Introduction
Treatment recommendations in clinical guidelines
In vitro and in vivo pharmacologies of MPH and AMF
Clinical comparisons of MPH and AMF
Short-acting formulations | Long-acting formulationsa
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Drug | Duration of action (h) | Drug | Composition | Duration of action (h) | ||
Amfetamine (AMF, International Non-Proprietary Name) | ||||||
Adderall® (mixed salts of dl-AMF) | 4–6 [3] | Adderall XR® (mixed salts of dl-AMF) | Capsulated biphasic beads | |||
Dexedrine® (d-AMF sulphate) | Dexedrine Spansule® (d-AMF) | Capsulated biphasic beads | ||||
DextroStat® (d-AMF sulphate) | 4–6 [3] | Vyvanse™ (d-AMF) | Prodrug | 13–14 [17] | ||
Methylphenidate (MPH) | ||||||
Focalin® (d-MPH) | 4 [3] | Biphentin® (racemic MPH) | Capsulated biphasic beads | 10–12 [17] | ||
Concerta® (racemic MPH) | Osmotically controlled release | |||||
Medikinet® (racemic MPH) | Daytrana® (racemic MPH) | Transdermal patch delivery system | 8–12 [3] | |||
Metadate® (racemic MPH) | Equasym XL®/Metadate CD® (racemic MPH) | Capsulated biphasic beads | ||||
Methylin® (racemic MPH) | Focalin® XR (d-MPH) | Capsulated biphasic beads | 8–12 [3] | |||
Ritalin® (racemic MPH) | Metadate ER® (racemic MPH) | Wax matrix tablets | ||||
Medikinate® retard (racemic MPH) | Capsulated biphasic beads | |||||
Methylin® ER (racemic MPH) | Wax matrix tablets | |||||
Methylphenidate SR® (racemic MPH) | Wax matrix tablets | 8 [3] | ||||
Ritalin LA® (racemic MPH) | Capsulated biphasic beads | 8–10 [62] | ||||
Ritalin SR® (racemic MPH) | Wax matrix tablets |
Search strategy for the identification of published clinical comparisons of MPH and AMF
Direct clinical comparisons of MPH and AMF
Head-to-head comparisons
Reference | Study design |
n
| Mean age in years | Dosea
| Efficacy | Tolerability | Response rate, n (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MPH | AMF | Either | Both | |||||||
Winsberg et al. [99] | Crossover | 18 | 8.5 | Adjusted daily doses: MPH, ≤40 mg d-AMF, ≤60 mg | No difference in behavioural ratings between MPH and d-AMF | Insomnia and appetite loss No difference between treatments | NR | NR | 14/18 (78) | 11/18 (61) |
Arnold et al. [5] | Crossover | 29 | 8 | Adjusted mean daily doses: MPH, 1.25 mg/kg d-AMF, 0.63 mg/kg Caffeine, 12.1 mg/kg | Both MPH and d-AMF superior to placebo Non-significant trend for AMF to be superior to MPH in all measures | Appetite loss for both drugs Stomach aches reduced in d-AMF vs. placebo | 19/29 (66) | 19/29 (66) | 26/29 (90) | 13/29 (45) |
Borcherding et al. [12] | Crossover | 18 | 9.6 | Fixed escalating doses: MPH, 25–90 mg/day d-AMF, 10–45 mg/day | MPH produced greater lowering of motor activity than d-AMF | 14/18 (78) | 6/18 (33) | 15/18 (83) | 5/18 (28) | |
Pelham et al. [72] | Crossover | 22 | 10.4 | Fixed daily doses: MPH, 20 mg Ritalin SR-20®, 20 mg Dexedrine Spansule®, 10 mg Pemoline, 56.25 mg | In the context of an intensive summer treatment programme, dexedrine spansule and pemoline consistently had the most beneficial effects Treatment recommendations: Dexedrine Spansule®, 2/22; pemoline, 4/22; Ritalin SR-20, 4/22; MPH, 1/22; no medication (i.e. intense behavioural therapy) 7/22 | Slightly more adverse events for Dexedrine Spansule® than MPH or Ritalin SR-20®
| NR | NR | 15/22 (68) | NR |
Elia et al. [35] | Crossover | 48 | 8.6 | Fixed escalating doses: MPH, 25–90 mg/day d-AMF, 10–45 mg/day | MPH produced greater reductions in motor activity than d-AMF Considerable individual differences in responses between the drugs observed | Insomnia and appetite disturbance were common for both drugs Both drugs were significantly worse than placebo for overly meticulous behaviour Nervous habits and mannerisms significantly worse than placebo for MPH only | 38/48 (79) | 42/48 (88) | 46/48 (96) | 34/48 (71) |
Elia et al. [36] | Crossover | 33 | 9.3 | Fixed escalating doses: MPH, 25–90 mg/day d-AMF, 10–45 mg/day | Patients attempted more mathematics and reading tasks on either drug Percent correct for mathematics tasks improved for d-AMF only | Moderate, transient adverse events including appetite suppression and insomnia were common for both drugs | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Crossover | 125 | 8.7 | Fixed daily dose: MPH, 0.6 mg/kg d-AMF, 0.3 mg/kg | On Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale, response was superior for MPH for conduct problems and hyperactivity factors On parent-rating scale, MPH was superior for anxiety; 46 % chose MPH as the preferred drug, 37 % chose d-AMF as the preferred drug Only one non-responder to both drugs by three outcome measures | d-AMF caused appetite loss Insomnia and negative emotional symptoms worse for AMF than MPH | 90/125 (72) | 85/125 (68) | 118/125 (94) | 58/125 (46) | |
Pelham, Aronoff et al. [68] | Crossover | 25 | 9.6 | Fixed daily doses: Ritalin®, 10, 17.5 mg Adderall®, 7.5, 12.5 mg | In the context of an intensive summer treatment programme, the tested doses of Adderall® produced greater improvement than those of Ritalin® on many measures of behaviour in social and classroom settings The lower dose of Adderall® was comparable with the higher dose of Ritalin®
Treatment recommendations: Adderall®, 7.5 mg, 11/25; 15 mg, 2/25; Adderall® 7.5 mg or Ritalin® 10 mg, 3/25; Ritalin®, 17.5 mg, 4/25, neither (i.e. intensive behavioural therapy only) | Averaged across all medication days, more evidence of loss of appetite and trouble sleeping for the high-dose Adderall® treatment | 16/25b (64) | 7/25b (28) | 21//25b (84) | 3/25b (12) |
Pelham, Gnagy et al. [69] | Crossover | 21 | 10.3 | Fixed daily doses: MPH, 0.9, 0.75, 0.3 mg/kg Adderall®, 0.6, 0.45, 0.3 mg/kg | In the context of an intensive summer treatment programme, total daily dose of 0.3 mg/kg/day Adderall® equivalent to 0.6 mg/kg/day MPH in daily rates of behaviours in classroom and social settings. Treatment recommendations: MPH, 4/21, Adderall®, 6/21, 6/21 either drug, 5/21 neither (i.e. intensive behavioural therapy only) | Reports of appetite loss and trouble sleeping for both drugs when administered in the afternoon | 10/21b (48) | 12/21b (57) | 16/21b (76) | 6/21b (29) |
Castellanos et al. [19] | Crossover | 45 | 8.7 | Fixed escalating daily doses: MPH, 25–90 mg d-AMF, 10–45 mg | MPH and d-AMF produced similar improvements in continuous performance test omission and commission errors | NR | NR | NR | NR | |
Sharp et al. [86] | Crossover | 42 | 8.9 | Adjusted daily doses: MPH, 10–70 mg d-AMF, 5–30 mg | Mean beneficial effects of MPH and d-AMF similar for all ratings | Mean adverse effects of MPH and d-AMF similar Loss of weight significantly greater for d-AMF than MPH | 26/32 (81) | 27/32 (84) | 31/32 (97) | 22/32 (69) |
Pliszka et al. [76] | Parallel group | 58 | 8.1 | Adjusted mean daily doses: MPH, 25.2 mg Adderall®, 12.5 mg | Classroom inattentive and oppositional symptoms and CGI-I: both MPH and AMF superior to placebo Adderall® significantly superior to MPH in teacher ratings and CGI-I Beneficial effects of Adderall® persisted longer than MPH | Neither drug affected weight Greater number of patients on Adderall® reporting stomach ache or sadness/tearfulness not significant after correction for multiple tests | 13/20 (65) | 18/20 (90) | NR | NR |
Wilson et al. [98] | Crossover | 35 | 17.5 | Fixed daily doses: Concerta®, 72 mg Adderall XR®, 30 mg | Functional impairment composite score: Concerta® and Adderall XR® better than placebo; no difference between Concerta® and Adderall XR®
Visual impairment and response inhibition: Concerta® only better than placebo, no difference between Concerta® and Adderall XR®
| NR | NR | NR | NR |