Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23397050›Full record

ReviewPsychopharmacology2013

A review of the abuse potential assessment of atomoxetine: a nonstimulant medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Himanshu P Upadhyaya, Durisala Desaiah, Kory J Schuh, Frank P Bymaster, Mary J Kallman, David O Clarke, Todd M Durell, Paula T Trzepacz, David O Calligaro, Eric S Nisenbaum and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychopharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Fatal atomoxetine overdose in Japan: a forensic autopsy case report.International journal of legal medicine · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Himanshu P UpadhyayaEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN 46285, USA. upadhyayahp@lilly.com
Durisala Desaiah
Kory J Schuh
Frank P Bymaster
Mary J Kallman
David O Clarke
Todd M Durell
Paula T Trzepacz
David O Calligaro
Eric S Nisenbaum
Paul J Emmerson
Leslie M Schuh
Warren K Bickel
Albert J Allen
Eli Lilly (United States) · USCovance (United States) · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USMedical University of South Carolina · USSt. Vincent Carmel Hospital · USVirginia Tech · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleTreatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has for many years relied on psychostimulants, particularly various formulations of amphetamines and methylphenidate. These are central nervous system stimulants and are scheduled because of their abuse potential. Atomoxetine (atomoxetine hydrochloride; Strattera®) was approved in 2002 for treatment of ADHD, and was the first nonstimulant medication approved for this disorder. It was classified as an unscheduled medication indicating a low potential for abuse. However, the abuse potential of atomoxetine has not been reviewed.

objectivesIn this article, we review the evidence regarding abuse potential of atomoxetine, a selective inhibitor of the presynaptic norepinephrine transporter, which is unscheduled/unrestricted in all countries where it is approved.

methodsResults from receptor binding, in vitro electrophysiology, in vivo microdialysis, preclinical behavioral, and human laboratory studies have been reviewed.

resultsAtomoxetine has no appreciable affinity for, or action at, central receptors through which drugs of abuse typically act, i.e., dopamine transporters, GABA(A) receptors, and opioid μ receptors. In behavioral experiments in rodents, atomoxetine does not increase locomotor activity, and in drug discrimination studies, its profile is similar to that of drugs without abuse potential. Atomoxetine does not serve as a reinforcer in monkey self-administration studies, and human laboratory studies suggest that atomoxetine does not induce subjective effects indicative of abuse.

conclusionNeurochemical, preclinical, and early clinical studies predicted and supported a lack of abuse potential of atomoxetine, which is consistent with the clinical trial and postmarketing spontaneous event data in the past 10 years.

Indexed as

Adrenergic Uptake InhibitorsAnimalsAtomoxetine HydrochlorideAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityBehavior, AddictiveDrug-Seeking BehaviorHumansNorepinephrine Plasma Membrane Transport ProteinsPropylaminesProtein BindingReceptors, NeurotransmitterSubstance-Related DisordersAdrenergic Uptake InhibitorsAtomoxetine HydrochlorideNorepinephrine Plasma Membrane Transport ProteinsPropylaminesReceptors, Neurotransmitter

Identifiers

PMID23397050
PMCPMC3579642
OpenAlexW2011999334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.