Rapid resolution of depressive symptoms with methylphenidate augmentation of mirtazapine in an elderly depressed hospitalized patient: a case report

Amphetamine Use in the Elderly: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Objective:

To systematically review the literature on the therapeutic use of amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate in elderly population with and without dementia.

Methods:

We conducted two researches on the PubMed, Scopus and Embase using the keywords (“elderly”) AND (“amphetamine” OR “methylphenidate” OR “lisdexamfetamine”) and then (“Alzheimer” OR “dementia”) AND (“amphetamine” OR “methylphenidate” OR “lisdexamfetamine”).

Results:

Twenty-nine papers met all the eligibility criteria. The results are encouraging as 81.5% of the studies showed clinical improvement of the investigated condition.

Conclusion:

Amphetamines and methylphenidate are probably effective strategies for different conditions in the elderly population. However, further studies are needed to provide more robust evidence on efficacy, dosage and safety for this population.

SLC6A3 polymorphism and response to methylphenidate in children with ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Methylphenidate (MPH) is the most commonly used treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. However, the response to MPH is not similar in all patients. This meta-analysis investigated the potential role of SLC6A3 polymorphisms in response to MPH in children with ADHD. Clinical trials or naturalistic studies were selected from electronic databases. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. Cohen's d effect size and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined. Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were performed. Q-statistic and Egger's tests were conducted to evaluate heterogeneity and publication bias, respectively. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the quality of evidence. Sixteen studies with follow-up periods of 1-28 weeks were eligible. The mean treatment acceptability of MPH was 97.2%. In contrast to clinical trials, the meta-analysis of naturalistic studies indicated that children without 10/10 repeat carriers had better response to MPH (Cohen's d: -0.09 and 0.44, respectively). The 9/9 repeat polymorphism had no effect on the response rate (Cohen's d: -0.43). In the meta-regression, a significant association was observed between baseline severity of ADHD, MPH dosage, and combined type of ADHD in some genetic models. Sensitivity analysis indicated the robustness of our findings. No publication bias was observed in our meta-analysis. The GRADE evaluations revealed very low levels of confidence for each outcome of response to MPH. The results of clinical trials and naturalistic studies regarding the effect size between different polymorphisms of SLC6A3 were contradictory. Therefore, further research is recommended.

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.