Cited by 42Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPharmaceutical studies and practicesPharmacology and Obesity Treatment

Systematic evidence synthesis of treatments for ADHD in children and adolescents: indirect treatment comparisons of lisdexamfetamine with methylphenidate and atomoxetine

Open access
Roskell, N. S., Setyawan, J., Zimovetz, E. A., Hodgkins, P.·2014·Current Medical Research and Opinion

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Systematically review and synthesize the clinical evidence of treatments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by indirectly comparing established treatments in the UK with a drug recently approved in Europe (lisdexamfetamine [LDX]). POPULATION: children and adolescents. SETTING: Europe. Comparators: methylphenidate (MPH), atomoxetine (ATX), and dexamphetamine (DEX). Electronic databases and relevant conference proceedings were searched for randomized, controlled clinical trials evaluating efficacy and safety of at least one of the comparators and LDX. Quality assessments for each included trial were performed using criteria recommended by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Network meta-analysis methods for dichotomous outcomes were employed to evaluate treatment efficacy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response, as defined by either a reduction from baseline of at least 25% in the ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] total score or, separately, as assessed on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement [CGI-I] scale, and safety (all-cause withdrawals and withdrawal due to adverse events). RESULTS: The systematic review found 32 trials for the meta-analysis, including data on LDX, ATX, and different formulations of MPH. No trials for DEX meeting the inclusion criteria were found. Sufficient data were identified for each outcome: ADHD-RS, 16 trials; CGI-I, 20 trials; all-cause withdrawals, 28 trials; and withdrawals due to adverse events, 27 trials. The relative probability of treatment response for CGI-I (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for ATX versus LDX was 0.65 (0.53-0.78); for long-acting MPH versus LDX, 0.82 (0.69-0.97); for intermediate release MPH versus LDX, 0.51 (0.40-0.65); and for short-acting MPH versus LDX, 0.62 (0.51-0.76). The relative probabilities of ADHD-RS treatment response also favored LDX. CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of ADHD, the synthesis of efficacy data showed statistically significant better probabilities of response with LDX than for formulations of MPH or ATX. The analysis of safety data proved inconclusive due to low event rates. These results may be limited by the studies included, which only investigated the short-term efficacy of medications in patients without comorbid disorders.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1185/03007995.2014.904772

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. DuPaul GJ, Power TJ, Anastopoulos AD, et al. The ADHD Rating Scale-IV: Checklist, Norms, and Clinical Interpretation. New York: Guilford Press, 1998

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roskell, N. S., Setyawan, J., Zimovetz, E. A., & Hodgkins, P.
Affiliations
  • BresMed (GB)
  • RTI Health Solutions (US)
Corresponding author
Zimovetz, E. A.
Venue
Current Medical Research and Opinion
Published
2014-04-15
Volume
30
Issue
8
Pages
1673-1685
ISSN
  • 0300-7995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4877
OpenAlex
W2140548090
Cited by
42
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
FWCI
4.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Medical Research and Opinion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate, atomoxetine, d-amphetamine, indirect treatment comparison, children and adolescents, treatment response, drug safety, adverse events, ADHD Rating Scale, CGI-I, stimulant medication, long-acting formulations, drug approval
MeSH terms
Atomoxetine Hydrochloride, Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate, Adolescent, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Dextroamphetamine, Europe, Humans, Methylphenidate, Propylamines, Models, Statistical, Treatment Outcome, Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors, Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review