylphenidate treatment and psychotic symptoms in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

OBJECTIVE

We examine the occurrence of psychotic symptoms during methylphenidate treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD. The data arise from our two Cochrane systematic reviews on methylphenidate, reported elsewhere.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched up to January 2016 (for observational studies) and March 2017 (for randomized trials). We summarized data as risk ratios and pooled prevalences. Trial Sequential Analysis was used to control for random errors. We assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence according to Cochrane guidelines.

RESULTS

Ten randomized trials (1103 participants), 17 non-randomized studies (76,237 participants) and 12 patient reports or series (18 patients) were identified. In the randomized trials, there was no significant difference in the risk of developing psychotic symptoms [10 of 654 (pooled prevalence, 2.5%) methylphenidate versus 1 of 508 (pooled prevalence, 1.7%) placebo patients; risk ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 7.35]. Nine of 10 trials had a high risk of bias, and according to the Trial Sequential Analysis, the required information size was not achieved, that is, the meta-analysis was considerably underpowered. There were 873 instances of psychotic symptoms in the non-randomized studies among 55,603 participants (pooled prevalence, 1.2%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7 to 2.4). In the comparative cohort study, methylphenidate significantly increased the risk for any psychotic disorder by 36% (risk ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.17 to 1.57). The overall risk of bias was rated as critical for this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of sparse data and low quality of evidence, we cannot confirm or refute whether methylphenidate increases the risk of psychotic symptoms in children and adolescents with ADHD. This possible adverse event may affect 1.1% to 2.5%, and physicians, patients and caregivers should be aware of this to ensure proper treatment in case of occurrence during methylphenidate treatment.

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.

Methylphenidate effects in the young brain: friend or foe?

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most prevalent neuropsychiatry disorders in children and adolescents, and methylphenidate (MPH) is a first-line stimulant drug available worldwide for its treatment. Despite the proven therapeutic efficacy, concerns have been raised regarding the possible consequences of chronic MPH exposure during childhood and adolescence. Disturbances in the neurodevelopment at these crucial stages are major concerns given the unknown future life consequences. This review is focused on the long-term adverse effects of MPH to the brain biochemistry. Reports conducted with young and/or adolescent animals and studies with humans are reviewed in the context of long-term consequences after early life-exposure. MPH pharmacokinetics is also reviewed as there are differences among laboratory animals and humans that may be relevant to extrapolate the findings. Studies reveal that exposure to MPH in laboratory animals during young and/or adolescent ages can impact the brain, but the outcomes are dependent on MPH dose, treatment period, and animal's age. Importantly, the female sex is largely overlooked in both animal and human studies. Unfortunately, human reports that evaluate adults following adolescent or child exposure to MPH are very scarce. In general, human data indicates that MPH is generally safe, although it can promote several brain changes in early ages. Even so, there is a lack of long course patient evaluation to clearly establish whether MPH-induced changes are friendly or foe to the brain and more human studies are needed to assess the adult brain changes that arise from early MPH treatment.