间接比较了Matching-Adjusted (MAIC角力苯甲酸甲酯)of Centanafadine盐酸(in with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder /成人ADHD):短期调整的安全性和有效性Outcomes:间接比较匹配(MAIC Centanafadine之间)和盐酸成年人中的苯甲酸甲酯或不与患有注意缺陷多动症(ADHD):短期的安全性和有效性方面的成果。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Jeff Schein, Maryaline Catillon, Chunyi Xu, Alice Qu, Anaïs Lemyre, Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, Martin Cloutier, Ann Childress
{"title":"间接比较了Matching-Adjusted (MAIC角力苯甲酸甲酯)of Centanafadine盐酸(in with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder /成人ADHD):短期调整的安全性和有效性Outcomes:间接比较匹配(MAIC Centanafadine之间)和盐酸成年人中的苯甲酸甲酯或不与患有注意缺陷多动症(ADHD):短期的安全性和有效性方面的成果。","authors":"Jeff Schein, Maryaline Catillon, Chunyi Xu, Alice Qu, Anaïs Lemyre, Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, Martin Cloutier, Ann Childress","doi":"10.1177/07067437251342279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesTo compare the short-term safety and efficacy of centanafadine, an investigational treatment, versus long-acting controlled-release methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate, Foquest<sup>®</sup>) among adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).MethodsThis anchored MAIC used pooled individual patient data (IPD) from two centanafadine trials (NCT03605680, NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from one methylphenidate trial (NCT02139124). Using propensity scores, IPD from the centanafadine trials were reweighted to match the aggregate baseline characteristics of the methylphenidate trial. Safety and efficacy outcomes were compared at Week 4. Safety outcomes were the rates of adverse events reported by ≥5% of patients in any treatment group in either trial with an incidence twice that of the placebo. The efficacy outcome was the mean change from baseline in Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS)/ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score at Week 4.ResultsAfter matching, no significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed across trials. Relative to methylphenidate, centanafadine exhibited a better safety profile, with a significantly lower risk of insomnia (risk difference in percentage points: -9.46 points) and initial insomnia (-4.68 points). There was no significant difference in efficacy across treatments as measured by the mean change from baseline in AISRS/ADHD-RS-5 score.ConclusionsIn this MAIC, centanafadine was associated with a lower risk of insomnia and comparable (i.e., nondifferent) efficacy compared to methylphenidate at Week 4. Information on the comparative safety and efficacy of ADHD treatments in the adult population will help inform personalized treatment decisions given the range of treatment options with varying attributes.</p>","PeriodicalId":55283,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie","volume":" ","pages":"7067437251342279"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12129950/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of Centanafadine versus Methylphenidate Hydrochloride in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Short-Term Safety and Efficacy Outcomes: Comparaison indirecte ajustée par appariement (MAIC) entre centanafadine et le chlorhydrate de méthylphénidate chez les adultes atteints d'un trouble déficitaire de l'attention avec ou sans hyperactivité (TDAH) : Résultats en matière d'innocuité et d'efficacité à court terme.\",\"authors\":\"Jeff Schein, Maryaline Catillon, Chunyi Xu, Alice Qu, Anaïs Lemyre, Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, Martin Cloutier, Ann Childress\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/07067437251342279\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectivesTo compare the short-term safety and efficacy of centanafadine, an investigational treatment, versus long-acting controlled-release methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate, Foquest<sup>®</sup>) among adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).MethodsThis anchored MAIC used pooled individual patient data (IPD) from two centanafadine trials (NCT03605680, NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from one methylphenidate trial (NCT02139124). Using propensity scores, IPD from the centanafadine trials were reweighted to match the aggregate baseline characteristics of the methylphenidate trial. Safety and efficacy outcomes were compared at Week 4. Safety outcomes were the rates of adverse events reported by ≥5% of patients in any treatment group in either trial with an incidence twice that of the placebo. The efficacy outcome was the mean change from baseline in Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS)/ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score at Week 4.ResultsAfter matching, no significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed across trials. Relative to methylphenidate, centanafadine exhibited a better safety profile, with a significantly lower risk of insomnia (risk difference in percentage points: -9.46 points) and initial insomnia (-4.68 points). There was no significant difference in efficacy across treatments as measured by the mean change from baseline in AISRS/ADHD-RS-5 score.ConclusionsIn this MAIC, centanafadine was associated with a lower risk of insomnia and comparable (i.e., nondifferent) efficacy compared to methylphenidate at Week 4. Information on the comparative safety and efficacy of ADHD treatments in the adult population will help inform personalized treatment decisions given the range of treatment options with varying attributes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55283,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"7067437251342279\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12129950/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/07067437251342279\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07067437251342279","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:采用匹配调整间接比较(MAIC)方法,比较研究性治疗药物centanafadine与长效控释盐酸哌甲酯(methylphenidate, Foquest®)在成人注意缺陷/多动障碍(ADHD)患者中的短期安全性和有效性。方法:该锚定MAIC使用了两项centanafadine试验(NCT03605680, NCT03605836)的汇总患者数据(IPD),并公布了一项哌醋甲酯试验(NCT02139124)的汇总数据。使用倾向评分,对西他那定试验的IPD进行重新加权,以匹配哌甲酯试验的总体基线特征。在第4周比较安全性和有效性结果。安全性结果是在两项试验中,任何治疗组中报告的不良事件发生率≥5%,发生率是安慰剂组的两倍。疗效结果是第4周成人ADHD调查员症状评定量表(AISRS)/ADHD评定量表-5 (ADHD- rs -5)评分相对基线的平均变化。结果匹配后,各组试验的基线特征无显著差异。与哌醋甲酯相比,西他那定表现出更好的安全性,失眠风险(风险差异百分比:-9.46个百分点)和初始失眠风险(-4.68个百分点)显著降低。以AISRS/ADHD-RS-5评分从基线的平均变化来衡量,不同治疗的疗效无显著差异。在该MAIC中,与哌甲酯相比,在第4周时,西他那定与较低的失眠风险和相当(即无差异)的疗效相关。关于成人ADHD治疗的相对安全性和有效性的信息将有助于根据不同属性的治疗选择范围制定个性化的治疗决策。
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 (MAIC) of Centanafadine versus Methylphenidate Hydrochloride in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Short-Term Safety and Efficacy Outcomes: Comparaison indirecte ajustée par appariement (MAIC) entre centanafadine et le chlorhydrate de méthylphénidate chez les adultes atteints d'un trouble déficitaire de l'attention avec ou sans hyperactivité (TDAH) : Résultats en matière d'innocuité et d'efficacité à court terme.

ObjectivesTo compare the short-term safety and efficacy of centanafadine, an investigational treatment, versus long-acting controlled-release methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate, Foquest®) among adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).MethodsThis anchored MAIC used pooled individual patient data (IPD) from two centanafadine trials (NCT03605680, NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from one methylphenidate trial (NCT02139124). Using propensity scores, IPD from the centanafadine trials were reweighted to match the aggregate baseline characteristics of the methylphenidate trial. Safety and efficacy outcomes were compared at Week 4. Safety outcomes were the rates of adverse events reported by ≥5% of patients in any treatment group in either trial with an incidence twice that of the placebo. The efficacy outcome was the mean change from baseline in Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS)/ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score at Week 4.ResultsAfter matching, no significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed across trials. Relative to methylphenidate, centanafadine exhibited a better safety profile, with a significantly lower risk of insomnia (risk difference in percentage points: -9.46 points) and initial insomnia (-4.68 points). There was no significant difference in efficacy across treatments as measured by the mean change from baseline in AISRS/ADHD-RS-5 score.ConclusionsIn this MAIC, centanafadine was associated with a lower risk of insomnia and comparable (i.e., nondifferent) efficacy compared to methylphenidate at Week 4. Information on the comparative safety and efficacy of ADHD treatments in the adult population will help inform personalized treatment decisions given the range of treatment options with varying attributes.

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
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Established in 1956, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (The CJP) has been keeping psychiatrists up-to-date on the latest research for nearly 60 years. The CJP provides a forum for psychiatry and mental health professionals to share their findings with researchers and clinicians. The CJP includes peer-reviewed scientific articles analyzing ongoing developments in Canadian and international psychiatry.
×
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