OBJECTIVE:Methylphenidate has prominent effects in the dopamine-rich striatum that are absent for the selective norepinephrine transporter inhibitor atomoxetine. This study tested whether baseline striatal activation would predict differential response to the two medications in youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: A total of 36 youth with ADHD performed a Go/No-Go test during functional magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and were treated with methylphenidate and atomoxetine using a randomized cross-over design. Whole-brain task-related activation was regressed on clinical response. RESULTS: Task-related activation in right caudate nucleus was predicted by an interaction of clinical responses to methylphenidate and atomoxetine (F1,30 = 17.00; p < .001). Elevated caudate activation was associated with robust improvement for methylphenidate and little improvement for atomoxetine. The rate of robust response was higher for methylphenidate than for atomoxetine in youth with high (94.4% vs. 38.8%; p = .003; number needed to treat = 2, 95% CI = 1.31-3.73) but not low (33.3% vs. 50.0%; p = .375) caudate activation. Furthermore, response to atomoxetine predicted motor cortex activation (F1,30 = 14.99; p < .001). CONCLUSION: Enhanced caudate activation for response inhibition may be a candidate biomarker of superior response to methylphenidate over atomoxetine in youth with ADHD, purportedly reflecting the dopaminergic effects of methylphenidate but not atomoxetine in the striatum, whereas motor cortex activation may predict response to atomoxetine. These data do not yet translate directly to the clinical setting, but the approach is potentially important for informing future research and illustrates that it may be possible to predict differential treatment response using a biomarker-driven approach. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Stimulant Versus Nonstimulant Medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children; https://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT00183391.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE:Methylphenidate has prominent effects in the dopamine-rich striatum that are absent for the selective norepinephrine transporter inhibitor atomoxetine. This study tested whether baseline striatal activation would predict differential response to the two medications in youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: A total of 36 youth with ADHD performed a Go/No-Go test during functional magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and were treated with methylphenidate and atomoxetine using a randomized cross-over design. Whole-brain task-related activation was regressed on clinical response. RESULTS: Task-related activation in right caudate nucleus was predicted by an interaction of clinical responses to methylphenidate and atomoxetine (F1,30 = 17.00; p < .001). Elevated caudate activation was associated with robust improvement for methylphenidate and little improvement for atomoxetine. The rate of robust response was higher for methylphenidate than for atomoxetine in youth with high (94.4% vs. 38.8%; p = .003; number needed to treat = 2, 95% CI = 1.31-3.73) but not low (33.3% vs. 50.0%; p = .375) caudate activation. Furthermore, response to atomoxetine predicted motor cortex activation (F1,30 = 14.99; p < .001). CONCLUSION: Enhanced caudate activation for response inhibition may be a candidate biomarker of superior response to methylphenidate over atomoxetine in youth with ADHD, purportedly reflecting the dopaminergic effects of methylphenidate but not atomoxetine in the striatum, whereas motor cortex activation may predict response to atomoxetine. These data do not yet translate directly to the clinical setting, but the approach is potentially important for informing future research and illustrates that it may be possible to predict differential treatment response using a biomarker-driven approach. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Stimulant Versus Nonstimulant Medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children; https://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT00183391.
Authors: Jan Buitelaar; Sven Bölte; Daniel Brandeis; Arthur Caye; Nina Christmann; Samuele Cortese; David Coghill; Stephen V Faraone; Barbara Franke; Markus Gleitz; Corina U Greven; Sandra Kooij; Douglas Teixeira Leffa; Nanda Rommelse; Jeffrey H Newcorn; Guilherme V Polanczyk; Luis Augusto Rohde; Emily Simonoff; Mark Stein; Benedetto Vitiello; Yanki Yazgan; Michael Roesler; Manfred Doepfner; Tobias Banaschewski Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Kristi R Griffiths; Taylor A Braund; Michael R Kohn; Simon Clarke; Leanne M Williams; Mayuresh S Korgaonkar Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Hans-Christoph Aster; Marcel Romanos; Susanne Walitza; Manfred Gerlach; Andreas Mühlberger; Albert Rizzo; Marta Andreatta; Natalie Hasenauer; Philipp E Hartrampf; Kai Nerlich; Christoph Reiners; Reinhard Lorenz; Andreas K Buck; Lorenz Deserno Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: Alma Y Galvez-Contreras; Ivette Vargas-de la Cruz; Beatriz Beltran-Navarro; Rocio E Gonzalez-Castaneda; Oscar Gonzalez-Perez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-08 Impact factor: 4.614