ArticlePaediatrics & child health2013
The clinical impact of switching attention deficit hyperactivity disorder patients from OROS(®)-MPH to Novo-MPH ER-C(®): A paediatric practice review.
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a Pediatric Relative Bioavailability/Bioequivalence Database and Identification of Putative Risk Factors Associated With Evaluation of Pediatric Oral Products.The AAPS journal · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of the real-world safety of two different long-acting methylphenidate formulations (MedikinetScandinavian journal of child and adolescent psychiatry and psychology · 2024Article
- A randomized, double-blind, cross-over, phase IV trial of oros-methylphenidate (CONCERTA(®)) and generic novo-methylphenidate ER-C (NOVO-generic).Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn Canada, novo-methylphenidate extended-release capsules (Novo-MPH ER-C, Novopharm Limited, Canada) was approved as being bioequivalent to a current first-line treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), CONCERTA (OROS-MPH, Janssen Inc, Canada). The present practice review was undertaken to determine whether bioequivalence of these products translates into therapeutic equivalence.
methodsThe present study was a retrospective, single-centre, observational review of consecutive paediatric ADHD patients prescribed OROS-MPH during a seven-month period.
resultsOf the 53 patients who had been switched to the bioequivalent product, 87% destabilized and 43% indicated a shorter duration of effect. In comparison, of those who never tried the second entry medication, only 26% destabilized. Qualitative data indicated differences with regard to side effects, efficacy and duration of effect.
conclusionsThe present retrospective study indicated that Novo-MPH ER-C is not therapeutically equivalent to OROS-MPH. Once an individual with ADHD is effectively managed, disruption of their treatment should be avoided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.