Search

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Fatigue is the most common symptom of MS patients, affecting >80% subjects. Medical treatment is an important method for managing fatigue. Currently, although many drugs have been tested in treatment of MS fatigue, the efficacy of these drugs remain largely unclear., Methods: We researched available literatures in PubMed, Embase, Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library (August 31, 2016). Search terms included multiple sclerosis, fatigue, medication treatments, amantadine, modafinil, aspirin, acetyl-l-carnitine, pemoline, 4-aminopyridine and randomized controlled trial (RCT). Two researchers were required to independently assess the quality of literatures, and finish data extraction. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software., Findings: A total of 11 RCTs involving 723 patients were included. The therapeutic effects were quantified by different scales, such as Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) or Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). Here, meta-analysis suggested that amantadine, not modafinil, was effective for treating the fatigue in MS. Moreover, two studies implied that l-carnitine might have similar therapeutic effect with amantadine. However, the reliability of this finding was greatly weakened by the limited sample sizes. Additionally, current data could not answer whether treatment of MS fatigue using aspirin or 4-aminopyridine was beneficial. Finally, we found that all drugs except pemoline were relatively safe for treating MS fatigue., Conclusions: Current limited data suggest that amantadine may be the only drug that has relatively sufficient evidences in treatment of fatigue symptoms in MS. Further RCT studies recruiting larger samples sizes are required to validate the therapeutic effect of these candidate drugs., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the management of cancer-related fatigue'.In healthy individuals, fatigue is a protective response to physical or mental stress, often relieved by rest. By contrast, in palliative care patients' fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Fatigue frequently occurs in patients with advanced disease (e.g. cancer-related fatigue) and modalities used to treat cancer can often contribute. Further complicating issues are the multidimensionality, subjective nature and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. The pathophysiology is not fully understood and evidence-based treatment approaches are needed., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for fatigue in palliative care, with a focus on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including patients with cancer and other chronic diseases., Search Methods: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, and a selection of cancer journals up to 28 April 2014. We searched the references of identified articles and contacted authors to obtain unreported data. To validate the search strategy we selected sentinel references., Selection Criteria: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) concerning adult palliative care with a focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue compared to placebo, application of two drugs, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia). We did not include studies on fatigue related to antineoplastic treatment (e.g. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgical intervention). We also included secondary outcomes that were assessed in fatigue-related studies (e.g. exhaustion, tiredness)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors (MM and MC) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We screened the search results and included studies if they met the selection criteria. If we identified two or more studies that investigated a specific drug with the same dose in a population with the same disease and using the same assessment instrument or scale, we conducted meta-analysis. In addition, we compared the type of drug investigated in specific populations, as well as the frequent adverse effects of fatigue treatment, by creating overview tables., Main Results: For this update, we screened 1645 publications of which 45 met the inclusion criteria (20 additional studies to the previous reviews). In total, we analysed data from 18 drugs and 4696 participants. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials and we discuss the reasons for this in the review. There were some sources of potential bias in the included studies, including a lack of description of the methods of blinding and allocation concealment, and the small size of the study populations. We included studies investigating pemoline and modafinil in participants with multiple sclerosis (MS)-associated fatigue and methylphenidate in patients suffering from advanced cancer and fatigue in meta-analysis. Treatment results pointed to weak and inconclusive evidence for the efficacy of amantadine, pemoline and modafinil in multiple sclerosis and for carnitine and donepezil in cancer-related fatigue. Methylphenidate and pemoline seem to be effective in patients with HIV, but this is based only on one study per intervention, with only a moderate number of participants in each study. Meta-analysis shows an estimated superior effect for methylphenidate in cancer-related fatigue (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.83). Therapeutic effects could not be described for dexamphetamine, paroxetine or testosterone. There were a variety of results for the secondary outcomes in some studies. Most studies had low participant numbers and were heterogeneous. In general, adverse reactions were mild and had little or no impact., Authors' Conclusions: Based on limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for the treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Fatigue research in palliative care seems to focus on modafinil and methylphenidate, which may be beneficial for the treatment of fatigue associated with palliative care although further research about their efficacy is needed. Dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, acetylsalicylic acid, armodafinil, amantadine and L-carnitine should be further examined. Consensus is needed regarding fatigue outcome parameters for clinical trials.

Objective: The authors investigated trends and patterns in stimulant treatment of adults visiting office-based medical practices in the United States., Method: A time series analysis of data from the 1994 to 2009 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (no. of visits = 372,702) was performed, focusing on adult (aged ≥ 18 years) visits in which stimulant medications (amphetamine salts, methylphenidate, or pemoline) were prescribed. The authors computed trends in the percentage of visits in which a stimulant was prescribed stratified by background and clinical patient characteristics. Results are reported as odds ratios (ORs) over the 1994 to 2009 period. The authors also compare visits to psychiatrists and nonpsychiatrist physicians that yielded a stimulant prescription to an adult., Results: The percentage of visits in which stimulants were prescribed increased from 0.11% (1994-1997) to 0.70% (2006-2009) (OR = 13.72, 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.40-20.03). Among adults aged 18 to 29 years, the corresponding increase in stimulant visits was from 0.17% to 1.83% (OR = 30.14, 95% CI, 15.84-57.36). Stimulant prescriptions increased significantly more rapidly among visits without a clinical ADHD diagnosis (OR = 11.86, 95% CI, 7.49-18.80) than among visits with such a diagnosis (OR = 5.45, 95% CI, 2.96-10.04) (interaction P = .04) and among visits to nonpsychiatrist physicians (OR = 21.54, 95% CI, 12.84-36.12) than psychiatrists (OR = 10.64, 95% CI, 6.72-16.86) (interaction P = .03). By 2006-2009, nonpsychiatrist physicians provided most (57.7%) of the stimulant prescriptions linked to adult office-based visits. As compared with psychiatrists, nonpsychiatrist physicians diagnosed ADHD in a significantly smaller proportion of their adult visits in which stimulants were prescribed (62.5% vs 34.4%, P < .0001)., Conclusions: Between 1994 and 2009, there was a substantial increase in stimulant prescriptions during adult outpatient visits, especially during visits of younger adults. The increase in stimulant treatment occurred significantly more rapidly in the practices of nonpsychiatrist physicians than in those of psychiatrists., (© Copyright 2013 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Fatigue is the most common and debilitating symptom in multiple sclerosis (MS) and is believed to be distinctly different from fatigue seen in other chronic conditions. It can affect a patient's mood, sleep and have a detrimental effect on their quality of life. In the recent years much literature has emerged in an attempt to elucidate the potential causes and treatment of this common symptom. This review article aims to examine the most recent theories on the pathophysiology of fatigue in MS as well as its association with sleep and depression. We describe the pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches to its treatment and propose a multidisciplinary, patient enabled and individualised manner to the management of fatigue in MS., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This analysis assessed whether stimulant adherence was associated with improvement in academic grade point average (GPA) among children diagnosed with and treated for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)., Method: Medicaid claims were merged with academic records from Philadelphia public schools of Medicaid-eligible children in first through eighth grades who were diagnosed with ADHD and who had filled one or more stimulant prescription. Students diagnosed with mental retardation, autism, or speech, hearing, visual, or language impairments were excluded. Marking periods were scored for GPA (range: 0-4.0) based on English, mathematics, social studies, and science grades and for stimulant adherence (medication possession ratio ≥ 0.70). Random and fixed-effects models estimated the effects of stimulant adherence on GPA, between all adherent and nonadherent marking periods in aggregate and within individual student's marking periods, respectively., Results: A total of 3,543 students contributed 29,992 marking periods, of which 18.6% were adherent. Mean GPA was significantly higher during stimulant-adherent (2.18) than stimulant-nonadherent (1.99) marking periods in aggregate (p < .0001). The regression coefficient representing within-student association between stimulant adherence and GPA over time was 0.108 (p < .0001), indicating that adherence was associated with a 0.108 increase in GPA. In stratified analyses, analogous coefficients were 0.106 for boys, 0.111 for girls, 0.078 for elementary students, and 0.118 for middle school students (all p < .0001). The association was stronger among students with (0.139) than without (0.088) comorbid disruptive behavior disorders (both p < .0001)., Conclusions: Stimulant adherence, although found to be low among urban elementary and middle school students diagnosed with ADHD, was associated with a marginal improvement in GPA., (Copyright © 2011 American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

It typically takes many years before an association of a drug with a rare, serious adverse reaction is established. As related to pediatric drug use, evidence is even more erratic, as most drugs are used off labels. To enhance child safety, there is an urgent need to develop robust and rapid methods to identify such associations in as timely a manner as possible. In this chapter, several novel methods, both clinically based pharmacoepidemiological approaches and laboratory-based methods, are described.

Background: In healthy individuals, fatigue is a protective response to physical or mental stress, often relieved by rest. By contrast, in palliative care patients fatigue can be severely debilitating, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life, often with rest not counteracting fatigue. Fatigue frequently occurs in patients with advanced disease and modalities treating cancer often contribute or cause fatigue. Further complicating issues are its multidimensionality, subjective nature, and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. Pathophysiology is not fully understood and evidence-based treatment approaches are needed., Objectives: The objective was to determine efficacy of pharmacological treatments on non-specific fatigue in palliative care. The focus was on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including cancer and other chronic diseases associated with fatigue, aiming to relieve fatigue. Studies aiming at curative treatment (e.g. surgical intervention for early breast cancer) were not included., Search Strategy: We searched EMBASE; Psych Lit, CENTRAL and MEDLINE to June 2009., Selection Criteria: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) concerning adult palliative care with focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia)., Data Collection and Analysis: Results were screened and included if they met the selection criteria. If two or more studies were identified that investigated a specific drug in a population with the same disease, meta-analysis was conducted. In addition, comparison of type of drug investigated in a specific population as well as comparison of frequent adverse effects of fatigue treatment was done by creating overview tables., Main Results: More than 2000 publications were screened, and 22 met inclusion criteria. In total, data from 11 drugs and 1632 participants were analysed. Studies investigating amantadine, pemoline, and modafinil in participants with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)-associated fatigue and methylphenidate in patients suffering from advanced cancer and fatigue could be used for meta-analysis. Amantadine in MS and methylphenidate in cancer patients showed a superior effect. Most studies had low participant numbers and were heterogenous., Authors' Conclusions: Based on limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Surprisingly, corticosteroids have not been a research focus for fatigue treatment, although these drugs are frequently used. Recent fatigue research seems to focus on modafinil, which may be beneficial although there is no evidence currently. Amantadine and methylphenidate should be further examined. Consensus regarding fatigue assessment in advanced disease is needed.

Objective: A recent American Academy of Sleep Medicine publication identified a need for research regarding idiopathic hypersomnia. We describe various clinical and polysomnographic features of patients with idiopathic hypersomnia, with an emphasis on response to pharmacotherapy., Methods: A retrospective review of our database initially identified 997 patients, utilizing "idiopathic hypersomnia", "hypersomnia NOS", and "primary hypersomnia" as keywords. The charts of eligible patients were examined in detail, and data were abstracted and analyzed. Response to treatment was graded utilizing an internally developed scale., Results: Eighty-five patients were ultimately identified (65% female). Median (interquartile range) ages of onset and diagnosis were 19.6 (15.5) and 33.7 (15.5), respectively. During a median follow-up duration of 2.4 (4.7) years, 65% of patients demonstrated a "complete response" to pharmacotherapy as assessed by the authors' grading schema. Methylphenidate was most commonly used as a first-line agent prior to December 1998, but subsequently, modafinil became the most common first drug. At the last recorded follow-up visit, 92% of patients were on monotherapy, with greater representation of methylphenidate versus modafinil (51% vs. 32%). Among these patients, methylphenidate produced a higher percentage of "complete" or "partial" responses than modafinil, although statistical significance was not reached (38/40 [95%] vs. 22/25 [88%], respectively, p = 0.291)., Conclusions: The majority of patients with idiopathic hypersomnia respond well to treatment. Methylphenidate is chosen more often than modafinil as final monotherapy in the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia, despite the fact that it is less commonly used initially. Further prospective comparisons of medications should be explored.

Objective: While there has been considerable concern over possible adverse effects of psychostimulants on brain development, this issue has not been examined in a prospective study. The authors sought to determine prospectively whether psychostimulant treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was associated with differences in the development of the cerebral cortex during adolescence., Method: Change in cortical thickness was estimated from two neuroanatomic MRI scans in 43 youths with ADHD. The mean age at the first scan was 12.5 years, and at the second scan, 16.4 years. Nineteen patients not treated with psychostimulants between the scans were compared with an age-matched group of 24 patients who were treated with psychostimulants. Further comparison was made against a template derived from 620 scans of 294 typically developing youths without ADHD., Results: Adolescents taking psychostimulants differed from those not taking psychostimulants in the rate of change of the cortical thickness in the right motor strip, the left middle/inferior frontal gyrus, and the right parieto-occipital region. The group difference was due to more rapid cortical thinning in the group not taking psychostimulants (mean cortical thinning of 0.16 mm/year [SD=0.17], compared with 0.03 mm/year [SD=0.11] in the group taking psychostimulants). Comparison against the typically developing cohort without ADHD showed that cortical thinning in the group not taking psychostimulants was in excess of age-appropriate rates. The treatment groups did not differ in clinical outcome, however., Conclusions: These findings show no evidence that psychostimulants were associated with slowing of overall growth of the cortical mantle.

Background: Pemoline is a CNS stimulant that was introduced in 1975 in the US and was used to treat children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Pemoline was withdrawn from the market 30 years later because of fatal hepatotoxicity associated with its use., Objective: To create a system that will estimate the potential association between a serious adverse event and a medication early in its marketing cycle., Method: All case reports of acute liver failure associated with pemoline and reported to the US FDA from 1975 through 1999 were reviewed. All published articles on pemoline-induced hepatotoxicity were reviewed, and the Naranjo adverse drug reaction probability scale was applied. The incidence rate of idiopathic acute liver failure was estimated from the published literature. The data were analyzed using Fisher's Exact test and relative risks (RR) were calculated., Results: As early as 1978, there was a significant signal indicating that pemoline was associated with acute liver failure, with an RR of 24.08 (95% CI 4.67, 124.10; p < 0.05). With an increased number of cases, the significance of the association had been steadily increased., Conclusion: This method enables researchers, clinicians, drug companies and regulators to identify uncommon adverse drug reactions, caused mostly by new medications, earlier than they currently are in the course of marketing and thus quantify serious adverse events.

Purpose: A recent report linked methylphenidate (MPH) use in children to cytologic abnormalities in plasma lymphocytes, a possible cancer biomarker. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of MPH use and childhood cancer risk., Methods: Using automated pharmacy databases and the SEER-affiliated cancer registry of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program (KPMCP), we compared cancer rates at 18 sites among 35,400 MPH users who received it before age 20 to rates among KPMCP membership (age, sex, and calendar year standardized). Medical records of MPH exposed cancer cases were reviewed to identify the presence of established risk factors., Results: There were 23 cancers among MPH users, versus 20.4 expected (standardized morbidity ratio, SMR = 1.13, 95% confidence interval (0.72, 1.70)). Given the small number of cancers, site-specific SMR estimates were imprecise. Only one SMR was statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level, which given the number of comparisons is consistent with the absence of a true association at any site. MPH use was associated with increased risk of lymphocytic leukemia (SMR = 2.64 (1.14, 5.20)), based on eight observed cases). The medical records of these exposed cases did not reveal any lymphocytic leukemia risk factors (prior cancer, radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or Down syndrome)., Conclusions: Our results are consistent with no moderate or strong association between MPH use and cancer risk in children, although our ability to examine dose and duration of use or risk at specific sites was limited by small numbers. Further study of MPH use and lymphocytic leukemia risk is needed to determine whether our results are due to chance alone., (Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Fatigue is recognized as one of the most disabling and common symptoms of MS. However, no universal consensus has been reached regarding a formal definition for fatigue, and its mechanisms and causes are not understood. This review summarizes important research in this field and recommends a multidisciplinary approach to managing MS patients with fatigue. Such an approach should include proven pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical treatments.

Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical risk management plan using pemoline as a case study and pharmacy claims as the data source., Methods: Prescription claims from a continuously enrolled US population (September 1, 2000-September 30, 2002) from Caremark, a pharmacy benefit manager, were evaluated for patients with one or more pemoline claims. Patients were categorized using pemoline as second-line or first-line therapy depending on presence or absence of other central nervous system (CNS) stimulants prescriptions 90 days prior to the first pemoline claim. Logistic regression was performed to compare second-line and first-line usage with regard to patient age, gender and prescribing physician specialty and region of practice., Results: Of 1,279,296 prescription claims for CNS stimulants, 17,256 (1.3%) were for pemoline. Nine hundred thirteen patients received pemoline and had 90 days or more prior enrollment. Overall, 10% of patients receiving pemoline received it as second-line therapy (95%CI: 8-12%). After adjusting for age, gender, specialty, and region, the odds of receiving pemoline as second-line therapy were significantly greater in pediatrics relative to adults (OR = 2.82, 95%CI: 1.58-5.03), and among those whose prescribers were psychiatrists versus primary care physicians (OR = 2.48, 95%CI: 1.37-4.50). Children treated by a psychiatrist had the greatest likelihood for use as second-line therapy (36%, 95%CI: 19-56%)., Conclusions: Among patients who received pemoline, concordance with second-line therapy recommendations was low, even among the primary target audience of children. These results in a large geographically diverse patient population are consistent with an earlier regional study., (Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Patients suffering from multiple sclerosis (MS) frequently complain of fatigue (53 to 92 percent depending on studies). Fatigue can be one of the most disabling symptoms of MS and presents as physical or mental fatigue in daily living activities. Besides this permanent feeling of exhaustion, MS patients can suffer from an abnormal tiredness and lack of energy after a given motor or mental task, which defines fatigability. A number of studies explored the origins of fatigue and fatigability by means of subjective and objective tools. The implication of central nervous system dysfunctions has been established in several studies; however the contribution of peripheral nervous system factors and systemic abnormalities associated with inflammatory and immunological parameters was also suggested. The aim of this review is to present the different types of fatigue and fatigability occurring in MS patients, their origins, the investigation tools which allow the quantification of fatigue and fatigability and characterization of their mechanisms. The currently available therapeutic strategies that have been proposed to relieve this disabling symptom are presented.

The American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Quality Improvement, Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, reviewed and analyzed the current literature for the purpose of developing an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the treatment of the school-aged child with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This review included several key reports, including an evidence review from the McMaster Evidence-Based Practice Center (supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), a report from the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, the Multimodal Treatment for ADHD comparative clinical trial (supported by the National Institute of Mental Health), and supplemental reviews conducted by the subcommittee. These reviews provided substantial information about different treatments for ADHD and their efficacy in improving certain characteristics or outcomes for children with ADHD as well as adverse effects and benefits of multiple modes of treatment compared with single modes (eg, medication or behavior therapies alone). The reviews also compared the effects of different medications. Other evidence documents the long-term nature of ADHD in children and its classification as a chronic condition, meriting the application of general concepts of chronic-condition management, including an individual treatment plan with a focus on ongoing parent and child education, management, and monitoring. The evidence strongly supports the use of stimulant medications for treating the core symptoms of children with ADHD and, to a lesser degree, for improving functioning. Behavior therapy alone has only limited effect on symptoms or functioning of children with ADHD, although combining behavior therapy with medication seems to improve functioning and may decrease the amount of (stimulant) medication needed. Comparison among stimulants (mainly methylphenidate and amphetamines) did not indicate that 1 class outperformed the other.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of medications used in the treatment of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on blood pressure and pulse., Method: Subjects were those with DSM-III-R-/DSM-IV-diagnosed ADHD enrolled in placebo-controlled studies of 5 different medications for ADHD. Cardiovascular data from these studies of both stimulants (methylphenidate, amphetamine compounds, pemoline) and nonstimulants (bupropion, desipramine) were reanalyzed for baseline-to-endpoint active-treatment or placebo effects on blood pressure and heart rate., Results: There were 125 subjects with a mean +/- SD age of 39 +/- 9 years. In general, active drug treatment for ADHD compared to baseline was associated with several statistically significant changes in systolic blood pressure (bupropion: +5.9 mm Hg, p < .05 by paired t test; amphetamine: +5.4 mm Hg, p < .05), diastolic blood pressure (desipramine: +7.1 mm Hg, p < .05), and heart rate (bupropion: +6.9 mm Hg, p < .05; amphetamine: +7.3 mm Hg, p < .05; methylphenidate: +4.5 mm Hg, p < .05). New-onset cases of systolic or diastolic hypertension (blood pressure > or = 140/90) were recorded in 8% (7/89) of placebo-treated subjects and 10% (9/89) of subjects receiving active medication, regardless of the class (stimulant, nonstimulant)., Conclusion: Both stimulant and nonstimulant catecholaminergic medications used in adults with ADHD are associated with minor, but statistically significant, changes in heart rate and blood pressure that were often observed in those receiving placebo. Given the minor pressor and chronotropic effect of these medications, adults with ADHD should have their blood pressure and heart rate checked at baseline and periodically during treatment.

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the safety and efficacy of risperidone, with or without concomitant psychostimulant use, in the treatment of children with conduct disorder (CD) or other disruptive behavior disorders [oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), disruptive behavior disorder-not otherwise specified (DBD-NOS)], and comorbid attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)., Methods: Data from two 6-week placebo-controlled trials assessing risperidone therapy in children with subaverage IQs and CD, ODD, DBD-NOS were combined, and patients with comorbid ADHD were selected for this post hoc analysis. Patients were grouped according to randomized drug therapy (risperidone or placebo), and then subgrouped according to their use of a concomitant psychostimulant. Safety outcomes included adverse events and weight change, while efficacy outcomes included changes in scores on disruptive behavior and hyperactivity-based subscales of two behavior-rating instruments (Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form and the Aberrant Behavior Checklist)., Results: The analysis included 155 of 208 originally tested children divided into four sub-groups (35-43 patients each). There was no significant difference in the frequency of adverse events in patients who received risperidone alone and those who received risperidone plus a stimulant. The most common adverse events in risperidone-treated patients were somnolence, headache, dyspepsia, rhinitis, and vomiting. Within each randomized treatment group, actual weight gain was comparable, regardless of concomitant stimulant use. Risperidone-treated patients had clinically and statistically significant reductions in both disruptive behavior and hyperactivity subscale scores, compared to placebo, regardless of concomitant stimulant use. The addition of risperidone to a psychostimulant resulted in significantly better control of hyperactivity (p < 0.001) than was achieved with stimulant treatment alone, without causing an increase in adverse events., Conclusion: Risperidone was a safe and effective treatment, with or without a combined psychostimulant, for both disruptive behavior disorders and comorbid ADHD in children.

Though only recently recognized as a valid disorder in adults, the clinical picture of adult ADHD is highly reminiscent of childhood ADHD,with continued associated occupational failure and academic deficits. Similarly, many adults with ADHD suffer from antisocial, depressive, and anxiety disorders. Recent work clearly documents that when therapeutic doses of MPH and amphetamine treatment are used in the treatment of adults with ADHD, they can lead to a robust clinical response that is highly consistent with that observed in pediatric studies using equipotent daily doses. As in childhood ADHD, medication remains a key component of treatment for adults with ADHD. More studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of stimulants over the long-term and their impact on quality of life.

Objective: In adolescents with substance use disorder (SUD), comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with greater severity of substance abuse, conduct problems, and worse treatment outcomes. Although many controlled trials have established the efficacy of psychostimulants, including pemoline, for ADHD in children and adolescents, none have been conducted in adolescents with SUD. This randomized, placebo-controlled trial, conducted between 1996 and 2000, evaluated the safety and efficacy of pemoline on substance abuse and conduct problems., Method: Sixty-nine adolescents (aged 13-19) with conduct disorder (CD), SUD, and ADHD were recruited from the community and randomly assigned to a 12-week clinical trial of pemoline (n = 35) or placebo (n = 34), titrated over 4 weeks to a single morning dose of 75 to 112.5 mg as tolerated., Results: Pemoline had greater efficacy than placebo for ADHD as determined by significantly more Clinician's Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) ratings of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) at the study endpoint (n = 69; p <.05). There was also greater reduction in ADHD severity on the parent-rated Conners Hyperactivity-Impulsivity scale in pemoline-treated study completers compared to placebo-treated completers (pemoline, n = 17; placebo, n = 16; p <.01), but no difference between groups in the intent-to-treat analysis (n = 68; p <.13). Substance use did not decline in either group, and there was no difference between groups in baseline to study endpoint change in substance use or CD symptoms. Overall, pemoline was well tolerated, demonstrating a good safety profile and no elevation in liver enzyme levels., Conclusions: Pemoline was efficacious for ADHD but did not have an impact on CD or substance abuse in the absence of specific treatment for SUD.

Objective: Auditory cognitive evoked potential (P300) topography predicts robust response to the stimulant pemoline in patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Patients with a right fronto-central to parietal (FC2:P4) auditory P300 amplitude ratio >0.5 respond robustly to pemoline, whereas others do not. This study was performed to demonstrate whether the same test and ratio predict treatment response to methylphenidate., Methods: Patients aged 6-12 with DSM-IV diagnosis of ADHD were administered auditory and visual cognitive evoked potential (P300) testing. They then underwent single-blind treatment with an extended-release version of methylphenidate. Robust response was defined as a 60% decrease from baseline in a parent rated ADHD rating scale., Results: Nine of 20 subjects responded robustly. They did not differ from the non-robust responders in age, baseline attention or hyperactivity ratings, or any P300 parameter except auditory P300 topography. A FC2:P4 auditory P300 amplitude ratio >0.5 predicted robust response with a positive predictive value of 0.67 and a negative predictive value of 0.73., Conclusions: The ratio of right fronto-central to parietal auditory P300 amplitude predicts response to stimulants in patients with ADHD. As non-stimulant treatments are approved for the treatment of ADHD, tests such as this may help pinpoint whether to use a stimulant or a medicine with some other mechanism of action.

Excessive daytime sleepiness and abnormal sleep-wake patterns are becoming increasingly pervasive in modern society. The major causes of excessive daytime sleepiness include pathologic abnormalities of the central nervous system, such as narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia; deficiencies in quality or quantity of sleep, such as those caused by sleep apnea and poor sleep hygiene; disturbances to the body's natural circadian rhythm, such as those caused by shift work or jet lag; and drugs, which can increase sleepiness either therapeutically or as a side effect. Determining the cause of daytime sleepiness is the first step in treating it. Setting appropriate and realistic treatment goals with the patient and initiating treatment are the next steps. Although the medications available to improve daytime wakefulness (e.g., amphetamines, methylphenidate, pemoline, and modafinil) are effective, they are not a substitute for sleep. Finally, timely follow-up is necessary to monitor treatment adherence, response, and side effects.

Objective: To review the literature regarding the efficacy of stimulants to treat attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults., Data Sources: The relevant pharmaceutical manufacturers were contacted, and searches of MEDLINE (1966-December 2002) and the reference sections of each article obtained were performed using the key search terms: adult ADHD, stimulants, methylphenidate, amphetamines, and pemoline., Study Selection and Data Extraction: All English-language original studies identified from the data sources were evaluated and all information deemed relevant was included in the review., Data Synthesis: Studies involving methylphenidate, amphetamines, and pemoline were identified. There was evidence for the efficacy of amphetamines from 5 studies (4 controlled, 1 open). Methylphenidate data from 6 controlled trials were conflicting. Three studies indicated efficacy; 2 studies failed to show efficacy, possibly due to methodologic reasons; and the results from 1 study were conflicting. The limited data from 1 controlled and 1 open study indicated that pemoline may be less effective than methylphenidate and amphetamines., Conclusions: While the current limited data indicate that stimulants may be effective in adult ADHD, more data are required to confirm long-term efficacy.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of modafinil for improving wakefulness in narcolepsy patients treated previously with psychostimulants., Background: Modafinil has become a standard therapy for improving daytime wakefulness in narcolepsy patients and may be a useful therapeutic alternative to psychostimulants used to improve waking function in other medical conditions. Modafinil is chemically dissimilar to and has a pharmacological profile that differs from the psychostimulants. Modafinil has a low abuse potential and is well tolerated., Methods: Patients (N=151) with narcolepsy who had been unsatisfactorily treated with dextroamphetamine (N=48), methylphenidate (N=66), or pemoline (N=37) were enrolled in this 6-week, open-label, multicenter study. Following a 2-week washout period, patients received modafinil once daily (Week 1, 200 mg; Weeks 2-6, 200 or 400 mg). Efficacy was evaluated at Weeks 1, 2, and 6 using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale and the Clinical Global Impression of Change. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study., Results: Treatment with modafinil improved daytime wakefulness versus baseline regardless of which psychostimulant was taken previously. Mean ESS scores were improved after 1 week of treatment with modafinil. Improvements were maintained throughout the 6 weeks of treatment (all P<0.001 versus baseline after washout). At Week 6, 79% of all patients were considered to be clinically improved relative to post-washout baseline. The most frequent adverse events were headache, nausea, and insomnia; the majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in nature. Approximately 70% of patients were receiving 400 mg of modafinil once daily at the end of the study., Conclusion: During this 6-week, open-label study, modafinil was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for improving daytime wakefulness in narcolepsy patients previously treated with psychostimulants.

In this 12-week double-blind placebo-controlled trial of methylphenidate (MTP) versus placebo in 48 cocaine-dependent attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) adults, the authors sought to determine whether MTP would be safe, control ADHD symptoms, and affect cocaine use. Efficacy indexes revealed significantly greater ADHD symptom relief in the MTP group. There were no group differences in self-reported cocaine use, urinalysis results, or cocaine craving. Because of the relatively small sample size, the results are preliminary. However, we found that MTP improved subjective reports of ADHD symptoms and did not worsen cocaine use while participants were in treatment.

Objective: To assess compliance with product labeling recommendations to use pemoline as second-line therapy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and to obtain baseline and biweekly liver enzyme tests., Method: Retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data to identify first-line therapies and liver enzyme tests among pemoline users between January 1, 1998, and March 31, 2000. Prescriptions for first-line therapy were searched for 90 days prior to the first pemoline claim. Liver enzyme testing (baseline and follow-up) was compared between two groups (the prerecommendation cohort October 1,1998, to March 31, 1999, and the postrecommendation cohort October 1,1999, to March 31,2000)., Results: 1,308 patients received at least one pemoline prescription during the study period; 76% of patients < or = 20 years were male. ADHD was the claims-identified indication for 688 patients (52%). Despite the labeling recommendation for use as second-line therapy, only 237 ADHD patients (34%) received a first-line therapy prior to pemoline. Only 12% and 11% of the pre- and post-cohort patients, respectively, received baseline liver enzyme tests; 9% in the pre- and 12% in the post-cohort received at least one liver enzyme follow-up test., Conclusions: Compliance with product labeling was low for both recommendations. Understanding the reasons for this finding could help improve risk management strategies.

This practice parameter describes treatment with stimulant medication. It uses an evidence-based medicine approach derived from a detailed literature review and expert consultation. Stimulant medications in clinical use include methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, mixed-salts amphetamine, and pemoline. It carries FDA indications for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy.

This article provides a brief overview of the major psychosocial treatments that have some efficacy for the management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. Parent training in effective child behavior management methods, classroom behavior modification methods and academic interventions, and special educational placement appear to have the greatest promise of efficacy. Augmenting these, additional family therapy in problem-solving and communication skills and the coordination of multiple school resources across the day may be necessary. To be effective in improving prognosis, treatments must be maintained over extended periods of time.

Although first identified in children in the 19th century, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults was not described in the literature until 1976. The symptoms of adult ADHD resemble the symptoms of childhood ADHD, but symptom intensity, especially hyperactivity, may decrease over time. However, due to the challenges and responsibilities of adulthood, a normal day is extremely complicated for the ADHD adult. Molecular genetics and neuroimaging studies confirm that ADHD is a heterogeneous, neurobiological disorder, mainly of dopaminergic and noradrenergic pathways. Trials of pharmacologic treatments in adults with ADHD have produced mixed results due to considerable variability in diagnostic criteria, dosing, and response. This article reviews the history, neurobiology, and pharmacologic management of adult ADHD.

Fatigue is among the most common, yet least understood, symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS) [1.]. It can profoundly disrupt the occupational and social functioning of patients, and is recognized as a criterion for MS disability by the Social Security Administration. Most approaches to fatigue assessment can be classified as either self-report scales or performance-based measures of motor or cognitive output. During the clinical management of fatigue, it is important to consider the role of other MS symptoms on fatigue, as well as that of non-MS-related medical conditions. Management of fatigue in MS often entails both pharmacologic and behavioral components. This article reviews recent developments in the assessment, treatment, and pathogenesis of MS fatigue.

Background: Fatigue is a commonly encountered symptom of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease, associated with significant psychological and functional morbidity and poor quality of life. Preliminary studies on the treatment of fatigue from the cancer and multiple sclerosis literature suggest that psychostimulants may be effective in reducing fatigue., Objective: To compare the efficacy of 2 psychostimulant medications, methylphenidate hydrochloride (Ritalin) and pemoline (Cylert), with a placebo intervention for the treatment of fatigue in patients with HIV disease., Methods: In this double-blind trial, 144 ambulatory patients with HIV disease and persistent and severe fatigue were randomized to treatment with methylphenidate, pemoline, or placebo. Medications were titrated up to a maximum dose of 60 mg of methlyphenidate hydrochloride, 150 mg of pemoline, or 8 capsules of placebo daily. Fatigue was measured using 2 self-reported rating scales, the Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS) and the Visual Analogue Scale for Fatigue (VAS-F). We also used the timed isometric unilateral straight leg-raising task, a measure of muscular endurance. Quality-of-life and psychological well-being measures included the Beck Depression Inventory, the Brief Symptom Inventory, and the 36-Item Short-Form Medical Outcomes Study Health Status Survey. Side effects were monitored using the Systematic Assessment for Treatment Emergent Events and the Extra-pyramidal Symptom Rating Scale. All measures were rated weekly., Results: One hundred nine subjects completed the 6-week trial; 15 patients (41%) receiving methylphenidate and 12 patients (36%) receiving pemoline demonstrated clinically significant improvement compared with 6 patients (15%) receiving placebo. Patients receiving methylphenidate or pemoline demonstrated significantly more improvement in fatigue on several self-reported rating scales (PFS total score, P=.04; affective subscale, P=.008; sensory subscale, P=.04; and VAS-F energy subscale, P=.02). Analysis of the regression slopes by means of hierarchical linear modeling demonstrated a significantly greater rate of improvement in PFS total scores among patients receiving psychostimulants compared with the placebo group (P=.02). There were no significant differences in the efficacy between methlyphenidate and pemoline on any outcome measure studied. Improvement in fatigue was also significantly correlated with improvement in measures of depression, psychological distress, and overall quality of life. Severe side effects were relatively uncommon among this sample, and only hyperactivity or jitteriness occurred significantly more often among subjects receiving active medication., Conclusions: Many patients with HIV- and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-unrelated fatigue respond favorably to treatment with methylphenidate or pemoline. Both psychostimulants appear to be equally effective and significantly superior to placebo in decreasing fatigue severity with minimal side effects. Moreover, improvement of fatigue was significantly associated with improved quality of life and decreased levels of depression and psychological distress.

Implications: This case reports hypotension under general anesthesia in a patient taking pemoline. Vigilance for unexpected hypotension is important in patients who are treated with psychostimulants. If hypotension occurs, vasopressors that act directly on adrenergic receptors should be used.

Psychostimulant medications have been used clinically and investigated in psychiatric populations, the medically ill, cancer patients and healthy people. This article discusses the pharmacology of dextroamphetamine, methylphenidate, pemoline (and other psychostimulants such as caffeine and ephedrine), their use in general medicine and cancer care, side effects, and abuse potential. Therapeutic use in children is addressed only insofar as it illustrates facets of their use in adults.

Background: Despite the increased recognition of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adolescents, few controlled studies have assessed treatments for this age group. Adolescent issues, such as embarrassment at receiving medication at school and experimentation with abusable substances, have accelerated efforts to find effective, well-tolerated treatments beyond traditional stimulants. Pemoline has been found effective for treating both children and adults with ADHD but has not been evaluated in adolescents with ADHD., Methods: Twenty-one adolescents (mean age 14 years old) diagnosed with ADHD by structured and clinical interviews participated in a 10-week, double-blind crossover design study of pemoline. Dosing was optimized with robust doses up to 3 mg/kg/day in one to two doses. Clinical evaluations of ADHD, depression, anxiety, and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) symptoms were assessed weekly., Results: Adolescents with ADHD exhibited a marked response to pemoline treatment relative to placebo on the ADHD rating scale (p = 0.001), with an average reduction of 3.02 points per week of treatment. Sixty percent of adolescents responded to pemoline, compared to 11% treated with placebo. This response was independent of gender or lifetime psychiatric comorbidity. Pemoline was well tolerated, with patients averaging 2.88 mg/kg/day in two doses per day, with a mean dose at end of follow-up of 181.1 mg (SD 45.6, range 112.5-262.5 mg). Side effects were mild, and no adverse hepatic events occurred., Conclusions: These findings resemble those reported in children and adults with ADHD. This trial suggests pemoline is well tolerated and effective in adolescents and may be a particularly useful ADHD treatment for adolescents.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an important problem both for people with the disease and for society. There is no cure, and alleviation of symptoms forms the cornerstone of care. Excessive fatigue that severely limits activity is experienced by at least two-thirds of the estimated 60,000 people with MS in the UK., Objectives: (1) To identify current treatments for fatigue in MS and their evidence-base. (2) To systematically review the evidence for those treatments that have been investigated in more than one rigorous study, in order to determine their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness., Methods: The review was carried out in two stages: a formal scoping review (to assess the range of interventions used by people with MS), and a systematic review for treatments that had been identified as promising and that had been investigated in clinical trials (as identified in the scoping review). A systematic review of research on costs and cost-effectiveness of those interventions identified as promising was also performed. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched for the period 1991-June 1999 (scoping review) and 1966-December 1999 (systematic review). Reference lists from publications were also searched, and experts were contacted for any additional information not already identified., Results: Interventions identified for the treatment of fatigue in MS (1) Behavioural advice. This is the main element of initial clinical management and no rigorous research of its effectiveness was identified. (2) Drugs (amantadine, pemoline, potassium-channel blockers and antidepressants). (3) Training, rehabilitation and devices (cooling vests and electromagnetic fields). (4) Alternative therapies (bee venom, cannabis, acupuncture/acupressure and yoga). Only two drugs, amantadine and pemoline, met the criteria for full systematic review. RESULTS - EFFECTIVENESS OF AMANTADINE: One parallel and three crossover trials were found, involving a total of 236 people with MS. All studies were open to bias. All studies showed a pattern in favour of amantadine compared with placebo, but there is considerable uncertainty about the validity and clinical significance of this finding. This pattern of benefit was considerably undermined when different assumptions were used in the sensitivity analysis. RESULTS - EFFECTIVENESS OF PEMOLINE: One parallel and one crossover trial were found involving a total of 126 people with MS. Both studies were open to bias. There was no overall tendency in favour of pemoline over placebo and an excess of reports of adverse effects with pemoline. RESULTS - HEALTH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: The drug costs of amantadine and pemoline are modest (pound 200 and pound 80 per annum, respectively). No economic evaluations were identified in the systematic review, and available data were insufficient to allow modelling of cost-effectiveness in this rapid review., Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to allow people with MS, clinicians or policy makers to make informed decisions on the appropriate use of the many treatments on offer. Only amantadine appears to have some proven ability to alleviate the fatigue in MS, though only a proportion of users will obtain benefit and then only some of these patients will benefit sufficiently to take the drug in the long term. CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH: The frequency, severity and impact of fatigue, the poverty of available research, and the absence of any ongoing research, suggest that new research is an urgent priority. People with MS, clinicians and policy makers should work together to ensure that the evidence required is collected as quickly as possible by encouraging involvement in rigorous research. Research should not be restricted to the two drugs reviewed in depth in this report. All interventions identified in the scoping review (see above) should be considered, as should basic scientific research into the underlying mechanism of fatigue in MS.

Objectives: To determine (a) the long-term and short-term effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adults and (b) whether combined interventions are more effective than individual interventions., Search Strategy: MEDLINE (from 1966), CINAHL (from 1982), HEALTHStar (from 1975), PsycINFO (from 1984), EMBASE (from 1984), and the Cochrane Library searches were completed in November 1997. Reference lists of eligible studies and files of members of the research team and partner organizations were also searched., Selection Criteria: Studies were selected if they focused on the treatment of ADHD in humans and were published in any language as a full report in peer-reviewed journals. Studies including conditions other than ADHD were reported if separate subgroup analyses for patients with ADHD were provided., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently extracted data for 41 variables on general characteristics, along with detailed information on interventions, outcomes, and tests. Differences were resolved by consensus or by a third researcher. Studies were not combined quantitatively because the quality of reporting was low and heterogeneity existed across outcome measures and tests., Main Results: Seventy-eight studies (77 randomized controlled trials) met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-three studies compared drugs and showed few, if any, differences among methylphenidate (MPH), dextroamphetamine (DEX), and pemoline; studies comparing stimulants with tricyclic antidepressants (2) were inconclusive. Six studies compared drugs with nondrug interventions and showed consistently that stimulants, particularly MPH, may be more effective than nonpharmacological interventions. Twenty studies compared combination therapies with a stimulant or a nondrug intervention alone; no additional beneficial effects for combination therapies were shown. Nine studies compared tricyclic antidepressants with placebo and showed that desipramine may be more effective than placebo; no consistent effect was shown for imipramine. Fourteen studies (13 in school children and 1 in adults) evaluated long-term therapy (> or = 12 weeks) and showed a trend to general improvement regardless of treatment, but the length of followup was inadequate. MPH may reduce behavioral disturbance in children with ADHD while it is taken. Academic performance does not appear to be improved with stimulants. Twelve studies evaluated treatment in adults with ADHD. For MPH vs. placebo, the results were contradictory. Antidepressants may be effective in adults, but no beneficial effect was seen with pemoline, nicotine, or phenylalanine compared with placebo. Thirty-two reports (29 studies) evaluated adverse effects of drug therapy; many of the side effects associated with stimulant use appear to be relatively mild and of short duration and to respond to dosing or timing adjustments. Data are inadequate on the long-term effects and severity of adverse effects of most interventions., Conclusions: This report describes rigorous systematic reviews on the treatment of ADHD, ready for incorporation into evidence-based clinical practice guidelines or performance measures. The report also provides a detailed description of the many limitations of the evidence available and provides recommendations to fill existing knowledge gaps. Studies on ADHD have low reporting quality, methodological flaws, and heterogeneity across outcome measures and tests. A detailed description is included of the many limitations of the available evidence plus recommendations to fill existing knowledge gaps. Fulfilling such knowledge gaps will not be easy and will require genuine collaboration among decisionmakers.

Fatigue is a common symptom in patients with multiple sclerosis. Rapid exhaustion and reduced exercise tolerance leads to difficulties in maintaining a normal daily life for many patients. Regular resting and short breaks can help to compensate this to a certain degree. The pathophysiology of fatigue is currently unknown. Damage of specific neuroanatomic regions or a more generalized effect of inflammatory mediators in the central nervous system could be the causes of fatigue. Some drugs (e.g. amantadine) have proven effective in therapy of fatigue. Recent therapeutic approaches have begun using aminopyridines (4-aminopyridine, 3,4-diaminopyridine). These two substances are thought to improve nerve conduction, but there might be a central stimulatory effect as well. Overdosage leads to an elevated risk of epileptic seizures and confusion.

Despite the increasing awareness of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults, there are a limited number of controlled pharmacologic studies of this disorder. Because the stimulant medication magnesium pemoline (Cylert, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL) has been found effective in treating ADHD in pediatric groups, we tested its efficacy in adults with ADHD using higher daily doses than those previously studied. We conducted a 10-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design study of pemoline at a target daily dose of 3 mg/kg per day in 35 adult patients with DSM-III-R and -IV ADHD. We used standardized structured psychiatric instruments for diagnosis. To measure improvement, we used separate assessments of ADHD, depressive, and anxiety symptoms at baseline and at each biweekly visit. ADHD outcome was determined using the ADHD symptom checklist and Clinical Global Impression scales of Severity and Improvement. Of the 35 adults with ADHD who were randomized in the trial, 27 (77%) completed the protocol. Treatment with pemoline in the final week of the 4-week active phase was best tolerated at doses substantially lower than the target dose of 3 mg/kg per day (mean dose, 2.2 mg/kg per day; mean+/-SD, 148+/-95 mg). Pemoline was significantly better at reducing ADHD symptoms compared with placebo (z = 2.4,p < 0.02). Using a predefined 30% reduction in symptoms as an indication of improvement, 50% of pemoline-treated subjects and 17% of subjects in the placebo group were considered positive responders (chi2 = 7.1, p = 0.008). These results indicate that pemoline is moderately effective in the treatment of ADHD in adults. Although robust doses were targeted, most adults preferred more moderate dosing (120-160 mg/day). Given the limited efficacy, tolerability, and concerns of hepatic dysfunction, pemoline should be considered as second-line medication for treating ADHD in adults.

The psychostimulants methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, and pemoline are among the most common medications used in child and adolescent psychiatry. Often, these agents are used in combination with other medications. This review summarizes reported drug interactions and assesses both causality and clinical significance. A computerized search was undertaken using MEDLINE (1966 to 1998) to obtain all pertinent reports of adverse events associated with the coadministration of psychostimulants and other drugs. A total of 38 reports involving 25 different drugs from various classes were systematically evaluated along with research studies conducted to specifically assess drug interactions. Methylphenidate appeared to be involved primarily in pharmacokinetic interactions suggestive of cytochrome P450 inhibition while dextroamphetamine and pemoline were more often involved in apparent pharmacodynamic interactions. The published data support the safe use of psychostimulants with most classes of medications with few absolute contraindications.