Comparative efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological, psychological, and neurostimulatory interventions for ADHD in adults: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis

IF 30.8 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Lancet Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-12-17 DOI:10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00360-2
Edoardo G Ostinelli, Marcel Schulze, Caroline Zangani, Luis C Farhat, Anneka Tomlinson, Cinzia Del Giovane, Samuel R Chamberlain, Alexandra Philipsen, Susan Young, Phil J Cowen, Andrea Bilbow, Andrea Cipriani, Samuele Cortese
{"title":"Comparative efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological, psychological, and neurostimulatory interventions for ADHD in adults: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis","authors":"Edoardo G Ostinelli, Marcel Schulze, Caroline Zangani, Luis C Farhat, Anneka Tomlinson, Cinzia Del Giovane, Samuel R Chamberlain, Alexandra Philipsen, Susan Young, Phil J Cowen, Andrea Bilbow, Andrea Cipriani, Samuele Cortese","doi":"10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00360-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Background</h3>The comparative benefits and harms of available interventions for ADHD in adults remain unclear. We aimed to address these important knowledge gaps.<h3>Methods</h3>In this systematic review and component network meta-analysis (NMA), we searched multiple databases for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for ADHD in adults from database inception to Sept 6, 2023. We included aggregate data from RCTs comparing interventions against controls or any other eligible active intervention for the treatment of symptoms in adults (ages ≥18 years) with a formal diagnosis of ADHD. Pharmacological therapies were included only if their maximum planned doses were considered eligible according to international guidelines. We included RCTs of at least 1-week duration for medications, of at least four sessions for psychological therapies, and of any length deemed appropriate for neurostimulation. For RCTs of medications, cognitive training, or neurostimulation alone, we included only double-blind RCTs. At least two authors independently screened the identified records and extracted data from eligible RCTs. Our primary outcomes were efficacy (change in ADHD core symptom severity on self-rated and clinician-rated scales at timepoints closest to 12 weeks) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). We estimated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using random effects pairwise and component NMA, dismantling interventions into specific therapeutic components. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021265576). People with relevant lived experience were involved in the conduct of the research and writing process.<h3>Findings</h3>Of 32 416 records, 113 unique RCTs encompassing 14 887 participants were eligible for analysis (6787 [45·6%] females, 7638 [51·3%] males, 462 [3·1%] sex not reported). The RCTs encompassed pharmacological therapies (63 [55·8%] of 113 RCTs; 6875 participants), psychological therapies (28 [24·8%] of 113 RCTs; 1116 participants), neurostimulatory therapy and neurofeedback (ten [8·8%] of 113 RCTs; 194 participants), and control conditions (97 [85·8%] of 113 RCTs; 5770 participants). For reduction of ADHD core symptoms at 12 weeks on both self-reported and clinician-reported rating scales, atomoxetine (self-reported scale SMD –0·38, 95% CI –0·56 to –0·21; clinician-reported scale –0·51, –0·64 to –0·37) and stimulants (0·39, –0·52 to –0·26; –0·61, –0·71 to –0·51) had higher efficacy than placebo (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis [CINeMA] ranging between very low and moderate). Cognitive behavioural therapy (–0·76, –1·26 to –0·26), cognitive remediation (–1·35, –2·42 to –0·27), mindfulness (–0·79, –1·29 to –0·29), psychoeducation (–0·77, –1·35 to –0·18), and transcranial direct current stimulation (–0·78; –1·13 to –0·43) were better than placebo only on clinician-reported measures. Regarding acceptability, all therapeutic components were similar to placebo other than atomoxetine (OR 1·43, 95% CI 1·14 to 1·80; CINeMA moderate) and guanfacine (3·70, 1·22 to 11·19; high), which had lower acceptability compared with placebo. Baseline severity of self-reported ADHD core symptoms, year of publication, percentage of male individuals, and percentage of individuals with ADHD and another mental health condition did not explain the heterogeneity observed in unadjusted non-component models of self-reported ADHD core symptoms. Treatment length had little effect on heterogeneity.<h3>Interpretation</h3>Stimulants and atomoxetine were the only interventions with evidence of beneficial effects in terms of reducing ADHD core symptoms in the short term, supported by both self-reported and clinician-reported ratings. However, atomoxetine was less acceptable than placebo. Medications for ADHD were not efficacious on additional relevant outcomes, such as quality of life, and evidence in the longer term is underinvestigated. The effects of non-pharmacological strategies were inconsistent across different raters. Our network meta-analysis represents the most comprehensive synthesis of available evidence to inform future guidelines in the field.<h3>Funding</h3>UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.","PeriodicalId":48784,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Psychiatry","volume":"114 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":30.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00360-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The comparative benefits and harms of available interventions for ADHD in adults remain unclear. We aimed to address these important knowledge gaps.

Methods

In this systematic review and component network meta-analysis (NMA), we searched multiple databases for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for ADHD in adults from database inception to Sept 6, 2023. We included aggregate data from RCTs comparing interventions against controls or any other eligible active intervention for the treatment of symptoms in adults (ages ≥18 years) with a formal diagnosis of ADHD. Pharmacological therapies were included only if their maximum planned doses were considered eligible according to international guidelines. We included RCTs of at least 1-week duration for medications, of at least four sessions for psychological therapies, and of any length deemed appropriate for neurostimulation. For RCTs of medications, cognitive training, or neurostimulation alone, we included only double-blind RCTs. At least two authors independently screened the identified records and extracted data from eligible RCTs. Our primary outcomes were efficacy (change in ADHD core symptom severity on self-rated and clinician-rated scales at timepoints closest to 12 weeks) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). We estimated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using random effects pairwise and component NMA, dismantling interventions into specific therapeutic components. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021265576). People with relevant lived experience were involved in the conduct of the research and writing process.

Findings

Of 32 416 records, 113 unique RCTs encompassing 14 887 participants were eligible for analysis (6787 [45·6%] females, 7638 [51·3%] males, 462 [3·1%] sex not reported). The RCTs encompassed pharmacological therapies (63 [55·8%] of 113 RCTs; 6875 participants), psychological therapies (28 [24·8%] of 113 RCTs; 1116 participants), neurostimulatory therapy and neurofeedback (ten [8·8%] of 113 RCTs; 194 participants), and control conditions (97 [85·8%] of 113 RCTs; 5770 participants). For reduction of ADHD core symptoms at 12 weeks on both self-reported and clinician-reported rating scales, atomoxetine (self-reported scale SMD –0·38, 95% CI –0·56 to –0·21; clinician-reported scale –0·51, –0·64 to –0·37) and stimulants (0·39, –0·52 to –0·26; –0·61, –0·71 to –0·51) had higher efficacy than placebo (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis [CINeMA] ranging between very low and moderate). Cognitive behavioural therapy (–0·76, –1·26 to –0·26), cognitive remediation (–1·35, –2·42 to –0·27), mindfulness (–0·79, –1·29 to –0·29), psychoeducation (–0·77, –1·35 to –0·18), and transcranial direct current stimulation (–0·78; –1·13 to –0·43) were better than placebo only on clinician-reported measures. Regarding acceptability, all therapeutic components were similar to placebo other than atomoxetine (OR 1·43, 95% CI 1·14 to 1·80; CINeMA moderate) and guanfacine (3·70, 1·22 to 11·19; high), which had lower acceptability compared with placebo. Baseline severity of self-reported ADHD core symptoms, year of publication, percentage of male individuals, and percentage of individuals with ADHD and another mental health condition did not explain the heterogeneity observed in unadjusted non-component models of self-reported ADHD core symptoms. Treatment length had little effect on heterogeneity.

Interpretation

Stimulants and atomoxetine were the only interventions with evidence of beneficial effects in terms of reducing ADHD core symptoms in the short term, supported by both self-reported and clinician-reported ratings. However, atomoxetine was less acceptable than placebo. Medications for ADHD were not efficacious on additional relevant outcomes, such as quality of life, and evidence in the longer term is underinvestigated. The effects of non-pharmacological strategies were inconsistent across different raters. Our network meta-analysis represents the most comprehensive synthesis of available evidence to inform future guidelines in the field.

Funding

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
背景成人多动症(ADHD)现有干预措施的利弊对比仍不清楚。方法在本系统综述和网络荟萃分析(NMA)中,我们检索了多个数据库中已发表和未发表的随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验调查了从数据库开始到 2023 年 9 月 6 日期间对成人多动症进行药物和非药物干预的情况。我们纳入了对正式诊断为多动症的成人(年龄≥18 岁)症状治疗干预措施与对照组或任何其他符合条件的积极干预措施进行比较的随机对照试验的总体数据。药物疗法只有在其最大计划剂量符合国际指南要求的情况下才会被纳入。对于药物治疗,我们纳入了至少持续一周的 RCT;对于心理治疗,我们纳入了至少持续四次的 RCT;对于神经刺激,我们纳入了任何被认为合适的时间长度的 RCT。对于药物治疗、认知训练或单纯神经刺激的 RCT,我们只纳入了双盲 RCT。至少有两名作者独立筛选了已确定的记录,并从符合条件的 RCT 中提取了数据。我们的主要研究结果是疗效(在最接近12周的时间点上,自评量表和临床医生评定量表中ADHD核心症状严重程度的变化)和可接受性(全因停药)。我们使用随机效应配对法和成分近似分析法估算了标准化均值差异(SMDs)和几率比(ORs),将干预措施分解为特定的治疗成分。本研究已在 PROSPERO 注册(CRD42021265576)。在 32 416 条记录中,有 113 项独特的 RCT 符合分析条件,涉及 14 887 名参与者(6 787 [45-6%] 女性,7 638 [51-3%] 男性,462 [3-1%] 性别未报告)。RCT包括药物疗法(113项RCT中的63项[55-8%];6875名参与者)、心理疗法(113项RCT中的28项[24-8%];1116名参与者)、神经刺激疗法和神经反馈疗法(113项RCT中的10项[8-8%];194名参与者)以及对照组(113项RCT中的97项[85-8%];5770名参与者)。12周时,在自我报告和临床医生报告的评定量表中,阿托西汀(自我报告量表SMD为-0-38,95% CI为-0-56至-0-21;临床医生报告量表为-0-51,-0-64至-0-37)和兴奋剂(0-39,-0-52至-0-26;-0-61,-0-71至-0-51)减少ADHD核心症状的疗效高于安慰剂(网络Meta分析[CINeMA]置信度介于极低和中等之间)。认知行为疗法(-0-76,-1-26至-0-26)、认知矫正(-1-35,-2-42至-0-27)、正念(-0-79,-1-29至-0-29)、心理教育(-0-77,-1-35至-0-18)和经颅直流电刺激(-0-78;-1-13至-0-43)仅在临床医生报告的指标上优于安慰剂。在可接受性方面,除了阿托西汀(OR 1-43,95% CI 1-14 至 1-80;CINeMA 中度)和关法辛(3-70,1-22 至 11-19;高度)与安慰剂相比可接受性较低之外,其他治疗成分均与安慰剂相似。自我报告的ADHD核心症状的基线严重程度、发表年份、男性患者比例以及患有ADHD和其他精神疾病的患者比例并不能解释在自我报告的ADHD核心症状的未调整非成分模型中观察到的异质性。解释刺激剂和阿托西汀是唯一有证据表明能在短期内减少ADHD核心症状的干预措施,自我报告和临床医生报告的评分都支持这一点。然而,阿托西汀的可接受性低于安慰剂。治疗多动症的药物对其他相关结果(如生活质量)没有疗效,对长期疗效的证据研究不足。非药物治疗策略的效果在不同评分者之间并不一致。我们的网络荟萃分析是对现有证据的最全面综合,可为该领域未来的指导方针提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Lancet Psychiatry
Lancet Psychiatry PSYCHIATRY-
CiteScore
58.30
自引率
0.90%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Lancet Psychiatry is a globally renowned and trusted resource for groundbreaking research in the field of psychiatry. We specialize in publishing original studies that contribute to transforming and shedding light on important aspects of psychiatric practice. Our comprehensive coverage extends to diverse topics including psychopharmacology, psychotherapy, and psychosocial approaches that address psychiatric disorders throughout the lifespan. We aim to channel innovative treatments and examine the biological research that forms the foundation of such advancements. Our journal also explores novel service delivery methods and promotes fresh perspectives on mental illness, emphasizing the significant contributions of social psychiatry.
期刊最新文献
Applying the EU regulatory framework for the clinical use of psychedelics. The global epidemiology and health burden of the autism spectrum: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 Advancing global mental health diplomacy through a rights-based approach Global prevalence of autism in changing times Seeking validity with psychedelics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1