Castells Xavier, Blanco-Silvente Lídia, Cunill Ruth
Unit of Clinical Pharmacology, TransLab Research Group, Department of Medical Sciences, Universitat de Girona, Emili Grahit, 77, Girona, Catalonia, Spain, 17071.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 9;8(8):CD007813. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007813.pub3.
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into adulthood and can affects individuals' social and occupational functioning, as well as their quality of life and health. ADHD is frequently associated with other mental disorders such as substance use disorders and anxiety and affective disorders. Amphetamines are used to treat adults with ADHD, but uncertainties about their efficacy and safety remain.
To examine the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for adults with ADHD.
In August 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and two trials registers, and we ran citation searches for included studies. We also contacted the corresponding authors of all included studies, other experts in the field, and the pharmaceutical company, Shire, and we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews for other published, unpublished, or ongoing studies. For each included study, we performed a citation search in Web of Science to identify any later studies that may have cited it.
We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of amphetamines (at any dose) for ADHD in adults aged 18 years and over against placebo or an active intervention.
Two review authors extracted data from each included study. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) to assess continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We conducted a stratified analysis to determine the influence of moderating variables. We assessed trials for risk of bias and drew a funnel plot to investigate the possibility of publication bias. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, which yielded high, moderate, low, or very low quality ratings based on evaluation of within-trial risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity of data; precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias.
We included 19 studies that investigated three types of amphetamines: dexamphetamine (10.2 mg/d to 21.8 mg/d), lisdexamfetamine (30 mg/d to 70 mg/d), and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS; 12.5 mg/d to 80 mg/d). These studies enrolled 2521 participants; most were middle-aged (35.3 years), Caucasian males (57.2%), with a combined type of ADHD (78.8%). Eighteen studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was conducted in both Canada and the USA. Ten were multi-site studies. All studies were placebo-controlled, and three also included an active comparator: guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine. Most studies had short-term follow-up and a mean study length of 5.3 weeks.We found no studies that had low risk of bias in all domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, mainly because amphetamines have powerful subjective effects that may reveal the assigned treatment, but also because we noted attrition bias, and because we could not rule out the possibility of a carry-over effect in studies that used a cross-over design.Sixteen studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, one study was publicly funded, and two studies did not report their funding sources.Amphetamines versus placeboSeverity of ADHD symptoms: we found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians (SMD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to -0.75; 13 studies, 2028 participants) and patients (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.28; six studies, 120 participants).Retention: overall, we found low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines did not improve retention in treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; 17 studies, 2323 participants).Adverse events: we found that amphetamines were associated with an increased proportion of patients who withdrew because of adverse events (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 4.45; 17 studies, 2409 participants).Type of amphetamine: we found differences between amphetamines for the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians. Both lisdexamfetamine (SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.85; seven studies, 896 participants; low-quality evidence) and MAS (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.66; five studies, 1083 participants; low-quality evidence) reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms. In contrast, we found no evidence to suggest that dexamphetamine reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.32; one study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence). In addition, all amphetamines were efficacious in reducing the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients (dexamphetamine: SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.40; two studies, 35 participants; low-quality evidence; lisdexamfetamine: SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01; three studies, 67 participants; low-quality evidence; MAS: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.12; one study, 18 participants; very low-quality evidence).Dose at study completion: different doses of amphetamines did not appear to be associated with differences in efficacy.Type of drug-release formulation: we investigated immediate- and sustained-release formulations but found no differences between them for any outcome.Amphetamines versus other drugsWe found no evidence that amphetamines improved ADHD symptom severity compared to other drug interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Amphetamines improved the severity of ADHD symptoms, as assessed by clinicians or patients, in the short term but did not improve retention to treatment. Amphetamines were associated with higher attrition due to adverse events. The short duration of studies coupled with their restrictive inclusion criteria limits the external validity of these findings. Furthermore, none of the included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Overall, the evidence generated by this review is of low or very low quality.
注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)是一种起病于儿童期的疾病,其特征为注意力不集中、多动和冲动。ADHD可持续至成年,会影响个体的社交和职业功能,以及他们的生活质量和健康。ADHD常与其他精神障碍相关,如物质使用障碍、焦虑和情感障碍。苯丙胺类药物用于治疗成人ADHD,但关于其疗效和安全性仍存在不确定性。
研究苯丙胺类药物治疗成人ADHD的疗效和安全性。
2017年8月,我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库、MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO、其他10个数据库以及两个试验注册库,并对纳入研究进行了引文检索。我们还联系了所有纳入研究的通讯作者、该领域的其他专家以及夏尔制药公司,并且检索了检索到的研究和综述的参考文献列表,以查找其他已发表、未发表或正在进行的研究。对于每项纳入研究,我们在Web of Science中进行了引文检索,以识别可能引用它的任何后续研究。
我们检索了比较苯丙胺类药物(任何剂量)治疗18岁及以上成人ADHD与安慰剂或积极干预疗效的随机对照试验。
两位综述作者从每项纳入研究中提取数据。我们分别使用标准化均数差(SMD)和风险比(RR)来评估连续性和二分法结局。我们进行了分层分析以确定调节变量的影响。我们评估了试验的偏倚风险,并绘制了漏斗图以调查发表偏倚的可能性。我们使用GRADE方法对证据质量进行评级,该方法基于对试验内偏倚风险、证据的直接性、数据的异质性、效应估计的精确性以及发表偏倚风险的评估,得出高、中、低或极低质量的评级。
我们纳入了19项研究,这些研究调查了三种类型的苯丙胺类药物:右旋苯丙胺(10.2 mg/d至21.8 mg/d)、赖右苯丙胺(30 mg/d至70 mg/d)和苯丙胺混合盐(MAS;12.5 mg/d至80 mg/d)。这些研究共纳入2521名参与者;大多数为中年(35.3岁)、白人男性(57.2%),患有混合型ADHD(78.8%)。18项研究在美国进行,1项研究在加拿大和美国两地进行。10项为多中心研究。所有研究均为安慰剂对照,3项研究还纳入了积极对照:胍法辛、莫达非尼或帕罗西汀。大多数研究随访期较短,平均研究时长为5.3周。我们发现没有一项研究在Cochrane“偏倚风险”工具的所有领域中偏倚风险均较低,主要是因为苯丙胺类药物具有强大的主观效应,可能会暴露所分配的治疗,但也是因为我们注意到了失访偏倚,并且因为我们无法排除采用交叉设计的研究中存在残留效应的可能性。16项研究由制药行业资助,1项研究由公共资金资助,2项研究未报告其资金来源。
苯丙胺类药物与安慰剂
ADHD症状的严重程度:我们发现低至极低质量的证据表明,苯丙胺类药物可降低临床医生(SMD -0.90,95%置信区间(CI)-1.04至-0.75;13项研究,2028名参与者)和患者(SMD -0.51,95%CI -0.75至-0.28;6项研究,120名参与者)评定的ADHD症状严重程度。
总体而言,我们发现低质量的证据表明,苯丙胺类药物并未改善治疗保留率(风险比(RR)1.06,95%CI 0.99至1.13;17项研究,2323名参与者)。
我们发现,因不良事件退出的患者比例增加与苯丙胺类药物有关(RR 2.69,95%CI 1.63至4.45;17项研究,2409名参与者)。
我们发现,临床医生评定的ADHD症状严重程度在不同苯丙胺类药物之间存在差异。赖右苯丙胺(SMD -1.06,95%CI -1.26至-0.85;7项研究,896名参与者;低质量证据)和MAS(SMD -0.80,95%CI -0.93至-0.66;5项研究,1083名参与者;低质量证据)均降低了ADHD症状的严重程度。相比之下,我们没有发现证据表明右旋苯丙胺可降低ADHD症状的严重程度(SMD -0.24,95%CI -0.80至0.32;1项研究,49名参与者;极低质量证据)。此外,所有苯丙胺类药物在降低患者评定的ADHD症状严重程度方面均有效(右旋苯丙胺:SMD -0.77,95%CI -1.14至-0.40;2项研究,3名参与者;低质量证据;赖右苯丙胺:SMD -0.33,95%CI -0.65至-0.01;3项研究,67名参与者;低质量证据;MAS:SMD -0.45,95%CI -1.02至;1项研究,18名参与者;极低质量证据)。
不同剂量的苯丙胺类药物似乎与疗效差异无关。
我们研究了速释和缓释剂型,但未发现它们在任何结局方面存在差异。
苯丙胺类药物与其他药物
我们没有发现证据表明与其他药物干预相比,苯丙胺类药物可改善ADHD症状的严重程度。
苯丙胺类药物在短期内可改善临床医生或患者评定的ADHD症状严重程度,但未改善治疗保留率。苯丙胺类药物因不良事件导致的失访率较高。研究的短持续时间及其严格的纳入标准限制了这些发现的外部有效性。此外,纳入的研究均没有总体低偏倚风险。总体而言,本综述产生的证据质量为低或极低。