A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of Centanafadine versus Methylphenidate Hydrochloride in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Short-Term Safety and Efficacy Outcomes: Comparaison indirecte ajustée par appariemen

ObjectivesTo compare the short-term safety and efficacy of centanafadine, an investigational treatment, versus long-acting controlled-release methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate, Foquest<sup>®</sup>) among adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).MethodsThis anchored MAIC used pooled individual patient data (IPD) from two centanafadine trials (NCT03605680, NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from one methylphenidate trial (NCT02139124). Using propensity scores, IPD from the centanafadine trials were reweighted to match the aggregate baseline characteristics of the methylphenidate trial. Safety and efficacy outcomes were compared at Week 4. Safety outcomes were the rates of adverse events reported by ≥5% of patients in any treatment group in either trial with an incidence twice that of the placebo. The efficacy outcome was the mean change from baseline in Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS)/ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score at Week 4.ResultsAfter matching, no significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed across trials. Relative to methylphenidate, centanafadine exhibited a better safety profile, with a significantly lower risk of insomnia (risk difference in percentage points: -9.46 points) and initial insomnia (-4.68 points). There was no significant difference in efficacy across treatments as measured by the mean change from baseline in AISRS/ADHD-RS-5 score.ConclusionsIn this MAIC, centanafadine was associated with a lower risk of insomnia and comparable (i.e., nondifferent) efficacy compared to methylphenidate at Week 4. Information on the comparative safety and efficacy of ADHD treatments in the adult population will help inform personalized treatment decisions given the range of treatment options with varying attributes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2025-06-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/07067437251342279
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.47
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of Centanafadine versus Methylphenidate Hydrochloride in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Short-Term Safety and Efficacy Outcomes: Comparaison indirecte ajustée par appariemen

Jeff Schein, Martin Cloutier, Anaïs Lemyre, Ann Catherine Childress et al.
1 citations
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
1.47
article

A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of Centanafadine versus Methylphenidate Hydrochloride in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Short-Term Safety and Efficacy Outcomes: Comparaison indirecte ajustée par appariemen

Jeff Schein, Martin Cloutier, Anaïs Lemyre, Ann Catherine Childress, Marjolaine Gauthier‐Loiselle, Maryaline Catillon, Chunyi Xu, Alice Qu
article en
1 citations

Abstract

ObjectivesTo compare the short-term safety and efficacy of centanafadine, an investigational treatment, versus long-acting controlled-release methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate, Foquest<sup>®</sup>) among adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).MethodsThis anchored MAIC used pooled individual patient data (IPD) from two centanafadine trials (NCT03605680, NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from one methylphenidate trial (NCT02139124). Using propensity scores, IPD from the centanafadine trials were reweighted to match the aggregate baseline characteristics of the methylphenidate trial. Safety and efficacy outcomes were compared at Week 4. Safety outcomes were the rates of adverse events reported by ≥5% of patients in any treatment group in either trial with an incidence twice that of the placebo. The efficacy outcome was the mean change from baseline in Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS)/ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score at Week 4.ResultsAfter matching, no significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed across trials. Relative to methylphenidate, centanafadine exhibited a better safety profile, with a significantly lower risk of insomnia (risk difference in percentage points: -9.46 points) and initial insomnia (-4.68 points). There was no significant difference in efficacy across treatments as measured by the mean change from baseline in AISRS/ADHD-RS-5 score.ConclusionsIn this MAIC, centanafadine was associated with a lower risk of insomnia and comparable (i.e., nondifferent) efficacy compared to methylphenidate at Week 4. Information on the comparative safety and efficacy of ADHD treatments in the adult population will help inform personalized treatment decisions given the range of treatment options with varying attributes.

The Canadian Journal of PsychiatryVol. 70(8)
Otsuka (United States) (US), Group for Research in Decision Analysis (CA), Otsuka Pharmaceutical (Spain) (ES), Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine (US), Analysis Group (United States) (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
1.47
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.