MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164200337 · doi:10.1007/s40263-021-00814-z

Effect of a Multi-Layer, Extended-Release Methylphenidate Formulation (PRC-063) on Sleep in Adults with ADHD: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Forced-Dose, Placebo-Controlled Trial Followed by a 6-month Open-Label Extension

2021· article· en· W3164200337 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margaret D. Weiss, Craig Surman, Atul Khullar, Ellie He, Marc Cataldo, Graeme Donnelly

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Drugs · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)University of Alberta
FundersPurdue PharmaPurdue University
KeywordsPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexMethylphenidatePlaceboStimulantClinical trialMedicineAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialOpen labelAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderInsomniaInternal medicineAnesthesiaPsychiatrySleep quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The effects of stimulant treatment on sleep in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are complex and varied, with some individuals experiencing worsening of sleep but others experiencing improvement. METHODS: in Canada) in adults with ADHD were used to evaluate patient-reported sleep outcomes, as captured using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and adverse events of insomnia. The trials comprised 4 weeks of randomized, forced-dose PRC-063 treatment at a dose of 0 (placebo), 25, 45, 70, or 100 mg/day followed by an optional 6 months of open-label PRC-063 treatment at an individually optimized dose of 25-100 mg/day. RESULTS: At the end of double-blind treatment, PRC-063 (all doses combined; N = 297) showed no significant difference versus placebo (N = 78) in least squares mean change in global PSQI score from baseline (- 0.7 vs. - 1.3; P = 0.0972) or in scores for each of the seven subscales of the PSQI. For patients enrolled in the open-label extension (N = 184), mean ± standard deviation global PSQI score improved from 7.8 ± 3.55 at the end of double-blind treatment to 5.8 ± 3.11 at 1 month and 5.4 ± 3.21 at 6 months (P < 0.0001). A greater proportion of patients were good sleepers (global PSQI score ≤ 5) at the end of the open-label extension (57.3%) than at baseline (20.9%) or at the end of double-blind treatment (26.0%). In a logistic regression analysis, baseline global PSQI score (odds ratio 1.491; P < 0.0001), but not randomized study treatment (P = 0.1428), was a significant predictor of poor sleep (global PSQI score > 5) at the end of double-blind treatment. Adverse event rates for insomnia (15.8 vs. 3.8%) and initial insomnia (6.1 vs. 1.3%) during double-blind treatment were higher for PRC-063 (all doses combined) than for placebo. Two patients receiving PRC-063 in the double-blind study and one patient in the open-label study were withdrawn because of insomnia adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that, on average, PRC-063 had no significant impact on overall sleep quality in adults with ADHD. Although insomnia was observed as an adverse event, when sleep was measured over time as an outcome in its own right for patients receiving dose-optimized PRC-063 open-label, more patients showed improvement in sleep than deterioration. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFER: NCT02139124 and NCT02168127.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNS DrugsSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207