ArticleGeneral psychiatry2026
Comparative potential for generating spontaneous signals for abuse and dependence among drugs used for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A disproportionality analysis in VigiBase®.
Article in General psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The comparative liability for abuse and dependence of drugs used for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been poorly explored so far. Aims: To evaluate the relative potential of medications used for ADHD for generating spontaneous reports of abuse and dependence in international pharmacovigilance data. Methods: A disproportionality analysis was conducted using data recorded in VigiBase®, the World Health Organisation global database of individual case safety reports (ICSRs). ICSRs recorded between 1 January 2002 and 30 June 2023, referring to paediatric and adult subjects with known sex and aged ≥ 15 years and involving suspect drugs used for ADHD, were included. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) for 'Drug abuse and dependence', along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated using methylphenidate as the reference drug and with adjustment for age, sex, seriousness, reporter qualification and continent of reporting. Several sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Among the 55 219 ICSRs included, 2633 were reports of drug abuse and dependence. The proportion of drug abuse and dependence reports was significantly lower for all studied drugs than for methylphenidate, except for lisdexamfetamine (ROR: 1.06, 95% CI 0.91-1.24). Sensitivity analyses yielded results comparable to the primary analysis, but with a slightly higher ROR for lisdexamfetamine when excluding US data (ROR: 1.26, 95% CI 1.03-1.54). Conclusions: Methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine emerged as the two drugs with the highest likelihood of safety reports related to abuse and dependence. These findings challenge previous statements suggesting that the abuse potential of lisdexamfetamine was lower than that of other psychostimulant drugs used for ADHD and advocate for further pharmacoepidemiological studies in this field.
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.