Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of the effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and mixed amphetamine salts on cognition throughout the day in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Stimulant prodrugs: A pharmacological and clinical assessment of their role in treating ADHD and binge-eating disorder

In this review, we critically evaluate the contribution of prodrugs to treating two related psychiatric disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and binge-eating disorder (BED). ADHD is characterized by inattentiveness, distractibility, impulsiveness, and hyperactivity. BED is also an impulse-control disorder which leads to frequent, compulsive episodes of excessive eating (binges). Lisdexamfetamine (LDX; prodrug of d-amphetamine) is approved to treat both ADHD and BED. Serdexmethylphenidate (SDX; prodrug of d-threo-methylphenidate) is not clinically approved as monotherapy but, in a fixed-dose combination with immediate release d-threo-methylphenidate (Azstarys™), SDX is approved for managing ADHD in children/adolescents. The pharmacological actions of a stimulant mediate both its efficacy and side-effects. Therefore, daily management of ADHD or BED to maintain optimum efficacy and tolerability places highly restrictive requirements on the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) characteristics of stimulant medications, especially prodrugs. Prodrugs must have good bioavailability and rapid metabolism to provide therapeutic efficacy soon after morning dosing combined with providing stimulant coverage throughout the day/evening. A wide selection of dosages and linear PK for the prodrug and its active metabolite are essential requirements for treatment of these conditions. The proposed neurobiological causes of ADHD and BED are described. The chemical, pharmacological and PK/PD properties responsible for the therapeutic actions of the prodrugs, LDX and SDX, are compared and contrasted. Finally, we critically assess their contribution as ADHD and BED medications, including advantages over their respective active metabolites, d-amphetamine and d-threo-methylphenidate, and also their potential for misuse and abuse.

New Drugs to Treat ADHD: Opportunities and Challenges in Research and Development

Since the landmark MTA (Multimodal Treatment of ADHD) trial unequivocally demonstrated the efficacy of methylphenidate, catecholaminergic drugs, especially stimulants, have been the therapeutic mainstay in treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). We review the new drugs which have entered the ADHD formulary. The lessons learned from drug-candidates that have succeeded in clinical trials together with those that have not have also been considered. What emerges confirms and consolidates the hypothesis that clinically effective ADHD drugs indirectly or directly increase catecholaminergic neurotransmission in the prefrontal cortex (PFC). Attempts to enhance catecholaminergic signalling through modulatory neurotransmitter systems or cognitive-enhancing drugs have all failed. New drugs approved for ADHD are catecholaminergic reuptake inhibitors and releasing agents, or selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors. Triple reuptake inhibitors with preferential effects on dopamine have not been successful. The substantial number of failures probably accounts for a continued focus on developing novel catecholaminergic and noradrenergic drugs, and a dearth of drug-candidates with novel mechanisms entering clinical development. However, substantial improvements in ADHD pharmacotherapy have been achieved by the almost exclusive use of once-daily medications and prodrugs, e.g. lisdexamfetamine and Azstarys^®, which improve compliance, deliver greater efficacy and reduce risks for diversion and abuse.

Pharmacologic treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD.

Methods

We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework.

Results

Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration.

Conclusions

Overall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs.

Registration

PROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049

Amphetamine improves rat 5-choice continuous performance test (5C-CPT) irrespective of concurrent low-dose haloperidol treatment

RATIONALE

Cognitive dysfunction mediates functional impairment in patients with schizophrenia, necessitating the timely development of pro-cognitive therapeutics. An important initial step in this process is to establish what, if any, pro-cognitive agents and associated mechanisms can be identified using cross-species translational paradigms. For example, attentional deficits-a core feature of schizophrenia-can be measured across species using the 5-choice continuous performance test (5C-CPT). The psychostimulant, amphetamine, improves human and rodent 5C-CPT performance.

OBJECTIVE

Here, we tested whether amphetamine would similarly improve 5C-CPT performance in the presence of dopamine D2 receptor blockade, since pro-cognitive treatments in schizophrenia would virtually always be used in conjunction with D2 receptor antagonists.

METHODS

We established the dose-response effects of amphetamine (0, 0.1, 0.3, or 1.0 mg/kg) and haloperidol (0, 3.2, 10, or 32 μg/kg) on 5C-CPT performance in Long Evans rats, and then tested an amphetamine (0.3 mg/kg) × haloperidol (10 μg/kg) interaction; the low dose was chosen because higher doses exerted deleterious non-specific effects on performance.

RESULTS

Amphetamine improved 5C-CPT performance in poorly performing rats by increasing target detection, independent of haloperidol pretreatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The pro-attentional effects of amphetamine were most likely mediated by dopamine release at D1-family receptors, since they persisted in the presence of acute D2 blockade. Alternative explanations for these findings are also discussed, as are their potential implications for future pro-cognitive therapeutics in schizophrenia.

Pilot Study of Droxidopa With Carbidopa in Adults With ADHD

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a two-period (open-label and double-blind) pilot investigation of droxidopa, with and without carbidopa, for ADHD.

METHOD

Twenty adult ADHD patients received open-label droxidopa titrated from 200 to 600 mg 3 times per day (TID; Weeks 1-3), then open-label droxidopa plus carbidopa titrated from 25 or 50 mg TID (Weeks 4-6). In Weeks 7 to 8, patients were randomized to continued co-treatment or matching placebo substitution.

RESULTS

Improvements in mean total Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Report Scale (AISRS) scores were seen at Week 1 ( p < .0001) and Week 3 ( p < .0001). Improvements were maintained but not increased with carbidopa. Thirteen of 20 patients completed open-label treatment. In the double-blind period, mean total AISRS scores were similar between the co-treatment ( n = 6) and placebo ( n = 5) groups. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary findings indicate that droxidopa can improve adult ADHD symptoms. Further studies are warranted to examine the efficacy and safety of droxidopa in ADHD.

Amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into adulthood and can affects individuals' social and occupational functioning, as well as their quality of life and health. ADHD is frequently associated with other mental disorders such as substance use disorders and anxiety and affective disorders. Amphetamines are used to treat adults with ADHD, but uncertainties about their efficacy and safety remain.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for adults with ADHD.

SEARCH METHODS

In August 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and two trials registers, and we ran citation searches for included studies. We also contacted the corresponding authors of all included studies, other experts in the field, and the pharmaceutical company, Shire, and we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews for other published, unpublished, or ongoing studies. For each included study, we performed a citation search in Web of Science to identify any later studies that may have cited it.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of amphetamines (at any dose) for ADHD in adults aged 18 years and over against placebo or an active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data from each included study. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) to assess continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We conducted a stratified analysis to determine the influence of moderating variables. We assessed trials for risk of bias and drew a funnel plot to investigate the possibility of publication bias. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, which yielded high, moderate, low, or very low quality ratings based on evaluation of within-trial risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity of data; precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies that investigated three types of amphetamines: dexamphetamine (10.2 mg/d to 21.8 mg/d), lisdexamfetamine (30 mg/d to 70 mg/d), and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS; 12.5 mg/d to 80 mg/d). These studies enrolled 2521 participants; most were middle-aged (35.3 years), Caucasian males (57.2%), with a combined type of ADHD (78.8%). Eighteen studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was conducted in both Canada and the USA. Ten were multi-site studies. All studies were placebo-controlled, and three also included an active comparator: guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine. Most studies had short-term follow-up and a mean study length of 5.3 weeks.We found no studies that had low risk of bias in all domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, mainly because amphetamines have powerful subjective effects that may reveal the assigned treatment, but also because we noted attrition bias, and because we could not rule out the possibility of a carry-over effect in studies that used a cross-over design.Sixteen studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, one study was publicly funded, and two studies did not report their funding sources.Amphetamines versus placeboSeverity of ADHD symptoms: we found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians (SMD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to -0.75; 13 studies, 2028 participants) and patients (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.28; six studies, 120 participants).Retention: overall, we found low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines did not improve retention in treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; 17 studies, 2323 participants).Adverse events: we found that amphetamines were associated with an increased proportion of patients who withdrew because of adverse events (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 4.45; 17 studies, 2409 participants).Type of amphetamine: we found differences between amphetamines for the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians. Both lisdexamfetamine (SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.85; seven studies, 896 participants; low-quality evidence) and MAS (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.66; five studies, 1083 participants; low-quality evidence) reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms. In contrast, we found no evidence to suggest that dexamphetamine reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.32; one study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence). In addition, all amphetamines were efficacious in reducing the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients (dexamphetamine: SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.40; two studies, 35 participants; low-quality evidence; lisdexamfetamine: SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01; three studies, 67 participants; low-quality evidence; MAS: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.12; one study, 18 participants; very low-quality evidence).Dose at study completion: different doses of amphetamines did not appear to be associated with differences in efficacy.Type of drug-release formulation: we investigated immediate- and sustained-release formulations but found no differences between them for any outcome.Amphetamines versus other drugsWe found no evidence that amphetamines improved ADHD symptom severity compared to other drug interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amphetamines improved the severity of ADHD symptoms, as assessed by clinicians or patients, in the short term but did not improve retention to treatment. Amphetamines were associated with higher attrition due to adverse events. The short duration of studies coupled with their restrictive inclusion criteria limits the external validity of these findings. Furthermore, none of the included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Overall, the evidence generated by this review is of low or very low quality.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Lisdexamfetamine Compared with D-Amphetamine in Healthy Subjects

Rationale: Lisdexamfetamine is a prodrug of D-amphetamine used for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Lisdexamfetamine is thought to have a prolonged pharmacokinetic profile compared with oral D-amphetamine, possibly associated with lower drug liking and a lower risk of oral misuse. However, differences in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of lisdexamfetamine and D-amphetamine have not been directly compared. Methods: Equimolar doses of D-amphetamine (40 mg) and lisdexamfetamine (100 mg), and placebo were administered in 24 healthy subjects in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Plasma concentrations of amphetamine, subjective effects, and vital signs were repeatedly assessed. The pharmacokinetic parameters were determined using compartmental modeling. Results: The increase in plasma concentrations of amphetamine had a 0.6 ± 0.6 h (mean ± SD) longer lag time and reached peak levels 1.1 ± 1.5 h later after lisdexamfetamine administration compared with D-amphetamine administration, but no differences in maximal concentrations or total exposure (AUC) were found between the two treatments. Consistent with the pharmacokinetics, the subjective and cardiovascular stimulant effects of lisdexamfetamine also occurred later compared with D-amphetamine. However, no differences in peak ratings of potentially abuse-related subjective drug effects (e.g., drug liking, drug high, stimulation, happy, well-being, and self-confidence) were observed after lisdexamfetamine administration compared with D-amphetamine administration. Lisdexamfetamine and D-amphetamine also produced similar peak increases in mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, body temperature, pupil size, and adverse effects. Conclusion: The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of lisdexamfetamine are similar to D-amphetamine administered 1h later. Lisdexamfetamine is likely associated with a similar risk of oral abuse as D-amphetamine. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02668926).

Review of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate in Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is the first prodrug stimulant used for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) dosed once daily. Due to its long-acting properties, LDX remains pharmacologically inactive until an enzymatic process predominantly associated with red blood cells converts it to the active ingredient, d-amphetamine and the amino acid lysine. The efficacy of LDX over placebo has been demonstrated in several studies in adults with moderate to severe ADHD with significant improvements noted in ADHD rating scales, Clinical Global Improvement scores, and assessments of executive function, for all doses of LDX (30-70 mg daily). Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate has demonstrated efficacy at 14 hours post dose in adults and may be used as a long-acting stimulant for managing ADHD symptoms, which may extend late into the day. Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate has demonstrated a safety profile consistent with long-acting stimulants use. Relevant English language articles were identified through computerized searches of MEDLINE (PubMed and EMBASE) from 1995 to 2016 using the following search terms: lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, NRP104, and Vyvanse.