Effectiveness of Stimulant Treatment in Preventing Fractures and Head Injuries in Patients With Narcolepsy: A Self-Controlled Case Series Study.

IF 4 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pharmacotherapy Pub Date : 2026-04-01 DOI:10.1002/phar.70132
Yunlong Zheng, Toshiki Fukasawa, Soichiro Masuda, Masato Takeuchi, Takayuki Anno, Koji Kawakami
{"title":"Effectiveness of Stimulant Treatment in Preventing Fractures and Head Injuries in Patients With Narcolepsy: A Self-Controlled Case Series Study.","authors":"Yunlong Zheng, Toshiki Fukasawa, Soichiro Masuda, Masato Takeuchi, Takayuki Anno, Koji Kawakami","doi":"10.1002/phar.70132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous cohort studies have investigated whether stimulants reduce injury risk in narcolepsy, but they faced potential biases such as confounding by indication and immortal time bias. We conducted a self-controlled case series study to address these biases and assess the effect of stimulant use on the risk of fracture and head injury in patients with narcolepsy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a Japanese health insurance claims database to identify patients with narcolepsy who were newly exposed to stimulants and who experienced fracture or head injury. We then applied multivariable conditional Poisson regression models to estimate adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for outcomes, comparing the focal window with the referent window. Subgroup analyses assessed individual stimulants (methylphenidate, modafinil, and pemoline).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1790 new stimulant users, 233 had fracture and 189 had head injury. Overall stimulant use was not associated with fracture (aIRR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.57-1.39) or head injury (aIRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.87-2.25). In subgroup analyses, methylphenidate use was associated with a lower fracture risk (aIRR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08-0.94) but did not affect head injury (aIRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.34-3.92). We observed no association between modafinil or pemoline and either outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results indicate that overall stimulant use did not decrease the risk of fracture or head injury in patients with narcolepsy. However, methylphenidate may help prevent fractures. Clinicians should balance the safety and effectiveness of each stimulant with additional preventive strategies for injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":20013,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacotherapy","volume":"46 4","pages":"e70132"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.70132","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Previous cohort studies have investigated whether stimulants reduce injury risk in narcolepsy, but they faced potential biases such as confounding by indication and immortal time bias. We conducted a self-controlled case series study to address these biases and assess the effect of stimulant use on the risk of fracture and head injury in patients with narcolepsy.

Methods: We used a Japanese health insurance claims database to identify patients with narcolepsy who were newly exposed to stimulants and who experienced fracture or head injury. We then applied multivariable conditional Poisson regression models to estimate adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for outcomes, comparing the focal window with the referent window. Subgroup analyses assessed individual stimulants (methylphenidate, modafinil, and pemoline).

Results: Among 1790 new stimulant users, 233 had fracture and 189 had head injury. Overall stimulant use was not associated with fracture (aIRR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.57-1.39) or head injury (aIRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.87-2.25). In subgroup analyses, methylphenidate use was associated with a lower fracture risk (aIRR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08-0.94) but did not affect head injury (aIRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.34-3.92). We observed no association between modafinil or pemoline and either outcome.

Conclusion: Our results indicate that overall stimulant use did not decrease the risk of fracture or head injury in patients with narcolepsy. However, methylphenidate may help prevent fractures. Clinicians should balance the safety and effectiveness of each stimulant with additional preventive strategies for injury.

兴奋剂治疗预防发作性睡患者骨折和头部损伤的有效性:一项自我对照病例系列研究。
背景:以前的队列研究已经调查了兴奋剂是否能降低发作性睡病患者的损伤风险,但它们面临着潜在的偏差,如适应证混淆和不朽的时间偏差。我们进行了一项自我控制的病例系列研究,以解决这些偏差,并评估兴奋剂使用对发作性睡病患者骨折和头部损伤风险的影响。方法:我们使用日本健康保险索赔数据库来识别新暴露于兴奋剂和经历骨折或头部损伤的发作性睡病患者。然后,我们应用多变量条件泊松回归模型来估计结果的调整发病率比(airr)及其95%置信区间(ci),并将焦点窗口与参考窗口进行比较。亚组分析评估了个体兴奋剂(哌甲酯、莫达非尼和佩莫林)。结果:1790例兴奋剂新使用者中,233例发生骨折,189例发生头部损伤。总的兴奋剂使用与骨折(aIRR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.57-1.39)或头部损伤(aIRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.87-2.25)无关。在亚组分析中,使用哌甲酯与骨折风险降低相关(aIRR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08-0.94),但对头部损伤没有影响(aIRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.34-3.92)。我们没有观察到莫达非尼或佩莫林与这两种结果之间的关联。结论:我们的研究结果表明,总的兴奋剂使用并没有降低发作性睡病患者骨折或头部损伤的风险。然而,哌甲酯可能有助于预防骨折。临床医生应该在每种兴奋剂的安全性和有效性与额外的损伤预防策略之间取得平衡。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Pharmacotherapy
Pharmacotherapy 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
2.40%
发文量
93
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Pharmacotherapy is devoted to publication of original research articles on all aspects of human pharmacology and review articles on drugs and drug therapy. The Editors and Editorial Board invite original research reports on pharmacokinetic, bioavailability, and drug interaction studies, clinical trials, investigations of specific pharmacological properties of drugs, and related topics.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书