Mixed amphetamine salts extended-release in the treatment of adult ADHD: a randomized, controlled trial

Effect of CYP2D6 genetic variation on patient-reported symptom improvement and side effects among children and adolescents treated with amphetamines

OBJECTIVES

Amphetamine-based medications are recommended as a first-line pharmacotherapy for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. However, the efficacy and tolerability of these medications vary across individuals, which could be related to interindividual differences in amphetamine metabolism. This study examined if genotype-predicted phenotypes of the cytochrome P450 isozyme CYP2D6 were associated with self-reported side effects and symptom improvement in youth treated with amphetamines.

METHODS

Two hundred fourteen participants aged 6-24 who had a history of past or current amphetamine treatment were enrolled from Western Canada. Amphetamine dose and duration information was collected from the participants along with questions regarding adherence, concomitant medications, symptom improvement and side effects. DNA was extracted from saliva samples and genotyped for CYP2D6 . Binomial logistic regression models were used to determine the effect of CYP2D6 metabolizer phenotype with and without correction for phenoconversion on self-reported symptom improvement and side effects.

RESULTS

Genotype-predicted CYP2D6 poor metabolizers had significantly higher odds of reporting symptom improvement when compared to intermediate metabolizers (OR = 3.67, 95% CI = 1.15-11.7, P  = 0.029) after correction for phenoconversion and adjusting for sex, age, dose, duration, and adherence. There was no association between CYP2D6 metabolizer phenotype and self-reported side effects.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that phenoconverted and genotype-predicted CYP2D6 poor metabolizer phenotype is significantly associated with higher odds of symptom improvement in children and adolescents treated with amphetamine. If replicated, these results could inform the development of future dosing guidelines for amphetamine treatment in children and adolescents.

Can Adverse Event Patterns Inform Shared Decision-Making in ADHD Treatment? A Systematic Review of Evidence From Registration Trials for FDA-Approved Treatments in Adults

INTRODUCTION

Adult patients and clinicians are faced with several pharmacological options to manage attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). If types or rates of adverse experiences vary among these options, these differences could inform the shared decision-making process.

METHODS

To discern differentiating evidence-based patterns of risk, we analyzed data from FDA package labels for drugs approved to treat adult ADHD and reports from the registration trials used to create these labels. Three analyses of adverse effects were conducted: placebo-corrected occurrence at rates of 1 in 5, 10, and 20 participants, association with discontinuation, and uniqueness of occurrence within the treatment options.

RESULTS

Among the 7 agents approved to treat adult ADHD, the number of types of side effects experienced during a mix of fixed and flexible-dose studies was greatest among the nonstimulant medications, but the stimulant medications had higher rates of occurrence of side effects. The minimum frequency at which all medications had adverse events was 1 in 10 participants. Overall discontinuation rates did not differ among the stimulant medications nor between stimulants and nonstimulants.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study to compile and compare data from all FDA registration trials for medications approved to treat adult ADHD. This article describes a process by which readily available adverse event reporting data can be used as a tool to inform shared clinical decision-making. While differences in the methodology and outcome reporting of the trials included may limit generalizability, the number of individual patients included and the completeness of the discontinuation data can be used to inform discussions with patients about the relative likelihood of adverse experiences and other patient concerns.

A review of amphetamine extended release once-daily options for the management of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

INTRODUCTION

Amphetamine preparations are one of the two categories of stimulant medications approved for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Optimal treatment of ADHD aims to reduce core symptoms for as much of the waking hours as possible, leading to longer-acting delivery formats. In addition, the pediatric population commonly has difficulty swallowing pills and manufacturers have developed a variety of options to facilitate this concern. These include chewable tablets, capsules that may be sprinkled on soft food, liquids and transdermal patches.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the once-daily extended-release preparations currently available for amphetamine compounds, their pharmacodynamics, and common adverse effects.

EXPERT OPINION

There is an extensive evidence base supporting use of amphetamine preparations in the treatment of ADHD. Rapid onset of action and a favorable side effect profile make these widely used. The availability of once-daily extended-release chewable tablets, capsules that can be opened and sprinkled, and liquid formulations provides clinicians with multiple options to meet the specific needs of patients with difficulty swallowing whole pills.

Neural and Cognitive Predictors of Stimulant Treatment Efficacy in Medication-Naïve ADHD Adults: A Pilot Diffusion Tensor Imaging Study

OBJECTIVE

Stimulant medications are the main treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), but overall treatment efficacy in adults has less than a 60% response rate. This study aimed to identify neural and cognitive markers predictive of longitudinal improvement in response to stimulant treatment in drug-naïve adults with ADHD.

METHOD

We used diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and executive function measures with 36 drug-naïve adult ADHD patients in a prospective study design.

RESULTS

Structural connectivity (measured by fractional anisotropy, FA) in striatal regions correlated with ADHD clinical symptom improvement following stimulant treatment (amphetamine or methylphenidate) in better medication responders. A significant positive correlation was also found between working memory performance and stimulant-related symptom improvement. Higher pre-treatment working memory scores correlated with greater response.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide evidence of pre-treatment neural and behavioral markers predictive of longitudinal treatment response to stimulant medications in adults with ADHD.

In Memoriam: Professor Joseph Biederman's Contributions to Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of Joe Biederman's contributions to child and adolescent psychiatry.

METHOD

Nine colleagues described his contributions to: psychopharmacology, comorbidity and genetics, pediatric bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorders, Tourette's and tic disorders, clinical and neuro biomarkers for pediatric mood disorders, executive functioning, and adult ADHD.

RESULTS

Joe Biederman left us with many concrete indicators of his contributions to child and adolescent psychiatry. He set up the world's first pediatric psychopharmacology clinic and clinical research program in child adolescent psychiatry. As a young faculty member he began a research program that led to many awards and eventual promotion to full professor at Harvard Medical School. He was for many years the most highly cited researcher in ADHD. He achieved this while maintaining a full clinical load and was widely respected for his clinical acumen.

CONCLUSION

The world is a better place because Joe Biederman was here.

Comparing Pharmacotherapies for ADHD in Adults: Evidence From Outcome-Focused Analysis of Food and Drug Administration Drug Label Registration Trials

OBJECTIVE

We appraised whether FDA registration trials for ADHD pharmacotherapy in adults provides comparable information to inform treatment expectations.

METHOD

Comparison of ADHD outcome measure patterns in ADHD pharmacotherapy FDA drug label source studies.

RESULTS

Among stimulants, from fixed-dose titration data, amphetamine agents had numerically higher placebo-corrected symptom improvement and symptom effect sizes than methylphenidate agents. Symptom effect sizes were lower in the flexible dosing registration studies of atomoxetine and viloxazine. Varying responder definitions were analyzable, based on ≥30% symptom improvement and/or CGI-I improvement of "much" or "very much improved." Number of exposures needed to create these responses were lower for stimulants than for viloxazine.

CONCLUSION

Heterogeneity in the design and analysis of FDA drug label source trials restricts implications for clinical practice. Research conducted using replicated designs, direct comparison of available treatments, and outcome analyses that generalize to clinical care could better inform clinical decision making.

Treatment Outcomes With Licensed and Unlicensed Stimulant Doses for Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Stimulants (methylphenidate and amphetamines) are often prescribed at unlicensed doses for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Whether dose escalation beyond US Food and Drug Administration recommendations is associated with positive risk benefits is unclear.

Objective

To investigate the impact, based on averages, of stimulant doses on treatment outcomes in adults with ADHD and to determine, based on averages, whether unlicensed doses are associated with positive risk benefits compared with licensed doses.

Data Sources

Twelve databases, including published (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Sciences) and unpublished (ClinicalTrials.gov) literature, up to February 22, 2023, without language restrictions.

Study Selection

Two researchers independently screened records to identify double-blinded randomized clinical trials of stimulants against placebo in adults (18 years and older) with ADHD.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Aggregate data were extracted and synthesized in random-effects dose-response meta-analyses and network meta-analyses.

Main Outcome Measures

Change in ADHD symptoms and discontinuations due to adverse events.

Results

A total of 47 randomized clinical trials (7714 participants; mean age, 35 (SD, 11) years; 4204 male [56%]) were included. For methylphenidate, dose-response curves indicated additional reductions of symptoms with increments in doses, but the gains were progressively smaller and accompanied by continued additional risk of adverse events dropouts. Network meta-analyses showed that unlicensed doses were associated with greater reductions of symptoms compared with licensed doses (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.23; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.02; very low certainty of evidence), but the additional gain was small and accompanied by increased risk of adverse event dropouts (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.19-3.43; moderate certainty of evidence). For amphetamines, the dose-response curve approached a plateau and increments in doses did not indicate additional reductions of symptoms, but there were continued increments in the risk of adverse event dropouts. Network meta-analysis did not identify differences between unlicensed and licensed doses for reductions of symptoms (SMD, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.08; very low certainty of evidence).

Conclusions and Relevance

Based on group averages, unlicensed doses of stimulants may not have positive risk benefits compared with licensed doses for adults with ADHD. In general, practitioners should consider unlicensed doses cautiously. Practitioners may trial unlicensed doses if needed and tolerated but should be aware that there may not be large gains in the response to the medication with those further increments in dose. However, the findings are averages and will not generalize to every patient.

The use of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder medications in cardiac disease

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder with onset usually in childhood characterized by inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity causing a functional impairment. Untreated ADHD, or treatment delay is associated with adverse outcomes and poor quality of life. Although conservative management strategies such as behavioral and psychological interventions are important, pharmacological treatment has a strong evidence base with improved outcomes. ADHD medications are broadly divided into stimulant and non-stimulant medications. Stimulant medications are generally more effective than non-stimulants. Cardiovascular safety of ADHD medication has been a matter of debate for decades. Treatment guidelines advise the careful consideration of risks and benefits in people with cardiovascular diseases such as congenital heart disease or cardiomyopathy. Although stimulants can increase systemic blood pressure and heart rate, no significant associations were found between their use and serious cardiovascular events. Concerns regarding QT effects and attendant sudden cardiac death risks deter clinicians from initiating much-needed ADHD medications in patients with heart disease. This overly cautious approach is potentially depriving low-risk individuals from significant benefits associated with timely ADHD drug treatment. This review discusses the cardiovascular risks reportedly associated with ADHD medications, the evidence base for their safe usage in persons with established cardiovascular disease, and highlights future research directions.

The effects of psychostimulants on cognitive functions in individuals with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a broad range of deficits in cognitive functions which has significant implications for quality of life. Psychostimulants are demonstrated to improve symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity, however, their impact on cognition remains incompletely characterized. Herein, the aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the extant literature reporting on the effects of psychostimulants on cognitive function in individuals with ADHD.

METHOD

A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to July 2021 was conducted. Additional studies were identified through Google Scholar and a manual search of the reference lists of relevant articles. Inclusion criteria were original studies that evaluated the cognitive function of individuals with ADHD taking psychostimulants drugs. We assessed the quality of the included papers using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS).

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies involving 753 subjects with ADHD and 194 healthy controls were identified and eligible for inclusion. Nine studies evaluated the impact of methylphenidate on cognitive function and one study investigated the use of lisdexamfetamine. Results indicated that attentional deficits such as memory, vigilance, divided attention, phasic and tonic alertness, and focused attention were improved in ADHD patients treated with psychostimulants. The efficacy of psychostimulants in improving other domains of cognition remains inconclusive due to conflicting evidence or insignificant findings (ie. academic performance and executive function). Overall, results indicate that psychostimulants may improve only select domains of cognition (ie. memory and attention).

CONCLUSION

Psychostimulants are reported to improve several disparate aspects of cognition among individuals with ADHD. Further research is needed to better understand the complex relationships between cognition and behavior in ADHD, as well as the impact of medication on these distinct aspects of functioning. Further research is also needed to determine whether the pro-cognitive effect of stimulants would be transferable to other mental disorders.

Improved Executive Function in Adults Diagnosed With Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder as Measured by the Brown Attention-Deficit Disorder Scale Following Treatment With SHP465 Mixed Amphetamine Salts Extended-Release: Post Hoc Analyses From 2 Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Studies

OBJECTIVE

Assess executive function (EF) improvement with SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) extended-release in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using responder analyses of the Brown Attention-Deficit Disorder Scale (BADDS).

METHODS

Post hoc analyses examined data from placebo-controlled SHP465 MAS dose-optimization (12.5-75 mg) and fixed-dose (25-75 mg) studies. Treatment response was assessed using two definitions (BADDS total score at endpoint <50 [no EF impairment] vs. ≥50 [impaired]; BADDS total score at endpoint relative to the in-treatment 90% CI range for baseline total score [below the range = improved]).

RESULTS

Response rates (SHP465 MAS vs. placebo) favored SHP465 MAS (all nominal p < .0001) in the dose-optimization (BADDS <50: 41.9% vs. 19.2%; below 90% CI range: 57.4% vs. 29.6%) and fixed-dose (BADDS <50: 51.9% vs. 16.7%; below 90% CI range: 70.6% vs. 32.3%) studies.

CONCLUSION

Improvement in EF measured by BADDS response rates was approximately 2-fold greater with SHP465 MAS than placebo.

The Impact of ADHD Treatment on Intimate Partner Violence in a Forensic Psychiatry Setting

Objective: The current longitudinal impact of treatment of ADHD on intimate partner violence (ITAP) study aims to investigate whether decrease of ADHD symptoms is associated with reduction of intimate partner violence (IPV) frequency in IPV offenders with ADHD in a forensic psychiatry setting. Method: Of n = 209 offenders of IPV with ADHD, frequency of IPV and ADHD symptoms were assessed at the 8th, 16th, 24th, and 52nd weeks of their combined treatment for ADHD and IPV. Results: We observed a significant decrease of self-reported ADHD symptoms (large effect size, d ≥ 0.80) and all IPV outcomes (small, d > 0.20, to large, d > 0.80, effect sizes). The decrease in IPV was mainly associated with the decrease in ADHD symptoms. Conclusion: As IPV treatment alone is not effective in the reduction of IPV in forensic psychiatry, we now have strong indications that the combined treatment of adult ADHD and IPV is more effective in offenders with ADHD.

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

Post hoc Responder and Remission Analyses from Two Studies of SHP465 Mixed Amphetamine Salts Extended-Release Among Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Objectives: In two studies of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) extended-release significantly reduced ADHD-Rating Scale, 4th Edition total score (ADHD-RS-IV-TS) versus placebo (PBO). This report describes post hoc analyses of SHP465 MAS treatment response and remission rates from those studies. Methods: Adults with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision-defined ADHD were randomized to SHP465 MAS (12.5-75 mg) or PBO in a 7-week dose-optimization study and to SHP465 MAS (25, 50, or 75 mg) or PBO in a 6-week fixed-dose study. Response was examined using three definitions (definition 1: ≥30% ADHD-RS-IV-TS reduction + Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement [CGI-I] rating of 1 or 2; definition 2: ≥50% ADHD-RS-IV-TS reduction + CGI-I rating of 1 or 2; definition 3: ADHD-RS-IV-TS ≤18). Remission was defined as ADHD-RS-IV-TS ≤12. The Kaplan-Meier analyses assessed time to response or remission. Results: The intent-to-treat populations included 136 SHP465 MAS and 132 PBO participants in the dose-optimization study and 302 SHP465 MAS and 103 PBO participants in the fixed-dose study. Percentages of participants meeting response criteria (SHP465 MAS vs. PBO) at the final treatment week in the dose-optimization and fixed-dose studies, respectively, were 66.0% versus 31.6% and 72.7% versus 28.3% (definition 1); 47.9% versus 27.6% and 60.6% versus 16.7% (definition 2); and 54.3% versus 30.3% and 52.6% versus 18.3% (definition 3). The remission criterion (SHP465 MAS vs. PBO) at the final treatment week was met by 37.2% versus 19.7% of participants in the dose-optimization study and 39.7% versus 10.0% of participants in the fixed-dose study. Times to response and remission favored SHP465 MAS over PBO in both studies (all nominal log-rank p < 0.0001). Conclusion: These post hoc analyses indicate that SHP465 MAS was associated with greater response and remission rates than PBO in adults with ADHD, with times to response and remission also nominally favoring SHP465 MAS.

Adherence to medication in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and pro re nata dosing of psychostimulants: A systematic review

Adherence to a regular medication regimen may be challenging for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Some report taking psychostimulants on a pro re nata (PRN) basis. This review aims to establish the rate of adherence, and reasons for and consequences of non-adherence to medication for ADHD in adults, and to review literature on PRN dosing of psychostimulants in these patients. A systematic literature search was conducted. Four primary research studies have investigated the rate of adherence to medication in adults with ADHD. Mean adherence rate in two studies ranged from 52% to 87%. A number of possible reasons for poor adherence have been suggested. Prospective studies are needed to further define the rate of adherence and causes of poor adherence. Evidence examining whether differences in adherence affect clinical outcomes is equivocal. Therefore, caution should be applied to the assumption that maximising adherence to regular medication regimens will improve clinical outcomes. Two articles acknowledge that patients take medication on a PRN basis. Studies comparing the effectiveness of a regular and PRN regimen of psychostimulants are needed. If PRN dosing is as effective as a regular regimen, advantages might include enhanced doctor-patient communication, reduced side effects and cost savings.

Triple-Bead Mixed Amphetamine Salts (SHP465) in Adults With ADHD: Results of a Phase 3, Double-Blind, Randomized, Forced-Dose Trial

Objective: Evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of triple-bead mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) in ADHD. Method: Adults with ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total scores ≥32 were randomized to 6 weeks of triple-bead MAS (25, 50, or 75 mg) or placebo. The primary endpoint was ADHD-RS-IV total score change from baseline at end of study (EOS). Results: Least squares mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) treatment differences for ADHD-RS-IV total score changes from baseline to EOS significantly favored triple-bead MAS (all doses combined: -10.6 [-13.2, -8.0]; p < .0001); there were no significant differences between triple-bead MAS dosages. The most frequently reported TEAEs with triple-bead MAS (all doses combined) included insomnia, decreased appetite, and dry mouth. Mean ± SD pulse and systolic blood pressure increases at EOS were 3.5 ± 10.33 bpm and 0.3 ± 10.48 mmHg with triple-bead MAS (all doses combined). Conclusion: Triple-bead MAS significantly reduced adult ADHD symptoms; the safety profile was consistent with previous triple-bead MAS studies.

Current and emerging pharmacotherapy for the treatment of adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

Introduction: ADHD is characterized by a developmentally inappropriate level of inattentiveness, impulsivity and/or hyperactivity. In adults, the disorder is frequently accompanied by Emotional Dysregulation (ED), associated to a variety of related psychiatric comorbidities, complicating its recognition and treatment management. Areas covered: This paper reviews randomized active comparator-controlled or placebo-controlled trials evaluating the use of pharmacotherapy in adults with ADHD and ED, other neurodevelopmental disorders, Bipolar Disorder (BD) and Anxiety Disorders (ADs). When controlled data are unavailable, the authors have included open-label and observational studies. Expert opinion: ED in adult patients with ADHD is a very common and impairing problem that can be treated with stimulants or atomoxetine. ADHD studies in adults with other neurodevelopment disorders are scarce; stimulants seem to be the most effective and safe drugs in treating ADHD symptoms, without worsening the core features of other neurodevelopmental disorders. In patients with ADHD and comorbid BD, the treatment of BD alone may result in residual symptoms of ADHD. Patients should be treated hierarchically: BD should be treated first, while ADHD should be treated combining ADHD medications and mood stabilizers after mood stabilization. The available evidence for treating patients with ADHD and comorbid ADs in adults supports the idea of an anti-anxiety/ADHD-specific treatment association.

Effects of Food on the Bioavailability of Amphetamine in Healthy Adults After Administration of SHP465 Mixed Amphetamine Salts Extended-Release Capsules

Background and objective

SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts extended release is a once-daily, single-entity, mixed amphetamine salts capsule product for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The objective of this study was to evaluate amphetamine pharmacokinetics following SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts under three administration conditions.

Methods

Healthy adults (n = 16) enrolled in an open-label, randomized, three-period crossover study with three single-dose 50-mg SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts treatments (fasting ≥ 10 h before administration [reference]; high-fat meal consumption 30 min before administration; sprinkling capsule contents on applesauce) separated by ≥ 7-day washouts. Blood samples for evaluating d- and l-amphetamine pharmacokinetics were collected pre-dose and up to 60 h post-dose. Assessments included maximum plasma concentration, time to maximum plasma concentration, and area under the plasma concentration–time curve from 0 to infinity. Exponentiated least-squares mean ratios with 90% confidence intervals for test treatments relative to the reference treatment were calculated, with the absence of an effect indicated by the 90% confidence intervals falling within the 80–125% range.

Results

Least-squares mean (90% confidence interval) ratios for maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration–time curve from 0 to infinity indicated neither consuming a high-fat meal (d-amphetamine: 85.33 [80.44, 90.50] and 91.11 [86.69, 95.75], respectively; l-amphetamine: 85.22 [80.18, 90.59] and 88.74 [83.89, 93.87]) nor sprinkling the capsule contents on applesauce (d-amphetamine: 95.76 [90.28, 101.57] and 95.77 [91.13, 100.65]; l-amphetamine: 96.90 [91.16, 103.00] and 94.78 [89.60, 100.26]) altered amphetamine exposure. Consuming a high-fat meal prolonged median time to maximum plasma concentration for d- and l-amphetamine by 5.0 and 4.5 h, respectively, relative to reference treatment.

Conclusions

These findings demonstrate SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts capsules can be swallowed whole with or without food or the capsule contents can be sprinkled on applesauce.

Efficacy, Acceptability, and Tolerability of Lisdexamfetamine, Mixed Amphetamine Salts, Methylphenidate, and Modafinil in the Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective: Psychostimulants are the first-line treatment in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of lisdexamfetamine (LDX), mixed amphetamine salts (MASs), modafinil (MDF), and methylphenidate (MPH) in comparison with placebo. Data Sources: We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Clinicaltrials.gov in May 2016, along with CENTRAL and EU Clinical Trials Register in February 2016, for the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials conducted on adults diagnosed with ADHD. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Substantial comorbidity, substance abuse or dependence, and nonpharmacological interventions represented grounds for exclusion. Published reports were the sole source for data extraction. Improvement in ADHD symptoms was the primary outcome. Random-effects model meta-analysis was applied to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. Data Synthesis: The search retrieved 701 records, of which 20 studies were eligible for analysis. High effect size (expressed as SMD) in reducing ADHD symptoms was observed for LDX (−0.89; 95% CI = −1.09, −0.70), whereas MASs (−0.64; 95% CI = −0.83, −0.45) and MPH (−0.50; 95% CI = −0.58, −0.41) reduced symptoms moderately compared with placebo. No efficacy was shown for MDF (0.08; 95% CI; −0.18, 0.34). Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: In this meta-analysis, the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of psychostimulants were compared with that for placebo. Five of the included trials have not been evaluated in any of the previously published meta-analyses. Conclusions: The results suggest that LDX has the largest effect size and has a promising potential for treating adults with 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.

A randomized, double-blind study of SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts extended-release in adults with ADHD using a simulated adult workplace design

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this paper was to evaluate the efficacy, duration of effect, and tolerability of SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) extended-release versus placebo and immediate-release MAS (MAS IR) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

Adults with ADHD Rating Scale, Version IV (ADHD-RS-IV) scores ≥24 were randomized to SHP465 MAS (50 or 75 mg), placebo, or 25 mg MAS IR in a double-blind, three-period, crossover study using a simulated adult workplace environment. On the final day of each 7-day treatment period, efficacy was assessed for 16 h postdose. Primary efficacy analyses for Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP) total score averaged across all postdose assessments and each postdose time point were conducted in the intent-to-treat population using a mixed linear model. Secondary end-points included PERMP problems attempted and answered correctly and ADHD-RS-IV scores based on clinician ratings of counselor observations using the Time Segment Rating System and participant self-report. Tolerability assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and vital signs.

RESULTS

Least squares mean (95% CI) treatment differences (combined 50/75 mg SHP465 MAS-placebo) significantly favored SHP465 MAS over placebo for PERMP total score averaged across all postdose assessments (18.38 [11.28, 25.47]; P < .0001) and at each postdose assessment (all P < .02). Nominal superiority of MAS IR over placebo for PERMP total score averaged across all postdose assessments was observed (nominal P = .0001); treatment differences between SHP465 MAS and MAS IR were not significant (nominal P = .2443). The two most frequently reported TEAEs associated with SHP465 MAS were insomnia (36.5%) and anorexia (21.2%). Mean increases in pulse and blood pressure with SHP465 MAS exceeded those of placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

SHP465 MAS (combined 50/75 mg) significantly improved PERMP total score versus placebo, with superiority observed from 2 to 16 h postdose. The tolerability profile of SHP465 MAS was similar to previous reports of SHP465 MAS in adults with ADHD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00928148 identifier is NCT00928148.

A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II Study to Determine the Efficacy, Safety, Tolerability and Pharmacokinetics of a Controlled Release (CR) Formulation of Mazindol in Adults with DSM-5 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

BACKGROUND

Mazindol is under investigation for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) because of its alertness-enhancing properties. A novel controlled-release (CR) formulation of mazindol was developed to allow once-daily dosing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mazindol CR in adults with ADHD.

DESIGN

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 6-week trial.

METHODS

Subjects diagnosed with ADHD using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Structured Interview (MINI) and with an ADHD Rating Scale, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition (ADHD-RS-DSM5) score ≥ 28 were randomized to receive placebo or 1-3 mg/day of mazindol for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the reduction from baseline in the ADHD-RS-DSM5 score on Day 42. Secondary endpoints were response rates defined by change in ADHD-RS-DSM5 (≥ 30 or ≥ 50% reduction) and dichotomized Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) score (1 or 2). An exploratory endpoint of functional impairment, as measured by the Target Impairment Scale, examined individualized deficits in specific settings. Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics were assessed.

RESULTS

Eighty-five participants were randomized (n = 43 active, 42 placebo); 75 completed. Weekly ADHD-RS-DSM5 measurements after mazindol differed from placebo beginning at Day 7, with a least squares mean difference (active-placebo) of - 13.2 at Day 42 and an effect size of 1.09. For the 30% or more reduction in ADHD-RS-DSM5 (minimal response), a significant difference (active-placebo) was seen starting at Day 7 and continuing to Day 42. For the CGI-I (1 or 2) and for the 50% or more reduction in ADHD-RS-DSM5 (measures of excellent response), the differences began at Day 14 and continued to Day 42. Functional impairment was significantly different in the proportion achieving at least a 50% reduction in target impairment score (42.9% mazindol vs 11.9% placebo) by Day 42. Dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, heart rate (HR) increased, decreased appetite, and constipation were more prevalent for mazindol versus placebo. Overall, mazindol CR had minimal effects on blood pressure and small effects on HR.

CONCLUSION

Mazindol CR was efficacious in the treatment of adults with ADHD, with a large effect size, and was well tolerated, supporting the progression to phase III. (Clinicaltrials.gov Registration No. NCT02808104).

Treatment With Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate Improves Self- and Informant-Rated Executive Function Behaviors and Clinician- and Informant-Rated ADHD Symptoms in Adults: Data From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the level of agreement between self- and observer-reported ratings of ADHD symptoms and executive function (EF) behaviors in adults with moderate to severe ADHD and EF deficits.

METHOD

During a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the effect of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on EF was assessed by self-report and informant report (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version), and ADHD symptoms were assessed by clinician- and informant-rated scales (ADHD Rating Scale IV with adult prompts and Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scales-Observer Report: Short Version, respectively). Post hoc analysis used Pearson correlations to assess relationships between self- and informant-rated EF and clinician- and informant-rated ADHD symptoms.

RESULTS

Correlations between self-ratings versus informant ratings and clinician versus informant ratings were greater at Week 10/early termination (EF: placebo [0.5231-0.6085], LDX [0.3543-0.5167]; ADHD symptoms: placebo [0.4169], LDX [0.4004]) versus baseline (EF: placebo [0.3208-0.5023], LDX [0.2852-0.3439]; ADHD symptoms: placebo [0.1511], LDX [-0.0408]).

CONCLUSION

LDX improved EF and ADHD symptoms, based on participant, informant, and clinician ratings. Increased rater agreement over time may reflect improved symptom awareness.

Effects of SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts in adults with ADHD in a simulated adult workplace environment

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the efficacy, duration of effect, and safety of 25 mg SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) extended-release versus placebo in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

Adults (18-55 years) with ADHD and with ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) scores ≥24 were randomized to treatment in a double-blind, 2-period, 2-treatment crossover study utilizing the Adult Workplace Environment (AWE), as described by Wigal and Wigal (J Atten Disord 2006;10:92-111). On day 7 of each 7-day treatment period, efficacy was assessed during a 16.5-hour postdose period. The primary endpoint, Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP) total score, was analyzed in the intent-to-treat population using a mixed linear model of analysis of variance. Secondary endpoints, for which the study was not powered, included PERMP problems attempted and answered correctly, ADHD clinician ratings based on counselor observations and inputs during the Time Segment Rating System (Co-ADHD-RS TSRS), and the ADHD self-rating scale (ADHD-SRS). Safety and tolerability assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and vital signs.

RESULTS

The least squares mean (95% CI) treatment difference (SHP465 MAS-placebo) for PERMP total score significantly favored SHP465 MAS over placebo when averaged across all postdose assessments (19.29 [10.95, 27.63]; P < 0.0001), with significant treatment differences favoring SHP465 MAS over placebo observed at 4-16 hours postdose (all P < 0.01). TEAEs observed with SHP465 MAS (≥5% of participants) included insomnia, decreased appetite, dry mouth, headache, and anorexia. Mean pulse and blood pressure increases with SHP465 MAS exceeded those of placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

SHP465 MAS (25 mg) was superior to placebo on PERMP total score, with treatment differences observed from 4 to 16 hours postdose; nominal treatment differences on the ADHD-SRS, but not the Co-ADHD-RS TSRS, were also observed. The safety and tolerability profile of SHP465 MAS was similar to previous reports for SHP465 MAS and other long-acting stimulants. Clinical trials registry: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00202605; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00202605 ).

Cannabinoids in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A randomised-controlled trial

Adults with ADHD describe self-medicating with cannabis, with some reporting a preference for cannabis over ADHD medications. A small number of psychiatrists in the US prescribe cannabis medication for ADHD, despite there being no evidence from randomised controlled studies. The EMA-C trial (Experimental Medicine in ADHD-Cannabinoids) was a pilot randomised placebo-controlled experimental study of a cannabinoid medication, Sativex Oromucosal Spray, in 30 adults with ADHD. The primary outcome was cognitive performance and activity level using the QbTest. Secondary outcomes included ADHD and emotional lability (EL) symptoms. From 17.07.14 to 18.06.15, 30 participants were randomly assigned to the active (n=15) or placebo (n=15) group. For the primary outcome, no significant difference was found in the ITT analysis although the overall pattern of scores was such that the active group usually had scores that were better than the placebo group (Est=-0.17, 95%CI-0.40 to 0.07, p=0.16, n=15/11 active/placebo). For secondary outcomes Sativex was associated with a nominally significant improvement in hyperactivity/impulsivity (p=0.03) and a cognitive measure of inhibition (p=0.05), and a trend towards improvement for inattention (p=0.10) and EL (p=0.11). Per-protocol effects were higher. Results did not meet significance following adjustment for multiple testing. One serious (muscular seizures/spasms) and three mild adverse events occurred in the active group and one serious (cardiovascular problems) adverse event in the placebo group. Adults with ADHD may represent a subgroup of individuals who experience a reduction of symptoms and no cognitive impairments following cannabinoid use. While not definitive, this study provides preliminary evidence supporting the self-medication theory of cannabis use in ADHD and the need for further studies of the endocannabinoid system in ADHD.

Many-to-one comparisons after safety selection in multi-arm clinical trials

In phase II platform trials, ‘many-to-one’ comparisons are performed when K experimental treatments are compared with a common control to identify the most promising treatment(s) to be selected for Phase III trials. However, when sample sizes are limited, such as when the disease of interest is rare, only a single Phase II/III trial addressing both treatment selection and confirmatory efficacy testing may be feasible. In this paper, we suggest a two-step safety selection and testing procedure for such seamless trials. At the end of the study, treatments are first screened on the basis of safety, and those deemed to be sufficiently safe are then taken forwards for efficacy testing against a common control. All safety and efficacy evaluations are therefore performed at the end of the study, when for each patient all safety and efficacy data are available. If confirmatory conclusions are to be drawn from the trial, strict control of the family-wise error rate (FWER) is essential. However, to avoid unnecessary losses in power, no type I error rate should be “wasted” on comparisons which are no longer of interest because treatments have been dropped due to safety concerns. We investigate the impact on power and FWER control of multiplicity adjustments which correct efficacy tests only for the number of safe selected treatments instead of adjusting for all K null hypotheses the trial begins testing. We derive conditions under which strict control of the FWER can be achieved. Procedures using the estimated association between safety and efficacy outcomes are developed for the case when the correlation between endpoints is unknown. The operating characteristics of the proposed procedures are assessed via simulation.

Adult ADHD: Questioning Diagnosis and Treatment in a Patient with Multiple Psychiatric Comorbidities

Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a contentious diagnostic issue, which has been increasing in prevalence in recent years, and is often comorbid with other psychiatric disorders. This report presents a detailed account of a clinical case involving a middle-aged man with a history of recurrent depressive episodes and an unsubstantiated diagnosis of ADHD, treated with stimulants. There is persistent debate around the use of psychostimulants both in adult ADHD and in the treatment of depression. Despite promising activating properties, psychostimulants carry significant risks of misuse and substance use disorder. In this report, we consider the potential benefits and adverse effects of stimulants in the treatment of adult ADHD and mood disorders and review the learning points of this complicated, but not uncommon, clinical case.

The safety of extended-release drug formulations for the treatment of ADHD

INTRODUCTION

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a complex neurobehavioral disorder affecting millions of patients worldwide. Effective treatments have been available for more than 60 years in the form of immediate-release (IR) stimulants However, stimulants have a high risk for abuse and are associated with adverse effects Including elevated blood pressure and heart rate, insomnia and decreased appetite. IR formulations also require multiple daily dosing. The search for improved safety, tolerability and convenience has led to the development of multiple extended-release (ER) stimulant and non-stimulant formulations. Areas covered: Adverse effects of (ER) products including amphetamine, methylphenidate, clonidine and guanfacine will be reviewed and their significance discussed. Expert opinion: Limitations of currently marketed medications have led to the search for drugs with efficacy comparable to ER stimulants and a more favorable adverse event profile. Several are in development, but their potential utility is not yet known. Current research is also focused on finding specific genetic defects in patients with ADHD. Exciting progress has been made with the identification of mGluR receptor defects in some patients. However because of the heterogeneity of the disorder, effective targeted treatments for the majority of patients with ADHD does not appear likely in the near future.

Parent-Reported Improvements in Family Functioning in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Lisdexamfetamine for Treatment of Parental Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the effects of parental stimulant medication treatment on parent ratings of parent-child functioning. Ratings of parent-child functioning in the home setting and immediately following a laboratory-based parent-child interaction were collected.

METHOD

Participants were 20 parents who along with their children (ages 5-12 years) were diagnosed with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Parents completed an open-label titration to determine their optimal dose of lisdexamfetamine (30, 50, or 70 mg/day) and then completed a month-long double-blind randomized pharmacological intervention for parental ADHD. Effects of parental stimulant medication administered for an extended duration were assessed by parent ratings of parent-child functioning in the home setting and immediately following a laboratory parent-child interaction task conducted at an academic mental health center. Data were collected from September 2010 to June 2013.

RESULTS

Stimulant medication versus placebo was associated with larger reductions in parental ADHD (d = 1.01-1.09), impairment (d = 0.67-0.82), and executive dysfunction (d = 0.74-0.94) in the home setting. No significant benefits of stimulant medication emerged in measures of parenting or child behavior at home. In the laboratory setting, parents treated with stimulant medication versus placebo reported fewer ADHD symptoms (d = 1.01-1.05) and their interaction was more successful (d = 0.83) and pleasant (d = 0.92). Several additional trends emerged showing beneficial effects of stimulant medication on parent-child functioning.

CONCLUSION

Parents treated with stimulant medication evidenced some improvements in parent-child functioning, which support the use of pharmacological intervention to improve functioning in families with parent-child ADHD.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT01127607.

Efficacy and Safety of SHP465 Mixed Amphetamine Salts in the Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Adults: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Forced-Dose Clinical Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

Eligible adults [aged 18-55 years; meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ADHD criteria; baseline ADHD Rating Scale with Adult Prompts (ADHD-RS-AP) total scores ≥28] were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or forced-dose SHP465 MAS (12.5 or 37.5 mg/day) for 4 weeks. The ADHD-RS-AP total score change from baseline to week 4 (primary endpoint) and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score at week 4 (key secondary endpoint) were assessed using linear mixed-effects models for repeated measures. Other efficacy endpoints were changes from baseline to week 4 on the ADHD-RS-AP hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattentiveness subscales and the percentage of participants categorized as improved on the dichotomized Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement. Safety and tolerability assessments were treatment-emergent adverse events, vital sign and weight changes, Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale responses, and electrocardiogram results.

RESULTS

Of 369 screened participants, 275 were randomized (placebo, n = 91; 12.5 mg/day of SHP465 MAS, n = 92; 37.5 mg/day of SHP465 MAS, n = 92) and 236 completed the study (placebo, n = 80; 12.5 mg/day of SHP465 MAS, n = 80; 37.5 mg/day of SHP465 MAS, n = 76). Least-squares mean (95% confidence interval) treatment differences at week 4 significantly favored SHP465 MAS over placebo for the ADHD-RS-AP total score change from baseline [12.5 mg/day: -8.1 (-11.7, -4.4), effect size = 0.67; 37.5 mg/day: -13.4 (-17.1, -9.7), effect size = 1.11; both p < 0.001] and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score [12.5 mg/day: -0.8 (-1.1, -0.4), effect size = 0.68; 37.5 mg/day: -1.2 (-1.6, -0.9), effect size = 1.11; both p < 0.001]. Treatment differences for the change from baseline at week 4 favored 12.5 and 37.5 mg/day of SHP465 MAS, respectively, over placebo on the ADHD-RS-AP hyperactivity/impulsivity (both nominal p < 0.001; effect size = 0.56 and 0.91) and inattentiveness (both nominal p < 0.001; effect size = 0.70 and 1.19) subscales. At the final on-treatment assessment, the percentage of participants categorized as improved on Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement was higher with both SHP465 MAS doses than with placebo (both nominal p < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events reported (>5%) with SHP465 MAS were decreased appetite, dry mouth, insomnia, headache, anxiety, initial insomnia, irritability, and bruxism. Severe treatment-emergent adverse events and treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation, respectively, were reported by 8 and 12 participants (placebo, n = 2 and 0; 12.5 mg/day SHP465 MAS, n = 1 and 7; 37.5 mg/day SHP465 MAS, n = 5 and 5). At the final on-treatment assessment, mean ± standard deviation increases from baseline were observed with 12.5 and 37.5 mg/day of SHP465 MAS for pulse (3.3 ± 10.52 and 7.1 ± 11.48 bpm) and blood pressure (systolic 0.2 ± 7.24 and 1.7 ± 9.99 mmHg; diastolic 1.0 ± 7.46 and 2.8 ± 7.90 mmHg) and decreases were observed for weight (-0.97 ± 1.523 and -1.65 ± 2.333 kg), body mass index (-0.33 ± 0.519 and -0.56 ± 0.777 kg/m²), and Fridericia corrected QT interval (-3.0 ± 10.72 and -1.6 ± 13.70 ms). No participant in any treatment group had a positive response for on-study Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

SHP465 MAS was superior to placebo in reducing ADHD symptoms, with a safety profile consistent with other long-acting stimulants. ClinicalTrials.gov Registry Number: NCT02604407.

ADHD Symptom Rebound and Emotional Lability With Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate in Children Aged 6 to 12 Years

OBJECTIVE

To describe symptom rebound in children with ADHD treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) or placebo.

METHOD

During a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of LDX, parents/caregivers completed the Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised: Short Form symptom rating scale throughout the day. Response, rebound, and emotional lability (EL) were assessed post hoc based on predefined criteria.

RESULTS

Most participants given LDX ( n = 207) were responders throughout the day (50.7%-55.6%) versus placebo ( n = 72; 11.1%-22.2%). A total of seven (3.4%) LDX participants showed rebound in the afternoon and/or evening versus seven (9.7%) with placebo. In both groups, most incidences of rebound occurred in the evening. EL (mean) was higher in LDX rebounders and nonresponders (range = 4.2-9.0) versus LDX responders (range = 1.3-1.6) and versus placebo rebounders (range = 0.7-1.9).

CONCLUSION

ADHD symptom rebound occurred in few participants (3.3%) given LDX (accompanied by clinically significant EL). Overall, more participants given LDX versus placebo responded throughout the day.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder medication use: factors involved in prescribing, safety aspects and outcomes

While treatment of patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is based on a multimodal approach that combines medication with specific psychological interventions, pharmacotherapy alone is generally considered an essential and cost-effective element. This paper aims to comprehensively and critically review factors involved in prescribing and medication use in individuals diagnosed with ADHD, focusing on the difficulties facing patients with ADHD seeking treatment, as well as the safety and tolerability aspects of ADHD pharmacotherapies, with particular attention on the cardiovascular adverse events and the potential risk of misuse or diversion of ADHD medications. A comprehensive and systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE database was conducted to identify studies published in peer-reviewed journals until 1 August 2016. Children, adolescents and adults often encounter significant difficulties in the process of accessing specialist assessment and treatment for ADHD as a consequence of disparities in service organization and available treatment provision. Despite the well-established efficacy and overall safety profile, ADHD medications are not exempt from adverse events. The cardiovascular safety of pharmacotherapies used for treating individuals with ADHD has raised particular concerns; however there is little evidence of serious cardiovascular adverse events, including no serious corrected QT (QTc) abnormalities associated with stimulants, atomoxetine or α2-adrenergic receptor agonists. Although the abuse of prescription stimulant drugs, particularly, short-acting stimulants is a prevalent and growing problem, nonmedical use of prescription stimulants within the clinical context is very limited. In addition, nonstimulant ADHD medications lack any reinforcing effects and consequently any abuse potential.

Extended-Release Mixed Amphetamine Salts vs Placebo for Comorbid Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Cocaine Use Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is prevalent but often unrecognized, in part because it tends to co-occur with other disorders such as substance use disorders. Cocaine use disorder is one such disorder with high co-occurrence of ADHD.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether treatment of co-occurring ADHD and cocaine use disorder with extended-release mixed amphetamine salts is effective at both improving ADHD symptoms and reducing cocaine use.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Thirteen-week, randomized, double-blind, 3-arm, placebo-controlled trial of participants meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for both ADHD and cocaine use disorder conducted between December 1, 2007, and April 15, 2013, at 2 academic health center substance abuse treatment research sites. One hundred twenty-six adults diagnosed as having comorbid ADHD and cocaine use disorder were randomized to extended-release mixed amphetamine salts or placebo. Analysis was by intent-to-treat population.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received extended-release mixed amphetamine salts (60 or 80 mg) or placebo daily for 13 weeks and participated in weekly individual cognitive behavioral therapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

For ADHD, percentage of participants achieving at least a 30% reduction in ADHD symptom severity, measured by the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale; for cocaine use, cocaine-negative weeks (by self-report of no cocaine use and weekly benzoylecgonine urine screens) during maintenance medication (weeks 2-13) and percentage of participants achieving abstinence for the last 3 weeks.

RESULTS

More patients achieved at least a 30% reduction in ADHD symptom severity in the medication groups (60 mg: 30 of 40 participants [75.0%]; odds ratio [OR] = 5.23; 95% CI, 1.98-13.85; P < .001; and 80 mg: 25 of 43 participants [58.1%]; OR = 2.27; 95% CI, 0.94-5.49; P = .07) compared with placebo (17 of 43 participants [39.5%]). The odds of a cocaine-negative week were higher in the 80-mg group (OR = 5.46; 95% CI, 2.25-13.27; P < .001) and 60-mg group (OR = 2.92; 95% CI, 1.15-7.42; P = .02) compared with placebo. Rates of continuous abstinence in the last 3 weeks were greater for the medication groups than the placebo group: 30.2% for the 80-mg group (OR = 11.87; 95% CI, 2.25-62.62; P = .004) and 17.5% for the 60-mg group (OR = 5.85; 95% CI, 1.04-33.04; P = .04) vs 7.0% for placebo.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Extended-release mixed amphetamine salts in robust doses along with cognitive behavioral therapy are effective for treatment of co-occurring ADHD and cocaine use disorder, both improving ADHD symptoms and reducing cocaine use. The data suggest the importance of screening and treatment of ADHD in adults presenting with cocaine use disorder.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT00553319.

Toward quality care in ADHD: defining the goals of treatment

OBJECTIVE

Therapeutic goals for chronic mental disorders like major depressive disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia have evolved in parallel with the growing medical knowledge about the course and treatment of these disorders. Although the knowledge base regarding the clinical course of ADHD, a chronic psychiatric disorder, has evolved beyond symptomatic improvement and short-term treatment response, long-term goals, such as functional remission, have not yet been clearly defined.

METHOD

A PubMed literature search was conducted to investigate the therapeutic goals of pharmacologic treatment referenced in the published literature from January 1998 through February 2010 using the following commonly used ADHD treatments as keywords: amphetamine, methylphenidate, atomoxetine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, and clonidine. This search was then combined with an additional search that included the following outcome keywords: remission, relapse, remit, response, normal, normalization, recovery, and effectiveness.

RESULTS

Our search identified 102 publications. The majority (88.2% [90/102]) of these contained predefined criteria for treatment response. Predefined criteria for normalization and remission and/or relapse were presented in 4.9% (5/102), 12.7% (13/102), and 3.9% (4/102) of publications, respectively. There was a lack of consistency between the instruments used to measure outcomes as well as the criteria used to define treatment response, normalization, and remission as well as relapse.

CONCLUSION

The therapeutic goals in treating ADHD should address optimal treatment outcomes that go beyond modest reductions of ADHD symptoms to include syndromatic, symptomatic, and functional remission. Future work should focus on reliable and valid tools to measure these outcomes in the clinical trial setting.

Clinical effects of lisdexamfetamine and mixed amphetamine salts immediate release in adult ADHD: results of a crossover design clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical effects of equivalent doses of single-blind (SB; patient-blind) lisdexamfetamine (LDX) and mixed amphetamine salts-immediate release (MAS-IR) on adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a placebo (PBO)-controlled, crossover design.

METHODS

Twenty-four subjects were treated sequentially in a fixed order with (1) SB PBO (matching LDX) for 1 week, (2) SB LDX (up to 70 mg/day) for 5 weeks, (3) SB PBO washout for 3 weeks, and (4) open-label treatment MAS-IR (tid up to 45 mg/day) for 5 weeks. Clinical effects on ADHD and executive function were assessed weekly throughout the trial with the ADHD Rating Scale with adult prompts, the Clinical Global Impression Severity Scale (CGI-S), and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF).

RESULTS

Lisdexamfetamine and MAS-IR were generally well tolerated. Significant and equal reductions on ADHD clinician ratings were seen. Significantly greater reductions in CGI-S and selected BRIEF subsets were observed in LDX over MAS-IR treatment. However, in general, baseline scores for MAS-IR treatment did not fully return to the LDX baseline. Adherence in this structured and monitored clinical trial was good for once daily LDX and 3 times a day MAS-IR.

CONCLUSIONS

In this crossover study, both LDX and MAS-IR had significant effects on ADHD clinician ratings and measures of executive function (with response rates of about 80%); patients in this monitored clinical trial were adherent with once daily LDX and 3 times a day MAS-IR, which may not be the case in real-world clinical practice. The findings of some superiority of LDX over MAS-IR on the CGI-S and BRIEF ratings may be influenced by the variability in the baselines used, but nevertheless should be further investigated in larger scale, parallel-design clinical trials.

Attention benefits after a single dose of metadoxine extended release in adults with predominantly inattentive ADHD

OBJECTIVE

To assess the first-dose effectiveness and tolerability of metadoxine extended release (MDX) in adults with predominantly inattentive attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD-PI).

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, adults with ADHD-PI were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a single dose of MDX 1400 mg, MDX 700 mg, and placebo (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01685281). The primary efficacy end point was the mean change in the Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA) ADHD score from baseline to 3 to 5 hours after drug administration. Secondary assessments included TOVA subscores, TOVA response rates (defined as an increase of 0.8 points in the TOVA ADHD score), and the Cambridge Neuropsychological Automated Test Battery. Safety assessments included adverse events and vital signs.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population included 36 patients (52.8% men; mean age, 32 years). The efficacy of MDX 1400 mg was demonstrated by a statistically significant difference in the mean (± SD) change in the TOVA ADHD score at baseline to 3 to 5 hours after drug administration compared with placebo (2.0 [4.2]; P = 0.009). The TOVA response time variability subscore was significantly different between MDX 1400 mg and placebo (mean difference, 7.9 [19.2] points; P = 0.022). Significantly more adults responded to single-dose MDX 1400 mg versus placebo (97.1% vs 71.4%, P = 0.006). There were no statistically significant differences between MDX 700 mg and placebo on any measures. Exploratory analyses of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Automated Test Battery did not yield significant findings. Fatigue and headache were the 2 most frequently reported adverse events. There were no clinically significant abnormalities in laboratory values, vital signs measurements, Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale scores, or electrocardiographic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose MDX 1400 mg significantly improved sustained and selective attention in adults with ADHD-PI as measured by the TOVA ADHD score 3 to 5 hours after drug administration. Single doses of MDX 700 and 1400 mg were well tolerated.

Relationship of ADHD symptoms and global illness severity in adults treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate

The relationship between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and global clinical assessment of functionality is complex. This post-hoc analysis explores this relationship and suggests implications for patient assessment in clinical practice. Adults with ADHD on a stable lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) dose for ≥ 6 months were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal study. Participants entered a 3-week open-label phase continuing their prior LDX dose and were then randomized to placebo or the same LDX dose for a 6-week, double-blind, randomized withdrawal phase. ADHD symptom distribution was measured by the ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with Adult Prompts total score reflecting DSM-IV-TR ADHD symptom criteria and severity by Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) ratings at study entry and at end of study. Of 123 participants enrolled in the open-label phase, 116 were included in the randomized withdrawal phase (placebo, n = 60; LDX, n = 56). As reported in a prior publication, mean (standard deviation) ADHD-RS-IV total score change from baseline (week 3) to end of study (randomized-withdrawal phase) was 16.8 (11.80) for placebo and 1.6 (8.63) for LDX. At end of study, for placebo and LDX, 5.0% and 32.1% of participants, respectively, had a CGI-S = 1, 11.7% and 35.7% had a CGI-S = 2, 11.7% and 17.9% had a CGI-S = 3, 33.3% and 7.1% had a CGI-S = 4, 35.0% and 7.1% had a CGI-S = 5, and 3.3% and 0% had a CGI-S = 6; no participants had a CGI-S = 7 (P < 0.0001). The CGI-S ratings increased (worsened) as ADHD symptom scores worsened. Post-hoc regression analysis between ADHD-RS-IV scores and CGI-S demonstrated shared variance of 47% at week 3 and 69% for both placebo and LDX at end of study. Although ADHD symptom scores demonstrate a linear relationship with global illness severity, the variance suggests that other factors not captured by symptom scales are also important in assessing patient outcomes in clinical practice. (

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00877487.).

Impact of treatment of ADHD on intimate partner violence (ITAP), a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in adults is one of the predictive and treatable risk factors for delinquency, including intimate partner violence (IPV). Effective treatment of IPV needs to address personal dynamic risk factors, offender typology, and dynamics of the domestic violence. It is unknown whether treatment of ADHD symptoms contributes to a decrease in IPV. The ITAP study aims to investigate the relationship between treatment of ADHD symptoms and IPV in patients in forensic mental health care. Moreover, this study examines the role of comorbid psychopathology, subtype of the offender, and dynamics of the domestic violence.

METHODS/DESIGN

The ITAP study is a longitudinal observational study. Participants are followed one year through various assessments: one before starting treatment (t0), and four during treatment (8, 16, 24 and 52 weeks after start of the treatment). All participants receive treatment for IPV, ADHD, and comorbid psychopathology, if present. The primary outcome measure is the change in severity of IPV; the primary predictive variable is the change in severity of ADHD symptoms. The secondary outcome measure is the observation of the therapist about change in the offender's general violent behaviour, within and outside the partner relationship. Data are analysed in a multiple regression model with change in severity of IPV as the dependent variable and change in severity of ADHD symptoms as the primary predictor. Other predictive variables taken into account in the analyses are presence of comorbid psychopathology and personality disorder, subtype of the offender, and dynamics of the domestic violence. In addition, compliance with treatment and content of the treatment are documented.

DISCUSSION

Research on the treatment process of IPV offenders and victims is complicated by many factors. This observational design will not allow inferences about causality but may reveal clinically important factors that contribute to more effective treatment of IPV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR), trial ID NTR3887 .

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

Background

Understanding the nature and time course of the pharmacodynamic effects of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications is useful. The Cognitive Drug Research Computerized Battery of Tests (CDR-CBT) is a 20-min battery of ten standardized, validated neuropsychometric tasks.

Objective

This pilot study examined the sensitivity and responsiveness of the CDR-CBT for assessing cognitive function in adults with ADHD prior to and up to 16 h postdose during treatment with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) or mixed amphetamine salts immediate release (MAS-IR; various generics available).

Methods

This was a double-blind three-period crossover study. Participants received LDX 50 mg/day, MAS-IR 20 mg/day, and placebo (~7 a.m.) for 7 days each in randomized order. CDR-CBT was administered on day 1 of period 1 and day 7 of each period at scheduled times between −0.5 (predose) and 16 h postdose. Composite power of attention (PoA) score (sum of simple reaction time, choice reaction time, and digit vigilance speed) was the primary outcome measure. The Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales-Self-Report: Short Version (CAARS-S:S) was administered at baseline and on day 1 of period 1, and days 6 and 7 of each treatment period. Tertiary outcomes included CDR-CBT composite continuity of attention scores, its component task scores, cognitive reaction time, and response variability scores. No inferential statistical comparisons were conducted. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and vital signs.

Results

This analysis included 18 participants (mean age 30.8 years); one withdrew because of AEs. Mean pretreatment PoA scores were 1175.9–1361.2 ms, scores commensurate with a normative age of >40 years. Maximum reductions in PoA scores with LDX and MAS-IR occurred at 5 h postdose at day 7 (least squares mean difference [95 % CI] of −150.0 [−235.41 to −64.50] and −79.8 [−165.72 to 6.21] ms vs. placebo, respectively). CAARS-S:S scores were unchanged with LDX and MAS-IR (vs. placebo) at all postdose timepoints. Tertiary attention-related CDR-CBT outcomes were sensitive to LDX and MAS-IR (vs. placebo). Treatment-emergent AEs and vital signs were consistent with previous studies in adult ADHD.

Conclusion

In adults with ADHD, PoA scores indicated impaired attention at baseline and response to treatment with LDX and MAS-IR (vs. placebo), demonstrating value for measuring the time course of pharmacologic treatment effects.

Pharmacological interventions for adolescents and adults with ADHD: stimulant and nonstimulant medications and misuse of prescription stimulants

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that cause functional impairment. Recent research indicates that symptoms persist into adulthood in the majority of cases, with prevalence estimates of approximately 5% in the school age population and 2.5%–4% in the adult population. Although students with ADHD are at greater risk for academic underachievement and psychosocial problems, increasing numbers of students with ADHD are graduating from high school and pursuing higher education. Stimulant medications are considered the first line of pharmacotherapy for individuals with ADHD, including college students. Although preliminary evidence indicates that prescription stimulants are safe and effective for college students with ADHD when used as prescribed, very few controlled studies have been conducted concerning the efficacy of prescription stimulants with college students. In addition, misuse of prescription stimulants has become a serious problem on college campuses across the US and has been recently documented in other countries as well. The purpose of the present systematic review was to investigate the efficacy of prescription stimulants for adolescents and young adults with ADHD and the nonmedical use and misuse of prescription stimulants. Results revealed that both prostimulant and stimulant medications, including lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, methylphenidate, amphetamines, and mixed-amphetamine salts, are effective at reducing ADHD symptoms in adolescents and adults with ADHD. Findings also suggest that individuals with ADHD may have higher rates of stimulant misuse than individuals without the disorder, and characteristics such as sex, race, use of illicit drugs, and academic performance are associated with misuse of stimulant medications. Results also indicate that individuals both with and without ADHD are more likely to misuse short-acting agents than long-acting agents. These findings have implications for intervention, prevention, and future research.

Adherence to stimulants in adult ADHD

Although stimulant medication can reduce symptoms and lessen the degree of functional impairment associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the adherence rate in adults diagnosed with ADHD is reportedly <12 %. The article explores the contexts that influence stimulant medication adherence in adults diagnosed with ADHD. Using a mixed-method design, data on ADHD-related quality of life and stimulant adherence were collected from 67 adults with ADHD. Next, 18 of those adults, based on adherence/quality of life, completed semi-structured interviews. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic narrative inquiry, based on the Health Belief Model. Findings revealed no direct relation between stimulant adherence and quality of life. Instead, the doctor/patient relationship was a strong predictor of a person's quality of life. Physicians treating adults with ADHD must be aware of individual variation in stimulant response, seek to understand the functional limitations of their patients and strive to communicate effectively.

Targeting the dopamine system in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a highly heritable condition that affects a significant number of children and adults worldwide. During the past 30 years, the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD has relied on clinical assessment and empirical experience with stimulant medications. More recently, advances in family genetic studies, molecular genetic studies, preclinical research, radiographic imaging techniques and neuropsychological evaluation have significantly enhanced our understanding of the neurobiology of ADHD. This review highlights the current central role of dopamine in the pathophysiology and treatment of ADHD and implications for future advances in diagnosis and treatment.

Meta-analysis of increased heart rate and blood pressure associated with CNS stimulant treatment of ADHD in adults

Compared to children, adults with ADHD are at greater risk for developing adverse cardiovascular related outcomes and, if treated, may be likely to carry a greater burden of exposure to stimulant medications. The goal of this report is to critically review the available literature relevant to the cardiovascular safety of CNS stimulants for adult ADHD (aADHD). Twenty potential clinical trials of a CNS stimulant for aADHD have been published between 1979 and 2012. Of these, ten presented sufficient data to estimate the relative change in various cardiovascular parameters associated with ADHD treatment modalities. These trials were predominantly focused on long-acting stimulant preparations for acute symptom reduction (median duration=6 weeks, range: 4-24 weeks) and enrolled relatively young subjects (median age=36 years, range: 22-40). Using random effects meta-analysis, we found that subjects randomized to CNS stimulant treatment demonstrated a statistically significant increased resting heart rate [+5.7bpm (3.6, 7.8), p<0.001] and systolic blood pressure findings [+2.0mmHg (0.8, 3.2), p=0.005] compared with subjects randomized to placebo. There was a statistically significant increased risk for a resting heart rate >90bpm [4.2% (n=50) vs. 1.7% (n=8), OR=2.75 (1.3, 6.7), p=0.006] associated with CNS stimulant treatment. In light of prognostic value of resting heart rate with regard to cardiovascular morbidity in epidemiological studies, future research of adults with ADHD should focus on the potential clinical impact of the increase in heart rate observed in this meta-analysis.

Long-acting stimulants for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a focus on extended-release formulations and the prodrug lisdexamfetamine dimesylate to address continuing clinical challenges

Individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) show pervasive impairments across family, peer, and school or work functioning that may extend throughout the day. Psychostimulants are highly effective medications for the treatment of ADHD, and the development of long-acting stimulant formulations has greatly expanded the treatment options for individuals with ADHD. Strategies for the formulation of long-acting stimulants include the combination of immediate-release and delayed-release beads, and an osmotic-release oral system. A recent development is the availability of the first prodrug stimulant, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX). LDX itself is inactive but is cleaved enzymatically, primarily in the bloodstream, to release d-amphetamine (d-AMP). Several clinical trials have demonstrated that long-acting stimulants are effective in reducing ADHD symptoms compared with placebo. Analog classroom and simulated adult workplace environment studies have shown that long-acting stimulants produce symptom reduction for at least 12 h. Long-acting stimulants exhibit similar tolerability and safety profiles to short-acting equivalents. While variations in gastric pH and motility can alter the availability and absorption of stimulants released from long-acting formulations, the systemic exposure to d-AMP following LDX administration is unlikely to be affected by gastrointestinal conditions. Long-acting formulations may also improve adherence and lower abuse potential compared with their short-acting counterparts. The development of long-acting stimulants provides physicians with an increased range of medication options to help tailor treatment for individuals with ADHD.

Clinical response and symptomatic remission in short- and long-term trials of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

BACKGROUND

Despite the overall high degree of response to pharmacotherapy, consensus is lacking on how to judge clinical response or define optimal treatment/remission when treating adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study examined clinical response and symptomatic remission in analyses of 2 studies of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in adults with ADHD.

METHODS

In a 4-week, double-blind, forced-dose trial, adults with ADHD were randomized to LDX 30, 50, and 70 mg/day (mg/d) or placebo. In a second, open-label, follow-up trial, adults entering from the 4-week study were titrated to an "optimal" LDX dose (30 mg/d [n=44], 50 mg/d [n=112], and 70 mg/d [n=171]) over 4 weeks, and maintained for 11 additional months. The ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with adult prompts and the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale assessed efficacy. Clinical response was defined, post hoc, as ≥30% reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV and CGI-I rating of 1 or 2; symptomatic remission was defined as ADHD-RS-IV total score ≤18. Log rank analysis examined overall significance among the treatment groups in time to response or remission.

RESULTS

Four hundred and fourteen participants in the 4-week study and 345 in the open-label, extension study were included in the efficacy populations. All LDX groups improved by ADHD-RS-IV and CGI-I scores in both studies. In the 4-week study (n=414), 69.3% responded and 45.5% achieved remission with LDX (all doses); 37.1% responded and 16.1% achieved remission with placebo; time (95% CI) to median clinical response (all LDX doses) was 15.0 (15.0, 17.0) days and to remission was 31.0 (28.0, 37.0) days (P<.0001 overall). In the open-label study, with LDX (all doses), 313 (95.7%) and 278 (85.0%) of 327 participants with evaluable maintenance-phase data met criteria for response and remission, respectively. Of participants who completed dose optimization, 75.2% remained responders and 65.7% remained in remission in the 12-month study. Overall, 285 (82.6%) and 227 (65.8%) of 345 participants were responders and remitters, respectively, at their final visits.

CONCLUSION

In the long-term study, with open-label, dose-optimized LDX treatment, most adults with ADHD achieved clinical response and/or symptomatic remission; almost two-thirds maintained symptomatic remission over the remaining 11 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial Numbers: NCT00334880 and NCT01070394CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: clinicaltrials.gov.

Efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder previously treated with amphetamines: analyses from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled titration study

Background

To examine the efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who remained symptomatic (ADHD Rating Scale IV [ADHD-RS-IV] total score >18) on amphetamine (AMPH) therapy (mixed AMPH salts and/or d-AMPH formulations) prior to enrollment in a 4-week placebo-controlled LDX trial vs the overall study population. In these post hoc analyses from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, forced-dose titration study, clinical efficacy of LDX (30-70 mg/d) in adults with ADHD receiving AMPH treatment at screening vs the overall study population was evaluated. ADHD symptoms were assessed using the ADHD-RS-IV with adult prompts at screening, baseline (after prior treatment washout), and endpoint. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, laboratory findings, and electrocardiogram.

Results

Of 414 participants (62, placebo; 352, LDX) included in the overall study population, 41 were receiving AMPH therapy at screening (2, placebo; 39, LDX); mean AMPH dose was 35.0 and 34.1 mg/d for participants in placebo and all LDX groups, respectively. Of the 41 participants, 36 remained symptomatic (ADHD-RS-IV >18) at screening despite receiving AMPH. For the 36 participants in the placebo (n = 2) and LDX (n = 34) groups, respectively, at endpoint, mean change from screening ADHD-RS-IV total scores were -5.5 and -14.8 and from baseline scores were -13.5 and -17.8. For the overall study population, endpoint mean change from baseline ADHD-RS-IV total scores were -7.8 for placebo and -17.5 for LDX. In the prior AMPH subgroup, 2/2 (100.0%) in the placebo group and 22/39 (56.4%) participants in the LDX (all doses) group reported any TEAE. Events that occurred in ≥5% for LDX were dry mouth (5/39; 12.8%), headache (5/39; 12.8%), fatigue (3/39; 7.7%), insomnia (3/39; 7.7%), decreased appetite (2/39; 5.1%), and nausea (2/39; 5.1%). None of these events occurred in the 2 placebo patients with prior AMPH use.

Conclusion

In these post hoc analyses, adults with significant baseline ADHD symptoms despite adequate AMPH treatment dose showed similar improvements in ADHD symptoms with LDX treatment as the overall study population. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. The safety profile of LDX in the overall study population was consistent with long-acting psychostimulant use.

Trial registry

Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of NRP104 in Adults With Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00334880