Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of combining psychostimulants and nonstimulants for patients under treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: The study included 96 patients aged 6–12 years who were diagnosed with ADHD, among whom 34 received combination pharmacotherapy, 32 received methylphenidate monotherapy, and 30 received atomoxetine monotherapy. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare treatment and adverse effects among groups and to analyze changes before and after combination pharmacotherapy.The difference between combination pharmacotherapy and monotherapy was investigated. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the predictors of combination pharmacotherapy. Results: No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of age or pretreatment scores. The most common adverse effect experienced by 32% of patients in the combination pharmacotherapy group was decreased appetite. Clinical global impression-severity score decreased significantly after combination pharmacotherapy. All three groups showed significant clinical global impression-severity score improvements over time, with no significant differences among them. The predictive factors for combination pharmacotherapy included the Child Behavior Checklist total score internalizing subscale. Conclusion Combination pharmacotherapy with methylphenidate and atomoxetine is a relatively effective and safe option for patients with ADHD who do not respond to monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: CM1 (centrocyte/-blast marker 1) was defined by a mAb against concanavalin A (Con A) activated PBMC. It is expressed in germinal center of human tonsil and on the surface of activated PBMC as well as cancer cells. Recently, increased productions of pro-inflammatory mediators were detected from activated PBMC by CM1 ligation. METHODS: However, there is a limitation to explain the exact role of CM1 on inflammation and its related mechanisms, since the identity of CM1 is still not clarified. In our previous study, we have already confirmed that soluble form of CM1 was produced by Raji. Therefore, we performed Q-TOF analysis after immunoprecipitation of concentrated Raji culture supernatant using anti-CM1 mAbs. RESULTS: As a result, we found that CM1 is identical to enolase-1(ENO1), a glycolytic enzyme, and we confirmed that results by silencing ENO1 using siRNA. It was also confirmed through competition assay between anti-CM1 and anti-ENO1 mAbs. Finally, we investigated the possible role of CM1 in inflammatory response and cancer. The ligation of CM1 on Raji cells with anti-CM1 mAbs induces the extensive production of prostaglandin E2(PGE2). In addition, the increased activity of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2/9 was shown in NCI-N87, stomach cancer cell line by CM1 stimulation. CONCLUSION: CM1 is identical to ENO1 and it might be an important role in the regulation of inflammatory responses.
Cell Line ; Concanavalin A ; Dinoprostone ; Germinal Center ; Humans ; Immunoprecipitation ; Inflammation ; Ligation ; Palatine Tonsil ; RNA, Small Interfering ; Stomach Neoplasms