Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a fairly common psychiatric disorder among children. It has substantial consequences in terms of quality of life for those experiencing it and their families. In managing ADHD symptoms medication plays an essential role, including stimulants such as methylphenidate being a key component. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised about possible adverse reactions connected to these drugs. Thus, in this systematic review, an extensive analysis was conducted aiming at understanding any negative repercussions specifically from prolonged exposure to these medications among patients diagnosed with ADHD. The methodology entailed adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. While capturing relevant data through a meticulous search in various databases, filtered according to preset inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 studies were considered for analysis. Conclusions indicate that the administration of stimulant medications can potentially translate into a small rise in blood pressure along with increased heart rate particularly when amphetamines are taken. However, no reports of notable serious cardiovascular events have emerged. In the domain of neuropsychiatry, it appears that long-term usage of methylphenidate generally bears no serious consequences, even though a hike in risk levels related to the occurrence of psychotic episodes was detected among those treated with amphetamines. Several gastrointestinal side effects including decreased appetite and stomach pain were reported, however, findings regarding ocular abnormalities or growth-related effects stood inconclusive. Therefore, based on this data the consensus is that stimulant medications do generate manageable and mild negative outcomes within the ADHD population. It is vital however to highlight the need for careful observation and further scientific inquiry to achieve a better grasp on both immediate as well as long-term implications involved.

UNASSIGNED: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is a prodrug approved for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and for moderate-to-severe binge eating disorder in adults in some countries.
UNASSIGNED: We aimed to specify the abuse potential of LDX in adults, using a review of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD), animal, clinical, and pharmaco-epidemiological studies, through a PubMed search since inception until May 2021 using the following keywords: \"lisdexamfetamine AND (\'misuse\' OR \'abuse\' OR \'diversion\' OR \'addiction\')\".
UNASSIGNED: Most of the studies highlighted a longer Tmax than dexamphetamine leading to a delayed onset of effects and a decreased Cmax. These PK parameters were often associated with a diminished feeling of euphoria, in comparison to immediate-release dexamphetamine. The potential for abuse was also limited by the prodrug property of LDX, thus reducing the risk of misuse. Nevertheless, all the data were not convergent, as some authors reported similar Cmax for LDX and dexamphetamine and reinforcing properties with a dose-dependent effect. Epidemiological studies found that abuse rates of LDX were substantially lower than those of immediate-release dexamphetamine. Overall, although LDX abuse seems possible, we did not find evidence concerning current safety signal. However, more long-term pharmaco-epidemiological studies are still needed to confirm this finding.

Dysregulated emotional behavior occurs often in adults with ADHD. Analysis of clinical trials may guide clinical intervention and future research.
Controlled trials of adult ADHD measuring emotional behavior were included if another study offered a comparable analysis of the same treatment method. Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) of effects were calculated, and the size of effects for emotional and non-emotional ADHD behavior were compared.
13 out of 14 studies of methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and lisdexamfetamine demonstrated significant improvement in emotional behavior measures, with small to high SMDs. The proportional effect on emotional versus non-emotional behavior ranged from 46% to 110% for methylphenidate, 56% to 129% for atomoxetine, and 36% to 96% for lisdexamfetamine.
Psychopharmacological treatments for ADHD are likely to improve emotional behavior, and available scales are sensitive to these effects. Studies dedicated to treatment of this domain of function can further refine clinical approaches.

Binge-Eating Disorder (BED) is the most common eating disorder in the United States. Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) was approved in 2015 by the FDA for treatment of BED and is the only drug approved for treating the disorder. There has been no systematic evaluation of the published clinical and preclinical evidence for efficacy of LDX in treating BED and the mechanisms responsible for the therapeutic action of the drug. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines. Fourteen clinical and seven preclinical articles were included. There is consistent evidence from clinical studies that LDX is an effective treatment for BED and that the drug reduces the BED symptoms and body weight of patients with the disorder. There is also consistent evidence from preclinical studies that LDX reduces food intake but no consistent evidence for a preferential reduction of palatable food consumption by the drug in rodents. The evidence on mechanism of action is more limited and suggests LDX may reduce binge eating by a combination of effects on appetite/satiety, reward, and cognitive processes, including attention and impulsivity/inhibition, that are mediated by catecholamine and serotonin mechanisms in the brain. There is an urgent need for adequately powered, placebo-controlled, behavioural and neuroimaging studies with LDX (recruiting patients and/or individuals with subclinical BED symptoms) to further investigate the mechanism of action of the drug in treating BED. An improved understanding of the behavioural and neurochemical mechanisms of action of LDX could lead to the development of improved drug therapies to treat BED.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD.
We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane\'s Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework.
Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration.
Overall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs.
PROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049.

OBJECTIVE: In the Canadian healthcare setting, there is limited understanding of the pathways to diagnosis and treatment for patients with binge eating disorder (BED).
METHODS: This retrospective chart review examined the clinical characteristics, diagnostic pathways, and treatment history of adult patients diagnosed with BED.
RESULTS: Overall, 202 charts from 57 healthcare providers (HCPs) were reviewed. Most patients were women (69%) and white (78%). Mean ± SD patient age was 37 ± 12.1 years. Comorbidities identified in > 20% of patients included obesity (50%), anxiety (49%), depression and/or major depressive disorder (46%), and dyslipidemia (26%). Discussions regarding a diagnosis of BED were typically initiated more often by HCPs than patients. Most patients (64%) received a diagnosis of BED ≥ 3 years after symptom onset. A numerically greater percentage of patients received (past or current) nonpharmacotherapy than pharmacotherapy (84% vs. 67%). The mean ± SD number of binge eating episodes/week numerically decreased from pretreatment to follow-up with lisdexamfetamine (5.4 ± 2.8 vs. 1.7 ± 1.2), off-label pharmacotherapy (4.7 ± 3.9 vs. 2.0 ± 1.13), and nonpharmacotherapy (6.3 ± 4.8 vs. 3.5 ±  6.0) Across pharmacotherapies and nonpharmacotherapies, most patients reported improvement in symptoms of BED (84-97%) and in overall well-being (80-96%).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of timely diagnosis and treatment of BED. Although HCPs are initiating discussions about BED, earlier identification of BED symptoms is required. Furthermore, these data indicate that pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment for BED is associated with decreased binge eating and improvements in overall well-being.
METHODS: IV, chart review.

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate is a stimulant prodrug with low abuse and diversion potential that is used in treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, adolescents and adults. This current literature review article aims to examine safety and efficacy of LDX in children and adolescents for the treatment of ADHD based on currently available data.
Relevant English language articles were identified through computerized searches of the MEDLINE database (PubMed and EMBASE) and clinical trials registry up to January 2020 using the following search terms: lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, pro-drug stimulant, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders, ADHD, safety, efficacy, children, adolescents, Vyvanse. Forty-two articles were reviewed, 34 of which were included into this review, selected by the limit \"clinical trials\". This article represents the pharmacological profile, efficacy and safety data of LDX for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents.
The collection of studies reviewed identified that LDX was both safe and efficacious in the treatment of ADHD. The most commonly exhibited side effects were appetite suppression, weight loss, headache and insomnia. In comparison to placebo, LDX significantly improved ADHD symptoms and overall quality of life in children and adolescents. In comparison to atomoxetine, LDX showed statistically significant improvements in inattention, impulsivity, and activities of daily living. In comparison to OROS-MPH and placebo, LDX and OROS-MPH showed improvements with the CGI-I score, and ADHD-RS-IV, however, LDX was superior.
Patients have seen statistically significant improvements in their ADHD symptomatology in the classroom environment, health related quality of life, and their overall behavior in comparison to placebo, atomoxetine, and OROS-MPH. However, clinical judgment should be utilized when prescribing LDX due to patient specific needs and the side effect profile.

BACKGROUND: Agonist-based pharmacologic intervention is an accepted approach in treatment of opioid and tobacco use disorders.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate usefulness of an agonist approach as treatment of (psycho)stimulant use disorder (PSUD).
METHODS: We reviewed PubMed/Medline, LILACS, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases searching for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design studies evaluating outcomes of individuals treated for cocaine- or amphetamine-type substance use disorder. We combined results of all trials that included the following prescription psychostimulants (PPs): modafinil, methylphenidate, or amphetamines (mixed amphetamine salts, lisdexamphetamine, and dextroamphetamine). The combined sample consisted of 2889 patients. Outcomes of interest included the following: drug abstinence (defined as 2-3 weeks of sustained abstinence and the average maximum days of consecutive abstinence), percentage of drug-negative urine tests across trial, and retention in treatment. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE system.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight trials were included. Treatment with PPs increases rates of sustained abstinence [risk ratio (RR) = 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.10, 1.92)] and duration of abstinence [mean difference (MD) = 3.34, 95% CI = (1.06, 5.62)] in patients with PSUD, particularly those with cocaine use disorder (very low-quality evidence). Prescription amphetamines were particularly efficacious in promoting sustained abstinence in patients with cocaine use disorder [RR = 2.44, 95% CI = (1.66, 3.58)], and higher doses of PPs were particularly efficacious for treatment of cocaine use disorder [RR = 1.95, 95% CI = (1.38, 2.77)] (moderate-quality evidence). Treatment with prescription amphetamines also yielded more cocaine-negative urines [MD = 8.37%, 95% CI = (3.75, 12.98)]. There was no effect of PPs on the retention in treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Prescription psychostimulants, particularly prescription amphetamines given in robust doses, have a clinically significant beneficial effect to promote abstinence in the treatment of individuals with PSUD, specifically the population with cocaine use disorder.

When children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are treated with stimulant medication, the dose is established clinically by dose adjustment over time. Little is known about children who are not adequately treated when they reach a designated maximum dose, or the consequences of exceeding this dose.
The aim of this study was to determine the characteristics of and side effects observed in children optimised to high dose (HD) versus regular dose (RD) stimulants.
Children treated by one paediatrician (AP) in Western Sydney, Australia with HD stimulants (n = 52) were identified using an electronic database; controls on RD stimulant (n = 118) were matched by prescription date with the cases\' first HD prescription. HD was defined as methylphenidate > 2 mg/kg/day or > 108 mg/day; dexamphetamine > 1 mg/kg/day or > 50 mg/day; lisdexamfetamine > 70 mg/day. In all children, the dose was adjusted over time to optimise the clinical response. Clinical characteristics, anthropometric measures, reported side effects and reasons for dose changes were extracted from the clinical charts by LR, VS and CS. The HD and RD cohorts were compared using chi-square for categorical data and t tests for continuous data.
The HD cohort included more boys (88% vs 75%, p = 0.041) and more oppositional defiant disorder (83% vs 55%, p = 0.001). They started stimulants younger (6.40 ± 1.67 vs 8.28 ± 2.77 years, p < 0.001) and had more growth attenuation (Δ height z-score - 0.41 ± 0.55 vs - 0.09 ± 0.58, p = 0.001; Δ weight z-score  - 0.56 ± 0.82 vs - 0.18 ± 0.66, p = 0.002). The growth attenuation mainly occurred before the dose reached the HD range. Diminishing stimulant effectiveness was the commonest reason for a dose increase in either cohort, the most prominent recurring symptoms being persistent anger/aggression in the HD and poor concentration in the RD cohort. The commonest reason for dose reduction in the HD cohort was that a dose increase gave no added benefit; dose reduction or change of drug due to subdued/depressed behaviour was more frequent in RD children. Apart from growth attenuation, no serious complications were reported in the HD group.
In this preliminary study, dose adjustment over time in some patients meant using higher doses than those generally recommended. These children experienced more growth attenuation but recorded no other significant treatment complications. Determining the dose purely on clinical grounds by careful dose adjustment over time appears reasonable, but more data on this issue is required to clarify the efficacy and tolerability of exceeding the recommended doses of stimulants when treating ADHD.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to evaluate lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in the treatment of pediatric binge eating disorder (BED).
METHODS: We examined the clinical records of 25 patients, 12 to 19 years of age, who were prescribed LDX and had a diagnosis of BED between 2014 and 2017.
RESULTS: Binge eating disorder in adolescents was highly comorbid with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, mood and anxiety disorders, and severe obesity. Fifteen participants reported some level of improvement of their BED symptoms with LDX treatment. Posttreatment body mass index (BMI) percentile was not significantly reduced, and all but 2 participants remained in their same BMI classification. Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment duration was not associated with change in BMI percentile, and the medication was well tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate may have clinical utility for BED in adolescents, but randomized, placebo-controlled studies of its efficacy, tolerability, and safety in this population are needed.