Toward personalized smoking-cessation treatment: Using a predictive modeling approach to guide decisions regarding stimulant medication treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in smokers

Extended-release methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis increasingly used in adults. The recommended first-line pharmacological treatment is central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, such as methylphenidate, but uncertainty remains about its benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of extended-release formulations of methylphenidate in adults diagnosed with ADHD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and four clinical trial registries up to February 2021. We searched 12 drug regulatory databases for clinical trial data up to 13 May 2020. In addition, we cross-referenced all available trial identifiers, handsearched reference lists, searched pharmaceutical company databases, and contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trials comparing extended-release methylphenidate formulations at any dose versus placebo and other ADHD medications in adults diagnosed with ADHD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and rating scales and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risks of bias, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We meta-analysed the data using a random-effects model. We assessed three design characteristics that may impair the trial results' 'generalisability'; exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity; responder selection based on previous experience with CNS stimulants; and risk of withdrawal effects. Our prespecified primary outcomes were functional outcomes, self-rated ADHD symptoms, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes included quality of life, ADHD symptoms rated by investigators and by peers such as family members, cardiovascular variables, severe psychiatric adverse events, and other adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 trials (5066 participants), of which 21 reported outcome data for this review. We also identified one ongoing study. We included documents from six drug regulatory agencies covering eight trials. Twenty-one trials had an outpatient setting and three were conducted in prisons. They were primarily conducted in North America and Europe. The median participant age was 36 years. Twelve trials (76% of participants) were industry-sponsored, four (14% of participants) were publicly funded with industry involvement, seven (10% of participants) were publicly funded, and one had unclear funding. The median trial duration was eight weeks. One trial was rated at overall unclear risk of bias and 20 trials were rated at overall high risk of bias, primarily due to unclear blinding of participants and investigators, attrition bias, and selective outcome reporting. All trials were impaired in at least one of the three design characteristics related to 'generalisability'; for example, they excluded participants with psychiatric comorbidity such as depression or anxiety, or included participants only with a previous positive response to methylphenidate, or similar drugs. This may limit the trials' usefulness for clinical practice, as they may overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms. Extended-release methylphenidate versus placebo (up to 26 weeks) For the primary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' at 13-week follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.15 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.11 to 1.81; 1 trial, 409 participants) or serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.43, CI 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 14 trials, 4078 participants), whereas methylphenidate improved self-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.30; 16 trials, 3799 participants). For secondary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate improved self-rated quality of life (small effect; SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05; 6 trials, 1888 participants), investigator-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.36; 18 trials, 4183 participants), ADHD symptoms rated by peers such as family members (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; 3 trials, 1005 participants), and increased the risk of experiencing any adverse event (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.37; 14 trials, 4214 participants). We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, primarily due to high risk of bias and 'indirectness of the evidence'. One trial (419 participants) had follow-up at 52 weeks and two trials (314 participants) included active comparators, hence long-term and comparative evidence is limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low-certainty evidence that extended-release methylphenidate compared to placebo improved ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effects) measured on rating scales reported by participants, investigators, and peers such as family members. Methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' or serious adverse events, the effect on quality of life was small, and it increased the risk of several adverse effects. We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, due to high risk of bias, short trial durations, and limitations to the generalisability of the results. The benefits and harms of extended-release methylphenidate therefore remain uncertain.

Optimizing opioid use disorder treatment with naltrexone or buprenorphine

BACKGROUND

Relapse rates during opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment remain unacceptably high. It is possible that optimally matching patients with medication type would reduce risk of relapse. Our objective was to learn a rule by which to assign type of medication for OUD to reduce risk of relapse, and to estimate the extent to which risk of relapse would be reduced if such a rule were used.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of an open-label randomized controlled, 24-week comparative effectiveness trial of injection extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), delivered approximately every 28 days, or daily sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) for treating OUD, 2014-2017 (N = 570). Outcome was a binary indicator of relapse to regular opioid use during the 24 weeks of outpatient treatment.

RESULTS

We found that applying an estimated individualized treatment rule-i.e., a rule that assigns patients with OUD to either XR-NTX or BUP-NX based on their individual characteristics in such a way that risk of relapse is minimized-would reduce risk of relapse by 24 weeks by 12% compared to randomly assigned treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The number-needed-to-treat with the estimated treatment rule to prevent a single relapse is 14. A simpler, alternative estimated rule in which homeless participants would be treated with XR-NTX and stably housed participants would be treated with BUP-NX performed similarly. These results provide an estimate of the amount by which a relatively simple change in clinical practice could be expected to improve prevention of OUD relapse.

Are non-abstinent reductions in World Health Organization drinking risk level a valid treatment target for alcohol use disorders in adolescents with ADHD?

•

Changes in WHO alcohol risk level are highly variable in youth treated for ADHD/SUD.

•

Achieving > 2-level reduction in WHO risk is linked to improvements in functioning.

•

Achieving > 2-level reduction in WHO risk is linked to decreased ADHD symptoms.

•

> 2-level reduction in WHO risk may be a valid non-abstinent AUD outcome in youth with ADHD/SUD.

Introduction

Abstinence from drinking represents the primary treatment target for alcohol use disorders (AUD) in youth, but few adolescents who engage in problematic drinking seek treatment. A reduction in World Health Organization (WHO) drinking risk level has been established as valid and reliable non-abstinent treatment target for AUD in adults but remains unstudied in youth.

Methods

The present study used data from the NIDA-CTN-0028 trial to examine associations between reductions in WHO drinking risk level and changes in global functioning and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms during treatment in a sample of adolescents (ages 13–18 years) with ADHD and comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) (n = 297, 61% with AUD) receiving a 16-week intervention that combined ADHD pharmacotherapy (OROS-methylphenidate vs. placebo) and drug-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Results

Shifts in drinking risk level during treatment were highly variable in adolescents treated for ADHD/SUD, and influenced by AUD diagnostic status. In the total sample, 15% of participants had a 2-level or greater reduction in WHO drinking risk level, with 59% and 24% showing no change or an increase in risk-level during treatment respectively. Achieving at least a 2-level change in WHO drinking risk level during treatment was associated with greater reduction in ADHD symptoms and better functional outcomes.

Conclusions

These findings parallel the adult AUD literature and provide preliminary support for the use 2-level reductions in WHO risk levels for alcohol use as a clinically valid non-abstinent treatment outcome for youth with ADHD and comorbid AUD.

Differential Posttreatment Outcomes of Methylphenidate for Smoking Cessation for Individuals With ADHD

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In a multisite, randomized study (CTN-0029), a 3-month course of Osmotic-Release Oral System Methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) improved smoking cessation in a group of patients with higher baseline severity in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). This treatment, however, worsened smoking cessation outcome in the group with lower baseline ADHD severity. We want to examine whether this differential treatment effect persisted after OROS-MPH was discontinued.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of the 1-month follow-up data from CTN-0029 after the discontinuation of OROS-MPH (N = 134). Nicotine patch was tapered during this month. We tested whether OROS-MPH had an effect on self-reported 7-day abstinence by week, as well as possible treatment by baseline ADHD severity interactions.

RESULTS

Abstinence diminished overall in time after the end of the treatment. In the high baseline severity group, patients who received OROS-MPH had an advantage in 7-day abstinence at week 15 (40% for OROS-MPH vs 20% for placebo, odds ratio = 2.63, P = .028). In the lower severity group (n = 121), no difference was detected (29% for OROS-MPH vs 32% for placebo, P = 1.00) between the two treatment groups. There was also a significant treatment by baseline ADHD severity interaction (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

OROS-MPH promotes abstinence beyond the course of treatment for patients with more severe ADHD, while the paradoxical effects in the lower baseline severity group is not persistent after medication discontinuation. Targeting ADHD in smoking cessation as a comorbidity therefore can have broader impact with more precise patient selection. (Am J Addict).

Exploring longitudinal course and treatment-baseline severity interactions in secondary outcomes of smoking cessation treatment in individuals with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

BACKGROUND

A double blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial (NCT00253747) evaluating osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) for smoking-cessation revealed a significant interaction effect in which participants with higher baseline ADHD severity had better abstinence outcomes with OROS-MPH while participants with lower baseline ADHD severity had worse outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This current report examines secondary outcomes that might bear on the mechanism for this differential treatment effect.

METHODS

Longitudinal analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of OROS-MPH on three secondary outcomes (ADHD symptom severity, nicotine craving, and withdrawal) in the total sample (N = 255, 56% Male), and in the high (N = 134) and low (N = 121) baseline ADHD severity groups.

RESULTS

OROS-MPH significantly improved ADHD symptoms and nicotine withdrawal symptoms in the total sample, and exploratory analyses showed that in both higher and lower baseline severity groups, OROS-MPH statistically significantly improved these two outcomes. No effect on craving overall was detected, though exploratory analyses showed statistically significantly decreased craving in the high ADHD severity participants on OROS-MPH. No treatment by ADHD baseline severity interaction was detected for the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Methylphenidate improved secondary outcomes during smoking cessation independent of baseline ADHD severity, with no evident treatment-baseline severity interaction. Our results suggest divergent responses to smoking cessation treatment in the higher and lower severity groups cannot be explained by concordant divergence in craving, withdrawal and ADHD symptom severity, and alternative hypotheses may need to be identified.

Towards Precision Addiction Treatment: New Findings in Co-morbid Substance Use and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance use disorders (SUDs) may have common etiologies. ADHD is more prevalent in patients with substance use disorders, and this pattern is consistent across different substances of abuse. Individuals with SUDs and ADHD exhibit significant variations in their clinical presentations. The developmental trajectory of ADHD to SUDs is complex: ADHD symptoms appear first in some patients but not in others. Many patients present with a heterogeneous collection of psychiatric and substance use co-morbidities, and these symptoms change over time. ADHD symptom severity is also highly variable, and more severe ADHD symptoms worsen co-morbid SUDs and complicate treatment. New longitudinal studies with innovative methods in high-risk populations and in community-based samples may clarify issues related to patient-treatment matching. When closely monitored, psychostimulant and other adjunct medications can be safely used to treat ADHD in this population, and such treatment may also improve outcome of SUDs. In particular, emerging evidence suggests individual-level tailoring ("precision medicine") approaches may represent a key pathway to improve clinical outcome.

Pharmacological Treatment of ADHD in Addicted Patients: What Does the Literature Tell Us?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After participating in this activity, learners should be better able to:• Evaluate pharmacologic treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in patients with substance use disorder (SUD) • Assess the causes of the diminished efficacy of ADHD medication in patients with comorbid SUD OBJECTIVE: Substance use disorder (SUD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) frequently co-occur, and the presence of ADHD complicates the treatment of the addiction. Pharmacotherapy is a potent intervention in childhood and adult ADHD, but findings have been mixed in adolescent and adult ADHD patients with SUDs. This review focuses on several contributing factors and possible explanations, with implications both for future research and for clinical practice.

METHOD

This systematic review examined all randomized, placebo-controlled trials of pharmacotherapy for ADHD in adult and adolescent SUD patients.

RESULTS

The number of studies is limited, and several studies are hampered by qualitative flaws. The results, in general, are inconclusive for most medications studied, but more recent trials using psychostimulants in robust dosing have demonstrated significantly positive results.

CONCLUSION

In reviewing these trials, possible explanations relating to the particular characteristics and problems of this complex patient group are discussed. Several factors, including ADHD symptom severity, psychiatric comorbidity, persistent drug use, choice of medication, and concomitant psychosocial intervention, influence study results. Taking these factors into account may improve the likelihood of detecting significant effects in future research, as the recent positive trials have indicated, and may help in the appropriate selection of pharmacotherapy in clinical practice.