An Open-Label, Randomized Trial of Methylphenidate and Atomoxetine Treatment in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Developmental Changes of Autistic Symptoms, ADHD Symptoms, and Attentional Performance in Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder

This study followed up ADHD/autistic symptoms and attentional performance in children/adolescents with ASD and typically developing ones (TD) over 5-7 years. The participants were stratified by age at baseline into child (< 12 years) and adolescent (12-19 years) groups. ADHD symptoms, especially hyperactivity, and attentional functions significantly improved during follow-up, more in children than in adolescents, in both ASD and TD. Significantly more omission errors and perseverations were noted in ASD than TD through the follow-up. Children with ASD had more improvement in reaction time while adolescents with ASD had less improvement in commission errors and detectability than TD. No correlation of attentional functions and ADHD symptoms in ASD implied different neural mechanisms of ADHD symptoms between ASD and ADHD.

Differential Treatment Effects of Methylphenidate and Atomoxetine on Executive Functions in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of methylphenidate and atomoxetine on improving executive functions among children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: This was an open-label, head-to-head, 3-month, randomized clinical trial with two-arm parallel-treatment groups: osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH; n = 79) and atomoxetine once daily (n = 78). Three major domains of executive functions were assessed, including response selection/inhibition, flexibility, and planning/working memory. The neuropsychological measures included the Conners' continuous performance test and the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery. Results: We found that both treatment groups showed improvement in executive functions (p-value <0.05 for the major indices of each domain). In addition, OROS-MPH was associated with a greater magnitude of improvement in the response selection/inhibition; the slope for detectability improvement in the Conners' continuous performance test was 0.06 for atomoxetine and 0.15 for OROS-MPH (p-value <0.01); the slope in rapid visual information processing was 2.22 for atomoxetine and 3.45 for OROS-MPH (p-value <0.05). Conclusion: Both OROS-MPH and atomoxetine improved various domains of executive functions in children with ADHD. There is greater improvement in response selection/inhibition among patients treated with OROS-MPH than those with atomoxetine. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT00916786).

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Two-Way Crossover Clinical Trial of ORADUR-Methylphenidate for Treating Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Objective: Methylphenidate (MPH) is efficacious in reducing symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but there are no data about the efficacy and safety of its new formulation (ORADUR^®-MPH extended release, ORADUR-MPH) in patients with ADHD, which is the study objective. Method: This was a Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover clinical trial. One hundred children and adolescents with a clinical diagnosis of ADHD (72.7% male) received at least one dose of ORADUR-MPH or a placebo during the 2-week treatment period of each phase. The primary efficacy measure was the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham-IV-teacher (SNAP-IV-T) form. Secondary efficacy measures included the SNAP-IV-parent form, the Clinical Global Impression: ADHD-Severity score, the Conner's Teacher's Rating Scale score, and the investigator's rating for 18 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition ADHD symptoms. In addition, data related to vital signs, body weight, physical examination, laboratory testing, and adverse events (AEs) were also collected. All data were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: Without adjusting for differences in demographics and baseline measures, both treatment groups showed significant reductions in ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder symptoms after a 2-week treatment with greater effect sizes (Cohen's d) in the ORADUR-MPH group (Cohen's d ranging from -0.41 to -1.64; placebo, Cohen's d ranging from -0.26 to -1.18), except for oppositional symptoms, regardless of the informants. For the primary efficacy measure, ORADUR-MPH was significantly superior to the placebo, as evidenced by lower values for and greater reductions in the SNAP-IV-T scores at the endpoint (Cohen's d = -0.16, p = 0.005) and from baseline to the endpoint (Cohen's d = -0.19, p = 0.006), respectively. There were no serious AEs during the clinical study period. The most frequently observed AE was decreased appetite (49.1%). Most physical and laboratory test variables remained within the normal range. Conclusions: Once-daily ORADUR-MPH is an effective, well-tolerable, and safe treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02450890.

Assessing attention orienting in mice: a novel touchscreen adaptation of the Posner-style cueing task

Atypical attention orienting has been found to be impaired in many neuropsychological disorders, but the underlying neural mechanism remains unclear. Attention can be oriented exogenously (i.e., driven by salient stimuli) or endogenously (i.e., driven by one's goals or intentions). Genetic mouse models are useful tools to investigate the neurobiology of cognition, but a well-established assessment of attention orienting in mice is missing. This study aimed to adapt the Posner task, a widely used attention orienting task in humans, for use in mice using touchscreen technology and to test the effects of two attention-modulating drugs, methylphenidate (MPH) and atomoxetine (ATX), on the performance of mice during this task. In accordance with human performance, mice responded more quickly and more accurately to validly cued targets compared to invalidly cued targets, thus supporting mice as a valid animal model to study the neural mechanisms of attention orienting. This is the first evidence that mice can be trained to voluntarily maintain their nose-poke on a touchscreen and to complete attention orienting tasks using exogenous peripheral cues and endogenous symbolic cues. The results also showed no significant effects of MPH and ATX on attention orienting, although MPH improved overall response times in mice during the exogenous orienting task. In summary, the current study provides a critical translational task for assessing attention orienting in mice and to investigate the effects of attention-modulating drugs on attention orienting.

The Mechanism, Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Dosage Regimen of Atomoxetine for ADHD Therapy in Children: A Narrative Review

Atomoxetine, a selective norepinephrine (NE) reuptake inhibitor, was approved for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment in children, adolescents and adults. We searched the database PubMed/MEDLINE (2000 to October 1, 2021). Only publications in English were considered. Atomoxetine inhibits the presynaptic norepinephrine transporter (NET), preventing the reuptake of NE throughout the brain along with inhibiting the reuptake of dopamine in specific brain regions such as the prefrontal cortex (PFC). The novel mechanism of atomoxetine also includes several new brain imaging studies and animal model studies. It is mainly metabolized by the highly polymorphic drug metabolizing enzyme cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6). Atomoxetine is effective and generally well tolerated. ADHD is often accompanied by multiple comorbidities. A series of studies have been published suggesting that atomoxetine is effective in the treatment of ADHD symptoms for children with various types of comorbidity. In some cases, it is possible that atomoxetine may have a positive influence on the symptoms of comorbidities. Atomoxetine can be administered either as a single daily dose or split into two evenly divided doses, and has a negligible risk of abuse or misuse. The latest guideline updated that clinical dose selection of atomoxetine was recommended based on both CYP2D6 genotype and the peak concentration. To have a more comprehensive understanding of atomoxetine, this review sets the focus on the mechanism, clinical efficacy and dosage regimen in detail, and also touches on those studies regarding adverse reactions of atomoxetine.

Comparative Efficacy of Methylphenidate and Atomoxetine on Social Adjustment in Youths with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Objective: Although methylphenidate and atomoxetine have positive effects in reducing core symptoms and emotional/behavioral problems of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), little is known about their efficacy in improving social adjustment problems among youths with ADHD. Methods: A total of 168 drug-naive youths, 7-16 years of age, with DSM-IV-defined ADHD, were recruited and randomly assigned to osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (n = 83) and atomoxetine (n = 85) in a 24-week, open-label, head-to-head clinical trial. Efficacy measurement was based on the parent-rated and self-rated Social Adjustment Inventory for Children and Adolescents (SAICA). Evaluation time points were set at baseline and weeks 8, 16, and 24. Results: At week 24, methylphenidate was associated with improvement in school functions (parent report: Cohen d = -0.82; self-report: Cohen d = -0.66) and peer relationships (parent report: Cohen d = -0.50; self-report: Cohen d = -0.25); and atomoxetine was associated with improvement in school functions (parent report: Cohen d = -0.62; self-report: Cohen d = -0.34) and peer relationships (parent report: Cohen d = -0.33; self-report: Cohen d = -0.65). In terms of parent-reported and self-reported ratings, there were no significant differences between the two treatment groups in mean reduction in the severity of school dysfunctions, impaired peer relationships, and behavioral problems at home at week 24. Conclusions: Our findings lend evidence to support that both methylphenidate and atomoxetine were comparably effective in improving social adjustment in youths with ADHD, including school functions and peer relationships.

Comparative Efficacy of Methylphenidate and Atomoxetine on Emotional and Behavioral Problems in Youths with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

OBJECTIVE

Methylphenidate and atomoxetine are efficacious in reducing core symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but little is known about their efficacy in improving emotional/behavioral problems among youths with ADHD.

METHODS

One hundred sixty drug-naïve youths with DSM-IV-defined ADHD, aged 7-16 years, were recruited and randomly assigned to osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-methylphenidate; n = 80) and atomoxetine (n = 80) in a 24-week, open-label, head-to-head clinical trial. The primary efficacy measure was parent-reported Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), and the secondary efficacy measures included Youth Self Report (YSR) and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), which was based on the ratings of parents, teachers, and subjects.

RESULTS

For CBCL, both methylphenidate and atomoxetine groups showed significant improvement in all scores at weeks 8 and 24 except Somatic Complaints in the atomoxetine group. For SDQ, both treatment groups showed significant improvements in the Hyperactive and Conduct subscales for parent ratings, and the Externalizing subscale for teacher ratings at week 24. Methylphenidate was associated with greater improvements in Aggressive Behavior and Somatic Complaints of CBCL and in Conduct subscale of self-reported SDQ at week 24 compared with atomoxetine.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide evidence to support that both methylphenidate and atomoxetine were effective in improving a wide range of emotional/behavioral problems in youths with ADHD after 24 weeks of treatment, with greater improvement in aggressive behavior, somatic complaints, and conduct problems in the methylphenidate group.

Clinical effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review

Neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder, are common in children and adolescents, but treatment strategies remain limited. Although repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation has been studied for neurodevelopmental disorders, there is no clear consensus on its therapeutic effects. This systematic review examined literature on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders published up to 2018 using the PubMed database. The search identified 264 articles and 14 articles met eligibility criteria. Twelve of these studies used conventional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and two studies used theta burst stimulation. No severe adverse effects were reported in these studies. In patients with autism spectrum disorder, low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and intermittent theta burst stimulation applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may have therapeutic effects on social functioning and repetitive behaviors. In patients with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation applied to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may target inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. In patients with tic disorders, low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation applied to the bilateral supplementary motor area improved tic symptom severity. This systematic review suggests that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation may be a promising intervention for children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders. The results warrant further large randomized controlled trials of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in children with neurodevelopmental disorders.

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.

Stimulants Do Not Increase the Risk of Seizure-Related Hospitalizations in Children with Epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of stimulants in children with epilepsy.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study based on Medicaid Analytic eXtract billing records from 26 U.S. states from 1999 to 2010, we identified incident stimulant use among children with epilepsy through outpatient encounter claims and pharmacy claims. We established a control group of nonusers and used frequency matching to generate index dates. We followed both cohorts for 12 months and calculated hazard ratios [HRs] of current and former use of stimulants versus no use on the outcome of seizure-related hospitalization using multivariate Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

We identified 18,166 stimulant users and 54,197 nonusers in children with epilepsy. The incidence of seizure-related hospitalization in current stimulant users, former users, and nonusers was 3.6, 3.5, and 4.3 per 100 patient-years. After adjustment for confounders, we found current and former use of stimulants did not increase seizure-related hospitalizations (HR 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83, 1.09 and HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.15). Children with cerebral palsy, congenital nervous system anomalies, or intellectual disability did not have significantly higher HRs than those without the already mentioned comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

This study has not identified any overall increase in the rate of seizure-related hospitalizations with the use of stimulants in children with epilepsy.

Neural correlates of atomoxetine improving inhibitory control and visual processing in Drug-naïve adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Atomoxetine improves inhibitory control and visual processing in healthy volunteers and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, little is known about the neural correlates of these two functions after chronic treatment with atomoxetine. This study aimed to use the counting Stroop task with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) to investigate the changes related to inhibitory control and visual processing in adults with ADHD. This study is an 8-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of atomoxetine in 24 drug-naïve adults with ADHD. We investigated the changes of treatment with atomoxetine compared to placebo-treated counterparts using the counting Stroop fMRI and two CANTAB tests: rapid visual information processing (RVP) for inhibitory control and delayed matching to sample (DMS) for visual processing. Atomoxetine decreased activations in the right inferior frontal gyrus and anterior cingulate cortex, which were correlated with the improvement in inhibitory control assessed by the RVP. Also, atomoxetine increased activation in the left precuneus, which was correlated with the improvement in the mean latency of correct responses assessed by the DMS. Moreover, anterior cingulate activation in the pre-treatment was able to predict the improvements of clinical symptoms. Treatment with atomoxetine may improve inhibitory control to suppress interference and may enhance the visual processing to process numbers. In addition, the anterior cingulate cortex might play an important role as a biological marker for the treatment effectiveness of atomoxetine. Hum Brain Mapp 38:4850-4864, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

One-year trajectory analysis for ADHD symptoms and its associated factors in community-based children and adolescents in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Several longitudinal studies have shown the partial symptomatic persistence of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in clinic-based samples. However, little is known about the patterns and trajectories of ADHD symptoms in community-based populations.

METHODS

To differentiate developmental trajectories of ADHD symptoms over 1 year, with a four-wave quarterly follow-up in children and adolescents in the community of Taiwan, we conducted this prospective study in 1281 students in grade 3, 5, and 8. All the students in the regular classes rather than special educational classes were eligible and recruited to the study. Inattention, hyperactivity-impulsivity, and opposition-defiance were rated by parent reports on the Chinese version of the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Version IV Scale (SNAP-IV). Group-based trajectory modeling and multivariable regression analyses were used to explore the individual, family and social factors associated with differential trajectories.

RESULTS

Trajectories were classified as Low (29.9-40.6%), Intermediate (52.5-58.5%) and High (6.9-12.5%) based on the symptom severity of ADHD symptoms assessed by the SNAP-IV. The proportion of children in the high ADHD trajectory might approximately reflect the prevalence of ADHD in Taiwan. The following factors differentiated High from Low trajectories: male gender, more externalizing problems, fewer prosocial behaviors, school dysfunction, more home behavioral problems, and less perceived family support.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings that the concurrent conditions of emotional or externalizing problems, as well as impaired school and home function at baseline, might differentiate the high ADHD symptoms trajectory from others could help developing the specific measures for managing high ADHD symptoms over time in a school setting.

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.

Differential effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine on intrinsic brain activity in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

BACKGROUND

Methylphenidate and atomoxetine are commonly prescribed for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, their therapeutic neural mechanisms remain unclear.

METHOD

After baseline evaluation including cognitive testing of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB), drug-naive children with ADHD (n = 46), aged 7-17 years, were randomly assigned to a 12-week treatment with methylphenidate (n = 22) or atomoxetine (n = 24). Intrinsic brain activity, including the fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (fALFF) and regional homogeneity (ReHo), was quantified via resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and week 12.

RESULTS

Reductions in inattentive symptoms were related to increased fALFF in the left superior temporal gyrus and left inferior parietal lobule for ADHD children treated with methylphenidate, and in the left lingual gyrus and left inferior occipital gyrus for ADHD children treated with atomoxetine. Hyperactivity/impulsivity symptom reductions were differentially related to increased fALFF in the methylphenidate group and to decreased fALFF in the atomoxetine group in bilateral precentral and postcentral gyri. Prediction analyses in the atomoxetine group revealed negative correlations between pre-treatment CANTAB simple reaction time and fALFF change in the left lingual gyrus and left inferior occipital gyrus, and positive correlations between pre-treatment CANTAB simple movement time and fALFF change in bilateral precentral and postcentral gyri and left precuneus, with a negative correlation between movement time and the fALFF change in the left lingual gyrus and the inferior occipital gyrus.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest differential neurophysiological mechanisms for the treatment effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine in children with ADHD.

Sleep Problems in Children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Current Status of Knowledge and Appropriate Management

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 5 % of children and adolescents, and sleep problems are common in these patients. There is growing evidence informing the significant importance of sleep problems in youth with ADHD. The sleep problems in children with ADHD include specific sleep disorders and sleep disturbances due to comorbid psychiatric disorders or ADHD medications. The specific sleep disorders of ADHD children include behaviorally based insomnia, sleep-disordered breathing, and restless legs syndrome/periodic limb movement disorder. Current practices on the management of sleep problems for ADHD children are based mostly on expert consensus, whereas more evidence-based literature can be found only recently. Assessment of the sleep conditions in ADHD children before initiation of pharmacotherapy is the currently recommended guideline, and good sleep hygiene can be considered as the first-line treatment option. In addition to modifying the dose regimens, formulation, or alternative stimulants when sleep problems are encountered in ADHD children, atomoxetine, once daily guanfacine extended release, and melatonin are potential choices for ADHD children with more severe sleep problems. In this review, we aimed to provide the most updated information, preferably based on meta-analyses, systemic review, and randomized controlled trials published in the latest 3 years, in order to be clinically useful for practitioners and clinicians.

Specific cognitive-neurophysiological processes predict impulsivity in the childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder combined subtype

BACKGROUND

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most prevalent neuropsychiatric disorders in childhood. Besides inattention and hyperactivity, impulsivity is the third core symptom leading to diverse and serious problems. However, the neuronal mechanisms underlying impulsivity in ADHD are still not fully understood. This is all the more the case when patients with the ADHD combined subtype (ADHD-C) are considered who are characterized by both symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity.

METHOD

Combining high-density electroencephalography (EEG) recordings with source localization analyses, we examined what information processing stages are dysfunctional in ADHD-C (n = 20) compared with controls (n = 18).

RESULTS

Patients with ADHD-C made more impulsive errors in a Go/No-go task than healthy controls. Neurophysiologically, different subprocesses from perceptual gating to attentional selection, resource allocation and response selection processes are altered in this patient group. Perceptual gating, stimulus-driven attention selection and resource allocation processes were more pronounced in ADHD-C, are related to activation differences in parieto-occipital networks and suggest attentional filtering deficits. However, only response selection processes, associated with medial prefrontal networks, predicted impulsive errors in ADHD-C.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the clinical picture of ADHD-C is complex and a multitude of processing steps are altered, only a subset of processes seems to directly modulate impulsive behaviour. The present findings improve the understanding of mechanisms underlying impulsivity in patients with ADHD-C and might help to refine treatment algorithms focusing on impulsivity.