Efficacy of a Novel Biphasic Controlled-Release Methylphenidate Formula in Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new biphasic multilayer-release (MLR) methylphenidate formulation in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Adults 18 to 60 years of age with a DSM-IV diagnosis of ADHD entered a no-medication baseline week and were then randomly assigned to once-daily MLR methylphenidate or matching placebo. Patients were titrated to optimal effect over 1 to 3 weeks followed by 2 weeks of treatment on a stable dose. The same titration protocol was repeated with the alternate treatment. Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI) and Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scales (Self-rated, CAARS-S, and Observer-rated, CAARS-O) were collected at weekly clinic visits. The study was conducted between October 2003 and April 2004. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomly assigned to treatment, and 39 were analyzed in a per-protocol population (23 men, 16 women; mean age = 37.9 years). CGI-Improvement scores of subjects taking MLR methylphenidate were significantly improved compared with placebo (Global Improvement: 2.6 vs. 3.7; p = .0015). MLR methylphenidate produced improvements over placebo on the ADHD Index T scores of the CAARS-S (12.2 vs. 5.4 [change from baseline score]; p = .0083) and the CAARS-O (10.9 vs. 6.6 [change from baseline score]; p = .1404). The most frequent adverse events for MLR methylphenidate and placebo were headache (26% and 24%, respectively), anorexia (22% and 6%), insomnia (22% and 8%), nervousness (20% and 4%), and nausea (16% and 8%). There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily MLR methylphenidate produces significant improvements in ADHD symptoms and situational behavior in adult patients with ADHD, with a prolonged duration of effect and minimal side effects, thus having the potential to improve compliance and, therefore, treatment outcomes in routine clinical use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".