98%
921
2 minutes
20
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). 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). 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). 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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363209 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0089 | DOI Listing |
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
March 2025
Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Background: Daily ingestion of amphetamines is common, as they are widely prescribed for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other diagnoses. People also use amphetamines recreationally or in an attempt to boost cognitive or athletic performance. Amphetamines have the potential to increase blood pressure, and we do not know if the long-term benefits of daily amphetamine use outweigh the potential harms.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNeurol Ther
February 2025
Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, 7351 Prairie Falcon Rd STE 160, Las Vegas, NV, 89128, USA.
Introduction: Factors influencing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment preferences have been studied among patients but not physicians in the United States (US) and Canada. This study assessed treatment preferences of physicians treating adult patients with ADHD in both countries.
Methods: An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted (October 4-20, 2023) among physicians from Dynata's US and Canadian panel who treated adult patients with ADHD.
Gynecol Oncol
November 2024
Department of Psychiatry, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States. Electronic address:
J Comp Eff Res
September 2024
Center for Psychiatry & Behavioral Medicine, 7351 Prairie Falcon Rd STE 160, Las Vegas, NV 89128, USA.
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). 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.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBMJ Open
December 2023
Department of Biostatistics and Translational Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Introduction: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects 5%-10% of paediatric population and is reportedly more common in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D), exacerbating its clinical course. Proper treatment of ADHD in such patients may thus provide neurological and metabolic benefits. To test this, we designed a non-commercial second phase clinical trial comparing the impact of different pharmacological interventions for ADHD in children with T1D.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF