0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Common and Unique Therapeutic Mechanisms of Stimulant and Nonstimulant Treatments for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder FREE

Kurt P. Schulz, PhD; Jin Fan, PhD; Anne-Claude V. Bédard, PhD; Suzanne M. Clerkin, PhD; Iliyan Ivanov, MD; Cheuk Y. Tang, PhD; Jeffrey M. Halperin, PhD; Jeffrey H. Newcorn, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Psychiatry (Drs Schulz, Fan, Bédard, Clerkin, Ivanov, Tang, Halperin, and Newcorn), Neuroscience (Dr Fan), Radiology (Dr Tang), and Pediatrics (Dr Newcorn), Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York; and Department of Psychology, Queens College of the City University of New York, Flushing, New York (Drs Fan and Halperin).


Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69(9):952-961. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.2053.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a highly prevalent and impairing psychiatric disorder that affects both children and adults. There are Food and Drug Administration–approved stimulant and nonstimulant medications for treating ADHD; however, little is known about the mechanisms by which these different treatments exert their therapeutic effects.

Objective To contrast changes in brain activation related to symptomatic improvement with use of the stimulant methylphenidate hydrochloride vs the nonstimulant atomoxetine hydrochloride.

Design Functional magnetic resonance imaging before and after 6 to 8 weeks of treatment with methylphenidate (n = 18) or atomoxetine (n = 18) using a parallel-groups design.

Setting Specialized ADHD clinical research program at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York.

Participants Thirty-six youth with ADHD (mean [SD] age, 11.2 [2.7] years; 27 boys) recruited from randomized clinical trials.

Main Outcome Measures Changes in brain activation during a go/no-go test of response inhibition and investigator-completed ratings on the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version.

Results Treatment with methylphenidate vs atomoxetine was associated with comparable improvements in both response inhibition on the go/no-go test and mean (SD) improvements in ratings of ADHD symptoms (55% [30%] vs 57% [25%]). Improvement in ADHD symptoms was associated with common reductions in bilateral motor cortex activation for both treatments. Symptomatic improvement was also differentially related to gains in task-related activation for atomoxetine and reductions in activation for methylphenidate in the right inferior frontal gyrus, left anterior cingulate/supplementary motor area, and bilateral posterior cingulate cortex. These findings were not attributable to baseline differences in activation.

Conclusions Treatment with methylphenidate and atomoxetine produces symptomatic improvement via both common and divergent neurophysiologic actions in frontoparietal regions that have been implicated in the pathophysiology of ADHD. These results represent a first step in delineating the neurobiological basis of differential response to stimulant and nonstimulant medications for ADHD.

Figures in this Article

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a highly prevalent and impairing psychiatric disorder that affects both children and adults and accounts for an outsized portion of psychotropic medication use in youth.1 Yet, the mechanisms by which Food and Drug Administration–approved stimulant and nonstimulant medications for ADHD exert their therapeutic effects are poorly understood, and there are almost no data to guide treatment selection. The psychostimulant methylphenidate hydrochloride, a mainstay of ADHD treatment, is an indirect catecholamine agonist that blocks both dopamine transporter (DAT) and norepinephrine transporter (NET),2 whereas atomoxetine hydrochloride, the first approved nonstimulant ADHD treatment, is a selective NET inhibitor that has little affinity for DAT.3 The partially overlapping pharmacologic profiles of these medications suggest both similarities and differences in their therapeutic mechanisms of action, consistent with reports that many children with ADHD respond to both treatments but that approximately one-third respond preferentially to one or the other.4

The acute pharmacologic actions of single challenge doses of methylphenidate and atomoxetine provide preliminary evidence about the results of comparative treatment efficacy studies.4 Positive responses to both medications may reflect similar acute actions on inhibitory and executive functions of the prefrontal cortex511 and, possibly, the anterior cingulate cortex.7,8 Atomoxetine and methylphenidate act at promiscuous NETs that clear both dopamine and norepinephrine in prefrontal regions that lack DAT.1214 Methylphenidate may also act via the abundant DAT expressed in striatum to enhance inhibitory functions68,15 and through the moderate levels of DAT in posterior cingulate cortex to suppress task-independent activity that has been linked to distractibility.11,1518 In contrast, atomoxetine has little effect on neuronal activity in striatum,12 where there is sparse expression of NET,19 and the possible effects of atomoxetine on the few NETs present in posterior cingulate cortex are poorly understood.11,19 The additional therapeutic actions of methylphenidate could account for the larger-effect size reported for stimulants than for atomoxetine.4 However, there are likely important neuropharmacologic differences between single-challenge doses of medication and treatment administered over a more extended period. The relevance of the acute effects of single-challenge doses to the symptomatic improvement produced by ADHD medications over the course of treatment is not clear, particularly for atomoxetine, which takes several weeks to exert its clinical effects.20,21

Little is known about how ongoing treatment of ADHD affects neural activity, and, more important, how the neurophysiologic changes produced by treatment relate to clinical improvement. Several weeks of methylphenidate treatment for ADHD was found to downregulate striatal DAT,22 reduce striatal and prefrontal resting perfusion,23,24 and enhance inhibitory-related activation in the prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex,25 although only the last finding was tenuously linked to clinical improvement.25 Similar information is not available for atomoxetine.

The lack of data linking pharmacologic actions to therapeutic improvement represents a missed opportunity to better understand how medications work, an essential step in developing targeted approaches to treatment. Therefore, we used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to compare the relationship between symptomatic improvement and changes in brain activation during response inhibition produced by 6 to 8 weeks of treatment with methylphenidate vs atomoxetine in youth with ADHD. Based on findings from single-dose challenge studies,510,12,13 we initially hypothesized that symptomatic improvement would be related to gains in neural activation during response inhibition in the prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex for both medications but that improvement would be associated with increased striatal activation for methylphenidate only. Findings from more recent studies11,1618 suggest that methylphenidate, and possibly atomoxetine, could also decrease activation (ie, task-related interference) in the posterior cingulate cortex.

PARTICIPANTS

This study was approved by the institutional review board of Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York. Written informed consent was obtained from the parents of all the participants. Verbal assent from all the participants was certified by a witness unaffiliated with the study. Youth and their parents were financially compensated for participation. Participants were recruited from 2 industry-sponsored trials (n = 4) and from a National Institutes of Health–funded treatment study (n = 32) conducted between 2004 and 2011. Thirty-six youth (27 boys and 9 girls) with a mean (SD) age of 11.2 (2.7) years (age range, 7-17 years) completed the study procedures and were included in the present analyses. Consent was additionally obtained from 16 youth who did not complete the procedures, 3 for excessive motion or anxiety during baseline MRI and 13 because they dropped out of the study before completing posttreatment MRI (Figure 1). Seven of the latter 13 children were never randomized to treatment, and 3 children each discontinued treatment with atomoxetine and methylphenidate owing to either nonresponse or adverse events. These youth did not differ in age, sex, subtype, severity, or comorbidity from the 36 study completers.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 1. Flow diagram of participant progress through the study. Shading denotes procedures performed as part of the present study. ADHD indicates attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; fMRI, functional magnetic resonance imaging; and NIMH, National Institute of Mental Health.

Participants all met the DSM-IV criteria for ADHD, any subtype, on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children–Present and Lifetime Version26 and were rated at least 1.5 SD above age and sex norms on the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version (ADHD-RS-IV).27 The exclusion criteria were poor response or tolerability to an adequate trial of either methylphenidate or atomoxetine; a substance abuse history or a positive urine screening test result; participation in a treatment study in the past 30 days; a past or present primary diagnosis of mood, anxiety, or psychotic disorder; head injury; and any medical condition that could affect brain function. Twenty-three participants were medication naive. Of the remaining 13 participants, 5 had taken a stimulant medication at some point before the study but not at study enrollment. Eight participants were taking a stimulant medication when they enrolled in the study, and they completed a 2-week washout before the baseline visit. None of the participants were receiving nonstimulant medications when they enrolled in the study.

STUDY DESIGN

Thirty-six participants were randomly assigned to treatment with osmotically released methylphenidate hydrochloride (Concerta; McNeil-PPC Inc) (n = 18) or atomoxetine hydrochloride (Strattera; Eli Lilly & Co) (n = 18) as part of the double-blind clinical trials in which they were enrolled. The mean (SD) length of treatment was 52 (16) days for methylphenidate and 54 (17) days for atomoxetine (t34 = 0.78; P = .75). Medication was titrated to a standard of optimal response and tolerability using sequential dose-escalating procedures, with an absolute dose schedule for methylphenidate and a weight-adjusted schedule for atomoxetine, as per standard clinical practice. Methylphenidate hydrochloride administration was initiated at 18 mg/d and was titrated upward in 18-mg/d increments to a maximum daily dose of 72 mg. Atomoxetine hydrochloride therapy was started at a daily dose of 0.5 or 0.8 mg/kg (depending on the trial) and was titrated to 1.8 mg/kg using either a flexible (n = 4) or a stepped (n = 32) dose-optimizing approach, with a maximum total daily dose of 120 mg. The mean (SE) daily dose at posttreatment MRI was 54.0 (3.6) mg for methylphenidate hydrochloride and 1.4 (0.1) mg/kg for atomoxetine hydrochloride. Posttreatment MRIs and assessments were conducted once participants had achieved a stable response at the optimal dose (the highest dose tolerated in relation to room for clinical improvement and tolerability). Posttreatment MRIs were conducted a mean (SD) of 5.3 (2.4) hours after the administration of methylphenidate and 5.0 (2.2) hours after atomoxetine administration (t34 = 0.45; P = .66), within the window of activity for both treatments.28,29 Youth treated with methylphenidate vs atomoxetine did not differ on any characteristics at baseline (Table 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Study Sample
OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS
ADHD Symptoms

The ADHD-RS-IV total score served as the measure of clinical response. The ADHD-RS-IV is a validated scale with 18 items that correspond to each of the behavioral descriptors of ADHD in the DSM-IV.27,30 The frequency/severity of each item in the past week was scored from 0 (never or rarely) to 3 (very often) after an interview with the parent(s) (and adolescent for youth aged ≥13 years). Percentage change in the ADHD-RS-IV total score was calculated by dividing the difference of the baseline and posttreatment scores by the baseline score, and multiplying by 100.

Response Inhibition

Participants performed an established go/no-go task3133 during functional MRIs. The task measured the ability to inhibit responses to rare nontargets (no-go trials) in the context of responding to frequent targets (go trials). The task consisted of 6 runs that each lasted 4 minutes. Each run began with 10 seconds of fixation and contained 57 trials (43 go trials [75%] and 14 no-go trials [25%]). Stimuli were presented for 500 milliseconds, with an interstimulus interval of 3500 milliseconds. Promotional images from the Spiderman movie were used as stimuli. Participants were instructed to respond as quickly and accurately as possible with the right hand using a fiberoptic button system. The percentage of correctly inhibited responses on no-go trials served as the measure of response inhibition.

Brain Activation

Brain activation during response inhibition was measured using event-related functional MRI. Participants underwent MRI twice using the same 3.0-T head-dedicated MRI machine (Siemens Allegra; Siemens Medical Systems). Six series of 120 functional T2*-weighted images depicting the blood oxygenation level–dependent signal were acquired in the axial plane using gradient-echo echo-planar imaging (repetition time, 2 seconds; echo time, 40 milliseconds; section thickness, 3 mm; gap, 1 mm; resolution, 3.28 mm2; and 28 sections). A high-resolution T2-weighted anatomic volume of the brain was acquired at the same 28 section locations using a turbo spin-echo pulse sequence (section thickness, 4 mm with no gap; and in-plane resolution, 0.41 mm2).

BEHAVIORAL ANALYSES

The effects of treatment on response inhibition and ADHD symptoms were analyzed using separate 2-way repeated-measures analyses of variance, in which the percentage of correct inhibitions and the ADHD-RS-IV total score served as dependent measures. Medication (methylphenidate vs atomoxetine) served as the between-group factor and time (baseline vs posttreatment) as the within-group factor. Additional analyses of variance tested the percentage of correct responses, reaction time (RT), and the standard deviation of RT on go trials.

The relationship of age to symptomatic improvement for methylphenidate vs atomoxetine treatment was examined using stepwise linear regression, in which the ADHD-RS-IV change score served as the dependent measure. Age was entered as a continuous variable in the first step of the regression. The second step consisted of the dichotomous medication variable, which was entered as a prelude to testing the interaction (ie, product) of the dichotomous medication variable with the age variable in the third step. The age and medication variables were centered on zero. The F tests of the change in R2 for the first and third steps of the regression were used to test for the association of age with improvement in the entire sample and for differences in this association between treatment groups, respectively. Behavioral results are reported at a 2-tailed significance level of P < .05.

FUNCTIONAL MRI DATA ANALYSES
Preprocessing

Functional images were processed using statistical parametric mapping software (SPM8; Wellcome Trust Center for Neuroimaging). Each participant's baseline and posttreatment functional time series were separately motion corrected, and functional series with more than 1 voxel (4 mm) of motion were discarded. The methylphenidate and atomoxetine groups did not differ in mean (SD) translational movement, rotational displacement, or number of functional series included in the analysis (Table 2). The remaining baseline and posttreatment functional time series were co-registered to their respective high-resolution T2-weighted images (section thickness, 4 mm; 28 sections) and then to each other. The functional images were subsequently spatially normalized to a standard template (Montreal Neurological Institute) using normalization parameters estimated from the baseline high-resolution T2-weighted image and were then resampled using a sinc interpolation, resulting in a voxel size of 2 × 2 × 2 mm. Co-registered and spatially normalized functional images were checked manually by 2 of us (K.P.S. and J.F.). Finally, the functional images were smoothed using an 8 × 8 × 16-mm full-width at half maximum gaussian kernel.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Motion and Task Performance During MRI and Clinical Outcomea

First-level analyses used a within-subjects design to contrast activation in baseline vs posttreatment MRIs for each participant. A general linear model was conducted to determine the relationship between observed event-related blood oxygenation level–dependent signals and 4 regressors that represented expected neural responses to correct and incorrect no-go and go events.34 Six motion parameters were entered as covariates of no interest.35 The neural effect of response inhibition and the impact of treatment on this activation were modeled by applying appropriate linear contrasts to parameter estimates for correct no-go events minus correct go events in the baseline MRI and in the posttreatment minus baseline MRIs, respectively, resulting in 2 contrast maps per participant.

Group-Level Analyses

Second-level random-effects group analyses of the functional imaging data were conducted using SPM8 software. Preliminary t tests were performed to define baseline activation related to response inhibition in the whole sample and to test for group differences in baseline activation. The hypotheses relating activation changes and symptomatic improvement were tested using a multiple linear regression model that partially parceled out practice effects. The posttreatment minus baseline contrast maps of all the participants were entered into a general linear model with 3 regressors: (1) the centered ADHD-RS-IV change score, (2) the centered medication type, and (3) an interaction predictor, which was the product of the dichotomous medication type variable with the ADHD-RS-IV change score. The ADHD-RS-IV change score regressor identified activation changes that were associated with symptomatic change across the whole sample and that were, thus, similarly related to improvement irrespective of medication type. The medication type regressor functioned as a between-group contrast to test for differential changes in activation that were independent of clinical improvement. Finally, the interaction predictor identified activation changes that were differentially related to symptomatic improvement for methylphenidate and atomoxetine (ie, divergent regression slopes). Of note, the medication type regressor and interaction predictor both involved between-group contrasts that subtract out activation changes shared by the 2 groups of youth with ADHD, including practice, expectation, and other nonspecific factors.

The resultant voxelwise statistical maps were thresholded for significance using a cluster size algorithm that protects against false-positive results.36 The height (intensity) threshold of each activated voxel was set at P < .005, and the extent (cluster) threshold was fixed at κ > 100 voxels. A Monte Carlo simulation (procedure described by Slotnick and Schacter37) that accounted for image resolution and smoothing parameters established that a cluster extent of 100 contiguous resampled voxels (2 mm3) corrected for multiple voxel comparisons at P < .01. To illustrate significant findings, parameter estimates for hemodynamic signal change were extracted from volumes of interest that were defined as 8-mm-radius spheres centered at the peaks of maximal activation.

CLINICAL AND BEHAVIORAL IMPROVEMENT

Treatment with methylphenidate vs atomoxetine was associated with comparable improvements in both ADHD symptoms and response inhibition on the go/no-go task (Figure 2). Separate repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed significant main effects of time for both the ADHD-RS-IV total score (F1,34 = 102.33, P < .001) and the percentage of correct inhibitions on no-go trials (F1,34 = 5.77, P = .02). Treatment also increased the speed and reduced the variability of responses on go trials, with significant main effects of time for RT (F1,34 = 8.88, P < .001) and standard deviation of RT (F1,34 = 8.25, P < .001). However, no significant main effects of medication or time × medication interactions for any of the performance measures were noted (Table 2).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 2. Treatment improved ratings of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and response inhibition on the go/no-go task. A, Treatment significantly reduced ratings on the total score of the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version (ADHD-RS-IV) (F1,34 = 102.33, P < .001). The mean percentage improvement in the ADHD-RS-IV ratings was 55% for the methylphenidate group and 57% for the atomoxetine group. B, Treatment also increased the percentage of successful inhibitions on no-go trials of the go/no-go task (F1,34 = 5.77, P = .02). There were no differences between the 2 medications in the improvement of symptom ratings and inhibitory function over treatment. Error bars indicate 1 SD. Asterisks indicate significant time effects (baseline vs posttreatment). Methylphenidate and atomoxetine both given in hydrochloride form.

Mean (SD) ADHD-RS-IV change scores did not differ for methylphenidate vs atomoxetine (55% [30%] vs 57% [23%], t34 = 0.52, P = .88). Stepwise linear regression found no association of symptomatic improvement with age in either the whole sample or the separate medication groups. Specifically, only a small proportion of the variance was accounted for by the ADHD-RS-IV change score entered in step 1 (R2 = 0.001, F1,34 = 0.02, P = .88) and the medication variable entered in step 2 (R2<0.001, F1,33 = 0.003, P = .96). Most important, the age × medication interaction predictor entered in step 3 did not account for a significant proportion of additional variance in symptomatic improvement (R2 = 0.003, F1,32 = 0.10, P = .76).

BASELINE NEURAL ACTIVATION

Successful response inhibition at baseline activated a frontoparietal network that included the bilateral inferior frontal gyrus, right middle frontal gyri, bilateral anterior cingulate cortex, inferior parietal lobule, and caudate nucleus and deactivated the right precuneus (P < .005) (eTable 1 and eFigure; ). Baseline activation in the left superior parietal and paracentral lobules was greater in youth treated with methylphenidate than in those treated with atomoxetine (P < .005) (eTable 2).

NEURAL CORRELATES OF SYMPTOMATIC IMPROVEMENT

Multiple linear regression revealed that clinical improvement was associated with both common and unique changes in neural activation for atomoxetine and methylphenidate treatment (Figure 3 and Table 3). The ADHD-RS-IV change score regressor identified corresponding regions of the right and left motor cortices in which decreases in activation were associated with symptomatic improvement irrespective of the treatment (P < .005). Greater symptomatic improvement was seen in youth who showed larger reductions in the magnitude of activation in the motor cortex during treatment (Figure 3B). This relationship between activation and improvement was independent of medication type. In contrast, the medication type regressor detected no differential changes in activation that were independent of clinical improvement.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 3. Common therapeutic action of methylphenidate hydrochloride and atomoxetine hydrochloride treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A, Symptomatic improvements with methylphenidate and atomoxetine use were associated with reductions in bilateral motor cortex activation in youth with ADHD (n = 18 each). Results are displayed at P < .005 uncorrected, with a cluster threshold of greater than 100 contiguous voxels. B, Parameter estimates for left and right motor cortex signal change during treatment are plotted against percentage improvement in ratings on the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version (ADHD-RS-IV change score). Parameter estimates were extracted from 8-mm-radius spheres centered at the peaks of maximal activation. Noncentered ADHD-RS-IV change scores are plotted for clarity. Regression lines in each scatterplot correspond to the lines of best fit.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Brain Regions Showing Common and Differential Changes in Neural Activation Related to Symptomatic Improvement for the Methylphenidate (n = 18) and Atomoxetine (n = 18) Groups

The interaction term identified several frontoparietal regions that showed differential changes in activation related to clinical improvement with the use of methylphenidate vs atomoxetine (Figure 4 and Table 3). Symptomatic improvement was related to gains in the magnitude of activation in the right inferior frontal gyrus, left anterior cingulate cortex/supplementary motor area, and bilateral posterior cingulate cortex with atomoxetine treatment and reductions in activation in these same regions with methylphenidate treatment (P < .005 for all) (Figure 4B). There was no evidence that changes in striatal activation were associated with improvement in either the whole sample or the 2 treatment groups separately, even when a small volume correction was used to account for the small size of striatal structures.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 4. Unique therapeutic actions of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A, Symptom improvement was differentially related to gains in activation for the atomoxetine hydrochloride group and reductions in activation for the methylphenidate hydrochloride group in the right inferior frontal gyrus, left anterior cingulate/supplementary motor area, and bilateral posterior cingulate cortex in youth with ADHD (n = 18 each). Results are displayed at P < .005 uncorrected, with a cluster threshold at greater than 100 contiguous voxels. L indicates left; and R, right. B, Parameter estimates for signal change during treatment in the right inferior frontal gyrus, left anterior cingulate cortex/supplementary motor area, and bilateral posterior cingulate cortex are plotted against percentage improvement in ratings on the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version (ADHD-RS-IV change score). Parameter estimates were extracted from 8-mm-radius spheres centered at the peaks of maximal activation. Noncentered ADHD-RS-IV change scores are plotted for clarity. Regression lines in each scatterplot correspond to the lines of best fit.

These findings provide the first evidence, to our knowledge, of distinct frontoparietal therapeutic mechanisms of action for stimulant and nonstimulant treatments in youth with ADHD. Comparable improvements in response inhibition and ADHD symptoms were seen after 6 to 8 weeks of daily treatment with methylphenidate vs atomoxetine. Symptomatic improvement was divergently associated with gains in task-related activation for atomoxetine and reductions in activation for methylphenidate in the right inferior frontal gyrus, left anterior cingulate/supplementary motor area, and bilateral posterior cingulate cortex. These results confirm the importance of medial and lateral prefrontal inhibitory mechanisms to the therapeutic actions of both methylphenidate and atomoxetine but also indicate that different processes in these regions underlie response to the 2 treatments. Results also suggest a unique contribution of posterior cingulate cortex deactivation to the therapeutic actions of methylphenidate that may reflect the suppression of task-independent activity linked to distractibility. These frontoparietal mechanisms have been implicated in the pathophysiology of ADHD and potentially represent the neurophysiologic basis of differential response to ADHD treatments reported in the literature.4 In contrast, the comparable improvement-related reductions seen in motor cortex activation with methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment may represent a common therapeutic mechanism that could account for the observation that many individuals respond to multiple ADHD medications.4

The common therapeutic actions of methylphenidate and atomoxetine on motor cortex activation may reflect direct pharmacologic actions at catecholamine transporters. Moderate levels of both DAT and NET are expressed in the motor cortex15,19 and may provide the substrate for single-challenge doses of atomoxetine and methylphenidate to produce comparable changes in the intracortical facilitation and inhibition of motor activity.38 Several weeks of methylphenidate treatment has been found to normalize deficient motor cortex inhibition in children with ADHD, with an increase in inhibition correlated with clinical improvement.39 The therapeutic reductions in motor cortex activation in the present study may, therefore, reflect attenuation in the prepotency of the inhibited responses. At the same time, the lack of a between-group contrast for the ADHD-RS-IV change score regressor in the present study, plus the absence of placebo control conditions in previous studies of motor cortex,38,39 makes it impossible to conclusively ascribe this attenuation in motor prepotency to the therapeutic actions of the 2 medications, as opposed to practice, expectation, and other nonspecific factors shared by youth treated with methylphenidate and those treated with atomoxetine. The potential for this motor cortex mechanism to serve as a therapeutic target for a broad range of future interventions merits further investigation in placebo-controlled studies.

The divergent therapeutic effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine on inferior frontal activation indicate that clinical improvement is not solely attributable to the direct pharmacologic actions of medication. Challenge doses of both methylphenidate and atomoxetine block the same promiscuous NET and produce comparable increases in extracellular catecholamine levels in the prefrontal cortex,1214 which indirectly modulates event-related prefrontal activation,5,7,8,11 likely via dopamine D1 receptors and α2-adrenoceptors.9 However, long-term administration of atomoxetine but not methylphenidate was found to attenuate the prefrontal noradrenergic response to challenge.40 The divergent inferior frontal actions of the treatments would, therefore, seem to reflect differences in functional adaptations of NET, α2-adrenoceptors, and/or downstream signal mechanisms (eg, cyclic adenosine monophosphate). These results suggest that improvement of ADHD symptoms involves more than acute catecholamine transporter and/or receptor actions.

The present findings, nevertheless, suggest that inferior frontal and anterior cingulate mechanisms serve an important role in the therapeutic actions of atomoxetine. The inferior frontal gyrus, particularly in the right hemisphere, is purported to be a neural effector for response inhibition41,42 and to exert inhibitory control over the primary motor, supplementary motor, and premotor cortices.43,44 Gains in this inferior frontal activation may have contributed to the improvements in response inhibition seen in this and other studies with atomoxetine therapy.10,45,46 The anterior cingulate cortex forms a separate network that has been implicated in the top-down control of volitional behavior,47 including the implementation of these task sets in downstream sensorimotor processors,48 and has been shown to interact with inferior frontal gyrus during go/no-go tasks.49 These anterior cingulate and inferior frontal mechanisms have been implicated in the inhibitory and executive deficits that are central to the pathophysiology of ADHD.50,51 The present results suggest that the beneficial actions of atomoxetine involve a gain in inhibitory effort and top-down control of attention,52 with a coincident amelioration of the frequently reported prefrontal hypoactivation.50,51 The improvement-related reductions in prefrontal activation for methylphenidate would seem paradoxical and may reflect the indirect actions of the medication in interconnected brain regions (eg, the posterior cingulate cortex53).

The divergent therapeutic effects of the 2 treatments on posterior cingulate activation conversely provide clues regarding the mechanisms of action for methylphenidate. Moderate levels of DAT expression in the posterior cingulate offer the pharmacologic substrate for methylphenidate to directly enhance deactivation and, thereby, produce clinical improvement.15 This enhanced posterior cingulate deactivation is consistent with findings from single-dose challenge studies of methylphenidate11,18 and potentially represents the neurobiological basis for suppression of distracting mental processes with treatment.16,54 The reductions in posterior cingulate interference may have improved neural efficiency and, thereby, diminished the need for prefrontal inhibitory effort,55 which could have accounted for the improvement-related decreases in inferior frontal and anterior cingulate activation for methylphenidate. In contrast, the sparse density of NET sites for atomoxetine to directly affect posterior cingulate activation suggests that the observed gain in activation may reflect the downstream effects of excitatory inferior frontal and anterior cingulate actions of treatment.56

The lack of evidence in this study implicating striatum in the therapeutic actions of methylphenidate treatment is surprising given the robust acute effects that stimulants have on striatal dopamine function. Single therapeutic doses of methylphenidate produce robust increases in extracellular dopamine levels,57,58 which potentiate corticostriatal inputs,59 and have been found to enhance striatal activation in children with ADHD.68 However, repeated surges in extracellular dopamine over weeks of daily methylphenidate treatment have been shown to trigger adaptive downregulations in neuronal activity,60,61 dopamine synthesis,62 and DAT binding,22 all of which could have blunted further stimulant-induced dopamine release40 and may account for the lack of effect for methylphenidate treatment on striatal activation in this and the few other available treatment studies.24,25 Nevertheless, it is possible that the actions of methylphenidate in striatum may have contributed to clinical improvement by influencing activation in other critical regions (eg, the posterior cingulate cortex63).

The divergent effects of atomoxetine and methylphenidate treatment in association with clinical improvement highlight the importance of adopting a network-based framework to understand medication-related changes in regional activation. Clinical improvement involved changes in activation in the same direction (ie, increases for atomoxetine and decreases for methylphenidate) in the inferior frontal gyrus/anterior cingulate cortex and posterior cingulate cortex, regions that generally operate in opposition to each other during optimal behavioral performance.53 For atomoxetine, these changes suggest that the therapeutic increases in prefrontal activation engendered homeostatic gains in posterior cingulate activity. Conversely, the therapeutic deactivation of posterior cingulate cortex by methylphenidate may have reduced the need for prefrontal inhibitory activation. The comparable changes in frontal and parietal activation associated with clinical improvement for each treatment may have addressed the functional disconnection of anterior and posterior cingulate cortices that has been reported in patients with ADHD.64 Yet, these improvement-related changes in activation were accompanied by improvements in response consistency (ie, standard deviation of RT) that are more commonly seen when frontal and parietal regions are activated in opposition to each other.65

The unique focus of this study on the differential effects of stimulant and nonstimulant treatments for ADHD, together with an innovative analytic approach that incorporated clinical improvement and changes in brain activity, provides a window into the possible neurophysiologic mechanisms of differential response. To summarize, effective treatment with methylphenidate and atomoxetine produces a variety of direct, indirect, and downstream effects on neural activation during response inhibition via a common mechanism in motor cortex and distinct mechanisms in frontoparietal regions. These findings provide a neurobiological basis for understanding selective response to the 2 classes of medication, which represents an important first step in matching treatments to individual patients.

Correspondence: Jeffrey H. Newcorn, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave L Levy Pl, PO Box 1230, New York, NY 10029.

Submitted for Publication: August 1, 2011; final revision received November 24, 2011; accepted December 2, 2011.

Author Contributions: Dr Schulz performed the statistical analyses for the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Schulz, Bédard, and Newcorn had full access to all the data in the study.

Financial Disclosure: Dr Newcorn is a recipient of grants for research support from Eli Lilly & Co, Ortho-McNeil-Janssen, and Shire and is or has been an advisor/consultant for Alcobra, Biobehavioral Diagnostics, Eli Lilly & Co, Ortho-McNeil-Janssen, and Shire. Dr Newcorn is now a member of the advisory boards for NEOS, Otsuka, and Shionogi.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by research grants R01 MH070935 (Dr Newcorn), R01 MH070935-02S1 (Dr Newcorn), and K01 MH070892 (Dr Schulz) from the National Institutes of Health; by grant UL1RR029887 from the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the National Institutes of Health; and by research grant B4Z-US-X012 from Eli Lilly & Co (Dr Newcorn).

Role of the Sponsors: The funding sources had no role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Additional Contributions: The baseline MRIs from a subset of the sample described in this article were used in a previous publication.33

Winterstein AG, Gerhard T, Shuster J, Zito J, Johnson M, Liu H, Saidi A. Utilization of pharmacologic treatment in youths with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Medicaid database.  Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42(1):24-31
PubMed
Gatley SJ, Pan D, Chen R, Chaturvedi G, Ding YS. Affinities of methylphenidate derivatives for dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin transporters.  Life Sci. 1996;58(12):231-239
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bolden-Watson C, Richelson E. Blockade by newly-developed antidepressants of biogenic amine uptake into rat brain synaptosomes.  Life Sci. 1993;52(12):1023-1029
PubMed
Newcorn JH, Kratochvil CJ, Allen AJ, Casat CD, Ruff DD, Moore RJ, Michelson D.Atomoxetine/Methylphenidate Comparative Study Group.  Atomoxetine and osmotically released methylphenidate for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: acute comparison and differential response.  Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165(6):721-730
PubMed
Chamberlain SR, Hampshire A, Müller U, Rubia K, Del Campo N, Craig K, Regenthal R, Suckling J, Roiser JP, Grant JE, Bullmore ET, Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ. Atomoxetine modulates right inferior frontal activation during inhibitory control: a pharmacological functional magnetic resonance imaging study.  Biol Psychiatry. 2009;65(7):550-555
PubMed
Rubia K, Halari R, Cubillo A, Smith AB, Mohammad AM, Brammer M, Taylor E. Methylphenidate normalizes fronto-striatal underactivation during interference inhibition in medication-naive boys with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011;36(8):1575-1586
PubMed
Epstein JN, Casey BJ, Tonev ST, Davidson MC, Reiss AL, Garrett A, Hinshaw SP, Greenhill LL, Glover G, Shafritz KM, Vitolo A, Kotler LA, Jarrett MA, Spicer J. ADHD- and medication-related brain activation effects in concordantly affected parent-child dyads with ADHD.  J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007;48(9):899-913
PubMed
Vaidya CJ, Austin G, Kirkorian G, Ridlehuber HW, Desmond JE, Glover GH, Gabrieli JD. Selective effects of methylphenidate in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a functional magnetic resonance study.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95(24):14494-14499
PubMed
Gamo NJ, Wang M, Arnsten AF. Methylphenidate and atomoxetine enhance prefrontal function through α2-adrenergic and dopamine D1 receptors.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;49(10):1011-1023
PubMed
Chamberlain SR, Müller U, Blackwell AD, Clark L, Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ. Neurochemical modulation of response inhibition and probabilistic learning in humans.  Science. 2006;311(5762):861-863
PubMed
Marquand AF, De Simoni S, O’Daly OG, Williams SC, Mourão-Miranda J, Mehta MA. Pattern classification of working memory networks reveals differential effects of methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and placebo in healthy volunteers.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011;36(6):1237-1247
PubMed
Bymaster FP, Katner JS, Nelson DL, Hemrick-Luecke SK, Threlkeld PG, Heiligenstein JH, Morin SM, Gehlert DR, Perry KW. Atomoxetine increases extracellular levels of norepinephrine and dopamine in prefrontal cortex of rat: a potential mechanism for efficacy in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2002;27(5):699-711
PubMed
Berridge CW, Devilbiss DM, Andrzejewski ME, Arnsten AF, Kelley AE, Schmeichel B, Hamilton C, Spencer RC. Methylphenidate preferentially increases catecholamine neurotransmission within the prefrontal cortex at low doses that enhance cognitive function.  Biol Psychiatry. 2006;60(10):1111-1120
PubMed
Morón JA, Brockington A, Wise RA, Rocha BA, Hope BT. Dopamine uptake through the norepinephrine transporter in brain regions with low levels of the dopamine transporter: evidence from knock-out mouse lines.  J Neurosci. 2002;22(2):389-395
PubMed
Lewis DA, Melchitzky DS, Sesack SR, Whitehead RE, Auh S, Sampson A. Dopamine transporter immunoreactivity in monkey cerebral cortex: regional, laminar, and ultrastructural localization.  J Comp Neurol. 2001;432(1):119-136
PubMed
Fassbender C, Zhang H, Buzy WM, Cortes CR, Mizuiri D, Beckett L, Schweitzer JB. A lack of default network suppression is linked to increased distractibility in ADHD.  Brain Res. 2009;1273:114-128
PubMed
Peterson BS, Potenza MN, Wang Z, Zhu H, Martin A, Marsh R, Plessen KJ, Yu S. An FMRI study of the effects of psychostimulants on default-mode processing during Stroop task performance in youths with ADHD.  Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(11):1286-1294
PubMed
Tomasi D, Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Wang R, Telang F, Caparelli EC, Wong C, Jayne M, Fowler JS. Methylphenidate enhances brain activation and deactivation responses to visual attention and working memory tasks in healthy controls.  Neuroimage. 2011;54(4):3101-3110
PubMed
Seneca N, Gulyás B, Varrone A, Schou M, Airaksinen A, Tauscher J, Vandenhende F, Kielbasa W, Farde L, Innis RB, Halldin C. Atomoxetine occupies the norepinephrine transporter in a dose-dependent fashion: a PET study in nonhuman primate brain using (S,S)-[18F]FMeNER-D2.  Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2006;188(1):119-127
PubMed
Sasané R, Hodgkins P, Meijer W. Treatment stabilization in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: data from the Netherlands.  Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(11):2565-2574
PubMed
Newcorn JH, Sutton VK, Weiss MD, Sumner CR. Clinical responses to atomoxetine in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the Integrated Data Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) study.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;48(5):511-518
PubMed
Dresel S, Krause J, Krause KH, LaFougere C, Brinkbäumer K, Kung HF, Hahn K, Tatsch K. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: binding of [99mTc]TRODAT-1 to the dopamine transporter before and after methylphenidate treatment.  Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27(10):1518-1524
PubMed
Lee JS, Kim BN, Kang E, Lee DS, Kim YK, Chung JK, Lee MC, Cho SC. Regional cerebral blood flow in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: comparison before and after methylphenidate treatment.  Hum Brain Mapp. 2005;24(3):157-164
PubMed
Schweitzer JB, Lee DO, Hanford RB, Zink CF, Ely TD, Tagamets MA, Hoffman JM, Grafton ST, Kilts CD. Effect of methylphenidate on executive functioning in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: normalization of behavior but not related brain activity.  Biol Psychiatry. 2004;56(8):597-606
PubMed
Bush G, Spencer TJ, Holmes J, Shin LM, Valera EM, Seidman LJ, Makris N, Surman C, Aleardi M, Mick E, Biederman J. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of methylphenidate and placebo in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder during the multi-source interference task.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(1):102-114
PubMed
Kaufman J, Birmaher B, Brent D, Rao U, Flynn C, Moreci P, Williamson D, Ryan N. Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): initial reliability and validity data.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36(7):980-988
PubMed
DuPaul GJ, Power TJ, Anastopoulos AD, Reid R. ADHD Rating Scale-IV: Checklists, Norms, and Clinical Interpretation. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1998
Swanson J, Gupta S, Lam A, Shoulson I, Lerner M, Modi N, Lindemulder E, Wigal S. Development of a new once-a-day formulation of methylphenidate for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: proof-of-concept and proof-of-product studies.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):204-211
PubMed
Witcher JW, Long A, Smith B, Sauer JM, Heilgenstein J, Wilens T, Spencer T, Biederman J. Atomoxetine pharmacokinetics in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.  J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2003;13(1):53-63
PubMed
Zhang S, Faries DE, Vowles M, Michelson D. ADHD Rating Scale IV: psychometric properties from a multinational study as a clinician-administered instrument.  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2005;14(4):186-201
PubMed
Durston S, Thomas KM, Worden MS, Yang Y, Casey BJ. The effect of preceding context on inhibition: an event-related fMRI study.  Neuroimage. 2002;16(2):449-453
PubMed
Durston S, Tottenham NT, Thomas KM, Davidson MC, Eigsti IM, Yang Y, Ulug AM, Casey BJ. Differential patterns of striatal activation in young children with and without ADHD.  Biol Psychiatry. 2003;53(10):871-878
PubMed
Bédard AC, Schulz KP, Cook EH Jr, Fan J, Clerkin SM, Ivanov I, Halperin JM, Newcorn JH. Dopamine transporter gene variation modulates activation of striatum in youth with ADHD.  Neuroimage. 2010;53(3):935-942
PubMed
Friston KJ, Fletcher P, Josephs O, Holmes A, Rugg MD, Turner R. Event-related fMRI: characterizing differential responses.  Neuroimage. 1998;7(1):30-40
PubMed
Johnstone T, Ores Walsh KS, Greischar LL, Alexander AL, Fox AS, Davidson RJ, Oakes TR. Motion correction and the use of motion covariates in multiple-subject fMRI analysis.  Hum Brain Mapp. 2006;27(10):779-788
PubMed
Hayasaka S, Phan KL, Liberzon I, Worsley KJ, Nichols TE. Nonstationary cluster-size inference with random field and permutation methods.  Neuroimage. 2004;22(2):676-687
PubMed
Slotnick SD, Schacter DL. A sensory signature that distinguishes true from false memories.  Nat Neurosci. 2004;7(6):664-672
PubMed
Gilbert DL, Ridel KR, Sallee FR, Zhang J, Lipps TD, Wassermann EM. Comparison of the inhibitory and excitatory effects of ADHD medications methylphenidate and atomoxetine on motor cortex.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31(2):442-449
PubMed
Buchmann J, Gierow W, Weber S, Hoeppner J, Klauer T, Benecke R, Haessler F, Wolters A. Restoration of disturbed intracortical motor inhibition and facilitation in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder children by methylphenidate.  Biol Psychiatry. 2007;62(9):963-969
PubMed
Koda K, Ago Y, Cong Y, Kita Y, Takuma K, Matsuda T. Effects of acute and chronic administration of atomoxetine and methylphenidate on extracellular levels of noradrenaline, dopamine and serotonin in the prefrontal cortex and striatum of mice.  J Neurochem. 2010;114(1):259-270
PubMed
Garavan H, Hester R, Murphy K, Fassbender C, Kelly C. Individual differences in the functional neuroanatomy of inhibitory control.  Brain Res. 2006;1105(1):130-142
PubMed
Xue G, Aron AR, Poldrack RA. Common neural substrates for inhibition of spoken and manual responses.  Cereb Cortex. 2008;18(8):1923-1932
PubMed
Duann JR, Ide JS, Luo X, Li CS. Functional connectivity delineates distinct roles of the inferior frontal cortex and presupplementary motor area in stop signal inhibition.  J Neurosci. 2009;29(32):10171-10179
PubMed
Stevens MC, Kiehl KA, Pearlson GD, Calhoun VD. Functional neural networks underlying response inhibition in adolescents and adults.  Behav Brain Res. 2007;181(1):12-22
PubMed
Chamberlain SR, Robbins TW, Winder-Rhodes S, Müller U, Sahakian BJ, Blackwell AD, Barnett JH. Translational approaches to frontostriatal dysfunction in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder using a computerized neuropsychological battery.  Biol Psychiatry. 2011;69(12):1192-1203
PubMed
Chamberlain SR, Del Campo N, Dowson J, Müller U, Clark L, Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ. Atomoxetine improved response inhibition in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.  Biol Psychiatry. 2007;62(9):977-984
PubMed
Paus T. Primate anterior cingulate cortex: where motor control, drive and cognition interface.  Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2(6):417-424
PubMed
Dosenbach NU, Fair DA, Miezin FM, Cohen AL, Wenger KK, Dosenbach RA, Fox MD, Snyder AZ, Vincent JL, Raichle ME, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. Distinct brain networks for adaptive and stable task control in humans.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(26):11073-11078
PubMed
Schulz KP, Bédard AC, Czarnecki R, Fan J. Preparatory activity and connectivity in dorsal anterior cingulate cortex for cognitive control.  Neuroimage. 2011;57(1):242-250
PubMed
Aron AR, Poldrack RA. The cognitive neuroscience of response inhibition: relevance for genetic research in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.  Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57(11):1285-1292
PubMed
Bush G, Valera EM, Seidman LJ. Functional neuroimaging of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a review and suggested future directions.  Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57(11):1273-1284
PubMed
Milham MP, Banich MT, Claus ED, Cohen NJ. Practice-related effects demonstrate complementary roles of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortices in attentional control.  Neuroimage. 2003;18(2):483-493
PubMed
Uddin LQ, Kelly AM, Biswal BB, Xavier Castellanos F, Milham MP. Functional connectivity of default mode network components: correlation, anticorrelation, and causality.  Hum Brain Mapp. 2009;30(2):625-637
PubMed
Mason MF, Norton MI, Van Horn JD, Wegner DM, Grafton ST, Macrae CN. Wandering minds: the default network and stimulus-independent thought.  Science. 2007;315(5810):393-395
PubMed
Volkow ND, Fowler JS, Wang GJ, Telang F, Logan J, Wong C, Ma J, Pradhan K, Benveniste H, Swanson JM. Methylphenidate decreased the amount of glucose needed by the brain to perform a cognitive task.  PLoS One. 2008;3(4):e2017
PubMed
Smith HR, Beveridge TJ, Porrino LJ. Distribution of norepinephrine transporters in the non-human primate brain.  Neuroscience. 2006;138(2):703-714
PubMed
Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, Logan J, Franceschi D, Maynard L, Ding YS, Gatley SJ, Gifford A, Zhu W, Swanson JM. Relationship between blockade of dopamine transporters by oral methylphenidate and the increases in extracellular dopamine: therapeutic implications.  Synapse. 2002;43(3):181-187
PubMed
Volkow ND, Wang G, Fowler JS, Logan J, Gerasimov M, Maynard L, Ding Y, Gatley SJ, Gifford A, Franceschi D. Therapeutic doses of oral methylphenidate significantly increase extracellular dopamine in the human brain.  J Neurosci. 2001;21(2):RC121
PubMed
Bamford NS, Zhang H, Schmitz Y, Wu NP, Cepeda C, Levine MS, Schmauss C, Zakharenko SS, Zablow L, Sulzer D. Heterosynaptic dopamine neurotransmission selects sets of corticostriatal terminals.  Neuron. 2004;42(4):653-663
PubMed
Chase TD, Brown RE, Carrey N, Wilkinson M. Daily methylphenidate administration attenuates c-fos expression in the striatum of prepubertal rats.  Neuroreport. 2003;14(5):769-772
PubMed
Allen JK, Wilkinson M, Soo EC, Hui JP, Chase TD, Carrey N. Chronic low dose Adderall XR down-regulates cfos expression in infantile and prepubertal rat striatum and cortex.  Neuroscience. 2010;169(4):1901-1912
PubMed
Gray JD, Punsoni M, Tabori NE, Melton JT, Fanslow V, Ward MJ, Zupan B, Menzer D, Rice J, Drake CT, Romeo RD, Brake WG, Torres-Reveron A, Milner TA. Methylphenidate administration to juvenile rats alters brain areas involved in cognition, motivated behaviors, appetite, and stress.  J Neurosci. 2007;27(27):7196-7207
PubMed
Tomasi D, Volkow ND, Wang R, Telang F, Wang GJ, Chang L, Ernst T, Fowler JS. Dopamine transporters in striatum correlate with deactivation in the default mode network during visuospatial attention.  PLoS One. 2009;4(6):e6102
PubMed
Castellanos FX, Margulies DS, Kelly C, Uddin LQ, Ghaffari M, Kirsch A, Shaw D, Shehzad Z, Di Martino A, Biswal B, Sonuga-Barke EJ, Rotrosen J, Adler LA, Milham MP. Cingulate-precuneus interactions: a new locus of dysfunction in adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.  Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63(3):332-337
PubMed
Kelly AM, Uddin LQ, Biswal BB, Castellanos FX, Milham MP. Competition between functional brain networks mediates behavioral variability.  Neuroimage. 2008;39(1):527-537
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 1. Flow diagram of participant progress through the study. Shading denotes procedures performed as part of the present study. ADHD indicates attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; fMRI, functional magnetic resonance imaging; and NIMH, National Institute of Mental Health.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 2. Treatment improved ratings of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and response inhibition on the go/no-go task. A, Treatment significantly reduced ratings on the total score of the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version (ADHD-RS-IV) (F1,34 = 102.33, P < .001). The mean percentage improvement in the ADHD-RS-IV ratings was 55% for the methylphenidate group and 57% for the atomoxetine group. B, Treatment also increased the percentage of successful inhibitions on no-go trials of the go/no-go task (F1,34 = 5.77, P = .02). There were no differences between the 2 medications in the improvement of symptom ratings and inhibitory function over treatment. Error bars indicate 1 SD. Asterisks indicate significant time effects (baseline vs posttreatment). Methylphenidate and atomoxetine both given in hydrochloride form.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 3. Common therapeutic action of methylphenidate hydrochloride and atomoxetine hydrochloride treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A, Symptomatic improvements with methylphenidate and atomoxetine use were associated with reductions in bilateral motor cortex activation in youth with ADHD (n = 18 each). Results are displayed at P < .005 uncorrected, with a cluster threshold of greater than 100 contiguous voxels. B, Parameter estimates for left and right motor cortex signal change during treatment are plotted against percentage improvement in ratings on the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version (ADHD-RS-IV change score). Parameter estimates were extracted from 8-mm-radius spheres centered at the peaks of maximal activation. Noncentered ADHD-RS-IV change scores are plotted for clarity. Regression lines in each scatterplot correspond to the lines of best fit.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 4. Unique therapeutic actions of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A, Symptom improvement was differentially related to gains in activation for the atomoxetine hydrochloride group and reductions in activation for the methylphenidate hydrochloride group in the right inferior frontal gyrus, left anterior cingulate/supplementary motor area, and bilateral posterior cingulate cortex in youth with ADHD (n = 18 each). Results are displayed at P < .005 uncorrected, with a cluster threshold at greater than 100 contiguous voxels. L indicates left; and R, right. B, Parameter estimates for signal change during treatment in the right inferior frontal gyrus, left anterior cingulate cortex/supplementary motor area, and bilateral posterior cingulate cortex are plotted against percentage improvement in ratings on the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version (ADHD-RS-IV change score). Parameter estimates were extracted from 8-mm-radius spheres centered at the peaks of maximal activation. Noncentered ADHD-RS-IV change scores are plotted for clarity. Regression lines in each scatterplot correspond to the lines of best fit.

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Study Sample
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Motion and Task Performance During MRI and Clinical Outcomea
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Brain Regions Showing Common and Differential Changes in Neural Activation Related to Symptomatic Improvement for the Methylphenidate (n = 18) and Atomoxetine (n = 18) Groups

References

Winterstein AG, Gerhard T, Shuster J, Zito J, Johnson M, Liu H, Saidi A. Utilization of pharmacologic treatment in youths with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Medicaid database.  Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42(1):24-31
PubMed
Gatley SJ, Pan D, Chen R, Chaturvedi G, Ding YS. Affinities of methylphenidate derivatives for dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin transporters.  Life Sci. 1996;58(12):231-239
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bolden-Watson C, Richelson E. Blockade by newly-developed antidepressants of biogenic amine uptake into rat brain synaptosomes.  Life Sci. 1993;52(12):1023-1029
PubMed
Newcorn JH, Kratochvil CJ, Allen AJ, Casat CD, Ruff DD, Moore RJ, Michelson D.Atomoxetine/Methylphenidate Comparative Study Group.  Atomoxetine and osmotically released methylphenidate for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: acute comparison and differential response.  Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165(6):721-730
PubMed
Chamberlain SR, Hampshire A, Müller U, Rubia K, Del Campo N, Craig K, Regenthal R, Suckling J, Roiser JP, Grant JE, Bullmore ET, Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ. Atomoxetine modulates right inferior frontal activation during inhibitory control: a pharmacological functional magnetic resonance imaging study.  Biol Psychiatry. 2009;65(7):550-555
PubMed
Rubia K, Halari R, Cubillo A, Smith AB, Mohammad AM, Brammer M, Taylor E. Methylphenidate normalizes fronto-striatal underactivation during interference inhibition in medication-naive boys with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011;36(8):1575-1586
PubMed
Epstein JN, Casey BJ, Tonev ST, Davidson MC, Reiss AL, Garrett A, Hinshaw SP, Greenhill LL, Glover G, Shafritz KM, Vitolo A, Kotler LA, Jarrett MA, Spicer J. ADHD- and medication-related brain activation effects in concordantly affected parent-child dyads with ADHD.  J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007;48(9):899-913
PubMed
Vaidya CJ, Austin G, Kirkorian G, Ridlehuber HW, Desmond JE, Glover GH, Gabrieli JD. Selective effects of methylphenidate in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a functional magnetic resonance study.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95(24):14494-14499
PubMed
Gamo NJ, Wang M, Arnsten AF. Methylphenidate and atomoxetine enhance prefrontal function through α2-adrenergic and dopamine D1 receptors.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;49(10):1011-1023
PubMed
Chamberlain SR, Müller U, Blackwell AD, Clark L, Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ. Neurochemical modulation of response inhibition and probabilistic learning in humans.  Science. 2006;311(5762):861-863
PubMed
Marquand AF, De Simoni S, O’Daly OG, Williams SC, Mourão-Miranda J, Mehta MA. Pattern classification of working memory networks reveals differential effects of methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and placebo in healthy volunteers.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011;36(6):1237-1247
PubMed
Bymaster FP, Katner JS, Nelson DL, Hemrick-Luecke SK, Threlkeld PG, Heiligenstein JH, Morin SM, Gehlert DR, Perry KW. Atomoxetine increases extracellular levels of norepinephrine and dopamine in prefrontal cortex of rat: a potential mechanism for efficacy in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2002;27(5):699-711
PubMed
Berridge CW, Devilbiss DM, Andrzejewski ME, Arnsten AF, Kelley AE, Schmeichel B, Hamilton C, Spencer RC. Methylphenidate preferentially increases catecholamine neurotransmission within the prefrontal cortex at low doses that enhance cognitive function.  Biol Psychiatry. 2006;60(10):1111-1120
PubMed
Morón JA, Brockington A, Wise RA, Rocha BA, Hope BT. Dopamine uptake through the norepinephrine transporter in brain regions with low levels of the dopamine transporter: evidence from knock-out mouse lines.  J Neurosci. 2002;22(2):389-395
PubMed
Lewis DA, Melchitzky DS, Sesack SR, Whitehead RE, Auh S, Sampson A. Dopamine transporter immunoreactivity in monkey cerebral cortex: regional, laminar, and ultrastructural localization.  J Comp Neurol. 2001;432(1):119-136
PubMed
Fassbender C, Zhang H, Buzy WM, Cortes CR, Mizuiri D, Beckett L, Schweitzer JB. A lack of default network suppression is linked to increased distractibility in ADHD.  Brain Res. 2009;1273:114-128
PubMed
Peterson BS, Potenza MN, Wang Z, Zhu H, Martin A, Marsh R, Plessen KJ, Yu S. An FMRI study of the effects of psychostimulants on default-mode processing during Stroop task performance in youths with ADHD.  Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(11):1286-1294
PubMed
Tomasi D, Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Wang R, Telang F, Caparelli EC, Wong C, Jayne M, Fowler JS. Methylphenidate enhances brain activation and deactivation responses to visual attention and working memory tasks in healthy controls.  Neuroimage. 2011;54(4):3101-3110
PubMed
Seneca N, Gulyás B, Varrone A, Schou M, Airaksinen A, Tauscher J, Vandenhende F, Kielbasa W, Farde L, Innis RB, Halldin C. Atomoxetine occupies the norepinephrine transporter in a dose-dependent fashion: a PET study in nonhuman primate brain using (S,S)-[18F]FMeNER-D2.  Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2006;188(1):119-127
PubMed
Sasané R, Hodgkins P, Meijer W. Treatment stabilization in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: data from the Netherlands.  Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(11):2565-2574
PubMed
Newcorn JH, Sutton VK, Weiss MD, Sumner CR. Clinical responses to atomoxetine in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the Integrated Data Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) study.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;48(5):511-518
PubMed
Dresel S, Krause J, Krause KH, LaFougere C, Brinkbäumer K, Kung HF, Hahn K, Tatsch K. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: binding of [99mTc]TRODAT-1 to the dopamine transporter before and after methylphenidate treatment.  Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27(10):1518-1524
PubMed
Lee JS, Kim BN, Kang E, Lee DS, Kim YK, Chung JK, Lee MC, Cho SC. Regional cerebral blood flow in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: comparison before and after methylphenidate treatment.  Hum Brain Mapp. 2005;24(3):157-164
PubMed
Schweitzer JB, Lee DO, Hanford RB, Zink CF, Ely TD, Tagamets MA, Hoffman JM, Grafton ST, Kilts CD. Effect of methylphenidate on executive functioning in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: normalization of behavior but not related brain activity.  Biol Psychiatry. 2004;56(8):597-606
PubMed
Bush G, Spencer TJ, Holmes J, Shin LM, Valera EM, Seidman LJ, Makris N, Surman C, Aleardi M, Mick E, Biederman J. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of methylphenidate and placebo in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder during the multi-source interference task.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(1):102-114
PubMed
Kaufman J, Birmaher B, Brent D, Rao U, Flynn C, Moreci P, Williamson D, Ryan N. Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): initial reliability and validity data.  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36(7):980-988
PubMed
DuPaul GJ, Power TJ, Anastopoulos AD, Reid R. ADHD Rating Scale-IV: Checklists, Norms, and Clinical Interpretation. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1998
Swanson J, Gupta S, Lam A, Shoulson I, Lerner M, Modi N, Lindemulder E, Wigal S. Development of a new once-a-day formulation of methylphenidate for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: proof-of-concept and proof-of-product studies.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):204-211
PubMed
Witcher JW, Long A, Smith B, Sauer JM, Heilgenstein J, Wilens T, Spencer T, Biederman J. Atomoxetine pharmacokinetics in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.  J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2003;13(1):53-63
PubMed
Zhang S, Faries DE, Vowles M, Michelson D. ADHD Rating Scale IV: psychometric properties from a multinational study as a clinician-administered instrument.  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2005;14(4):186-201
PubMed
Durston S, Thomas KM, Worden MS, Yang Y, Casey BJ. The effect of preceding context on inhibition: an event-related fMRI study.  Neuroimage. 2002;16(2):449-453
PubMed
Durston S, Tottenham NT, Thomas KM, Davidson MC, Eigsti IM, Yang Y, Ulug AM, Casey BJ. Differential patterns of striatal activation in young children with and without ADHD.  Biol Psychiatry. 2003;53(10):871-878
PubMed
Bédard AC, Schulz KP, Cook EH Jr, Fan J, Clerkin SM, Ivanov I, Halperin JM, Newcorn JH. Dopamine transporter gene variation modulates activation of striatum in youth with ADHD.  Neuroimage. 2010;53(3):935-942
PubMed
Friston KJ, Fletcher P, Josephs O, Holmes A, Rugg MD, Turner R. Event-related fMRI: characterizing differential responses.  Neuroimage. 1998;7(1):30-40
PubMed
Johnstone T, Ores Walsh KS, Greischar LL, Alexander AL, Fox AS, Davidson RJ, Oakes TR. Motion correction and the use of motion covariates in multiple-subject fMRI analysis.  Hum Brain Mapp. 2006;27(10):779-788
PubMed
Hayasaka S, Phan KL, Liberzon I, Worsley KJ, Nichols TE. Nonstationary cluster-size inference with random field and permutation methods.  Neuroimage. 2004;22(2):676-687
PubMed
Slotnick SD, Schacter DL. A sensory signature that distinguishes true from false memories.  Nat Neurosci. 2004;7(6):664-672
PubMed
Gilbert DL, Ridel KR, Sallee FR, Zhang J, Lipps TD, Wassermann EM. Comparison of the inhibitory and excitatory effects of ADHD medications methylphenidate and atomoxetine on motor cortex.  Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31(2):442-449
PubMed
Buchmann J, Gierow W, Weber S, Hoeppner J, Klauer T, Benecke R, Haessler F, Wolters A. Restoration of disturbed intracortical motor inhibition and facilitation in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder children by methylphenidate.  Biol Psychiatry. 2007;62(9):963-969
PubMed
Koda K, Ago Y, Cong Y, Kita Y, Takuma K, Matsuda T. Effects of acute and chronic administration of atomoxetine and methylphenidate on extracellular levels of noradrenaline, dopamine and serotonin in the prefrontal cortex and striatum of mice.  J Neurochem. 2010;114(1):259-270
PubMed
Garavan H, Hester R, Murphy K, Fassbender C, Kelly C. Individual differences in the functional neuroanatomy of inhibitory control.  Brain Res. 2006;1105(1):130-142
PubMed
Xue G, Aron AR, Poldrack RA. Common neural substrates for inhibition of spoken and manual responses.  Cereb Cortex. 2008;18(8):1923-1932
PubMed
Duann JR, Ide JS, Luo X, Li CS. Functional connectivity delineates distinct roles of the inferior frontal cortex and presupplementary motor area in stop signal inhibition.  J Neurosci. 2009;29(32):10171-10179
PubMed
Stevens MC, Kiehl KA, Pearlson GD, Calhoun VD. Functional neural networks underlying response inhibition in adolescents and adults.  Behav Brain Res. 2007;181(1):12-22
PubMed
Chamberlain SR, Robbins TW, Winder-Rhodes S, Müller U, Sahakian BJ, Blackwell AD, Barnett JH. Translational approaches to frontostriatal dysfunction in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder using a computerized neuropsychological battery.  Biol Psychiatry. 2011;69(12):1192-1203
PubMed
Chamberlain SR, Del Campo N, Dowson J, Müller U, Clark L, Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ. Atomoxetine improved response inhibition in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.  Biol Psychiatry. 2007;62(9):977-984
PubMed
Paus T. Primate anterior cingulate cortex: where motor control, drive and cognition interface.  Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2(6):417-424
PubMed
Dosenbach NU, Fair DA, Miezin FM, Cohen AL, Wenger KK, Dosenbach RA, Fox MD, Snyder AZ, Vincent JL, Raichle ME, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. Distinct brain networks for adaptive and stable task control in humans.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(26):11073-11078
PubMed
Schulz KP, Bédard AC, Czarnecki R, Fan J. Preparatory activity and connectivity in dorsal anterior cingulate cortex for cognitive control.  Neuroimage. 2011;57(1):242-250
PubMed
Aron AR, Poldrack RA. The cognitive neuroscience of response inhibition: relevance for genetic research in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.  Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57(11):1285-1292
PubMed
Bush G, Valera EM, Seidman LJ. Functional neuroimaging of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a review and suggested future directions.  Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57(11):1273-1284
PubMed
Milham MP, Banich MT, Claus ED, Cohen NJ. Practice-related effects demonstrate complementary roles of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortices in attentional control.  Neuroimage. 2003;18(2):483-493
PubMed
Uddin LQ, Kelly AM, Biswal BB, Xavier Castellanos F, Milham MP. Functional connectivity of default mode network components: correlation, anticorrelation, and causality.  Hum Brain Mapp. 2009;30(2):625-637
PubMed
Mason MF, Norton MI, Van Horn JD, Wegner DM, Grafton ST, Macrae CN. Wandering minds: the default network and stimulus-independent thought.  Science. 2007;315(5810):393-395
PubMed
Volkow ND, Fowler JS, Wang GJ, Telang F, Logan J, Wong C, Ma J, Pradhan K, Benveniste H, Swanson JM. Methylphenidate decreased the amount of glucose needed by the brain to perform a cognitive task.  PLoS One. 2008;3(4):e2017
PubMed
Smith HR, Beveridge TJ, Porrino LJ. Distribution of norepinephrine transporters in the non-human primate brain.  Neuroscience. 2006;138(2):703-714
PubMed
Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, Logan J, Franceschi D, Maynard L, Ding YS, Gatley SJ, Gifford A, Zhu W, Swanson JM. Relationship between blockade of dopamine transporters by oral methylphenidate and the increases in extracellular dopamine: therapeutic implications.  Synapse. 2002;43(3):181-187
PubMed
Volkow ND, Wang G, Fowler JS, Logan J, Gerasimov M, Maynard L, Ding Y, Gatley SJ, Gifford A, Franceschi D. Therapeutic doses of oral methylphenidate significantly increase extracellular dopamine in the human brain.  J Neurosci. 2001;21(2):RC121
PubMed
Bamford NS, Zhang H, Schmitz Y, Wu NP, Cepeda C, Levine MS, Schmauss C, Zakharenko SS, Zablow L, Sulzer D. Heterosynaptic dopamine neurotransmission selects sets of corticostriatal terminals.  Neuron. 2004;42(4):653-663
PubMed
Chase TD, Brown RE, Carrey N, Wilkinson M. Daily methylphenidate administration attenuates c-fos expression in the striatum of prepubertal rats.  Neuroreport. 2003;14(5):769-772
PubMed
Allen JK, Wilkinson M, Soo EC, Hui JP, Chase TD, Carrey N. Chronic low dose Adderall XR down-regulates cfos expression in infantile and prepubertal rat striatum and cortex.  Neuroscience. 2010;169(4):1901-1912
PubMed
Gray JD, Punsoni M, Tabori NE, Melton JT, Fanslow V, Ward MJ, Zupan B, Menzer D, Rice J, Drake CT, Romeo RD, Brake WG, Torres-Reveron A, Milner TA. Methylphenidate administration to juvenile rats alters brain areas involved in cognition, motivated behaviors, appetite, and stress.  J Neurosci. 2007;27(27):7196-7207
PubMed
Tomasi D, Volkow ND, Wang R, Telang F, Wang GJ, Chang L, Ernst T, Fowler JS. Dopamine transporters in striatum correlate with deactivation in the default mode network during visuospatial attention.  PLoS One. 2009;4(6):e6102
PubMed
Castellanos FX, Margulies DS, Kelly C, Uddin LQ, Ghaffari M, Kirsch A, Shaw D, Shehzad Z, Di Martino A, Biswal B, Sonuga-Barke EJ, Rotrosen J, Adler LA, Milham MP. Cingulate-precuneus interactions: a new locus of dysfunction in adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.  Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63(3):332-337
PubMed
Kelly AM, Uddin LQ, Biswal BB, Castellanos FX, Milham MP. Competition between functional brain networks mediates behavioral variability.  Neuroimage. 2008;39(1):527-537
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Supplemental Content

Schulz KP, Fan J, Bédard A-CV, Clerkin SM, Ivanov I, Tang CY, Halperin JM, Newcorn JH. Common and unique therapeutic mechanisms of stimulant and nonstimulant treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.2053.

eTable 1. Baseline Neural Activations for Response Inhibition in 36 Youth WIth ADHD

eTable 2. Greater Baseline Neural Activations for Response Inhibition in Youth With ADHD Treated With Methylphenidate (n = 18) Than in Those Treated With Atomoxetine (n = 18)

eFigure. Mean (SD) parameter estimates for baseline signal change in the right precuneus of 36 youth with ADHD plotted separately for go and no-go events.

Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 14

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles