Faculty Bibliography

Despite decades of clinical use and a large body of evidence, the WHO continues to exclude methylphenidate for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) from its EML.¹ The exclusion of methylphenidate has dire implications for millions of individuals with ADHD worldwide, especially those living in low and low-middle income countries (LMIC), where governmental decisions to make medicines available are contingent on EML listing.

Professor Alessandro Zuddas, from the University of Cagliari (Italy), passed away prematurely in July 2022. As a prominent figure in child and adolescent neuropsychiatry, he substantially influenced the fields of neurodevelopmental disorders and neuropsychopharmacology both nationally and internationally. Professor Zuddas was a renowned expert in basic and clinical research in child and adolescent psychopharmacology, an enlightened and stimulating educator, and a mentor to many students, residents, and senior colleagues. With his enthusiasm and unique ability to network, he contributed enormously to trace a path in the field that we continue to follow. His name will remain in the textbooks and articles he authored. Here, as colleagues and friends who had the honor to work with him, we provide our personal views of Alessandro's impact and legacy, which go far beyond his publications.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Access to care for children and adolescents affected by ADHD in France remains below the levels attained in most industrialised countries. To contribute to improving ADHD care in France, we assessed existing ADHD knowledge among medical doctors (MDs) and described associated care pathways in two large French regions in 2021. We produced tools to evaluate the regional impact of implementing a stepped-care pathway for ADHD. METHODS:A SurveyMonkey® study was sent to professionals from two regions in France accounting for 14 million inhabitants, allowing them to describe their role in child/adolescent ADHD, as well as their representations and knowledge about the disorder. RESULTS:Around 9.4% of all MDs potentially involved with children took part in the study; 34.9% considered themselves untrained, 40.5% were involved in ADHD care at a first-tier level, and 19.6% at a second-tier level. Access to a second or third-tier service for ADHD was associated with mean waiting times of 5.7 and 8.5 months, respectively. Initiation of stimulant therapy remained mainly restricted to second or third-tier MDs, and adaptation of dosage or change in the galenic formulation was rarely performed by first-tier MDs (27.2% and 18%, respectively). Training in neurodevelopmental disorders and tier-level were the strongest determinants of knowledge, attitudes and self-assessed expertise about ADHD. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides insight into training needs for MDs regarding healthcare pathways in ADHD and should support the implementation of health policies, such as a stepped healthcare access for ADHD. The study design and dissemination have been validated and will be available in France and other countries facing similar obstacles in care pathways for ADHD. Official recommendations on ADHD in children and adults are being updated in France, and our data and the survey design will be a starting point for their implementation.

BACKGROUND:Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 5% of children globally, with symptoms often persisting into adulthood. While pharmacological interventions are commonly employed for management, understanding the optimal dosing for efficacy and tolerability remains crucial. This study aims to conduct a dose-response network meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments across different doses, aiming to inform clinical decision-making and improve treatment outcomes. METHODS:This updated systematic review will include randomized controlled trials evaluating ADHD medication efficacy in children, adolescents, and adults. An updated search from a 2018 NMA will be conducted across multiple electronic databases with no language restrictions, using specific eligibility criteria focused on randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome will assess the severity of ADHD core symptoms, while secondary outcomes will consider treatment tolerability. A dose-response Bayesian hierarchical model will be used to estimate dose-response curves for each medication, identifying optimal dosing strategies. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:With this dose-response network meta-analysis, we aim to better understand the dose-response relationship of pharmacological treatment in ADHD, which could help clinician to the identification of optimal doses. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3MY4A .

To provide an overview of treatments in the pipeline for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), we searched https://clinicaltrials.gov/and and https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ from 01/01/2010-10/18/2023 for ongoing or completed phase 2 or 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), assessing pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for adults with ADHD with no current regulatory approval. We found 90 eligible RCTs. Of these, 24 (27 %) reported results with statistical analysis for primary efficacy endpoints. While several pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions had evidence of superiority compared to the control condition from a single RCT, centanafadine (norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin re-uptake inhibitor) was the only treatment with evidence of efficacy on ADHD core symptoms (small effect size=0.28-0.40) replicated in at least one additional RCT, alongside reasonable tolerability. Overall, the body of ongoing RCTs in adults with ADHD is insufficient, without any intervention on the horizon to match the efficacy of stimulant treatment or atomoxetine and with better tolerability profile. Additional effective and well tolerated treatments for adults with ADHD require development and testing.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; also known as hyperkinetic disorder) is a common neurodevelopmental condition that affects children and adults worldwide. ADHD has a predominantly genetic aetiology that involves common and rare genetic variants. Some environmental correlates of the disorder have been discovered but causation has been difficult to establish. The heterogeneity of the condition is evident in the diverse presentation of symptoms and levels of impairment, the numerous co-occurring mental and physical conditions, the various domains of neurocognitive impairment, and extensive minor structural and functional brain differences. The diagnosis of ADHD is reliable and valid when evaluated with standard diagnostic criteria. Curative treatments for ADHD do not exist but evidence-based treatments substantially reduce symptoms and/or functional impairment. Medications are effective for core symptoms and are usually well tolerated. Some non-pharmacological treatments are valuable, especially for improving adaptive functioning. Clinical and neurobiological research is ongoing and could lead to the creation of personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for this disorder.

This systematic review aimed to establish the extent to which each Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptom criterion is being assessed without being influenced (biased) by factors such as informant, sex/gender, and age. Measurement invariance (MI) testing using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is the prime statistical method to ascertain how these factors may affect the measurement and colour the perception or interpretation of symptom criteria. Such effects (non-invariance) can be operationalised in the form of altered association of a symptom criterion with the measured trait (expressed via variations in CFA loadings which represent the weight of each symptom criterion) due to the factor(s) and/or artificially alter the probability of endorsement of a particular symptom criterion (expressed via variations in the CFA threshold(s) representing how mild or severe a given symptom is). Based on a pre-registered protocol (CRD42022276105), we searched PubMed, Global Health, Embase and PsycInfo up to 21-02-23 for studies that included MI assessments on specific ADHD symptom criteria in individuals aged 0-18 years old, using parental and/or teacher report. Self-reports were excluded, given the poor reliability of self-report in ADHD. All included studies met specific COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results were synthesised in tabular form, grouping results by factors (e.g. informant) from 44 studies retained. Most comparisons indicated both metric (same loadings) and scalar invariance (same thresholds) with regard to informant, gender, age, temporal (repeated assessments) and co-morbidity. Therefore, the available evidence supports the current diagnostic criteria. However, findings could have been improved by systematic reporting of the direction of bias and its effect size. There appears to be a bias towards reporting MI instead of non-invariance. More studies in the literature are needed where the amalgamation of information provided by different informs and the association of specific symptoms with comorbidity are analysed.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:There are concerns about the safety of medications for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with mixed evidence on possible cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To assess whether short-term methylphenidate use is associated with risk of cardiovascular events. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED: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/UNASSIGNED: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/UNASSIGNED: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/UNASSIGNED: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.

We assessed the association between the use of medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the risk of all-cause mortality and unintentional injuries leading to emergency department (ED) or hospital admission in individuals aged ≤24 years with ADHD. We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study between 2000 and 2021 using Quebec health administrative data. Individuals were followed from the first ADHD diagnosis or ADHD medication claim until turning 25, death, or study end. Exposure was defined as mutually exclusive episodes of ADHD medication use and/or coverage under the public provincial drug plan (PDP): 1) covered and not treated with ADHD medication; 2) covered and treated with ADHD medication; and 3) not covered under the PDP. The risk of all-cause mortality and unintentional injuries associated with exposure episodes was estimated using multivariable survival analyses. The cohort included n = 217 192 individuals aged 1-24 years with a male to female ratio of close to 2:1. Compared to non-medication use, episodes of ADHD medication use, overall, were associated with reduced all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.76) and unintentional injury leading to ED (0.75, 0.74-0.77) or hospitalisation (0.71, 0.68-0.75). Episodes of stimulants were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and reduced risk of unintentional injuries, while episodes with non-stimulants and with both stimulants and non-stimulants concomitantly were associated with reduced risk of unintentional injuries, but not of all-cause mortality. Although residual confounding cannot be excluded, stimulants may have a protective effect in terms of risk of all-cause mortality and both stimulants and non-stimulants for ADHD may reduce the risk of unintentional injuries. The findings of the current study should inform clinical decision making on the choice of starting a pharmacological treatment for ADHD, when a balance needs to be struck between expected benefits and possible risks.