What question did this study set out to answer?

April 1, 2026

Methylphenidate in improving cancer-related fatigue: efficacy and safety – systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

YWYonghao WenQinghai University PGPeng GuQinghai University JYJingxin YanSouth China University of Technology

Key Points

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate in improving cancer-related fatigue through systematic review and meta-analysis.
Systematic search of multiple databases including PubMed and Cochrane Library.
Inclusion of nine randomised controlled trials involving 668 patients.
Meta-analysis conducted using R software with random-effects models.
Trial sequential analysis and Bayesian methods were employed for safety assessments.
MPH shows a significant reduction in fatigue compared to placebo (SMD=0.23).
Efficacy increased at the 6-week follow-up (SMD=0.30).
D-MPH demonstrated significant improvement in fatigue (SMD=0.29), while racemic MPH did not show significant effects (SMD=0.19).
No significant increase in overall adverse events compared to placebo, but trends towards mood changes and dizziness were noted.

Abstract

Background Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) affects up to 70.7% of patients with cancer, significantly impairing quality of life and treatment adherence. Methylphenidate (MPH) and its dexmethylphenidate (D-MPH) are commonly used psychostimulants, but evidence regarding their efficacy remains inconsistent. Methods Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science from inception to June 2025. Primary outcomes were CRF improvement and safety. Meta-analysis was performed using R software (V.4.2.1) with random-effects models. Trial sequential analysis (TSA), Bayesian methods for sparse adverse event data and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment were applied. Results Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 668 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed a slight but significant reduction in fatigue for MPH versus placebo (standardised mean difference, SMD=0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.40; I²=0%). Efficacy increased at 6-week follow-up (SMD=0.30, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.52; 3 RCTs). Subgroup analysis indicated that D-MPH significantly improved CRF (SMD=0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.57; 3 RCTs), while racemic MPH did not (SMD=0.19, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.41; 4 RCTs). Safety analysis revealed no significant increase in overall adverse events versus placebo, though non-significant trends towards increased mood changes (OR=3.35) and dizziness (OR=2.66) were observed. TSA indicated insufficient information size to confirm definitive efficacy (cumulative Z-curve crossed traditional boundary but not O’Brien-Fleming boundary). GRADE evidence certainty was moderate for overall MPH and D-MPH efficacy, and low for racemic MPH. Conclusions MPH demonstrates a modest improvement in CRF, with enhanced effects at 6 weeks. D-MPH shows superior therapeutic potential compared with racemic MPH. However, current evidence is insufficient to support widespread clinical application due to limitations in sample size and heterogeneity. Higher-quality RCTs are needed to confirm efficacy and safety profiles.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper