Search

Background and Purpose: Vitamin D is considered to play a role in multiple sclerosis (MS) etiopathogenesis. A polymorphism in the CYP24A1 gene, rs2762943, was recently identified that was associated with an increased MS risk. CYP24A1 encodes a protein involved in the catabolism of the active form of vitamin D. The immunological effects of carrying the rs2762943 risk allele were investigated, as well as its role as genetic modifier., Methods: Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH) 2 D) were measured in a cohort of 167 MS patients. In a subgroup of patients, expression levels of major histocompatibility complex class II and co-stimulatory molecules were determined by flow cytometry, and serum levels of pro-inflammatory (interferon gamma, granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor, C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 13) and anti-inflammatory (interleukin 10) cytokines and neurofilament light chain were measured by single-molecule array assays. The effect of the rs2762943 polymorphism on disease activity and disability measures was evaluated in 340 MS patients., Results: Compared to non-carriers, carriers of the rs2762943 risk allele were characterized by reduced levels of 1,25(OH) 2 D (p = 0.0001) and elevated levels of interferon gamma (p = 0.03) and granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (p = 0.008), whereas no significant differences were observed for the other markers. The presence of the rs2762943 risk allele had no significant impact on disease activity and disability outcomes during follow-up. However, risk allele carriers were younger at disease onset (p = 0.04)., Conclusions: These findings suggest that the CYP24A1 rs2762943 polymorphism plays a more important role in MS susceptibility than in disease prognosis and is associated with lower 1,25(OH) 2 D levels and a heightened pro-inflammatory environment in MS patients., (© 2023 European Academy of Neurology.)

Background: Symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), diagnosed mainly in children, often persist into adulthood. Adults in this group have a high rate of other psychiatric problems and functional difficulties in a number of key areas such as academic achievement, interpersonal relationships, and employment. Although the usefulness of immediate-release methylphenidate in children has been extensively studied, studies in adults, which are few, demonstrate varying results., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of immediate-release methylphenidate versus placebo in the treatment of adults with ADHD., Search Methods: We searched the following databases in November 2013: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), and two trials registers. Biosis was searched in December 2013. We inspected references of all relevant papers to identify more studies and contacted authors of recently published trials., Selection Criteria: We included all randomized trials comparing immediate-release methylphenidate versus placebo in participants aged 18 years or older with ADHD. We excluded trials conducted on subpopulations of adults with ADHD such as adults with both ADHD and substance dependence., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed trial risk of bias. We contacted authors of trials to ask for additional and missing data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs., Main Results: Results from the 11 randomized controlled trials (474 participants, counting participants from cross-over studies as a single arm, and counting both arms from parallel studies) included in the review demonstrated improvement in core clinical ADHD symptoms of hyperactivity, impulsivity, and inattentiveness, and overall improvement. We were able to pool results from 10 studies, which included 466 participants.Most included studies were judged to have unclear risk of bias for most categories. However, as all studies were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled and, in general, did not contain factors that significantly decreased the quality of the body of evidence, the quality of evidence was assessed as "high" for most outcomes according to the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. For one outcome-inattentiveness-most information came from studies at unclear risk of bias, and so the quality of evidence for this outcome was judged as "moderate."Results are given as SMD for each of the core clinical symptoms of ADHD. In all cases, participant numbers were calculated by counting participants in a single arm from cross-over studies and in both arms from parallel studies. The SMD for the outcome of hyperactivity was -0.60 (95% CI -1.11 to -0.09, 6 studies, number of participants (n) = 245, high-quality evidence) in favor of immediate-release methylphenidate; the SMD for impulsivity was -0.62 (95% CI -1.08 to -0.17, 5 studies, n = 207, high-quality evidence) in favor of immediate-release methylphenidate; and the SMD for inattentiveness was -0.66 (95% CI -1.02 to -0.30, 7 studies, n = 391, moderate-quality evidence) in favor of immediate-release methylphenidate. Moderate to extreme statistical heterogeneity was detected for all outcomes. Subgroup analysis comparing high versus low doses did not indicate that higher doses of immediate-release methylphenidate were associated with greater efficacy.For overall change, the SMD was -0.72 (95% CI -1.12 to -0.32, 9 studies, n = 455, high-quality evidence) in favor of immediate-release methylphenidate.The effects of immediate-release methylphenidate on anxiety and depression as parameters of general changes in mental state were equivocal. Some trials reported reduction in depression and anxiety, others detailed no change, and still others described an increase in depressive and anxious symptoms.The most common adverse effect was loss of appetite, in some cases with weight loss. Although no study reported either of these effects as problematic or severe, the included studies were of short duration; thus clinical significance could not be properly assessed. Five studies reported changes in systolic or diastolic blood pressure, and three reported increases in heart rate. None of these results were judged to present cause for concern. No study reported clinically significant adverse effects-cardiovascular or other. Three studies did not mention adverse effects. We were unable to determine whether adverse effects were not discussed by study authors because none occurred, or because no data on adverse effects were collected., Authors' Conclusions: Data from randomized controlled trials suggest that immediate-release methylphenidate is efficacious for treating adults with ADHD with symptoms of hyperactivity, impulsivity, and inattentiveness, and for improving their overall clinical condition. Trial data suggest that adverse effects from immediate-release methylphenidate for adults with ADHD are not of serious clinical significance, although this conclusion may be limited, certainly in the case of weight loss, by the short duration of published studies.

Background: Most clinical trials on medical interventions are sponsored by the industry. The choice of comparators shapes the accumulated evidence. We aimed to assess how often major companies sponsor trials that involve only their own products., Methods: Studies were identified by searching ClinicalTrials.gov for trials registered in 2006. We focused on randomized trials involving the 15 companies that had sponsored the largest number of registered trials in ClinicalTrials.gov in that period., Results: Overall, 577 randomized trials were eligible for analysis and 82% had a single industry sponsor [89% (166/187) of the placebo-control trials, 87% (91/105) of trials comparing different doses or ways of administration of the same intervention, and 78% (221/285) of other active control trials]. The compared intervention(s) belonged to a single company in 67% of the trials (89%, 81% and 47% in the three categories respectively). All 15 companies strongly preferred to run trials where they were the only industry sponsor or even the only owner of the assessed interventions. Co-sponsorship typically reflected co-ownership of the same intervention by both companies. Head-to-head comparison of different active interventions developed by different companies occurred in only 18 trials with two or more industry sponsors., Conclusions: Each company generates a clinical research agenda that is strongly focused on its own products, while comparisons involving different interventions from different companies are uncommon. This diminishes the ability to understand the relative merits of different interventions for the same condition.