MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387948806 · doi:10.1111/add.16347

Prescription psychostimulants for the treatment of amphetamine‐type stimulant use disorder: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized placebo‐controlled trials

2023· review· en· W4387948806 on OpenAlexafffund
Heidar Sharafi, Hamzah Bakouni, Christina McAnulty, Sarah Drouin, Stephanie Coronado‐Montoya, Arash Bahremand, Paxton Bach, Nadine Ezard, Bernard Le Foll, Christian G. Schütz, Krista J. Siefried, Vítor S. Tardelli, Daniela Ziegler, Didier Jutras‐Aswad

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health CareUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthBritish Columbia Centre on Substance UseSt. Paul's HospitalUniversité de MontréalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicinePlaceboRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalRelative riskMethylphenidateStrictly standardized mean differenceInternal medicineAdverse effectPsychiatryAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is currently no standard of care for pharmacological treatment of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) use disorder (ATSUD). This systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022354492) aimed to pool results from randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate efficacy and safety of prescription psychostimulants (PPs) for ATSUD. METHODS: Major indexing sources and trial registries were searched to include records published before 29 August 2022. Eligible studies were RCTs evaluating efficacy and safety of PPs for ATSUD. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Risk ratio (RR) and risk difference were calculated for random-effect meta-analysis of dichotomous variables. Mean difference and standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated for random-effect meta-analysis of continuous variables. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n = 561 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Trials studied methylphenidate (n = 7), with daily doses of 54-180 mg, and dextroamphetamine (n = 3), with daily doses of 60-110 mg, for 2-24 weeks. PPs significantly decreased end-point craving [SMD -0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.55, -0.03], while such a decrease did not reach statistical significance for ATS use, as evaluated by urine analysis (UA) (RR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.85-1.01). No effect was observed for self-reported ATS use, retention in treatment, dropout following adverse events, early-stage craving, withdrawal and depressive symptoms. In a sensitivity analysis, treatment was associated with a significant reduction in UA positive for ATS (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.79-0.99) after removing studies with a high risk of bias. In subgroup analyses, methylphenidate and high doses of PPs were negatively associated with ATS use by UA, while higher doses of PPs and treatment duration (≥ 20 weeks) were positively associated with longer retention. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with amphetamine-type stimulant use disorder, treatment with prescription psychostimulants may decrease ATS use and craving. While effect size is limited, it may increase with a higher dosage of medications.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.348
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.109 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictionSame topicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsFrench-language works237,207