Treatment Outcomes With Licensed and Unlicensed Stimulant Doses for Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Stimulants (methylphenidate and amphetamines) are often prescribed at unlicensed doses for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Whether dose escalation beyond US Food and Drug Administration recommendations is associated with positive risk benefits is unclear. Objective: To investigate the impact, based on averages, of stimulant doses on treatment outcomes in adults with ADHD and to determine, based on averages, whether unlicensed doses are associated with positive risk benefits compared with licensed doses. Data Sources: Twelve databases, including published (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Sciences) and unpublished (ClinicalTrials.gov) literature, up to February 22, 2023, without language restrictions. Study Selection: Two researchers independently screened records to identify double-blinded randomized clinical trials of stimulants against placebo in adults (18 years and older) with ADHD. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Aggregate data were extracted and synthesized in random-effects dose-response meta-analyses and network meta-analyses. Main Outcome Measures: Change in ADHD symptoms and discontinuations due to adverse events. Results: A total of 47 randomized clinical trials (7714 participants; mean age, 35 (SD, 11) years; 4204 male [56%]) were included. For methylphenidate, dose-response curves indicated additional reductions of symptoms with increments in doses, but the gains were progressively smaller and accompanied by continued additional risk of adverse events dropouts. Network meta-analyses showed that unlicensed doses were associated with greater reductions of symptoms compared with licensed doses (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.23; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.02; very low certainty of evidence), but the additional gain was small and accompanied by increased risk of adverse event dropouts (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.19-3.43; moderate certainty of evidence). For amphetamines, the dose-response curve approached a plateau and increments in doses did not indicate additional reductions of symptoms, but there were continued increments in the risk of adverse event dropouts. Network meta-analysis did not identify differences between unlicensed and licensed doses for reductions of symptoms (SMD, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.08; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusions and Relevance: Based on group averages, unlicensed doses of stimulants may not have positive risk benefits compared with licensed doses for adults with ADHD. In general, practitioners should consider unlicensed doses cautiously. Practitioners may trial unlicensed doses if needed and tolerated but should be aware that there may not be large gains in the response to the medication with those further increments in dose. However, the findings are averages and will not generalize to every patient.

Advances in the GRADE approach to rate the certainty in estimates from a network meta-analysis.

This article describes conceptual advances of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group guidance to evaluate the certainty of evidence (confidence in evidence, quality of evidence) from network meta-analysis (NMA). Application of the original GRADE guidance, published in 2014, in a number of NMAs has resulted in advances that strengthen its conceptual basis and make the process more efficient. This guidance will be useful for systematic review authors who aim to assess the certainty of all pairwise comparisons from an NMA and who are familiar with the basic concepts of NMA and the traditional GRADE approach for pairwise meta-analysis. Two principles of the original GRADE NMA guidance are that we need to rate the certainty of the evidence for each pairwise comparison within a network separately and that in doing so we need to consider both the direct and indirect evidence. We present, discuss, and illustrate four conceptual advances: (1) consideration of imprecision is not necessary when rating the direct and indirect estimates to inform the rating of NMA estimates, (2) there is no need to rate the indirect evidence when the certainty of the direct evidence is high and the contribution of the direct evidence to the network estimate is at least as great as that of the indirect evidence, (3) we should not trust a statistical test of global incoherence of the network to assess incoherence at the pairwise comparison level, and (4) in the presence of incoherence between direct and indirect evidence, the certainty of the evidence of each estimate can help decide which estimate to believe.