Dataset Information

Long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative efficacy.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To synthesise existing knowledge of the efficacy and safety of long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Electronic literature search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Scopus and Web of Science for articles published in the English language between 1950 and 2012. Reference lists of included studies were checked for additional studies.

Study selection

Randomised controlled trials of paediatric ADHD patients (<18 years), comparing a long-acting methylphenidate form to a short-acting methylphenidate form.

Data extraction

Two authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Continuous outcomes were compared using standardised mean differences (SMDs) between treatment groups. Adverse events were compared using risk differences between treatment groups. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analysis based on the type of long-acting formulation used.

Results

Thirteen RCTs were included; data from 882 participants contributed to the analysis. Meta-analysis of three studies which used parent ratings to report on hyperactivity/impulsivity had an SMD of -0.30 (95% CI -0.51 to -0.08) favouring the long-acting forms. In contrast, three studies used teacher ratings to report on hyperactivity and had an SMD of 0.29 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.52) favouring the short-acting methylphenidate. In addition, subgroup analysis of three studies which used parent ratings to report on inattention/overactivity indicate that the osmotic release oral system generation long-acting formulation was favoured with an SMD of -0.35 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.17), while the second generation showed less efficacy than the short-acting formulation with an SMD of 0.42 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.68). The long-acting formulations presented with slightly more total reported adverse events (n=578) as compared with the short-acting formulation (n=566).

Conclusions

The findings from this systematic review indicate that the long-acting forms have a modest effect on the severity of inattention/overactivity and hyperactivity/impulsivity according to parent reports, whereas the short-acting methylphenidate was preferred according to teacher reports for hyperactivity.

SUBMITTER: Punja S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3612754 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative efficacy.

Punja Salima S Zorzela Liliane L Hartling Lisa L Urichuk Liana L Vohra Sunita S

BMJ open 20130315 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To synthesise existing knowledge of the efficacy and safety of long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>Electronic literature search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Scopus and Web of Science for articles published in the English language between 1950 and 2012. Reference lists of included studies were checked fo ...[more]

PMID: 23503579

Similar Datasets

Project description:A number of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ?2-agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for treatment of moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have recently become available, but none have been directly compared in head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The purpose of this study was to assess the relative clinical benefit of all currently available LAMA/LABA FDCs using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).A systematic literature review identified RCTs investigating the efficacy, safety and quality of life associated with licensed LAMA/LABA FDCs for the treatment of moderate-to-very severe COPD. RCTs were screened for inclusion in the NMA using prespecified eligibility criteria. Data were extracted for outcomes of interest, including change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (tFEV1) from baseline, St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) percentage of responders, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) percentage of responders, change in SGRQ score from baseline, change in TDI focal score from baseline, moderate-to-severe exacerbations, all-cause discontinuation, and discontinuation due to adverse events.Following screening, a total of 27 trials from 26 publications with 30,361 subjects were eligible for inclusion in the NMA. Nonsignificant results were seen in most analyses comparing efficacy, exacerbations and discontinuation rates of included LAMA/LABA FDCs (i.e. aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg, glycopyrronium/indacaterol 110/50 µg, tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg, umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg). Meta-regression controlling for post-bronchodilator percentage of tFEV1 predicted at baseline as well as meta-regression adjusting for concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids at baseline was performed to assess the magnitude of effect modification and produced similar results as observed in the base case analysis.All LAMA/LABA FDCs were found to have similar efficacy and safety. Definitive assessment of the relative efficacy of different treatments can only be performed through direct comparison in head-to-head RCTs. In the absence of such data, this indirect comparison may be of value in clinical and health economic decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR).ResultsWe included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12).ConclusionsOur results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction.Prospero registrationCRD42017077051.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized, controlled trials comparing long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) efficacy in COPD are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative efficacy of tiotropium 18 µg once-daily (OD) and newer agents (aclidinium 400 µg twice-daily, glycopyrronium 50 µg OD, and umeclidinium 62.5 µg OD).MethodsA systematic literature review identified randomized, controlled trials of adult COPD patients receiving LAMAs. A NMA within a Bayesian framework examined change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), transitional dyspnea index focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and rescue medication use.ResultsTwenty-four studies (n=21,311) compared LAMAs with placebo/each other. Aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, and umeclidinium, respectively, demonstrated favorable results versus placebo, for change from baseline (95% credible interval) in 12-week trough FEV1 (primary endpoint: 101.40 mL [77.06-125.60]; 117.20 mL [104.50-129.90]; 114.10 mL [103.10-125.20]; 136.70 mL [104.20-169.20]); 24-week trough FEV1 (128.10 mL [84.10-172.00]; 135.80 mL [123.10-148.30]; 106.40 mL [95.45-117.30]; 115.00 mL [74.51-155.30]); 24-week St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (-4.60 [-6.76 to -2.54]; -3.14 [-3.83 to -2.45]; -2.43 [-2.92 to -1.93]; -4.69 [-7.05 to -2.31]); 24-week transitional dyspnea index score (1.00 [0.41-1.59]; 1.01 [0.79-1.22]; 0.82 [0.62-1.02]; 1.00 [0.49-1.51]); and 24-week rescue medication use (data not available; -0.41 puffs/day [-0.62 to -0.20]; -0.52 puffs/day [-0.74 to -0.30]; -0.30 puffs/day [-0.81 to 0.21]). For 12-week trough FEV1, differences in change from baseline (95% credible interval) were -12.8 mL (-39.39 to 13.93), aclidinium versus tiotropium; 3.08 mL (-7.58 to 13.69), glycopyrronium versus tiotropium; 22.58 mL (-11.58 to 56.97), umeclidinium versus tiotropium; 15.90 mL (-11.60 to 43.15), glycopyrronium versus aclidinium; 35.40 mL (-5.06 to 76.07), umeclidinium versus aclidinium; and 19.50 mL (-15.30 to 54.38), umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium. Limitations included inhaler-related factors and safety; longer-term outcomes were not considered.ConclusionThe new LAMAs studied had at least comparable efficacy to tiotropium, the established class standard. Choice should depend on physician's and patient's preference.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).DesignSystematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA).Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens.Data extraction and synthesisWe requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD.ResultsWe included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=-0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.48 to -0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=-0.30, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03).ConclusionsLong-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence.Prospero registration numberCRD42015023511.

Dataset Information

Long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative efficacy.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative efficacy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets