The clinical impact of switching attention deficit hyperactivity disorder patients from OROS®-MPH to Novo-MPH ER-C®: A paediatric practice review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In Canada, novo-methylphenidate extended-release capsules (Novo-MPH ER-C, Novopharm Limited, Canada) was approved as being bioequivalent to a current first-line treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), CONCERTA (OROS-MPH, Janssen Inc, Canada). The present practice review was undertaken to determine whether bioequivalence of these products translates into therapeutic equivalence. METHODS: The present study was a retrospective, single-centre, observational review of consecutive paediatric ADHD patients prescribed OROS-MPH during a seven-month period. RESULTS: Of the 53 patients who had been switched to the bioequivalent product, 87% destabilized and 43% indicated a shorter duration of effect. In comparison, of those who never tried the second entry medication, only 26% destabilized. Qualitative data indicated differences with regard to side effects, efficacy and duration of effect. CONCLUSIONS: The present retrospective study indicated that Novo-MPH ER-C is not therapeutically equivalent to OROS-MPH. Once an individual with ADHD is effectively managed, disruption of their treatment should be avoided.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".