Cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine and methylphenidate for the treatment of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Objective: To analyze from a health sector perspective the cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine (DEX) and methylphenidate (MPH) interventions to treat childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), compared to current practice.

Method: Children eligible for the interventions are those aged between 4 and 17 years in 2000, who had ADHD and were seeking care for emotional or behavioural problems, but were not receiving stimulant medication. To determine health benefit, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed for DEX and MPH, and the effect sizes were translated into utility values. An assessment on second stage filter criteria ('equity', 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Simulation modelling techniques are used to present a 95% uncertainty interval (UI) around the incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated in cost (in A$) per DALY averted.

Results: The ICER for DEX is A$4100/DALY saved (95% UI: negative to A$14 000) and for MPH is A$15 000/DALY saved (95% UI: A$9100-22 000). DEX is more costly than MPH for the government, but much less costly for the patient.

Conclusions: MPH and DEX are cost-effective interventions for childhood ADHD. DEX is more cost-effective than MPH, although if MPH were listed at a lower price on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme it would become more cost-effective. Increased uptake of stimulants for ADHD would require policy change. However, the medication of children and wider availability of stimulants may concern parents and the community.

Effects of low doses of polyunsaturated fatty acids on the attention deficit/Hyperactivity disorder of children: A systematic review

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

An n-of-1 trial service in clinical practice: Testing the effectiveness of stimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVE. We sought to describe the clinical use of n-of-1 trials for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in publicly and privately funded family and specialized pediatric practice in Australia. METHODS. We used a within-patient randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of stimulant (dexamphetamine or methylphenidate) versus placebo or alternative stimulant using 3 pairs of treatment periods. Trials were conducted from a central location using mail and telephone communication, with local supervision by the patients' clinicians. PATIENTS. Our study population included children with clinically diagnosed attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder who were aged 5 to 16 years and previously stabilized on an optimal dose of stimulant. They were selected because treatment effectiveness was uncertain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES. Our measures included number of patients recruited, number of doctors who used the service, geographic spread, completion rates, response rate, and post-n-of-1 trial decisions. RESULTS. Forty-five doctors across Australia requested 108 n-of-1 trials, of which 86 were completed. In 69 drug-versus-placebo comparisons, 29 children responded better to stimulant than placebo. Immediately posttrial, 19 of 25 drug-versus-placebo responders stayed on the same stimulant, and 13 of 24 nonresponders ceased or switched stimulants. In 40 of 63 for which data were available, posttrial management was consistent with the trial results. For all types of n-of-1 trials, management changed for 28 of 64 children for whom information was available. DISCUSSION. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder n-of-1 trials can be implemented successfully by mail and telephone communication. This type of trial can be valuable in clarifying treatment effect when it is uncertain, and in this series, they had a noticeable impact on short-term management.

Amphetamine increases blood pressure and heart rate but has no effect on motor recovery or cerebral haemodynamics in ischaemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 36285333)

Amphetamine enhances recovery after experimental ischaemia and has shown promise in small clinical trials when combined with motor or sensory stimulation. Amphetamine, a sympathomimetic, might have haemodynamic effects in stroke patients, although limited data have been published. Subjects were recruited 3-30 days post ischaemic stroke into a phase II randomised (1:1), double blind, placebo-controlled trial. Subjects received dexamphetamine (5mg initially, then 10mg for 10 subsequent doses with 3 or 4 day separations) or placebo in addition to inpatient physiotherapy. Recovery was assessed by motor scales (Fugl-Meyer, FM), and functional scales (Barthel index, BI and modified Rankin score, mRS). Peripheral blood pressure (BP), central haemodynamics and middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity were assessed before, and 90 minutes after, the first 2 doses. 33 subjects were recruited, age 33-88 (mean 71) years, males 52%, 4-30 (median 15) days post stroke to inclusion. 16 patients were randomised to placebo and 17 amphetamine. Amphetamine did not improve motor function at 90 days; mean (standard deviation) FM 37.6 (27.6) vs. control 35.2 (27.8) (p=0.81). Functional outcome (BI, mRS) did not differ between treatment groups. Peripheral and central systolic BP, and heart rate, were 11.2 mmHg (p=0.03), 9.5 mmHg (p=0.04) and 7 beats/minute (p=0.02) higher respectively with amphetamine, compared with control. A non-significant reduction in myocardial perfusion (Buckberg Index) was seen with amphetamine. Other cardiac and cerebral haemodynamics were unaffected. Amphetamine did not improve motor impairment or function after ischaemic stroke but did significantly increase BP and heart rate without altering cerebral haemodynamics.

Stimulants for depression: on the up and up?

The use of traditional psychostimulants (methylphenidate and dexamphetamine) and stimulant-like drugs (modafinil and armodafinil) for the treatment of depression is a growing concern given the lack of research evidence supporting their effectiveness. The current article describes the role of stimulants in treating depression--specifically their risks and benefits and their potential use alongside antidepressants. Clinically, the rapid amelioration of depressive symptoms with traditional psychostimulants is often dramatic but short-lived, and this suggests that they likely operate via different mechanisms to conventional antidepressants. More importantly, there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials supporting their efficacy in treating depression, although modafinil has been shown to be effective in reducing prominent depressive symptoms, such as fatigue. Research is urgently required to clarify psychostimulants' mechanisms of action and to evaluate their long-term benefits and risks in the treatment of major and bipolar depression. Ultimately, specificity of action needs to be determined to inform the sophisticated clinical use of psychostimulants in the management of depression. Until then they should only be prescribed if absolutely necessary, and even then their prescription should be facilitatory and time limited unless it is for investigational purposes.