Advertisement

European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

, Volume 27, Issue 10, pp 1335–1345 | Cite as

Efficacy and safety of drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis

  • Sarah C. O. S. Padilha
  • Suzane Virtuoso
  • Fernanda S. Tonin
  • Helena H. L. Borba
  • Roberto Pontarolo
Original Contribution

Abstract

The aim of this study is to gather evidence of head-to-head double-blind randomized-controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of available treatments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. A systematic review was conducted by two independent reviewers in ten electronic databases (PROSPERO register CRD42016043239). Methodological quality of included studies was evaluated according to the Jadad scale. Network meta-analyses were performed including double-blinded head-to-head trials comparing active allopathic drugs in patients (0–18 years old) diagnosed with ADHD. The results of efficacy and safety of atomoxetine (ATX), bupropion, buspirone (BSP), dexamphetamine, edivoxetine (EDX), guanfacine (GXR), lisdexamfetamine (LDX), methylphenidate (MPH), mixed amphetamine salts, modafinil, pindolol (PDL), reboxetine (RBX), selegiline, and venlafaxine were analyzed using ADDIS software v.1.16.5. Forty-eight trials were identified (n = 4169 participants), of which 12 were used for efficacy analysis and 33 for safety analysis. On the CGI-I scale, the analysis revealed that MPH was more effective than ATX and GXR. For the safety outcomes, according to drug ranks, LDX was more likely to cause sleep disorders (39%) as well as loss of appetite (65%) and behavior problems such as irritability (60%). BSP (71%) and EDX (44%) caused less appetite decrease. For behavioral effects, PDL was considered safest (50%). For any adverse events, RBX (89%) was the safest alternative. The lack of head-to-head trials properly reporting outcomes of interest limited some comparisons. Network meta-analysis offered a broader overview on the available treatments for ADHD, especially for safety issues, and contributes towards evidence gathering and clinical practice decisions. A core outcome set for ADHD should be designed to guide the conduction and report of clinical trials.

Keywords

ADHD Systematic review Multiple treatment comparison Efficacy Safety 

Notes

Author contributions

SV and RP conceived and designed the study; SCOSP, FST, and HHLB acquired and analyzed data; SCOSP, FST, and HHLB drafted the manuscript; SV and RP read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

787_2018_1125_MOESM1_ESM.docx (64 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 64 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Polanczyk GV et al (2014) ADHD prevalence estimates across three decades: an updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Int J Epidemiol 43(2):434–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Austerman J (2015) ADHD and behavioral disorders: assessment, management, and an update from DSM-5. Cleve Clin J Med 82(11 Suppl 1):S2–S7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruxel EM et al (2014) ADHD pharmacogenetics across the life cycle: new findings and perspectives. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 165B(4):263–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mohammadi MR, Mohammadzadeh S, Akhondzadeh S (2015) Memantine versus methylphenidate in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Iran J Psychiatry 10(2):106–114PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Root RW II, Resnick RJ (2003) An update on the diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children. Prof Psychol Res Pract 34(1):34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lopresti AL (2015) Oxidative and nitrosative stress in ADHD: possible causes and the potential of antioxidant-targeted therapies. Atten Defic Hyperact Disord 7(4):237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stevens JR, Wilens TE, Stern TA (2013) Using stimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: clinical approaches and challenges. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 15(2).  https://doi.org/10.4088/PCC.12f01472
  8. 8.
    Stahl SM (2010) Mechanism of action of stimulants in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 71(1):12–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spiller HA, Hays HL, Aleguas A Jr (2013) Overdose of drugs for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: clinical presentation, mechanisms of toxicity, and management. CNS Drugs 27(7):531–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nakanishi Y et al (2017) Differential therapeutic effects of atomoxetine and methylphenidate in childhood attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder as measured by near-infrared spectroscopy. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 11:26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Storebo OJ, et al (2015) Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev (11):Cd009885Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rostain A et al (2015) Toward quality care in ADHD: defining the goals of treatment. J Atten Disord 19(2):99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Procyshyn RM, Bezchlibnyk-Butler KZ, Jeffries JJ (2015) Clinical handbook of psychotropic drugs. Hogrefe Publishing Corporation/Hogrefe Publishing GmbH, Boston/GöttingenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Banaschewski T et al (2004) Non-stimulant medications in the treatment of ADHD. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 13(Suppl 1):I102–I116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hennissen L et al (2017) Cardiovascular effects of stimulant and non-stimulant medication for children and adolescents with ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials of methylphenidate, amphetamines and atomoxetine. CNS Drugs 31:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jafarinia M et al (2012) Bupropion versus methylphenidate in the treatment of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: randomized double-blind study. Hum Psychopharmacol 27(4):411–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Akhondzadeh S et al (2003) Selegiline in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children: a double blind and randomized trial. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 27(5):841–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arabgol F, Panaghi L, Hebrani P (2009) Reboxetine versus methylphenidate in treatment of children and adolescents with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 18(1):53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mohammadi MR et al (2010) Amantadine versus methylphenidate in children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, double-blind trial. Hum Psychopharmacol 25(7–8):560–565PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zarinara AR et al (2010) Venlafaxine versus methylphenidate in pediatric outpatients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, double-blind comparison trial. Hum Psychopharmacol 25(7–8):530–535PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Song F et al (2009) Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 338:b1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Song F et al (2011) Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 343:d4909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tonin FS et al (2015) Adverse events and treatment failure leading to discontinuation of recently approved antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a network meta-analysis. Schizophr Res 169(1):483–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tonin FS et al (2017) Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Pharm Pract 1(1):943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cortese S et al (2017) Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents and adults: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ Open 7(1):e013967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Punja S et al (2016) To meta-analyze or not to meta-analyze? A combined meta-analysis of N-of-1 trial data with RCT data on amphetamines and methylphenidate for pediatric ADHD. J Clin Epidemiol 76:76–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Camporeale A et al (2015) Safety and tolerability of atomoxetine in treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adult patients: an integrated analysis of 15 clinical trials. J Psychopharmacol 29(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chan E, Fogler JM, Hammerness PG (2016) Treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adolescents: a systematic review. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 315(18):1997–2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cohen SC et al (2015) Meta-analysis: risk of tics associated with psychostimulant use in randomized, placebo-controlled trials. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 54(9):728–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maneeton B et al (2015) Comparative efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of lisdexamfetamine in child and adolescent ADHD: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Drug Des Dev Ther 9:1927–1936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maneeton N et al (2015) A systematic review of dexmethylphenidate versus placebo in child and adolescent ADHD: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 25:S642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Joseph A et al (2017) Comparative efficacy and safety of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder pharmacotherapies, including guanfacine extended release: a mixed treatment comparison. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 26:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. CochraneGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hutton B et al (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162(11):777–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moher D et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):1006–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jadad AR et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jansen JP et al (2011) Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health 14(4):417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dias S et al (2013) Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Mak 33(5):641–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Weiss G et al (1971) Comparison of the effects of chlorpromazine, dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate on the behaviour and intellectual functioning of hyperactive children. Can Med Assoc J 104(1):20–25PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Arnold LE et al (1972) Levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine: comparative efficacy in the hyperkinetic syndrome. Assessment by target symptoms. Arch Gen Psychiatry 27(6):816–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Huestis RD, Arnold LE, Smeltzer DJ (1975) Caffeine versus methylphenidate and d-amphetamine in minimal brain dysfunction: a double-blind comparison. Am J Psychiatry 132(8):868–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Garfinkel BD, Webster CD, Sloman L (1975) Methylphenidate and caffeine in the treatment of children with minimal brain dysfunction. Am J Psychiatry 132(7):723–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Arnold LE et al (1978) Methylphenidate vs dextroamphetamine vs caffeine in minimal brain dysfunction: controlled comparison by placebo washout design with Bayes’ analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry 35(4):463–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Arnold LE et al (1976) Levoamphetamine vs dextroamphetamine in minimal brain dysfunction. Replication, time response, and differential effect by diagnostic group and family rating. Arch Gen Psychiatry 33(3):292–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Conners CK, Taylor E (1980) Pemoline, methylphenidate, and placebo in children with minimal brain dysfunction. Arch Gen Psychiatry 37(8):922–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Butter HJ et al (1983) A comparative study of the efficacy of ACTH4-9 analog, methylphenidate, and placebo on attention deficit disorder with hyperkinesis. J Clin Psychopharmacol 3(4):226–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Garfinkel BD et al (1983) Tricyclic antidepressant and methylphenidate treatment of attention deficit disorder in children. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry 22(4):343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Donnelly M et al (1989) Fenfluramine and dextroamphetamine treatment of childhood hyperactivity. Clinical and biochemical findings. Arch Gen Psychiatry 46(3):205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zametkin A et al (1985) Treatment of hyperactive children with monoamine oxidase inhibitors. I. Clinical efficacy. Arch Gen Psychiatry 42(10):962–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pelham WE Jr et al (1990) Relative efficacy of long-acting stimulants on children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder: a comparison of standard methylphenidate, sustained-release methylphenidate, sustained-release dextroamphetamine, and pemoline. Pediatrics 86(2):226–237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Elia J et al (1993) Classroom academic performance: improvement with both methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine in ADHD boys. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 34(5):785–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Barrickman LL et al (1995) Bupropion versus methylphenidate in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 34(5):649–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Buitelaar JK et al (1996) Pindolol and methylphenidate in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Clinical efficacy and side-effects. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 37(5):587–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Efron D, Jarman F, Barker M (1997) Methylphenidate versus dexamphetamine in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a double-blind, crossover trial. Pediatrics 100(6):E6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pelham WE et al (1999) A comparison of ritalin and adderall: efficacy and time-course in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics 103(4):e43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pelham WE et al (1999) A comparison of morning-only and morning/late afternoon adderall to morning-only, twice-daily, and three times-daily methylphenidate in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics 104(6):1300–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pliszka SR et al (2000) A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of adderall and methylphenidate in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 39(5):619–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    James RS et al (2001) Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of single-dose amphetamine formulations in ADHD. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 40(11):1268–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Overtoom CC et al (2003) Effects of methylphenidate, desipramine, and l-dopa on attention and inhibition in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Behav Brain Res 145(1–2):7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mohammadi MR et al (2004) Selegiline in comparison with methylphenidate in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder children and adolescents in a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 14(3):418–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mohammadi MR et al (2004) Efficacy of theophylline compared to methylphenidate for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: a pilot double-blind randomized trial. J Clin Pharm Ther 29(2):139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wigal S et al (2004) A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride and d,l-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 43(11):1406–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wigal SB et al (2005) A laboratory school comparison of mixed amphetamine salts extended release (Adderall XR) and atomoxetine (Strattera) in school-aged children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Atten Disord 9(1):275–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sangal RB et al (2006) Effects of atomoxetine and methylphenidate on sleep in children with ADHD. Sleep 29(12):1573–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Biederman J et al (2007) Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and mixed amphetamine salts extended-release in children with ADHD: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover analog classroom study. Biol Psychiatry 62(9):970–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wang Y et al (2007) Atomoxetine versus methylphenidate in paediatric outpatients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, double-blind comparison trial. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 41(3):222–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Amiri S et al (2008) Modafinil as a treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: a double blind, randomized clinical trial. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 32(1):145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Newcorn JH et al (2008) Atomoxetine and osmotically released methylphenidate for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: acute comparison and differential response. Am J Psychiatry 165(6):721–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Daviss WB et al (2008) Clonidine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: II. ECG changes and adverse events analysis. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 47(2):189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Palumbo DR et al (2008) Clonidine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: I. Efficacy and tolerability outcomes. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 47(2):180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nair V, Mahadevan S (2009) Randomised controlled study-efficacy of clonidine versus carbamazepine in children with ADHD. J Trop Pediatr 55(2):116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Davari-Ashtiani R et al (2010) Buspirone versus methylphenidate in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a double-blind and randomized trial. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 41(6):641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Stein MA et al (2011) Dose effects and comparative effectiveness of extended release dexmethylphenidate and mixed amphetamine salts. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 21(6):581–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mohammadi MR et al (2012) Buspirone versus methylphenidate in the treatment of children with attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder: randomized double-blind study. Acta Med Iran 50(11):723–728PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Coghill D et al (2013) European, randomized, phase 3 study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 23(10):1208–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Santisteban JA et al (2014) Effect of extended-release dexmethylphenidate and mixed amphetamine salts on sleep: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study in youth with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. CNS Drugs 28(9):825–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lin DY et al (2014) A randomized trial of edivoxetine in pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 24(4):190–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Dittmann RW et al (2013) Efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a head-to-head, randomized, double-blind, phase IIIb study. CNS Drugs 27(12):1081–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Nagy P et al (2016) Functional outcomes from a head-to-head, randomized, double-blind trial of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and an inadequate response to methylphenidate. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 25(2):141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Arabgol F, Panaghi L, Nikzad V (2015) Risperidone versus methylphenidate in treatment of preschool children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Iran J Pediatr 25(1):e265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    McCracken JT et al (2016) Combined stimulant and guanfacine administration in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a controlled, comparative study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 55(8):657.e1–666.e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Huss M et al (2015) Efficacy and safety of extended-release guanfacine hydrochloride in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo- and active-reference phase 3 study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 49:111Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Efron D, Jarman F, Barker M (1997) Side effects of methylphenidate and dexamphetamine in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a double-blind, crossover trial. Pediatrics 100(4):662–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    ATTENTION-DEFICIT SO (2011) ADHD: clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 2011–2654Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Rezaei G et al (2016) Comparative efficacy of methylphenidate and atomoxetine in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med J Islam Repub Iran 30:325PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Thapar A, Cooper M (2016) Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Lancet 387(10024):1240–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Chierrito de Oliveira D, et al (2017) Safety of treatments for ADHD in adults: pairwise and network meta-analyses. J Atten Disord.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054717696773 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Apter JT, Allen LA (1999) Buspirone: future directions. J Clin Psychopharmacol 19(1):86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Coghill DR et al (2014) Efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate throughout the day in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: results from a randomized, controlled trial. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 23(2):61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Cohen-Yavin I et al (2009) Efficacy of reboxetine in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in boys with intolerance to methylphenidate: an open-label, 8-week, methylphenidate-controlled trial. Clin Neuropharmacol 32(4):179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Page ME (2003) The promises and pitfalls of reboxetine. CNS Drug Rev 9(4):327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Eyding D et al (2010) Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials. BMJ 341:c4737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Preskorn SH (2004) Reboxetine: a norepinephrine selective reuptake pump inhibitor. J Psychiatr Pract 10(1):57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Sepede G et al (2012) Reboxetine in clinical practice: a review. Clin Ter 163(4):e255–e262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ghanizadeh A (2015) A systematic review of reboxetine for treating patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Nord J Psychiatry 69(4):241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kirkham JJ et al (2013) Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?–a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups. Trials 14:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah C. O. S. Padilha
    • 1
  • Suzane Virtuoso
    • 2
  • Fernanda S. Tonin
    • 1
  • Helena H. L. Borba
    • 1
  • Roberto Pontarolo
    • 3
  1. 1.Pharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate ProgramUniversidade Federal do ParanáCuritibaBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Medical and Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversidade Estadual do Oeste do ParanáCascavelBrazil
  3. 3.Department of PharmacyUniversidade Federal do ParanáCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations