对注意力缺陷/多动障碍成人患者进行的 centanafadine 与利血平、哌醋甲酯和阿托西汀的匹配调整间接比较:长期安全性和疗效。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jeff Schein, Martin Cloutier, Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, Maryaline Catillon, Chunyi Xu, Alice Qu, Francesca Lee, Ann Childress
{"title":"对注意力缺陷/多动障碍成人患者进行的 centanafadine 与利血平、哌醋甲酯和阿托西汀的匹配调整间接比较:长期安全性和疗效。","authors":"Jeff Schein, Martin Cloutier, Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, Maryaline Catillon, Chunyi Xu, Alice Qu, Francesca Lee, Ann Childress","doi":"10.57264/cer-2024-0089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> To compare long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), respectively, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). <b>Patients & methods:</b> Patient-level data from a centanafadine trial (NCT03605849) and published aggregate data from a lisdexamfetamine trial (NCT00337285), a methylphenidate trial (NCT00326300) and an atomoxetine trial (NCT00190736) were used. Patient characteristics were matched in each comparison using propensity score weighting. Study outcomes were assessed up to 52 weeks and included safety (rates of adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] or ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] score). <b>Results:</b> In all comparisons of matched populations, risks of AEs were statistically significantly lower with centanafadine or non-different between centanafadine and comparator; the largest differences in AE rates included upper respiratory tract infection (risk difference in percentage points: 18.75), insomnia (12.47) and dry mouth (12.33) versus lisdexamfetamine; decreased appetite (20.25), headache (18.53) and insomnia (12.65) versus methylphenidate; and nausea (26.18), dry mouth (25.07) and fatigue (13.95) versus atomoxetine (all p < 0.05). Centanafadine had a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score versus lisdexamfetamine (6.15-point difference; p < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score versus methylphenidate (1.75-point difference; p = 0.13) and versus atomoxetine (1.60-point difference; p = 0.21). <b>Conclusion:</b> At up to 52 weeks, centanafadine showed significantly lower incidence of several AEs than lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine; efficacy was lower than lisdexamfetamine and non-different from methylphenidate and atomoxetine.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e240089"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363209/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: long-term safety and efficacy.\",\"authors\":\"Jeff Schein, Martin Cloutier, Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, Maryaline Catillon, Chunyi Xu, Alice Qu, Francesca Lee, Ann Childress\",\"doi\":\"10.57264/cer-2024-0089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> To compare long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), respectively, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). <b>Patients & methods:</b> Patient-level data from a centanafadine trial (NCT03605849) and published aggregate data from a lisdexamfetamine trial (NCT00337285), a methylphenidate trial (NCT00326300) and an atomoxetine trial (NCT00190736) were used. Patient characteristics were matched in each comparison using propensity score weighting. Study outcomes were assessed up to 52 weeks and included safety (rates of adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] or ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] score). <b>Results:</b> In all comparisons of matched populations, risks of AEs were statistically significantly lower with centanafadine or non-different between centanafadine and comparator; the largest differences in AE rates included upper respiratory tract infection (risk difference in percentage points: 18.75), insomnia (12.47) and dry mouth (12.33) versus lisdexamfetamine; decreased appetite (20.25), headache (18.53) and insomnia (12.65) versus methylphenidate; and nausea (26.18), dry mouth (25.07) and fatigue (13.95) versus atomoxetine (all p < 0.05). Centanafadine had a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score versus lisdexamfetamine (6.15-point difference; p < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score versus methylphenidate (1.75-point difference; p = 0.13) and versus atomoxetine (1.60-point difference; p = 0.21). <b>Conclusion:</b> At up to 52 weeks, centanafadine showed significantly lower incidence of several AEs than lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine; efficacy was lower than lisdexamfetamine and non-different from methylphenidate and atomoxetine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e240089\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363209/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0089\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0089","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:采用匹配调整间接比较法(MAICs),比较 centanafadine 与二美沙酮利司他明(利司他明)、盐酸哌醋甲酯(哌醋甲酯)和盐酸阿托西汀(阿托西汀)对注意力缺陷/多动障碍(ADHD)成人患者的长期安全性和疗效。患者与方法:采用来自一项仙那法定试验(NCT03605849)的患者水平数据,以及来自一项利眠宁试验(NCT00337285)、一项哌醋甲酯试验(NCT00326300)和一项阿托西汀试验(NCT00190736)的已发表综合数据。采用倾向得分加权法对每项比较中的患者特征进行匹配。研究结果的评估时间长达52周,包括安全性(不良事件发生率[AEs])和疗效(成人ADHD调查者症状评定量表[AISRS]或ADHD评定量表[ADHD-RS]评分与基线相比的平均变化)。结果:在所有匹配人群的比较中,使用 centanafadine 的 AEs 风险在统计学上显着较低,或 centanafadine 与比较药之间无差异;AE 率的最大差异包括上呼吸道感染(以百分点计的风险差异:18.75)、失眠(12.47)和口干(12.33);食欲减退(20.25)、头痛(18.53)和失眠(12.65);恶心(26.18)、口干(25.07)和疲劳(13.95);阿托西汀(均为P 结论:在52周的研究中, centanafadine与哌醋甲酯和阿托西汀之间的AE率差异最大:在长达52周的治疗中, centanafadine的几种AEs发生率明显低于利血平、哌醋甲酯和阿托西汀;疗效低于利血平,与哌醋甲酯和阿托西汀无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: long-term safety and efficacy.

Aim: To compare long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), respectively, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Patients & methods: Patient-level data from a centanafadine trial (NCT03605849) and published aggregate data from a lisdexamfetamine trial (NCT00337285), a methylphenidate trial (NCT00326300) and an atomoxetine trial (NCT00190736) were used. Patient characteristics were matched in each comparison using propensity score weighting. Study outcomes were assessed up to 52 weeks and included safety (rates of adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] or ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] score). Results: In all comparisons of matched populations, risks of AEs were statistically significantly lower with centanafadine or non-different between centanafadine and comparator; the largest differences in AE rates included upper respiratory tract infection (risk difference in percentage points: 18.75), insomnia (12.47) and dry mouth (12.33) versus lisdexamfetamine; decreased appetite (20.25), headache (18.53) and insomnia (12.65) versus methylphenidate; and nausea (26.18), dry mouth (25.07) and fatigue (13.95) versus atomoxetine (all p < 0.05). Centanafadine had a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score versus lisdexamfetamine (6.15-point difference; p < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score versus methylphenidate (1.75-point difference; p = 0.13) and versus atomoxetine (1.60-point difference; p = 0.21). Conclusion: At up to 52 weeks, centanafadine showed significantly lower incidence of several AEs than lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine; efficacy was lower than lisdexamfetamine and non-different from methylphenidate and atomoxetine.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信