ReviewEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2015
Assessment of potential cardiovascular risks of methylphenidate in comparison with sibutramine: do we need a SCOUT (trial)?
Review in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short term methylphenidate treatment does not increase myocardial injury in the ischemic rat heart.Physiological research · 2020Article
- Exercise outcomes in prevalent users of stimulant medications.Journal of psychiatric research · 2015Article
- Psychiatrists' self-stigma, the DGPPN guideline for psychosocial interventions, and contemporary treatment strategies.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the recent approval of methylphenidate (MPH) for treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults, the number of patients exposed will increase tremendously. The ongoing debate on the cardiovascular safety of MPH has triggered two large retrospective cohort studies in children and adolescents as well as in young to middle-aged adults. These studies looked into serious cardiovascular events (sudden cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction and stroke) as primary endpoints and concluded that MPH was safe after a mean duration of 2.1 years of follow-up in children and adolescents and mean duration of 0.33 years of current use in adults. The results are encouraging with respect to the short- and medium-term use of MPH. Without the inherent limitations of retrospective cohort studies, a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in individuals stratified for cardiovascular risk factors would allow for an optimized risk assessment. With many millions of patients treated per year and drawing parallels to the lately discovered risks of sibutramine, another sympathomimetic with an overlapping mode of action and similar side effects on heart rate and blood pressure, we hypothesize that such a trial might be a dedicated risk mitigation strategy for public health. A critical assessment of cardiovascular side effects of MPH appears particularly warranted, because ADHD is associated with obesity, smoking and poor health in general. We summarize recent findings with the focus on cardiovascular risks of MPH in humans; we additionally analyze the limited number of rodent studies that have addressed cardiovascular risks of MPH.
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.