Executive function deficits in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and improvement with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in an open-label study

The effects of working memory training on attention deficit, adaptive and non-adaptive cognitive emotion regulation of Chinese children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

BACKGROUND

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) poses cognitive and emotional challenges for Chinese children. This study addresses the potential benefits of Working Memory Training for ADHD-affected children. Understanding its impact on Attention, cognitive regulation, and emotional responses is crucial for tailored interventions in the Chinese context. The Trial Registration Number (TRN) for this study is [TRN-2023-123,456], and it was officially registered on July 15, 2023, by Changchun Normal University.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated how Working Memory training influences Attention, adaptive cognitive regulation, and non-adaptive cognitive emotion regulation in Chinese children with ADHD. It also assessed changes in attentional focus, improvements in adaptive cognitive regulation, and alterations in non-adaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies.

METHODOLOGY

This quasi-experimental study aimed to assess the impact of working memory training on Chinese children with ADHD. Using pretest-posttest measures, 120 female students underwent Cogmed software training, targeting attention deficits and cognitive emotion regulation. Three reliable instruments measured outcomes. The procedure involved informed consent, questionnaires, 25 training sessions, and a two-month follow-up. Statistical analyses, including repeated measures ANOVA, assessed training effects.

RESULTS

ANOVA revealed a significant impact of Working memory training on attention deficit. Repeated measures ANOVA for cognitive emotion regulation indicated positive changes in adaptive and non-adaptive strategies over time, with sustained improvements in self-blame, rumination, catastrophizing, and blaming others. Bonferroni follow-up tests showed significant differences between pre-test, post-test, and follow-up, favoring the post-test and follow-up tests.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, this research sheds light on the positive impact of memory training on Attention and cognitive emotion regulation in children with ADHD. The study underscores the potential of working memory interventions, particularly software-focused approaches, in enhancing attention levels and improving cognitive emotion regulation. The findings align with existing literature emphasizing the role of working memory deficits in ADHD.

IMPLICATIONS

Practically, incorporating memory training interventions into educational settings emerges as a viable strategy to support children with ADHD. This includes integrating memory training programs into both classroom activities and home-based interventions. Additionally, sustained implementation and long-term follow-up assessments are crucial for maximizing the effectiveness of memory training interventions. Tailoring interventions to specific ADHD subtypes and seamlessly integrating memory training activities into daily routines offer practical and personalized solutions for managing ADHD symptoms in diverse settings.

History of Childhood/Adolescence Referral to Speciality Care or Treatment in Adult Patients with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Mutual Relations with Clinical Presentation, Psychiatric Comorbidity and Emotional Dysregulation

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition that only rarely remits in adulthood. While several studies underlined differences between child and adult ADHD, the relationship between adult clinical presentation and early referral/treatment has been rarely investigated. In our study, 100 adults with ADHD were recruited and subdivided according to a history of referral to speciality care or treatment with methylphenidate (MPH) during childhood/adolescence. The early referral was associated with a history of disruptive behaviors during childhood/adolescence. Current ADHD symptoms were more pronounced in patients first referred during childhood/adolescence but never treated with MPH. Early MPH treatment was associated with lower rates of mood disorders and lower severity of emotional dysregulation at the time of assessment. Negative emotionality mediated the relationship between MPH treatment and mood disorders comorbidity. ADHD patients first referred during childhood/adolescence are characterized by more externalizing features than those first referred in adulthood. MPH treatment during the developmental age may have a role in preventing mood disorders in patients with ADHD, possibly by reducing emotional dysregulation.

Revisiting stimulant use for emotional dysregulation in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

INTRODUCTION

Emotional dysregulation (ED) symptoms are present in a considerable portion of patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In recent years, an increasing number of studies investigated the effects of stimulant medications on ED in patients with ADHD.

AREAS COVERED

A narrative review of the literature on stimulant treatment for ED is provided, including controlled and observational clinical studies conducted on pediatric and adult samples and neurobiological investigations. Positive effects of stimulants on irritability have been demonstrated in children. Comorbidity with disruptive behavior disorders (DBD) and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder does not prevent stimulant effectiveness. Methylphenidate has also been found to reduce temper problems, affective instability, and emotional over-reactivity in adults with ADHD, although with variable effect sizes. A variety of adverse emotional effects have been reported, especially at high doses and in special populations. However, several possible confounders of treatment-emergent ED have been highlighted. Finally, according to neuroimaging studies, stimulants may mitigate emotional processing anomalies associated with ADHD.

EXPERT OPINION

The findings are consistent with models including ED within the core features of ADHD. Stimulant treatment should be prioritized over antipsychotics in ADHD-DBD. It remains to be elucidated whether other medications may be more effective in specific populations with ADHD and/or ED.

Selective Effects of Methylphenidate on Attention and Inhibition in 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome: Results From a Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit and/or hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent psychiatric disorder in children with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) and frequently persists into adulthood. Although medication with stimulant has been demonstrated to be highly effective in idiopathic ADHD, evidence in 22q11DS is still scarce. Previous studies have shown safety and effectiveness of methylphenidate (MPH) on core symptoms of ADHD as well as improvement of associated cognitive deficits. However, only a limited number of cognitive domains have been explored.

METHODS

Twenty-three participants with 22q11DS and attention difficulties, aged 8-24 years, entered a clinical trial aiming to specify the effects of MPH on clinical symptoms, cognition, and daily-life behavior. The effects of treatment were compared with/without medication in a within-subject design. The trial included both participants naïve to the molecule and chronic users.

RESULTS

Benefit from the treatment was demonstrated through a decrease in core ADHD symptoms, specifically inattention symptoms, and improvement of cognitive measures of attention and inhibition. Conversely, no significant change was found for other executive functions (such as cognitive flexibility, working memory, initiation), learning, or memory. Moreover, no significant improvement on ecological measures of daily-life executive functioning was found, possibly because of the short treatment period. We replicated safety, and although very frequent, side effects were of mild intensity and comparable with previous findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This study extends the current knowledge on the effects of MPH in patients with 22q11DS. Treatment was found to be effective for core ADHD symptoms and cognitive measures of attention and inhibition.

Executive Function Outcome of Treatment with Viloxazine Extended-Release Capsules in Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Post-Hoc Analysis of Four Randomized Clinical Trials

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of viloxazine extended-release capsules (viloxazine ER; Qelbree™) on executive function deficits (EFDs) in pediatric subjects (6-17 years of age) with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

Data from four phase III placebo-controlled trials of 100-600 mg/day viloxazine ER (6-8 weeks of treatment) were used to evaluate the change from baseline (CFB) in the Conners 3rd Edition Parent Short Form-Executive Function (C3PS-EF) content scale T-score. Subjects were defined as EFD responders if they had C3PS-EF T-score > 70 at baseline and < 65 at end of study. ADHD symptoms were assessed with ADHD Rating Scale 5th Edition (ADHD-RS-5). Subjects were defined as ADHD symptom responders if they had a ≥ 50% reduction in CFB ADHD-RS-5 Total score at Week 6. The number needed to treat (NNT) and Cohen's d effect sizes were estimated for EFD and ADHD symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 1154 subjects were included in the analysis. Statistically significant improvements in EFDs were observed with viloxazine ER versus placebo (p = 0.0002). There were 52.5% of EFD or ADHD symptom responders in the viloxazine ER treatment group and 35.4% in the placebo group (p < 0.0001). The NNT was 5.8. The Cohen's d effect size for EFD and ADHD symptoms was 0.31.

CONCLUSION

Consistent with the efficacy of viloxazine ER demonstrated in pivotal trials, viloxazine ER significantly reduced EFDs in subjects with ADHD. Moreover, a substantial proportion of subjects treated with viloxazine ER had large improvements in EFDs, ADHD symptoms, or both.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT03247530, NCT03247517, NCT03247543, NCT03247556.

Review of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVE

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate is a stimulant prodrug with low abuse and diversion potential that is used in treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, adolescents and adults. This current literature review article aims to examine safety and efficacy of LDX in children and adolescents for the treatment of ADHD based on currently available data.

METHODS

Relevant English language articles were identified through computerized searches of the MEDLINE database (PubMed and EMBASE) and clinical trials registry up to January 2020 using the following search terms: lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, pro-drug stimulant, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders, ADHD, safety, efficacy, children, adolescents, Vyvanse. Forty-two articles were reviewed, 34 of which were included into this review, selected by the limit "clinical trials". This article represents the pharmacological profile, efficacy and safety data of LDX for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents.

RESULTS

The collection of studies reviewed identified that LDX was both safe and efficacious in the treatment of ADHD. The most commonly exhibited side effects were appetite suppression, weight loss, headache and insomnia. In comparison to placebo, LDX significantly improved ADHD symptoms and overall quality of life in children and adolescents. In comparison to atomoxetine, LDX showed statistically significant improvements in inattention, impulsivity, and activities of daily living. In comparison to OROS-MPH and placebo, LDX and OROS-MPH showed improvements with the CGI-I score, and ADHD-RS-IV, however, LDX was superior.

CONCLUSION

Patients have seen statistically significant improvements in their ADHD symptomatology in the classroom environment, health related quality of life, and their overall behavior in comparison to placebo, atomoxetine, and OROS-MPH. However, clinical judgment should be utilized when prescribing LDX due to patient specific needs and the side effect profile.

A Controlled Trial of Extended-Release Guanfacine and Psychostimulants on Executive Function and ADHD

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of guanfacine extended-release (GXR) versus placebo as adjunct therapy to usual care stimulant therapy in improving executive function in children aged 6 to 12 years diagnosed with ADHD. Method: In this single center, double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial, subjects continued to take their psychostimulant and were randomly assigned at baseline to receive active treatment or placebo first. Efficacy measures included Behavioural Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-P), ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS IV), and Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales. Safety measures included adverse events and vital signs. Results: Significant benefits of GXR plus psychostimulant were observed on BRIEF-P (p value = .0392), ADHD-RS-IV (p < .0001), CGI-S (p = .0007), and CGI-I (p = .003). There were no serious adverse events and no new safety signals. Conclusion: Use of GXR as adjunctive therapy to stimulant therapy significantly improves executive function in children with ADHD.

A phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of single and multiple doses of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in Japanese and Caucasian healthy adult subjects

Aim

To assess safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in Japanese and Caucasian healthy adults.

Methods

A phase 1, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, single‐ and multiple‐dose study in Japanese and Caucasian subjects. Subjects received lisdexamfetamine 20 mg or placebo on Day 1, then lisdexamfetamine 20 mg/d (Days 4‐8), 50 mg/d (Days 9‐13), 70 mg/d (Days 14‐18), or matching placebo. Pharmacokinetic parameters for lisdexamfetamine and d‐amphetamine were estimated by noncompartmental analysis.

Results

Fifteen Japanese and 19 Caucasian subjects were enrolled and randomized. The lisdexamfetamine and d‐amphetamine plasma concentration‐time curves were similar for both ethnic groups following single and multiple doses. Mean area under the concentration‐time curves for d‐amphetamine were higher (by 11%‐15%) in Japanese than Caucasian subjects following multiple dosing of lisdexamfetamine. Mean bodyweight was 17% lower in Japanese than Caucasian subjects. Weight‐corrected means for oral clearance were similar in both ethnic groups, with no unexpected accumulation of d‐amphetamine. Lisdexamfetamine was generally well tolerated by both ethnic groups, with no serious adverse events reported. The 10/12 Japanese and 11/16 Caucasian subjects who received lisdexamfetamine completed the study; two Japanese and three Caucasian subjects discontinued due to adverse events. Most adverse events were of mild severity.

Conclusion

Pharmacokinetics were generally similar for Japanese and Caucasian subjects; the minor differences observed were likely due to bodyweight differences in the two ethnic groups. Lisdexamfetamine was generally well tolerated. Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profile of lisdexamfetamine and were similar in both ethnic groups.

This phase 1, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled study was conducted to assess safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in Japanese and Caucasian subjects. Fifteen Japanese and 19 Caucasian subjects were enrolled and randomized to receive lisdexamfetamine 20 mg (Day 1), 20 mg/d (Days 4‐8), 50 mg/d (Days 9‐13), and 70 mg/d (Days 14‐18), or matching placebo. Pharmacokinetics were generally similar for Japanese and Caucasian subjects; minor differences observed were likely due to bodyweight differences in the two ethnic groups, and lisdexamfetamine was generally well tolerated.

Assessment of executive function in ADHD adolescents: contribution of performance tests and rating scales

This study aimed to analyze performance on measures of neuropsychological and behavioral executive functions (EF) in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and to evaluate the utility of performance-based tests for predicting scores on behavioral EF ratings. One hundred eighteen adolescents (75 ADHD and 43 controls) aged 12-16 years performed neuropsychological tests and completed a behavior rating scale of EF. The ADHD group presented significantly lower scores than controls on Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) and all indexes of the WISC-IV, except the verbal comprehension index (VCI). The ADHD group had significantly lower scores on performance-based tests of working memory, planning and inhibition, and on EF rating scales. Scores on the cognitive EF working memory, planning and flexibility modestly predicted performance on behavioral EF. The results suggest that the combined use of performance-based tests and rating scales provides valuable complementary information that can improve the assessment of executive domains in ADHD.

Amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common psychiatric conditions affecting children and adolescents. Amphetamines are among the most commonly prescribed medications to manage ADHD. There are three main classes of amphetamines: dexamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine and mixed amphetamine salts, which can be further broken down into short- and long-acting formulations. A systematic review assessing their efficacy and safety in this population has never been conducted.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for ADHD in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

In August 2015 we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, and the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews identified by the searches. No language or date restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing amphetamine derivatives against placebo in a pediatric population (< 18 years) with ADHD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data on participants, settings, interventions, methodology, and outcomes for each included study. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and for dichotomous outcomes we calculated the risk ratio (RR). Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We also performed a meta-analysis of the most commonly reported adverse events in the primary studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 trials (8 parallel-group and 15 cross-over trials), with 2675 children aged three years to 17 years. All studies compared amphetamines to placebo. Study durations ranged from 14 days to 365 days, with the majority lasting less than six months. Most studies were conducted in the United States; three studies were conducted across Europe. We judged 11 included studies to be at a high risk of bias due to insufficient blinding methods, failing to account for dropouts and exclusions from the analysis, and failing to report on all outcomes defined a priori. We judged the remaining 12 studies to be at unclear risk of bias due to inadequate reporting.Amphetamines improved total ADHD core symptom severity according to parent ratings (SMD -0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.86 to -0.27; 7 studies; 1247 children/adolescents; very low quality evidence), teacher ratings (SMD -0.55; 95% CI -0.83 to -0.27; 5 studies; 745 children/adolescents; low quality evidence), and clinician ratings (SMD -0.84; 95% CI -1.32 to -0.36; 3 studies; 813 children/adolescents; very low quality evidence). In addition, the proportion of responders as rated by the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) scale was higher when children were taking amphetamines (RR 3.36; 95% CI 2.48 to 4.55; 9 studies; 2207 children/adolescents; very low quality evidence).The most commonly reported adverse events included decreased appetite, insomnia/trouble sleeping, abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, headaches, and anxiety. Amphetamines were associated with a higher proportion of participants experiencing decreased appetite (RR 6.31; 95% CI 2.58 to 15.46; 11 studies; 2467 children/adolescents), insomnia (RR 3.80; 95% CI 2.12 to 6.83; 10 studies; 2429 children/adolescents), and abdominal pain (RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.00; 10 studies; 2155 children/adolescents). In addition, the proportion of children who experienced at least one adverse event was higher in the amphetamine group (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.44; 6 studies; 1742 children/adolescents; low quality evidence).We performed subgroup analyses for amphetamine preparation (dexamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts), amphetamine release formulation (long acting versus short acting), and funding source (industry versus non industry). Between-group differences were observed for proportion of participants experiencing decreased appetite in both the amphetamine preparation (P < 0.00001) and amphetamine release formulation (P value = 0.008) subgroups, as well as for retention in the amphetamine release formulation subgroup (P value = 0.03).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most of the included studies were at high risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low on most outcomes. Although amphetamines seem efficacious at reducing the core symptoms of ADHD in the short term, they were associated with a number of adverse events. This review found no evidence that supports any one amphetamine derivative over another, and does not reveal any differences between long-acting and short-acting amphetamine preparations. Future trials should be longer in duration (i.e. more than 12 months), include more psychosocial outcomes (e.g. quality of life and parent stress), and be transparently reported.

Contribution of rating scales to intervention for executive dysfunction

Executive dysfunction is present in children, adolescents, and adults with a wide range of clinical conditions. A growing body of literature has demonstrated the usefulness of rating scales designed to gauge executive functioning in everyday life. In this article, we discuss evidence supporting the use of such rating scales to assess intervention outcome, how they may inform development of interventions, and how comparing rater perspectives can assess awareness of cognitive dysfunction. We provide an example of how an executive function rating scale helped define intervention targets and measured outcomes in a recently published real-world intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder. Rating scales of executive function provide valuable information with respect to treatment planning and assessment of intervention outcome.

The effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate on emotional lability in children 6 to 12 years of age with ADHD in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on emotional lability (EL) in children with ADHD.

METHOD

Post hoc analyses of a placebo-controlled trial of LDX-stratified children (aged 6-12 years) with ADHD to prominent and not prominent EL at baseline (score >3 or ≤3, respectively, on Conners' Parent Rating Scale [CPRS] items of anger, loss of temper, and irritability). Efficacy was assessed by change in CPRS EL scores and ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total and subscale scores. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

LDX showed improvement versus placebo (p < .0005) for EL item least squares (LS) mean change scores at endpoint and throughout the day. At baseline, 138 and 73 participants randomized to LDX treatment and having baseline and endpoint CPRS scores were categorized with CPRS-derived prominent and not prominent baseline EL, respectively; 41 and 31 participants randomized to placebo were categorized with CPRS-derived prominent and not prominent baseline EL, respectively. ADHD-RS-IV total and subscale scores decreased with LDX regardless of baseline EL severity. TEAEs included decreased appetite, insomnia, upper abdominal pain, headache, and irritability.

CONCLUSION

EL and ADHD symptoms improved with LDX regardless of baseline EL symptom severity. LDX demonstrated a safety profile consistent with long-acting psychostimulant use.

A pilot study of lis-dexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX/SPD489) to facilitate smoking cessation in nicotine-dependent adults with ADHD

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of lis-dexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) as an adjunct to nicotine replacement therapy in adult smokers with ADHD who were undergoing a quit attempt.

METHODS

Thirty-two regular adult smokers with ADHD were randomized to receive LDX (n = 17) or placebo (n = 15) in addition to nicotine patch concurrent with a quit attempt.

RESULTS

There were no differences between smokers assigned to LDX versus placebo in any smoking outcomes. Participants treated with LDX demonstrated significant reductions in self-reported and clinician-rated ADHD symptoms. LDX was well tolerated in smokers attempting to quit.

DISCUSSION

In general, LDX does not facilitate smoking cessation in adults with ADHD more than does placebo, though both groups significantly reduced smoking. LDX demonstrated efficacy for reducing ADHD symptoms in adult smokers engaging in a quit attempt.

Parent-reported executive function behaviors and clinician ratings of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in children treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to describe the relationships between parent-rated executive function (EF) and clinician-rated attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms before and after lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) treatment in children with and without EF deficit.

METHODS

In post-hoc analyses of children with ADHD who participated in a 7 week open-label, dose-optimized (LDX 20-70 mg/day) trial, ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) change scores were compared (using two-sample t tests) between youth with and without clinically significant EF impairment at baseline. Clinically significant impairment was defined as parent-rated Behavior Rating Inventory of EF (BRIEF) Global Executive Composite (GEC) t scores ≥65. Relationships between baseline and endpoint BRIEF and ADHD-RS-IV scores were examined using Pearson correlations and generalized effect linear model. Safety assessment included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

At baseline, 265/315 participants (84.1%) had a clinically significant BRIEF score. Their mean (SD) ADHD-RS-IV total score at baseline was 42.1 (6.64) for those with, and 36.5 (6.67) for those without, clinically significant BRIEF. At endpoint, ADHD-RS-IV total and subscale scores were significantly improved (p<0.0001) for both those with and those without clinically significant baseline BRIEF scores. Moderately strong, positive Pearson correlations were observed between BRIEF and ADHD-RS-IV total and subscale scores. In the generalized effect linear model, ADHD-RS-IV change scores were significantly correlated with endpoint BRIEF scores (r(2)=0.35, β=0.73, p<0.0001). In the subgroup without clinically significant BRIEF t scores at endpoint, parents and clinicians rated 90% and 95%, respectively, as improved. In the subgroup with clinically significant BRIEF t scores at endpoint, parents and clinicians rated 69% and 78%, respectively, as improved. TEAEs were experienced by 269/318 (84.9%) participants; most (82.7%) experienced events mild to moderate in intensity. A total of 12/318 (4.1%) participants discontinued because of TEAEs.

CONCLUSION

Clinically significant impairment of EF behaviors in children with ADHD was associated with more severe ADHD symptoms. LDX therapy improved ADHD symptom severity, and at endpoint, fewer participants displayed impairment of EF behaviors (versus baseline). The parent-rated BRIEF may describe clinically important EF behaviors not assessed by the 18-item ADHD-RS-IV.

Update on optimal use of lisdexamfetamine in the treatment of ADHD

Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) has been a recent addition to the treatment armamentarium for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). It is unique among stimulants as it is a prodrug, and has been found to be safe and well-tolerated medication in children older than 6 years, adolescents and adults. It has a smooth onset of action, exerts its action up to 13 hours and may have less rebound symptoms. LDX has proven to be effective in the treatment of ADHD in placebo controlled trials, and improved performance in simulated academic and work environments have been noticed. Both stimulant-naïve and stimulant-exposed patients with ADHD appear to benefit from LDX. It has also shown some promise in improving emotional expression and executive function of patients with ADHD. Adverse effects such as decrease in sleep, loss of appetite and others have been reported with LDX use, just as with other stimulant formulations. Since most such studies exclude subjects with preexisting cardiac morbidity, prescribing precautions should be taken with LDX in such subjects, as with any other stimulant. Study subjects on LDX have been reported to have low scores on drug likability scales, even with intravenous use; as a result, LDX may have somewhat less potential for abuse and diversion. There is a need for future studies comparing other long acting stimulants with LDX in ADHD; in fact clinical trials comparing LDX with OROS (osmotic controlled-release oral delivery system) methylphenidate are currently underway. Furthermore, the utility of this medication in other psychiatric disorders and beyond ADHD is being investigated.

Assessing treatment outcomes in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a narrative review

OBJECTIVE

To review measures used to assess treatment response in patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) across the life span.

DATA SOURCES

Keyword searches of English-language articles in the PubMed database up to and including the May 4, 2011, index date were performed with the search strings (1) (attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity [MeSH] OR ADHD) AND (outcome assessment [MeSH] OR adaptation of life skills OR executive function [MeSH]) and (2) (attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity [MeSH] OR ADHD) AND (function OR functioning OR quality of life [MeSH]).

STUDY SELECTION

Articles found through this search were then selected based on relevance to the topic area; no specific quality criteria were applied.

DATA EXTRACTION

Narrative review.

RESULTS

The vast majority of studies assessing ADHD treatments have measured treatment response using ADHD symptom measures. Additional domains relevant for assessing treatment response among children and adults with ADHD include functional impairment, quality of life, adaptive life skills, and executive function. Validated rating scales exist for assessing these additional domains, but there has been minimal research evaluating the sensitivity of these instruments for detecting treatment response in pediatric and adult samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of treatment outcomes in ADHD should move beyond symptom assessment to incorporate measures of functioning, quality of life, adaptive skills, and executive function, especially when assessing long-term treatment response. The authors recommend a potential battery and schedule of measures that could be used to more comprehensively assess treatment response in patients with ADHD.

Lisdexamfetamine in the treatment of adolescents and children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is one of the most common neurobehavioral disorders defined by developmentally inappropriate levels of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Symptoms begin in childhood and may persist into adolescence and adulthood. Currently available pharmacological treatment options for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents include stimulants that are efficacious and well tolerated; however, many of these preparations require multiple daily dosing and have the potential for abuse. Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, the first prodrug stimulant, was developed to provide a longer duration of effect. It demonstrates a predictable delivery of the active drug, d-amphetamine, with low interpatient variability, and has a reduced potential for abuse. A literature search of the MEDLINE database and clinical trials register from 1995-2011, as well as relevant abstracts presented at annual professional meetings, on lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children and adolescents were included for review. This article presents the pharmacokinetic profile, efficacy, and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and, more recently, in adolescents.

The use of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate for the treatment of ADHD

ADHD is a common neurobehavioral disorder characterized by significant impairment in attention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. Symptoms begin in childhood and can persist into adulthood. Current data suggest that abnormal functioning of the prefrontal cortex, cortical and subcortical regions of the brain have roles in ADHD. All currently approved drugs used to treat ADHD enhance dopamine and norepinephrine signals in these regions. Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is a long-acting amphetamine prodrug indicated for the treatment of ADHD and has been shown to be effective in children, adolescents and adults. The prodrug properties of LDX make it a desirable treatment because of its long duration of effect, and low intrasubject and intersubject pharmacokinetic variability, and attenuated response on measures of abuse liability when compared with immediate-release amphetamine. However, LDX is still classified as a controlled substance. In this article, the pharmacokinetic parameters and efficacy and safety of LDX are reviewed.