Kim Peterson1, Marian S McDonagh, Rongwei Fu. 1. Oregon Evidence-Based Practice Center (EPC), Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology (DMICE), Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), Portland, OR, USA. peterski@ohsu.edu
Abstract
RATIONALE: Recommended medication prescribing hierarchies for adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) vary between different guideline committees. Few trials directly compare competing ADHD medications in adults and provide little insight for clinicians making treatment choices. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess comparative benefits and harms of competing medications for adult ADHD using indirect comparison meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible studies were English-language publications of randomized controlled trials comparing ADHD drugs to placebo. Data sources were electronic bibliographic databases, Drugs@FDA, manufacturer data, and reference lists. Two reviewers independently abstracted data on design, internal validity, population, and results. Benefits and harms were compared between drug types using indirect comparison meta-regression (ratio of relative risks). RESULTS: Twenty-two placebo-controlled trials were included (n = 2,203). Relative benefit of clinical response for shorter-acting stimulants, primarily immediate release methylphenidate, was 3.26 times greater than for patients taking longer-acting stimulants (95% CI 2.03, 5.22) and 2.24 times greater than for patients taking longer-acting forms of bupropion (95% CI 1.23, 4.08). Immediate release methylphenidate is also the only drug shown to reduce ADHD symptoms in adults with substance abuse disorders. Neither non-stimulants nor longer-acting stimulants reduced adverse effects compared to shorter-acting stimulants. Key gaps in evidence were academic, occupational, social functioning, cardiovascular toxicity, and longer-term outcomes, influences of ADHD subtype and/or comorbidities, and misuse/diversion of the drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Current best evidence supports using immediate release methylphenidate as first-line treatment for most adults with ADHD.
RATIONALE: Recommended medication prescribing hierarchies for adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) vary between different guideline committees. Few trials directly compare competing ADHD medications in adults and provide little insight for clinicians making treatment choices. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess comparative benefits and harms of competing medications for adult ADHD using indirect comparison meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible studies were English-language publications of randomized controlled trials comparing ADHD drugs to placebo. Data sources were electronic bibliographic databases, Drugs@FDA, manufacturer data, and reference lists. Two reviewers independently abstracted data on design, internal validity, population, and results. Benefits and harms were compared between drug types using indirect comparison meta-regression (ratio of relative risks). RESULTS: Twenty-two placebo-controlled trials were included (n = 2,203). Relative benefit of clinical response for shorter-acting stimulants, primarily immediate release methylphenidate, was 3.26 times greater than for patients taking longer-acting stimulants (95% CI 2.03, 5.22) and 2.24 times greater than for patients taking longer-acting forms of bupropion (95% CI 1.23, 4.08). Immediate release methylphenidate is also the only drug shown to reduce ADHD symptoms in adults with substance abuse disorders. Neither non-stimulants nor longer-acting stimulants reduced adverse effects compared to shorter-acting stimulants. Key gaps in evidence were academic, occupational, social functioning, cardiovascular toxicity, and longer-term outcomes, influences of ADHD subtype and/or comorbidities, and misuse/diversion of the drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Current best evidence supports using immediate release methylphenidate as first-line treatment for most adults with ADHD.
Authors: T Spencer; J Biederman; T Wilens; J Prince; M Hatch; J Jones; M Harding; S V Faraone; L Seidman Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: James J McGough; Susan L Smalley; James T McCracken; May Yang; Melissa Del'Homme; Deborah E Lynn; Sandra Loo Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Timothy E Wilens; Barbara R Haight; Joseph P Horrigan; James J Hudziak; Norman E Rosenthal; Daniel F Connor; Kenneth D Hampton; Nathalie E Richard; Jack G Modell Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Frances R Levin; Suzette M Evans; Daniel J Brooks; Aparna S Kalbag; Fatima Garawi; Edward V Nunes Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2005-08-15 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: David Michelson; Lenard Adler; Thomas Spencer; Frederick W Reimherr; Scott A West; Albert J Allen; Douglas Kelsey; Joachim Wernicke; Anthony Dietrich; Denái Milton Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Laurel A Habel; William O Cooper; Colin M Sox; K Arnold Chan; Bruce H Fireman; Patrick G Arbogast; T Craig Cheetham; Virginia P Quinn; Sascha Dublin; Denise M Boudreau; Susan E Andrade; Pamala A Pawloski; Marsha A Raebel; David H Smith; Ninah Achacoso; Connie Uratsu; Alan S Go; Steve Sidney; Mai N Nguyen-Huynh; Wayne A Ray; Joe V Selby Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Karin M Gomes; Clarissa M Comim; Samira S Valvassori; Gislaine Z Réus; Cecília G Inácio; Márcio R Martins; Renan P Souza; João Quevedo Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2010-03-06 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Steven A Safren; Susan E Sprich; Christine Cooper-Vince; Laura E Knouse; Jonathan A Lerner Journal: J Atten Disord Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 3.256