Search

Importance: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurobehavioral disorders, and it afflicts about 7% of young people. As a consequence, many young women might be pregnant while taking medication for ADHD, but data about safety have not yet been strictly examined., Objective: To examine adverse effects in offspring of mothers receiving treatment with atomoxetine and methylphenidate during pregnancy., Data Sources: Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO) were searched for articles published through December 31, 2023, with the following search terms: (atomoxetine OR methylphenidate) AND (pregnancy)., Study Selection: Observational studies (eg, cohort studies, case-control studies, case-crossover studies, cross-sectional studies, and registry-based studies) that reported offspring outcomes in pregnancy with atomoxetine and/or methylphenidate and in mothers with ADHD but unexposed to ADHD treatment during pregnancy or from the general population were included. Ten studies of 656 records satisfied criteria., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers performed data extraction according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Meta-analyses were conducted based on reported odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% CIs using a linear random effects model. Each study was inversely weighted by the reported variance of the estimators. Risk of publication bias and analysis of heterogeneity through univariate and multivariate metaregressions were also rated. Data were analyzed from January to March 2024., Main Outcomes and Measures: Study outcomes included miscarriages and congenital anomalies., Results: Ten studies involving 16 621 481 pregnant women, 30 830 of them affected by ADHD, were included. Congenital anomalies or miscarriages were not more frequent in offspring of mothers receiving treatment with methylphenidate or atomoxetine during pregnancy compared with unexposed offspring (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.83-1.55; P = .41; I2 = 8% for congenital anomalies; OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.70-1.47; P = .96; I2 = 0% for miscarriages) or compared with the general population (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.93-1.53; P = .16; I2 = 74% for congenital anomalies; OR, 1.05, 95% CI, 0.81-1.37; P = .70; I2 = 0% for miscarriage)., Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence from this meta-analysis, which involves a substantial sample of pregnant women with and without ADHD, suggests the maintenance of methylphenidate or atomoxetine during pregnancy is safe, given that congenital anomalies and miscarriages did not appear to significantly increase. Further studies are recommended to support and confirm these findings.

This study explores the under-researched domain of long-term stimulant treatment in children and adolescents diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The necessity for extended treatment duration, often accompanied by safety concerns and side effects leading to treatment discontinuation, underscores the significance of this investigation. Concurrently, comparative studies have revealed adverse impacts on vulnerable regions within the hippocampal formation, accompanied by behavioral perturbations. We employed computerized tests and virtual reality to assess spatial memory, pattern separation, and object recognition memory in a cohort of children diagnosed with ADHD receiving stimulant treatment. We compared their performance to a group of neurotypical peers. Our findings indicate that the ADHD group exhibited a lower performance in spatial memory, pattern separation, and object recognition memory than ND group. Intriguingly, a positive relationship emerged between the duration of stimulant treatment and performance in these variables. Notably, this improvement was not immediate to MPH treatment but becomes significant after 24 months of treatment. In contrast to previous comparative investigations, our study did not reveal a detrimental impact on spatial navigation, object recognition memory, or pattern separation, despite the known interplay of these cognitive processes with the hippocampal formation. These results shed new light on the nuanced effects of stimulant treatment in ADHD, underscoring the need for a more comprehensive understanding of long-term treatment outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial or nonfinancial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Depression is a common comorbidity of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and the combination of methylphenidate and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is a frequently prescribed treatment. However, there is limited clinical evidence on the safety of this medication combination in adults with ADHD., Objective: To evaluate the safety of administering a combination of SSRI and methylphenidate in adults with ADHD and comorbid depression., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study obtained data from a nationwide claims database in South Korea from January 2016 to February 2021. Participants were adults aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of ADHD and depressive disorder who were prescribed methylphenidate. Comparisons of 4 groups who received prescriptions were conducted: (1) SSRI plus methylphenidate (hereafter, SSRI) group vs methylphenidate-only group and (2) methylphenidate plus fluoxetine (hereafter, fluoxetine) group vs methylphenidate plus escitalopram (hereafter, escitalopram) group (compared to find a preferable treatment option). Data analysis was conducted between July and December 2023., Exposures: New users of the methylphenidate and SSRI combination among adults with both ADHD and depressive disorder., Main Outcomes and Measures: A total of 17 primary and secondary outcomes, including neuropsychiatric and other events, were assessed, with respiratory tract infection used as a control outcome. Groups were matched at a 1:1 ratio using a propensity score to balance confounders. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to calculate hazard ratio (HRs) and 95% CIs. Subgroup analysis by sex and sensitivity analyses in varying epidemiologic settings were conducted., Results: The study included 17 234 adults with ADHD (mean [SD] age at study entry, 29.4 [10.8] years; 9079 females [52.7%]). There was no difference in the risk of outcomes between the methylphenidate-only and SSRI groups, except for a lower risk of headache in the SSRI group (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.24-0.99). In sensitivity analyses of fluoxetine vs escitalopram, the risk of hypertension (HR: 1:n matching, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.67) and hyperlipidemia (HR: 1:n matching, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.04-0.81) was lower in the fluoxetine group than in the escitalopram group., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study revealed no significant increase in adverse event risk associated with use of SSRI plus methylphenidate vs methylphenidate alone in adults with ADHD and comorbid depression. Instead, the combination was associated with a lower risk of headache.

Objective: Amphetamine prescribing has increased in the United States in recent years. Previous research identified an increased risk of incident psychosis with prescription amphetamines. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of dose levels of prescription amphetamines on the risk of this rare but serious adverse outcome., Methods: A case-control study using electronic health records was conducted to compare the odds of incident psychosis or mania with past-month exposure to prescription amphetamines. Case subjects were patients ages 16-35 hospitalized at McLean Hospital for incident psychosis or mania between 2005 and 2019. Control subjects were patients with an initial psychiatric hospitalization for other reasons, most commonly depression and/or anxiety. Amphetamine doses were converted to dextroamphetamine equivalents and divided into terciles. Secondary analyses evaluated the odds of psychosis or mania with methylphenidate use., Results: Among 1,374 case subjects and 2,748 control subjects, the odds of psychosis and mania were increased for individuals with past-month prescription amphetamine use compared with no use (adjusted odds ratio=2.68, 95% CI=1.90-3.77). A dose-response relationship was observed; high doses of amphetamines (>30 mg dextroamphetamine equivalents) were associated with 5.28-fold increased odds of psychosis or mania. Past-month methylphenidate use was not associated with increased odds of psychosis or mania compared with no use (adjusted odds ratio=0.91, 95% CI=0.54-1.55)., Conclusions: Although use of hospitalized control subjects excludes individuals with less severe disease, leading to selection bias, the study results suggest that caution should be exercised when prescribing high doses of amphetamines, with regular screening for symptoms of psychosis or mania., Competing Interests: Dr. Moran is employed by Sage Therapeutics. Dr. Perlis has served as a scientific adviser for Alkermes, Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Circular Genomics, Genomind, Mila Health, Psy Therapeutics, Swan AI Studios, and Vault Health. Dr. Ongur has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Guggenheim LLC, and Neumora for scientific presentations. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Background: Recent epidemiological data has shown a sharp increase in stimulant use among older adults, which is notable as older adults may be especially vulnerable to their cardiovascular effects. Results of recent studies have shown an increase in cardiovascular events among older adults using stimulants; however, little data exists comparing cardiovascular safety of these agents head-to-head. Objective: To determine if the incidence of serious cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), or arrhythmia, are different in patients taking amphetamine/dextroamphetamine compared with patients taking methylphenidate. Methods: Retrospective chart review of veterans 50 years and older at the Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) who were first prescribed a stimulant between 2015 and 2021. The primary outcome was the difference in composite cardiovascular events between amphetamine/dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate. Secondary outcomes were the composite cardiovascular endpoints compared individually (MI, stroke/TIA, or arrhythmia). Hazard ratios were calculated based off of a time-to-event analysis displayed using a Kaplan-Meier curve for primary and secondary outcomes. Results: 466 veterans were screened for inclusion, 30 were excluded, and 436 were included. There was no difference found in composite cardiovascular events between the 241 veterans in the amphetamine/dextroamphetamine group and the 195 veterans in the methylphenidate group with 12 (5%) vs 8 (4.1%) events respectively ( P = .6635). There was also no difference in time-to-event analysis ( P = .4966). Conclusion: In elderly veterans, there was no difference found in incidence of major cardiovascular events with the use of amphetamine/dextroamphetamine compared with methylphenidate., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Little is known about the impact of cumulative attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication use on the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D)., Objective: The objective is to examine the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication and risk of incident T2D., Methods: A nested case-control study was conducted in a national cohort of individuals aged 18-70 years with incident ADHD (n=138 778) between 2007 and 2020 through Swedish registers. Individuals with incident T2D after ADHD were selected as cases (n=2355) and matched with up to five controls (n=11 681) on age at baseline, sex and birth year. Conditional logistic regression models examined the association between cumulative duration of ADHD medication use and T2D., Findings: Compared with no use, a decreased risk of T2D was observed for those on cumulative use of ADHD medications up to 3 years (ORs: 03 years, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.12)). When investigating medication types separately, methylphenidate showed results similar to main analyses, lisdexamfetamine showed no association with T2D, whereas long-term (>3 years) use of atomoxetine was associated with an increased risk of T2D (OR: 1.44 (95% CI, 1.01 to 2.04))., Conclusion: Cumulative use of ADHD medication does not increase the risk for T2D, with the exception of long-term use of atomoxetine., Clinical Implications: Findings suggest that clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of T2D associated with the cumulative use of atomoxetine among patients with ADHD; however, further replication is strongly needed., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HL reports receiving grants from Shire Pharmaceuticals; personal fees from and serving as a speaker for Medice, Shire/Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Evolan Pharma AB; and sponsorship for a conference on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder from Shire/Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Evolan Pharma AB, all outside the submitted work. EDR has served as a speaker for Shire Sweden AB, a Takeda Pharmaceutical Company outside of this work. The other authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: There have been concerns about the potential cardiovascular (CV) adverse effects associated with methylphenidate (MTH) use. However, only limited evidence exists on the long-term safety of MTH., Objective: To evaluate whether MTH use is associated with long-term CV risk., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using 2003-2017 data from the Health and Welfare Database in Taiwan. Patients newly diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and between 3 and 18 years of age were included. Two treatment statuses were assessed: initial treatment ≥7 days and ≥180 days. Patients treated with MTH were compared with those receiving non-medication therapy. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to balance between-group differences. Study outcomes included major CV events, chronic CV disease, cardiogenic shock and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate HRs between the two groups., Results: We began with 307 459 patients with ADHD. After exclusion, 224 732 patients were included in the final cohort. The results showed that compared with non-ADHD medication users, patients who were treated with MTH for more than 7 days had a similar risk of major CV events (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99; p=0.040). Identical trends were found in groups who were treated for more than 180 days (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00; p=0.050). The results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main analyses across all groups and individual outcomes., Conclusion: Short-term MTH use did not increase CV risk among patients with ADHD. More evidence on long-term MTH use and risk of cardiogenic shock and death is warranted., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) therapies including atomoxetine, methylphenidate, and amphetamines are some of the most prescribed medications in North America. Due to their sympathomimetic action, these drugs are contraindicated in patients with a history of angle closure glaucoma (ACG). This study aims to determine the risk of ACG and open angle glaucoma (OAG) among users of these treatments., Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study with a case control analysis using the PharMetrics Plus Database (IQVIA, USA). We created a cohort of new users of atomoxetine, methylphenidate, and amphetamines and they were followed to the first diagnosis of (1) ACG or OAG; or (2) end of follow up. For each case, four age-matched controls were selected. A conditional logistic regression model was used to adjust for confounders and to calculate adjusted incidence-rate-ratios (aIRRs)., Results: A total of 240,257 new users of the ADHD medications were identified. The mean age was 45.0 ± 19.4 years and 55% of the cohort was female. Regular users of atomoxetine and amphetamines had a higher aIRR for developing ACG compared with non-users (aIRR = 2.55 95% CI [1.20-5.43] and 2.27 95% CI [1.42-3.63], respectively); while users of methylphenidate had a higher aIRR for developing OAG (aIRR = 1.23 95% CI [1.05-1.59])., Conclusions: Use of amphetamines and atomoxetine had a higher risk for ACG, while use of methylphenidate was associated with a higher risk for OAG. Given the prevalence of ADHD medication use (medically and recreationally), our current data on their associated risk of glaucoma have profound public health implications., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists.)

Aim: To compare long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), respectively, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Patients & methods: Patient-level data from a centanafadine trial (NCT03605849) and published aggregate data from a lisdexamfetamine trial (NCT00337285), a methylphenidate trial (NCT00326300) and an atomoxetine trial (NCT00190736) were used. Patient characteristics were matched in each comparison using propensity score weighting. Study outcomes were assessed up to 52 weeks and included safety (rates of adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] or ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] score). Results: In all comparisons of matched populations, risks of AEs were statistically significantly lower with centanafadine or non-different between centanafadine and comparator; the largest differences in AE rates included upper respiratory tract infection (risk difference in percentage points: 18.75), insomnia (12.47) and dry mouth (12.33) versus lisdexamfetamine; decreased appetite (20.25), headache (18.53) and insomnia (12.65) versus methylphenidate; and nausea (26.18), dry mouth (25.07) and fatigue (13.95) versus atomoxetine (all p < 0.05). Centanafadine had a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score versus lisdexamfetamine (6.15-point difference; p < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score versus methylphenidate (1.75-point difference; p = 0.13) and versus atomoxetine (1.60-point difference; p = 0.21). Conclusion: At up to 52 weeks, centanafadine showed significantly lower incidence of several AEs than lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine; efficacy was lower than lisdexamfetamine and non-different from methylphenidate and atomoxetine.

Objectives: This case report explores the intricate relationship between methylphenidate (MTX) use and increased intraocular pressure (IOP) in a pediatric patient with a preexisting history of eye disease. Despite existing literature presenting cases of IOP elevation linked to MTX, a significant gap remains in understanding nuanced risk factors., Methods: This case study used patients' medical records and a comprehensive literature review., Results: A 6-year-old girl with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and a family history of eye conditions exhibited elevated IOP after 12 days of MTX use, prompting discontinuation. The patient successfully transitioned to atomoxetine with normalized IOP and improved attention duration., Conclusions: Existing cases emphasize the potential link between sympathetic nerve activity and IOP elevation induced by central nervous system stimulants like MTX. Notably, the patient's high hyperopia contributed to the impact of MTX on IOP, suggesting the need for cautious use in susceptible individuals. This case underscores the importance of individualized treatment strategies, particularly in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder patients with family history and additional eye findings, emphasizing safety and comprehensive patient care., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Appetite hormones may play a significant role in neuronal excitability and synaptic plasticity and may also affect brain function development. This study aimed to explore the role of appetite hormones in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including aspects of pathophysiology, pharmacotherapy, and side effects. We recruited 119 patients with ADHD who were undergoing methylphenidate treatment (ADHD+MPH), 77 unmedicated ADHD patients (ADHD-MPH), and 87 healthy controls. Blood samples were collected from all participants to examine serum levels of orexin A, ghrelin, leptin, and adiponectin. Behavioral symptoms were assessed using the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Rating Scale, and visual and auditory attention were evaluated using computerized neuropsychological tests. The side effects of methylphenidate treatment were measured using Barkley's Side Effects Rating Scale. Orexin levels in the control group were significantly higher than in the ADHD-MPH (p=0.037) and ADHD+MPH (p<0.001) groups; additionally, orexin levels in the ADHD-MPH group were significantly higher than in the ADHD+MPH group (p=0.032). Leptin levels in both the ADHD+MPH (p=0.011) and ADHD-MPH (p=0.011) groups were significantly lower than in the control group. Ghrelin levels were positively associated with auditory attention across all ADHD groups (p=0.015). Furthermore, ghrelin levels were positively correlated with methylphenidate dosage (p=0.024), and negatively correlated with methylphenidate side effects (p=0.044) in the ADHD+MPH group. These findings provide further insight into the relationships between appetite hormones, pharmacotherapy, and ADHD. Orexin A and leptin are associated with the etiology of ADHD, while orexin A and ghrelin play important roles in attention deficits and methylphenidate usage in ADHD., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors disclose that they have no financial interests or potential conflicts of interest related to this research in the biomedical field., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare safety and efficacy of centanafadine versus methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release (ER; Concerta) in adults with ADHD., Methods: Without head-to-head trials, anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) of adverse event rates reported across trials and mean change from baseline in Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER were conducted. Pooled patient-level data from two centanafadine trials (NCT03605680/NCT03605836) and aggregate data from one published methylphenidate hydrochloride ER trial (NCT00937040) were used. Characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials were matched to aggregate baseline characteristics from the methylphenidate hydrochloride ER trial using propensity score weighting. A sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the results to the capping of extreme weights (i.e. >99 th percentile)., Results: Compared with methylphenidate hydrochloride ER, centanafadine was associated with significantly lower risk of dry mouth (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: -11.95), initial insomnia (-11.10), decreased appetite (-8.05), anxiety (-5.39), palpitations (-5.25), and feeling jittery (-4.73) though a significantly smaller reduction in AISRS score (4.16-point). In the sensitivity analysis, the safety results were consistent with the primary analysis but there was no significant difference in efficacy between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER., Conclusion: In this MAIC, centanafadine had better safety and possibly lower efficacy than methylphenidate hydrochloride ER. While safety results were robust across analyses, there was no efficacy difference between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER in the sensitivity analysis. Considering its favorable safety profile, centanafadine may be preferred among patients for whom treatment-related adverse events are a concern.

Purpose: To compare effects and side effects of 6 weeks of individually dose-titrated methylphenidate or placebo on fatigue in palliative care patients with advanced cancer., Methods: This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Eligible patients had advanced incurable cancer and fatigue >3/10. Principal exclusions were hypertension; psychiatric, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, renal, liver, or blood disorders; substance dependency; and epilepsy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 methylphenidate or placebo starting at 5 mg twice daily. Dose of methylphenidate/placebo was titrated once per week, over 6 weeks, up to a maximum of 20 mg three times daily. Trial ended at 10 weeks. Primary outcome was the difference in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F) scores between groups at 6 ± 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects, quality of life, and mood., Results: One hundred sixty-two patients (73 men; mean, 65.8; standard deviation [SD], 10.3 years) were randomly assigned, and three were excluded from analysis. Seventy-seven were allocated placebo (baseline FACIT-F = 22 [SD, 10]); 82 were allocated methylphenidate (FACIT-F = 20 [SD, 9]). After 6 ± 2 weeks, FACIT-F scores were 1.97 points (95% CI, -0.95 to 4.90; P = .186) higher (better) on methylphenidate than placebo. Across 10 weeks of the study, FACIT-F was nominally higher in the methylphenidate group versus placebo (Diff, 2.20 [95% CI, 0.39 to 4.01]), but this did not reach the minimally clinically important difference (5-points). At 6 weeks, there were no differences between groups in quality-of-life or symptom domains except for depression scores (nominally reduced in the methylphenidate group: Diff, -1.35 [95% CI, -2.41 to -0.30]). There were no differences in mortality or serious adverse events., Conclusion: After 6 ± 2 weeks of treatment, methylphenidate was not superior to placebo for treating fatigue in advanced cancer. Methylphenidate was safe and well-tolerated.

Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Introduction: Methylphenidate (MPH) is a common treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Concern has been raised regarding its cardiovascular safety, partly in relation with its micromolar affinity for the 5-HT 2B receptor, whose activation may result in valvular heart disease (VHD)., Methods: To explore the association between the use of MPH and VHD reporting, we performed a disproportionality analysis within the WHO global safety database (VigiBase) using data, since inception until March 6th 2024, from: (i) the full database and (ii) different age groups (children/adolescents 6-17 years; adults 18-64 years). To avoid competition bias, safety reports with amphetamine-like appetite suppressants were excluded. Disproportionality was expressed using reporting odds-ratio (ROR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: Of 29 129 spontaneous reports with MPH, 23 VHD cases (7.9 per 10 000 reports) were identified, including 13 adults and 10 children. Most cases concerned injury on the mitral valve. A disproportionate reporting was observed overall (ROR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4). Analysis according to age group found that disproportionality in VHD reporting was found in adults only (ROR 2.7, 95% CI 1.6-4.7) but not in children/adolescents (ROR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-3.2). Furthermore, amongst MPH users only, VHD reporting was higher in adults compared to children (ROR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-6.3)., Conclusion: VHD reporting appears rare with MPH compared to other adverse events and is increased in adults only. Our findings support a potential safety signal of VHD in adults exposed to MPH. A risk in that population cannot be excluded and requires further assessment., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To examine clinically important adverse events (AEs) associated with methylphenidate (MPH) treatment of apathy in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) versus placebo, including weight loss, vital signs, falls, and insomnia., Methods: The Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (ADMET2) trial was a multicenter randomized, placebo-controlled trial of MPH to treat apathy in individuals with apathy and AD. Participants in ADMET2 had vital signs and weight measured at monthly visits through 6 months. AEs, including insomnia, falls, and cardiovascular events, were reported at every visit by participants and families using a symptom checklist., Results: The study included 98 participants in the MPH group and 101 in the placebo group. Participants in the MPH group experienced greater weight loss on average than the placebo through the 6-month follow-up, with a difference in change between MPH and placebo of 2.8 lb (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.7, 4.9 lb). No treatment group differences in change during the trial were found in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. More participants in the MPH group reported falls during the follow-up, 10 versus 6 in MPH and placebo groups, respectively. No differences in post-baseline insomnia were observed between the treatment groups. No participants reported instances of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, arrhythmia, stroke, or cardiomyopathy throughout the study period., Conclusions: MPH use in AD patients for treating apathy is relatively safe, particularly notable given the many medical comorbidities in this population. There was a statistically significant but modest weight loss associated with MPH use, and clinicians are thus advised to monitor weight during MPH treatment., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

More knowledge is needed about long-term ADHD medication and symptom, daily functioning, comorbidity, and tolerability outcomes. This "Long-term Medication for ADHD (LMA) trial" was a prospective observational 2-year trial in children and adolescents aged 6-18 years (extension of 1-year trial). Participants met criteria for DSM-5 ADHD (inattentive or combined), with complex comorbidities; autism spectrum disorder (31%), autistic traits (24%), oppositional symptoms (59%), anxiety (32%), dyslexia/language disorder (16%), borderline intellectual functioning (17%). Medication was individually tailored and followed-up at clinical visits (1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 months). Primary outcome: Clinical Global Impression-Severity and Improvement scales (CGI-S, CGI-I). Secondary outcomes: Investigator-rated ADHD-Rating Scale, Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent report (WFIRS-P; Family, School Learning and Behavior, Life Skills, Self-Concept, Social Activities, and Risky Activities domains), comorbidity symptoms and adverse events (AEs). One hundred twenty-eight participants were enrolled (1-year trial only n = 27, LMA trial n = 101). Of these 29 (23%) discontinued, mainly due to AEs (n = 7), moving (n = 7), or no longer needing medication (n = 6). Main AEs were poor appetite, low mood, anxiety, irritability, fatigue. Improvements from baseline to 2 years were large in CGI-S (effect size (ES) 2.28), ADHD-RS (ES 2.06), and moderate to large in WFIRS-P (ES total 0.73, learning 0.4, family 0.67). Overall, the trial showed robust and sustained improvements in ADHD symptom severity and daily functioning over a period of 2 years of ADHD medication in children and adolescents with ADHD and complex comorbidities. Most AEs were mild. Comorbidity symptoms were improved after 1 year, particularly oppositional symptoms, depression, and anxiety., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Symptoms of anxiety and depression are common in patients with terminal illness and multiple challenges exist with timely and effective care in this population. Several centres have reported that one dose of the serotonergic psychedelic psilocybin, combined with therapeutic support, improves these symptoms for up to 6 months in this patient group. Drawing upon related therapeutic mechanisms, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted therapy may have the potential to achieve similar, positive mental health outcomes in this group. Preliminary evidence also supports the tolerability of MDMA-assisted therapy for anxiety and depression in advanced-stage cancer., Methods: Up to 32 participants with advanced-stage cancer and associated depression and anxiety will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio into one of two blinded parallel treatment arms. The intervention group will receive 120 mg (+ 60 mg optional supplemental dose) MDMA-assisted therapy. The psychoactive control group will receive 20 mg oral (+ 10 mg optional supplemental dose) methylphenidate-assisted therapy. For each medication-assisted therapy session, participants will undergo two 90-min therapeutic support sessions in the week preceding, and one 90-min support session the day after the experimental session. A battery of measures (mood, anxiety, quality of life, mystical experience, spiritual wellbeing, attitudes towards death, personality traits, holistic health and wellbeing, connectedness, demoralisation, expectations, qualitative data and safety measures) will be assessed at baseline and through to the end of the protocol. Participants will be followed up until either 12 months post-randomisation or death, whichever occurs first., Discussion: This study will examine the effect of MDMA-assisted therapy on symptoms of anxiety and depression in advanced-stage cancer. Potential therapeutic implications include establishing the safety and effectiveness of a novel treatment that may relieve mental suffering in patients with life-threatening illness., Trial Registration: Trial registered on Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry., Registration Number: ACTRN12619001334190p. Date registered: 30/09/2019. URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=378153&showOriginal=true&isReview=true., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: Use of medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) during pregnancy is increasing in the US. Whether exposure to these medications in utero impacts the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in children is uncertain., Objective: To evaluate the association of childhood neurodevelopmental disorders with in utero exposure to stimulant medications for ADHD., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included health care utilization data from publicly insured (Medicaid data from 2000 to 2018) and commercially insured (MarketScan Commercial Claims Database data from 2003 to 2020) pregnant individuals aged 12 to 55 years in the US with enrollment from 3 months prior to pregnancy through 1 month after delivery, linked to children. Children were monitored from birth until outcome diagnosis, disenrollment, death, or end of the study (December 2018 for Medicaid and December 2020 for MarketScan)., Exposures: Dispensing of amphetamine/dextroamphetamine or methylphenidate in the second half of pregnancy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, and a composite of any neurodevelopmental disorder were defined using validated algorithms. Hazard ratios were estimated comparing amphetamine/dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate to no exposure., Results: The publicly insured cohort included 2 496 771 stimulant-unexposed, 4693 amphetamine/dextroamphetamine-exposed, and 786 methylphenidate-exposed pregnancies with a mean (SD) age of 25.2 (6.0) years. The commercially insured cohort included 1 773 501 stimulant-unexposed, 2372 amphetamine/dextroamphetamine-exposed, and 337 methylphenidate-exposed pregnancies with a mean (SD) age of 31.6 (4.6) years. In unadjusted analyses, amphetamine/dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate exposure were associated with a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of the neurodevelopmental outcomes considered. After adjustment for measured confounders, amphetamine/dextroamphetamine exposure was not associated with any outcome (autism spectrum disorder: hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.14]; ADHD: HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.89-1.28; any neurodevelopmental disorder: HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81-1.28). Methylphenidate exposure was associated with an increased risk of ADHD (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.82]) but not other outcomes after adjustment (autism spectrum disorder: HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.62-1.81; any neurodevelopmental disorder: HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36). The association between methylphenidate and ADHD did not persist in sensitivity analyses with stricter control for confounding by maternal ADHD., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings in this study suggest that amphetamine/dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate exposure in utero are not likely to meaningfully increase the risk of childhood neurodevelopmental disorders.

Background: Abnormalities in dopamine and norepinephrine signaling are implicated in cognitive impairments in bipolar disorder (BD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force therefore aimed to investigate the possible benefits on cognition and/or ADHD symptoms and safety of established and off-label ADHD therapies in BD., Methods: We included studies of ADHD medications in BD patients, which involved cognitive and/or safety measures. We followed the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO from inception until June 2023. Two authors reviewed the studies independently using the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for Randomized trials., Results: Seventeen studies were identified (N = 2136), investigating armodafinil (k = 4, N = 1581), methylphenidate (k = 4, N = 84), bupropion (k = 4, n = 249), clonidine (k = 1, n = 70), lisdexamphetamine (k = 1, n = 25), mixed amphetamine salts (k = 1, n = 30), or modafinil (k = 2, n = 97). Three studies investigated cognition, four ADHD symptoms, and 10 the safety. Three studies found treatment-related ADHD symptom reduction: two involved methylphenidate and one amphetamine salts. One study found a trend towards pro-cognitive effects of modafinil on some cognitive domains. No increased risk of (hypo)mania was observed. Five studies had low risk of bias, eleven a moderate risk, and one a serious risk of bias., Conclusions: Methylphenidate or mixed amphetamine salts may improve ADHD symptoms in BD. However, there is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness on cognition. The medications produced no increased mania risk when used alongside mood stabilizers. Further robust studies are needed to assess cognition in BD patients receiving psychostimulant treatment alongside mood stabilizers., (© 2024 The Authors. Bipolar Disorders published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests.

Background: Use of psychostimulants and relative drugs has increased worldwide in treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adolescents and adults. Recent studies suggest a potential association between use of psychostimulants and psychotic symptoms. The risk may not be the same between different psychostimulants., Objective: To assess whether amphetamine or atomoxetine use is associated with a higher risk of reporting symptoms of psychosis than methylphenidate use in adolescents and adults, particularly in patients with ADHD., Methods: Using VigiBase, the WHO's pharmacovigilance database, disproportionality of psychotic symptoms reporting was assessed among adverse drug reactions related to methylphenidate, atomoxetine and amphetamines, from January 2004 to December 2018, in patients aged 13-25 years. The association between psychotic symptoms and psychostimulants was estimated through the calculation of reporting OR (ROR)., Findings: Among 13 863 reports with at least one drug of interest, we found 221 cases of psychosis with methylphenidate use, 115 with atomoxetine use and 169 with a prescription of an amphetamine drug. Compared with methylphenidate use, amphetamine use was associated with an increased risk of reporting psychotic symptoms (ROR 1.61 (95% CI 1.26 to 2.06)]. When we restricted the analysis to ADHD indication, we found a close estimate (ROR 1.94 (95% CI 1.43 to 2.64)). No association was found for atomoxetine., Conclusion: Our study suggests that amphetamine use is associated with a higher reporting of psychotic symptoms, compared with methylphenidate use., Clinical Implications: The prescription of psychostimulants should consider this potential adverse effect when assessing the benefit-risk balance., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with depression and anxiety in adults, but data are scarce on risk of psychiatric diseases in children with IBD. We aimed to estimate the risk of anxiety, depression, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in patients with pediatric-onset IBD., Methods: We performed a nationwide, register-based cohort study including all patients with pediatric-onset IBD diagnosed in Denmark during 1998-2018, resulting in 3,559 patients matched 1:5 on age, sex, municipality of residence, and time period, resulting in 17,795 reference individuals. We used Cox regression to calculate hazard ratios for each outcome after a diagnosis with IBD., Results: Patients with pediatric-onset IBD had an increased risk of depression (hazard ratio [HR] 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-1.80) and of using antidepressants (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.39-1.71) and, surprisingly, a reduced risk of using methylphenidate (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98). Patients with both IBD subtypes (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis) had an increased risk of using antidepressants and developing depression, which was particularly high in patients with Crohn's disease (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.35-2.22). Patients with ulcerative colitis had reduced risk of using methylphenidate (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.93) and a reduced-although not statistically significant-risk of being diagnosed with ADHD compared with the background population., Discussion: Patients with pediatric-onset IBD have a 50% increased risk of developing depression, which is important for healthcare providers to be aware of and manage. Remarkably, we found a reduced risk of receiving methylphenidate and being diagnosed with ADHD, which merits further investigation., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Importance: There are concerns about the safety of medications for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with mixed evidence on possible cardiovascular risk., Objective: To assess whether short-term methylphenidate use is associated with risk of cardiovascular events., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based cohort study was based on national Swedish registry data. Participants were individuals with ADHD aged 12 to 60 years with dispensed prescriptions of methylphenidate between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2012. Each person receiving methylphenidate (n = 26 710) was matched on birth date, sex, and county to up to 10 nonusers without ADHD (n = 225 672). Statistical analyses were performed from September 13, 2022, to May 16, 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of cardiovascular events, including ischemic heart disease, venous thromboembolism, heart failure, or tachyarrhythmias, 1 year before methylphenidate treatment and 6 months after treatment initiation were compared between individuals receiving methylphenidate and matched controls using a bayesian within-individual design. Analyses were stratified by history of cardiovascular events., Results: The cohort included 252 382 individuals (15 442 [57.8% men]; median age, 20 (IQR, 15-31) years). The overall incidence of cardiovascular events was 1.51 per 10 000 person-weeks (95% highest density interval [HDI], 1.35-1.69) for individuals receiving methylphenidate and 0.77 (95% HDI, 0.73-0.82) for the matched controls. Individuals treated with methylphenidate had an 87% posterior probability of having a higher rate of cardiovascular events after treatment initiation (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.41; 95% HDI, 1.09-1.88) compared with matched controls (IRR, 1.18; 95% HDI, 1.02-1.37). The posterior probabilities were 70% for at least a 10% increased risk of cardiovascular events in individuals receiving methylphenidate vs 49% in matched controls. No difference was found in this risk between individuals with and without a history of cardiovascular disease (IRR, 1.11; 95% HDI, 0.58-2.13)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, individuals receiving methylphenidate had a small increased cardiovascular risk vs matched controls in the 6 months after treatment initiation. However, there was little evidence for an increased risk of 20% or higher and for differences in risk increase between people with and without a history of cardiovascular disease. Therefore, before treatment initiation, careful consideration of the risk-benefit trade-off of methylphenidate would be useful, regardless of cardiovascular history.

Objective: Short-term RCTs have demonstrated that MPH-treatment significantly reduces ADHD-symptoms, but is also associated with adverse events, including sleep problems. However, data on long-term effects of MPH on sleep remain limited., Methods: We performed a 2-year naturalistic prospective pharmacovigilance multicentre study. Participants were recruited into three groups: ADHD patients intending to start MPH-treatment (MPH-group), those not intending to use ADHD-medication (no-MPH-group), and a non-ADHD control-group. Sleep problems were assessed with the Children's-Sleep-Habits-Questionnaire (CSHQ)., Results: 1,410 participants were enrolled. Baseline mean CSHQ-total-sleep-scores could be considered clinically significant for the MPH-group and the no-MPH-group, but not for controls. The only group to show a significant increase in any aspect of sleep from baseline to 24-months was the control-group. Comparing the MPH- to the no-MPH-group no differences in total-sleep-score changes were found., Conclusion: Our findings support that sleep-problems are common in ADHD, but don't suggest significant negative long-term effects of MPH on sleep., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: AH has received compensation for serving as consultant or speaker for Shire–Takeda and Medice, unrelated to this work. KKCM reports grants from the CW Maplethorpe Fellowship, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the EU Horizon 2020 Framework, and the Hong Kong Research Grant Council, and personal fees from IQVIA Holdings, outside the submitted work. JB has been in the past 3 years a consultant, member of advisory board, or speaker for Takeda–Shire, Roche, Medice, Angelini, Janssen, and Servier. SC reports collaboration on projects from the EU Seventh Framework Programme and on clinical trials sponsored by Shire Pharmaceutical Company, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Janssen-Cilag, and Angelini. MD has received research funding from Takeda–Shire, outside the submitted work. RWD—For the past 3 years, he has no conflicts of interest to report. As a former company employee, he has been a stock holder of Eli Lilly & Co. BF has been a consultant or speaker for Abbvie, Actelion, Allergan, Almirall, Alnylam, Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Biogen, Biopecs, Bioproject, Biotronik, BMS, Boehringer, Celgène, Daiichi-Sankyio, Ethypharm, Forestlab, Genevrier, Genzyme, Gilead, Grünenthal, GSK, Idorsia, IMS, Indivior, IQVIA, JNJ, Léo, Lilly, Lundbeck, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Novonordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Pierre-Frabre, Recordati, Roche, SANOFI, Servier, Takeda, UCB, ViiV, and Wellmera. CH reports research funding from the NIHR including the Health Technology Assessment SATURN trial (grant ref: NIHR128472) comparing MPH with guanfacine for children and young people with ADHD and tics. CH was chair of the NICE Guideline (CG155) for psychosis and schizophrenia in children and young people; member of the NICE ADHD Guideline Update committee (NG87) and is a member of Eunethydis and the European ADHD Guideline Group. SM reports speaker’s fee, travel support, and research support from Shire, outside the submitted work. AN reports research funding from the EU, the German Ministry of Health, and the German Federal Joint Committee, outside the submitted work. PN has been a consultant or speaker for Medice, Servier, and Egis Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. ER received speaker’s fee and travel support from Shire, outside the submitted work. ESB has received in the last 3 years speakers fees from Takeda and Medice and research support from QBTech. AZ served in an advisory or consultancy role for Angelini, EduPharma, Servier; received conference support or speaker’s fee from Angelini and Janssen; participated in clinical trials conducted by Angelini, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, Servier, and Shire; and received royalties from Giunti OS and Oxford University Press. ICKW reports research and educational funding from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Janssen, Bayer, GSK, Novartis, Takeda, the Hong Kong Research Grants Council, the Hong Kong Health and Medical Research Fund, the Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Commission, the NIHR, the EU, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and the expert testimony payment from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal; outside the submitted work. DC reports, in the past 3 years, a consultant, member of advisory board, or speaker role for Takeda–Shire, Medice, Novartis, and Servier. He has received royalties from Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press; research support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation; and funding for the current study from the European Commission. All other authors declare no competing interests. TB served in an advisory or consultancy role for Eyelevel, Infectopharm, Lundbeck, Medice, Neurim Pharmaceuticals, Oberberg, Roche, and Takeda; received conference support or speaker’s fee from Jansen, Medice, and Takeda; and royalities from Hogrefe, Kohlhammer, CIP Medien, and Oxford University Press; outside the submitted work.

Objective: The short-term safety of methylphenidate (MPH) has been widely demonstrated; however the long-term safety is less clear. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of MPH in relation to pubertal maturation and to explore the monitoring of bone age., Method: Participants from ADDUCE, a two-year observational longitudinal study with three parallel cohorts (MPH group, no-MPH group, and a non-ADHD control group), were compared with respect to Tanner staging. An Italian subsample of medicated-ADHD was further assessed by the monitoring of bone age., Results: The medicated and unmedicated ADHD groups did not differ in Tanner stages indicating no higher risk of sexual maturational delay in the MPH-treated patients. The medicated subsample monitored for bone age showed a slight acceleration of the bone maturation after 24 months, however their predicted adult height remained stable., Conclusion: Our results do not suggest safety concerns on long-term treatment with MPH in relation to pubertal maturation and growth., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: SC reports collaboration on projects from the EU Seventh Framework Program and on clinical trials sponsored by Lundbeck, Otsuka, Janssen-Cilag, Angelini and Acadia. KKCM reports grants from the CW Maplethorpe Fellowship, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the EU Horizon 2020 Framework, and the Hong Kong Research Grant Council, and personal fees from IQVIA Holdings, outside the submitted work. CB reports collaboration on projects from the EU Seventh Framework Program and on clinical trials sponsored by Otsuka, Janssen-Cilag, Angelini and Acadia. JB has been in the past 3 years a consultant to / member of advisory board of / and/or speaker for Takeda, Medice, Angelini, Janssen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Servier. He is not an employee of any of these companies, and not a stock shareholder of any of these companies. He has no other financial or material support, including expert testimony, patents, royalties. MD has received research funding from Takeda–Shire, outside the submitted work. RWD—For the past 3 years, he has no conflicts of interest to report. As a former company employee, he has been a stockholder of Eli Lilly & Co. FD reports collaboration as sub-investigator in clinical trials sponsored by Lundbeck as an independent rater in clinical trials sponsored by Servier and Acadia. BF has been a consultant or speaker for Abbvie, Actelion, Allergan, Almirall, Alnylam, Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Biogen, Biopecs, Bioproject, Biotronik, BMS,Boehringer, Celgène, Daiichi-Sankyio, Ethypharm, Forestlab, Genevrier, Genzyme, Gilead, Grünenthal, GSK, Idorsia, IMS, Indivior, IQVIA, JNJ, Léo, Lilly, Lundbeck, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Novonordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Pierre-Frabre, Recordati, Roche, SANOFI, Servier, Takeda, UCB, ViiV, and Wellmera. AH has received compensation for serving as consultant or speaker for Shire–Takeda and Medice, unrelated to this work. KKCM reports grants from the CW Maplethorpe Fellowship, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the EU Horizon 2020 Framework, and the Hong Kong Research Grant Council, and personal fees from IQVIA Holdings, outside the submitted work. CH reports research funding from the NIHR including the Health Technology Assessment SATURN trial (grant ref: NIHR128472) comparing methylpheidate with guanfacine for children and young people with ADHD and tics. CH was chair of the NICE Guideline (CG155) for psychosis and schizophrenia in children and young people; member of the NICE ADHD Guideline Update committee (NG87) and is a member of Eunethydis and the Europhean ADHD Guideline Group. SM reports speaker’s fee, travel support, and research support from Shire, outside the submitted work. AN reports research funding from the EU, the German Ministry of Health, and the German Federal Joint Committee, outside the submitted work. PN has been a consultant or speaker for Medice, Servier, and Egis Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. ER received speaker’s fee and travel support from Shire, outside the submitted work. PN has been a consultant or speaker for Medice, Servier, and Egis Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. ER received speaker’s fee and travel support from Shire, outside the submitted work. ESB has received in the last 3 years speakers fees from Takeda and Medice and research support from QBTech. AZ served in an advisory or consultancy role for Angelini, EduPharma, Servier; received conference support or speaker’s fee from Angelini and Janssen; participated in clinical trials conducted by Angelini, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, Sevier, and Shire; and received royalties from Giunti OS and Oxford University Press. ICKW reports research and educational funding from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Janssen, Bayer, GSK, Novartis, Takeda, the Hong Kong Research Grants Council, the Hong Kong Health and Medical Research Fund, the Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Commission, the NIHR, the EU, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and the expert testimony payment from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal; outside the submitted work. TB served in an advisory or consultancy role for eye level, Infectopharm, Medice, Neurim Pharmaceuticals, Oberberg GmbH and Takeda. He received conference support or speaker’s fee by Janssen, Medice and Takeda. He received royalities from Hogrefe, Kohlhammer, CIP Medien, Oxford University Press; the present work is unrelated to these relationships. DC reports, in the past 3 years, a consultant, member of advisory board, or speaker role for Takeda–Shire, Medice, Novartis, and Servier. He has received royalties from Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press; research support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation; and funding for the current study from the European Commission. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Background and Objective: Methylphenidate (MPH) and atomoxetine (ATX) are the most common medications used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in China; however, despite this, there is still a paucity of studies comparing their efficacy and safety, particularly for different characteristics. To address the lack of research, a real-world prospective cohort study was conducted to examine these properties of MPH and ATX, and to analyze correlations associated with age, sex, and different ADHD presentation., Methods: Children with ADHD meeting the eligibility criteria were recruited from January 2016 to July 2021. Study participants were treated with either MPH or ATX prescribed in the real-world setting, and were followed up for 26 weeks. Clinical efficacy response and adverse events (AEs) were recorded and measured. Subgroup analysis was performed to examine the efficacy response and AEs associated with age, sex, and different ADHD presentation., Results: A total of 1050 children were recruited and 29 children were lost to follow-up. Of the 1021 children remaining, 533 were treated with MPH and 488 were treated with ATX. No significant differences were found in intelligence quotient, age, sex, or ADHD presentation between the MPH- and ATX-treated groups (p > 0.05). The response rates were 84.6% in the MPH-treated group and 63.3% in the ATX-treated group. Subgroup analysis of response rate demonstrated that the treatment effect of MPH over ATX was consistent across subgroups except in the girls (odds ratio [OR] 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-4.7) and the hyperactive/impulsive presentation group (OR 2.88, 95% CI 0.77-12.76). A total of 47.8% of children experienced AEs during MPH treatment, significantly lower than the rate of 56.8% during ATX treatment (p < 0.05). The incidence of AEs in the MPH-treated group was higher in young children (<8 years: 56.8%; 8-10 years: 47.2%) and lower in children over 10 years of age (29.0%)., Conclusions: Overall, MPH was more effective and better tolerated than ATX. The incidence of AEs in children treated with MPH varied with age, and was higher in young children and lower in children over 10 years of age., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Although attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is often comorbid with schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders (SZSPD), concerns about an increased risk of psychotic events have limited its treatment with either psychostimulants or atomoxetine., Aims: To examine whether the risk of hospital admission for psychosis in people with SZSPD was increased during the year following the introduction of such medications compared with the year before., Method: This was a retrospective cohort study using Quebec (Canada) administrative health registries, including all Quebec residents with a public prescription drug insurance plan and a diagnosis of psychotic disorder, defined by relevant ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes, who initiated either methylphenidate, amphetamines or atomoxetine, between January 2010 and December 2016, in combination with antipsychotic medication. The primary outcome was time to hospital admission for psychosis within 1 year of initiation. State sequence analysis was also used to visualise admission trajectories for psychosis in the year following initiation of these medications, compared with the previous year., Results: Out of 2219 individuals, 1589 (71.6%) initiated methylphenidate, 339 (15.3%) amphetamines and 291 (13.1%) atomoxetine during the study period. After adjustment, the risk of hospital admission for psychosis was decreased during the 12 months following the introduction of these medications when used in combination with antipsychotics (adjusted HR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.24-0.54; P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: These findings suggest that, in a real-world setting, when used concurrently with antipsychotic medication, methylphenidate, amphetamines and atomoxetine may be safer than generally believed in individuals with psychotic disorders.

Background: Methylphenidate can be used for the treatment of cancer-related fatigue (CRF), although randomized controlled trials have shown conflicting results. The aim of this study was to use 'real-world' data to evaluate the effect and side effects of using methylphenidate in palliative cancer care with a focus on the late palliative phase and dose-response., Method: A retrospective review of medical records from a palliative care unit in Sweden was performed to evaluate the effect and adverse events (AEs) of using methylphenidate to treat CRF. Univariable and multivariable regression was performed and odds ratio (OR) calculated. Adjustments were made for sex, age, cancer type, dose and starting treatment <4 weeks before death., Results: Of the 2,419 screened patients, 112 had been treated with methylphenidate for CRF. The treatment was assessed as being effective in 51 patients (46%). Twenty-six patients (23%) experienced AEs that were generally mild, including anxiety, palpitations, and insomnia. Patients starting the treatment <4 weeks before death (n = 54) were less likely to have an effect from treatment compared to those starting earlier; adjusted OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.10-0.55). Doses of 20 mg and above were well-tolerated and had a higher frequency of effect in the crude data but not after adjustment for confounding factors., Conclusion: Methylphenidate is generally effective and well-tolerated for the treatment of CRF in palliative care. However, patients with a short life expectancy (<4 weeks) seem to benefit less from the treatment regardless of age, cancer type and dose.

Objective: To investigate the association between atomoxetine or methylphenidate use and arrhythmia, heart failure (HF), stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients mainly focused on the people of working age., Methods: In a self-controlled case series study using a Japanese claims database, we identified events of arrhythmia, HF, stroke, and MI among 15,472 atomoxetine new users and 12,059 methylphenidate new users. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of outcome events were estimated using multivariable conditional Poisson regression., Results: An increased risk of arrhythmia was observed during the first 7 days after the initial atomoxetine exposure (aIRR 6.22, 95% CI [1.90, 20.35]) and in the subsequent exposure (3.23, [1.58, 6.64]). No association was found between methylphenidate exposure and arrhythmia, nor between atomoxetine or methylphenidate exposure and HF. The limited number of stroke and MI cases prevented thorough analysis., Conclusions: Clinicians should consider monitoring for arrhythmia after patients initiating or re-initiating atomoxetine., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Y.Z. is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited; however, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited was not involved in this study. T.F. has been employed by the Department of Digital Health and Epidemiology, an Industry-Academia Collaboration Course supported by Eisai Co., Ltd., Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., Real World Data Co., Ltd., and Mitsubishi Corporation; and has received consulting fees from Real World Data Co., Ltd. and speaker fees from Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation and EPS Corporation. F.Y. declares no conflict of interest. M.T. received consulting fees from Eisai Co., Ltd. K.K. received research grants from Eisai Co., Ltd., Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., OMRON Corporation, and Toppan Inc.; consulting fees from Advanced Medical Care Inc., JMDC Inc., and Shin Nippon Biomedical Laboratories Ltd.; executive compensation from Cancer Intelligence Care Systems, Inc.; honoraria from Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Pharma Business Academy.

Methylphenidate (MPH) is highly efficacious in reducing symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. Generally increased doses are found to result in better symptom control; however, it remains unclear whether this pattern can be observed at the individual level, given the large heterogeneity in individual dose-response relationships and observed placebo responses. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over trial was used to compare weekly treatment with placebo and 5, 10, 15 and 20 mg of MPH twice daily on parent and teacher ratings of child ADHD symptoms and side effects. Participants were 5-13-year-old children with a DSM-5 diagnosis of ADHD (N = 45). MPH response was assessed at group and individual levels and predictors of individual dose-response curves were examined. Mixed model analysis showed positive linear dose-response curves at group level for parent and teacher rated ADHD symptoms and parent rated side effects, but not for teacher rated side effects. Teachers reported all dosages to improve ADHD symptoms compared to placebo, while parents only reported > 5 mg/dose as effective. At the individual level, most (73-88%) children, but not all, showed positive linear dose-response curves. Higher severity of hyperactive-impulsive symptoms and lower internalizing problems, lower weight, younger age and more positive opinions towards diagnosis and medication partly predicted steeper linear individual dose-response curves. Our study confirms that increased doses of MPH yield greater symptom control at a group level. However, large interindividual variation in the dose-response relationship was found and increased doses did not lead to greater symptom improvement for all children. This trial was registered in the Netherlands trial register (# NL8121)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Importance: Stimulants (methylphenidate and amphetamines) are often prescribed at unlicensed doses for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Whether dose escalation beyond US Food and Drug Administration recommendations is associated with positive risk benefits is unclear., Objective: To investigate the impact, based on averages, of stimulant doses on treatment outcomes in adults with ADHD and to determine, based on averages, whether unlicensed doses are associated with positive risk benefits compared with licensed doses., Data Sources: Twelve databases, including published (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Sciences) and unpublished (ClinicalTrials.gov) literature, up to February 22, 2023, without language restrictions., Study Selection: Two researchers independently screened records to identify double-blinded randomized clinical trials of stimulants against placebo in adults (18 years and older) with ADHD., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Aggregate data were extracted and synthesized in random-effects dose-response meta-analyses and network meta-analyses., Main Outcome Measures: Change in ADHD symptoms and discontinuations due to adverse events., Results: A total of 47 randomized clinical trials (7714 participants; mean age, 35 (SD, 11) years; 4204 male [56%]) were included. For methylphenidate, dose-response curves indicated additional reductions of symptoms with increments in doses, but the gains were progressively smaller and accompanied by continued additional risk of adverse events dropouts. Network meta-analyses showed that unlicensed doses were associated with greater reductions of symptoms compared with licensed doses (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.23; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.02; very low certainty of evidence), but the additional gain was small and accompanied by increased risk of adverse event dropouts (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.19-3.43; moderate certainty of evidence). For amphetamines, the dose-response curve approached a plateau and increments in doses did not indicate additional reductions of symptoms, but there were continued increments in the risk of adverse event dropouts. Network meta-analysis did not identify differences between unlicensed and licensed doses for reductions of symptoms (SMD, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.08; very low certainty of evidence)., Conclusions and Relevance: Based on group averages, unlicensed doses of stimulants may not have positive risk benefits compared with licensed doses for adults with ADHD. In general, practitioners should consider unlicensed doses cautiously. Practitioners may trial unlicensed doses if needed and tolerated but should be aware that there may not be large gains in the response to the medication with those further increments in dose. However, the findings are averages and will not generalize to every patient.

Background: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by difficulty paying attention, poor impulse control, and hyperactive behavior. It is associated with several adverse health and social outcomes and leads to an increased risk of criminality and recidivism. Worldwide, ADHD is thus highly prevalent in prisons. However, ADHD treatment has been neglected in such environments. Stimulant medications such as osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) are first-line treatments in the general population, but they are under-prescribed in prisons due to concerns about abuse, even though such claims are not empirically supported. This project aims to compare the efficacy of a 3-month in-prison OROS-MPH vs. placebo treatment on the severity of core ADHD symptoms and relevant in- and post-prison outcomes., Methods: This study is a phase III, double-blinded, randomized, superiority, controlled trial of OROS-MPH vs. placebo. After randomization, the participants will receive 3 months of treatment with OROS-MPH or placebo (1:1 ratio) while incarcerated. Upon release, all participants will be offered the treatment (OROS-MPH) for 1 year but will remain blinded to their initial study group. The study will be conducted at the Division of Prison Health, Geneva, Switzerland, among incarcerated men (n = 150). Measures will include (1) investigator-rated ADHD symptoms, (2) acute events collected by the medical and prison teams, (3) assessment of the risk of recidivism, (4) medication side effects, (5) medication adherence, (6) study retention, (7) health care/prison costs, and (8) 1-year recidivism. Analyses will include bivariable and multivariable modeling (e.g., regression models, mixed-effects models, survival analyses) and an economic evaluation (cost-benefit analysis)., Discussion: We expect that early identification and treatment of ADHD in prison will be an important public health opportunity and a cost-effective approach that is likely to reduce the vulnerability of incarcerated individuals and promote pathways out of criminal involvement. The study will also promote standards of care for people with ADHD in prison and provide recommendations for continuity of care after release., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05842330 . Registered on June 5, 2023. Kofam.ch SNCTP000005388. Registered on July 17, 2023., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no relevant conflicts of interest.

Purpose/background: Methylphenidate (MPH) is widely used to reduce symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Methylphenidate is metabolized by the carboxylesterase 1 (CES1) enzyme. Some patients need a very high dose of MPH to reach desired clinical effects, without having adverse effects. This may be due to differences in MPH pharmacokinetics (PK), potentially caused by DNA variants in CES1 , the gene encoding the enzyme that metabolizes MPH. Here we describe 3 patients requiring high-dose MPH and investigated the CES1 gene., Methods/procedures: The 3 patients were using short-acting MPH in a dose of 180 to 640 mg instead of the maximum advised dose of around 100 mg MPH in the Netherlands. Plasma concentrations of MPH were determined at scheduled time points (day-curve). Methylphenidate plasma concentrations were used for PK analysis using an earlier published 2-compartment PK population model of MPH. Individual data of the 3 patients were compared with simulated population data, when equivalent doses were used. In addition, CES1 was genotyped (number of gene copies and single nucleotide polymorphisms) using real-time polymerase chain reaction., Findings/results: Pharmacokinetic analysis in all 3 patients showed lower plasma concentrations of MPH in comparison with the population data. The mean absorption time and volume of distribution of the central compartment were equal, but the elimination clearance was higher. However, CES1 genotyping revealed no variations that could explain a higher metabolism of MPH., Implications/conclusions: In these 3 cases, we could not demonstrate a correlation between MPH clearance and known genetic variants of the CES1 gene., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Guanfacine, used as a medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), leads to a high incidence of somnolence, in contrast to methylphenidate, which leads to a high incidence of insomnia. The impact of somnolence on continuing guanfacine treatment is unclear. Therefore, we investigated the reasons for discontinuing guanfacine and analyzed the factors associated with discontinuation caused by somnolence. We surveyed 96 patients under guanfacine from July 2017 to December 2021 at the Saga University Hospital. Patients who discontinued guanfacine by the end date of our study were divided into a median early and late group. We compared the reasons for discontinuation in both groups. Of all patients, 47 continued and 49 discontinued guanfacine. A higher percentage of patients discontinued guanfacine caused by somnolence for ≤70 d than for >70 d of treatment (44.0 vs. 8.3%; p = 0.008). When stratified by the concomitant use of other ADHD drugs, somnolence resulted in a higher discontinuation rate for ≤70 d than for >70 d of treatment without concomitant use (55.0 vs. 7.1%; p = 0.009). Nonetheless, concomitant use resulted in no difference. In conclusion, somnolence affects the early discontinuation of guanfacine as an ADHD drug. The combination of methylphenidate or atomoxetine may decrease withdrawal caused by somnolence.

Background: This study intends to evaluate the relationship between medication switching and autistic traits, emotion dysregulation, and methylphenidate side effects in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)., Methods: Children with ADHD, ages 9-18, treated with methylphenidate (MTP) (n = 23), and switched to atomoxetine (ATX) (n = 20) were included. All participants were interviewed with K-SADS-PL to confirm ADHD diagnosis and exclude comorbid psychiatric disorders. The participants then completed Difficulty in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) and Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) and their parents completed Autism Spectrum Screening Questionnaire (ASSQ) and Barkley Stimulant Side Effect Rating Scale(BSSERS)., Results: The MTP group scored higher than the ATX group in ASSQ, AQ, and the lack of emotional clarity subscale of DERS, while the ATX group had higher scores in the emotional non-acceptance subscale of DERS. No differences were found between the MTP and ATX groups in methylphenidate side-effect severity. Multiple regression analyses revealed that non-acceptance of emotions predicted the switch to ATX while lack of emotional clarity predicted the maintenance of MTP therapy, rather than autistic traits., Conclusions: This study highlights emotion regulation difficulties and how different emotional profiles may influence medication selection in children with ADHD., (Copyright © 1964–2023 by MedWorks Media Inc, Los Angeles, CA All rights reserved. Printed in the United States.)

Objective: The Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (ADMET 2) found that methylphenidate was effective in treating apathy with a small-to-medium effect size but showed heterogeneity in response. We assessed clinical predictors of response to help determine individual likelihood of treatment benefit from methylphenidate., Design: Univariate and multivariate analyses of 22 clinical predictors of response chosen a priori., Setting: Data from the ADMET 2 randomized, placebo controlled multi-center clinical trial., Participants: Alzheimer's disease patients with clinically significant apathy., Measurements: Apathy assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory apathy domain (NPI-A)., Results: In total, 177 participants (67% male, mean [SD] age 76.4 [7.9], mini-mental state examination 19.3 [4.8]) had 6-months follow up data. Six potential predictors met criteria for inclusion in multivariate modeling. Methylphenidate was more efficacious in participants without NPI anxiety (change in NPI-A -2.21, standard error [SE]:0.60) or agitation (-2.63, SE:0.68), prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEI) (-2.44, SE:0.62), between 52 and 72 years of age (-2.93, SE:1.05), had 73-80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure (-2.43, SE: 1.03), and more functional impairment (-2.56, SE:1.16) as measured by the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living scale., Conclusion: Individuals who were not anxious or agitated, younger, prescribed a ChEI, with optimal (73-80 mm Hg) diastolic blood pressure, or having more impaired function were more likely to benefit from methylphenidate compared to placebo. Clinicians may preferentially consider methylphenidate for apathetic AD participants already prescribed a ChEI and without baseline anxiety or agitation., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A young child was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder with comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. His hyperactivity, impulsivity and absence of awareness towards danger increased his risk of harm and hence methylphenidate was indicated. Unfortunately, he developed chest pain eight months after the treatment initiation. We then stopped the stimulant and changed his treatment to atomoxetine, after which he no longer had chest pain. In the following illustrated case, we will discuss the cardiac side effect of methylphenidate., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: To investigate choroidal vascularity in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who were not receiving therapy, children with ADHD who were regularly taking methylphenidate (MPH), and healthy controls., Methods: The study included three groups: patients with newly diagnosed ADHD without treatment, patients diagnosed as having ADHD who were already being treated with oral MPH, and controls. Both choroidal vascularity index (CVI) and choroidal thickness were measured using an enhanced-depth imaging mode of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (EDIOCT) (Spectralis; Heidelberg Engineering GmbH)., Results: There was a significant difference in CVI and stromal area between groups. Post-hoc univariate analysis showed that CVI was significantly lower in patients with ADHD treated with MPH compared with the other groups ( P < .001, for each); however, there was no difference between the treatment-free ADHD group and controls ( P = .305). In contrast, stromal area was significantly higher in patients with ADHD treated with MPH than the other groups ( P < .001, for each group). The correlation of CVI with MPH treatment duration in patients with ADHD treated with MPH showed a significant, moderate negative correlation ( P = .01, r = - 0.66)., Conclusions: CVI is reduced in patients with ADHD treated with MPH, and the decrease in CVI becomes significant with increasing duration of MPH treatment. This result reflects an indirect effect of MPH treatment on choroidal vascular structures. [ J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus . 2023;60(6):411-416.] .

Introduction: The data suggests that in children and adolescents, bipolar disorder (BD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may be strongly correlated. Even though drugs for ADHD and BD are largely accepted, there is relatively little research on the management of comorbidity in children and adolescents, particularly in terms of safety. We provide a synthesis of these findings because one hasn't been made yet., Areas Covered: As a primary outcome, we wanted to determine whether stimulant or non-stimulant treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD and comorbid BD was effective. As a secondary outcome, we wanted to determine tolerability, especially the risk of mood switch., Expert Opinion: The findings of this systematic review suggest that methylphenidate, when used with a mood stabilizer, may be safe and not significantly increase the risk of a manic switch or psychotic symptoms when used to treat ADHD that co-occurs with a BD. In situations where stimulants are ineffective or have low tolerance, atomoxetine also seems to be a good alternative, and also in cases of co-morbid anxiety, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorders, ICT disorders, and substance use disorders. Additional research with a higher level of evidence is necessary to corroborate these preliminary findings.

Introduction: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a mental disorder that was once thought to occur only in children. Meanwhile, it is known that adults can also be affected. The first-line drug in children and adults to treat symptoms of inattention, impulsivity, lack of self-regulation, and hyperactivity is methylphenidate (MPH). Known adverse effects of MPH include cardiovascular problems, such as elevated blood pressure and heart rate. Therefore, biomarkers to monitor potential cardiovascular side effects of MPH are needed. The l-Arginine/Nitric oxide (Arg/NO) pathway is involved in noradrenaline and dopamine release as well as in normal cardiovascular functioning and is therefore a prime candidate for the search of biomarkers. The aim of the present study was to investigate the Arg/NO pathway as well as oxidative stress in adult ADHD patients in plasma and urine and the potential influence of MPH medication., Methods: In plasma and urine samples of 29 adults with ADHD (39.2 ± 10.9 years) and 32 healthy adults serving as controls (CO) (38.0 ± 11.6 years) the major NO metabolites nitrite and nitrate, Arg, the NO synthesis inhibitor asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA) and its major urinary metabolite dimethylamine (DMA) as well as malondialdehyde (MDA) were measured by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry., Results: Of the 29 patients with ADHD 14 were currently without MPH treatment (-MPH) and 15 were treated with MPH (+MPH). Plasma nitrate concentrations were significantly higher in patients not treated with MPH vs. CO (-MPH 60.3 μM [46.2-76.0] vs. CO 44.4 μM [35.0-52.7]; p = 0.002), while plasma nitrite tended to be higher in -MPH patients (2.77 μM [2.26-3.27]) vs. CO (2.13 μM [1.50-2.93]; p = 0.053). Additionally, plasma creatinine concentrations were significantly different, with -MPH showing significantly higher concentrations than the other two groups (-MPH 141 μM [128-159]; +MPH 96.2 μM [70.2-140]; Co 75.9 μM [62.0-94.7]; p < 0.001). Urinary creatinine excretion tended to be lowest in -MPH group vs. +MPH and CO (-MPH 11.4 ± 8.88 mM; +MPH 20.7 ± 9.82 mM; 16.6 ± 7.82 mM; p = 0.076). None of the other metabolites, including MDA, a marker of oxidative stress, showed a difference between the groups., Conclusion: Adult patients with ADHD, who are not treated with MPH (-MPH), showed varied Arg/NO pathway, but Arg bioavailability seemed to be consistent over the groups. Our findings imply that urinary reabsorption may be increase and/or excretion of nitrite and nitrate may be decreased in ADHD, resulting in an increase in the plasma concentration of nitrite. MPH seems to partially reverse these effects by not yet known mechanisms, and does not affect oxidative stress., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Giggle incontinence (GI) is a rare form of urinary incontinence that occurs during or immediately after laughing due to involuntary and complete bladder emptying. Few studies in the literature report that methylphenidate can be effective in treatment of this condition., Objective: The aim of this study is to characterize children with GI and evaluate their response to methylphenidate, as well as describe treatment duration, dosage of methylphenidate, relapse rates after discontinuation of medication, and side effects., Methods: Medical records and 48-h frequency-volume charts from children treated with methylphenidate for GI in the period January 2011-July 2021 were retrospectively analyzed., Results: Eighteen children were diagnosed with GI and fulfilled inclusion criteria. Fifteen patients were included in analysis, as 3 out of 18 children decided not to take the methylphenidate that was prescribed. In total, 14 out of the 15 GI patients treated with methylphenidate experienced clinical effect. All patients included in the study had methylphenidate prescribed in a dose range of 5-20 mg daily. Treatment duration ranged from 30 to 1001 days, with a median of 152 days (IQR 114, 243.5). Ten children experienced complete response and two of those reported symptom relapse after discontinuation of the methylphenidate. Only mild and short-lasting side effects were reported by two patients., Discussion: Our study demonstrates that methylphenidate is an effective treatment in children diagnosed with GI. Side effects are mild and uncommon., (© 2023 The Authors. Neurourology and Urodynamics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Methylphenidate is an effective first-line treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, many adverse effects of methylphenidate have been recorded from randomized clinical trials and patient-reported outcomes, but it is difficult to determine abuse from them. In the context of COVID-19, it is important to determine how drug use evaluation, as well as misuse of drugs, have been affected by the pandemic. As people share their reasons for using medication, patient sentiments, and the effects of medicine on social networking services (SNSs), the application of machine learning and SNS data can be a method to overcome the limitations. Proper machine learning models could be evaluated to validate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on drug use., Objective: To analyze the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use of methylphenidate, this study analyzed the adverse effects and nonmedical use of methylphenidate and evaluated the change in frequency of nonmedical use based on SNS data before and after the outbreak of COVID-19. Moreover, the performance of 4 machine learning models for classifying methylphenidate use based on SNS data was compared., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, SNS data on methylphenidate from Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram from January 2019 to December 2020 were collected. The frequency of adverse effects, nonmedical use, and drug use before and after the COVID-19 pandemic were compared and analyzed. Interrupted time series analysis about the frequency and trends of nonmedical use of methylphenidate was conducted for 24 months from January 2019 to December 2020. Using the labeled training data set and features, the following 4 machine learning models were built using the data, and their performance was evaluated using F- 1 scores: naïve Bayes classifier, random forest, support vector machine, and long short-term memory., Results: This study collected 146,352 data points and detected that 4.3% (6340/146,352) were firsthand experience data. Psychiatric problems (521/1683, 31%) had the highest frequency among the adverse effects. The highest frequency of nonmedical use was for studies or work (741/2016, 36.8%). While the frequency of nonmedical use before and after the outbreak of COVID-19 has been similar (odds ratio [OR] 1.02 95% CI 0.91-1.15), its trend has changed significantly due to the pandemic (95% CI 2.36-22.20). Among the machine learning models, RF had the highest performance of 0.75., Conclusions: The trend of nonmedical use of methylphenidate has changed significantly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the machine learning models using SNS data to analyze the adverse effects and nonmedical use of methylphenidate, the random forest model had the highest performance., (©Hocheol Shin, Cindra Tri Yuniar, SuA Oh, Sujata Purja, Sera Park, Haeun Lee, Eunyoung Kim. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 16.08.2023.)