A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of SLI381 (Adderall XR) in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

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.

Vortioxetine for Major Depressive Disorder in Adolescents: 12-Week Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Fluoxetine-Referenced, Fixed-Dose Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vortioxetine in adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHOD

After 4 weeks of single-blind lead-in treatment with a Brief Psychosocial Intervention (BPI) plus placebo, patients (aged 12-17 years) with MDD (DSM-5) who did not meet response criteria (Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised [CDRS-R]; total score ≥40 plus <40% reduction and a Parent Global Assessment score >2) were randomized 1:1:1:1 to 8 weeks of BPI plus double-blind treatment with vortioxetine 10 mg, vortioxetine 20 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from randomization in CDRS-R total score at week 8; the primary comparison was the average effect of 2 vortioxetine doses vs placebo.

RESULTS

Of 784 patients enrolled in the lead-in, 616 were randomized. At week 8, the mean change in CDRS-R total score averaged for vortioxetine doses was -18.01 (SE = 0.98) and the mean difference vs placebo was 0.21 (P = .878; not significant). For fluoxetine, the mean change in CDRS-R total score was -21.95 and the mean difference vs placebo was -3.73 (P = .015). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in ≥5% of patients in either vortioxetine arm and at least twice more frequently than placebo were nausea, headache, vomiting, and dizziness.

CONCLUSION

Patients in all groups showed reduction in CDRS-R scores by the end of the study, with no difference between combined doses of vortioxetine and placebo. The primary endpoint was not met, thereby rendering the study negative. The overall favorable safety profile of vortioxetine in an adolescent patient population was consistent with that seen in adults.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

Active Reference (Fluoxetine) Fixed-Dose Study of Vortioxetine in Paediatric Patients Aged 12 to 17 Years With Major Depressive Disorder (MDD); http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02709746.

Relationship Between Treatment Duration and Efficacy of Pharmacological Treatment for ADHD: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of 87 Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

Objective: To determine the relationship between treatment duration and the efficacy of pharmacological treatment for reducing ADHD symptoms. Method: We conducted a systematic review of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of pharmacological interventions in patients with ADHD. The last bibliographic search was performed in April 15, 2019. The effect of treatment duration on efficacy was studied using meta-regression. Results: A total of 87 studies lasting from 3 to 28 weeks were included. Pharmacological treatment improved ADHD symptom severity by -7.35 points. Treatment duration did not moderate the efficacy of pharmacological treatment. Consistent results were found for psychostimulant drugs, methylphenidate, amphetamine derivatives, atomoxetine, and α2-agonists. A negative correlation was found between baseline ADHD severity efficacy (Coefficient = -.250, p = .013). Conclusion: The efficacy of pharmacological treatment for ADHD remains stable over time. A greater efficacy in more severe patients is suggested.

A Phase 3, Randomized Double-Blind Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose SHP465 Mixed Amphetamine Salts Extended-Release in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Objectives: In a previous pivotal study of children and adolescents (aged 6-17 years) with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dose-optimized SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) extended-release (12.5-25 mg once daily) was superior to placebo in reducing ADHD symptoms. This study evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 6.25 mg SHP465 MAS once daily (one-half the lowest approved dose for adolescents and adults) versus placebo in children aged 6-12 years with ADHD. Methods: Children (aged 6-12 years) with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth edition-defined ADHD; baseline ADHD-Rating Scale, Fifth Edition, Child, Home Version total scores (ADHD-RS-5-HV-TS) ≥28; and baseline Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scores ≥4 were eligible. Participants received 6.25 mg SHP465 MAS once daily or placebo for 4 weeks. The primary (ADHD-RS-5-HV-TS change from baseline at week 4) and key secondary (Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement [CGI-I] score at week 4) efficacy end points were assessed using linear mixed-effects models for repeated measures. Safety and tolerability assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and vital sign changes. Results: Of 89 randomized participants, 83 completed the study (placebo, n = 41; SHP465 MAS, n = 42). At week 4, the least squares mean (95% confidence interval) treatment differences (SHP465 MAS-placebo) were not statistically significant for ADHD-RS-5-HV-TS change (-1.9 [-6.8 to 3.1], p = 0.451; effect size [ES] = 0.17) or CGI-I score (-0.1 [-0.5 to 0.3], nominal p = 0.597; ES = 0.12). The percentage of participants reporting TEAEs was 16.3% with placebo and 24.4% with SHP465 MAS. The most frequently reported TEAEs (placebo; SHP465 MAS) were headache (7.0%; 4.4%) and decreased appetite (4.7%; 2.2%). Minimal increases in blood pressure were observed with SHP465 MAS at the final on-treatment assessment. Conclusions: SHP465 MAS 6.25 mg once daily (one-half the lowest dose approved for adolescents and adults) was well tolerated in children aged 6-12 years but was not superior to placebo in reducing ADHD symptoms, suggesting that this dose of SHP465 MAS was subtherapeutic in this age group. The Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03325881.

Safety of 80 antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/hyperactivity medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders: a large scale systematic meta-review of 78 adverse effects

Mental disorders frequently begin in childhood or adolescence. Psychotropic medications have various indications for the treatment of mental dis-orders in this age group and are used not infrequently off-label. However, the adverse effects of these medications require special attention during developmentally sensitive periods of life. For this meta-review, we systematically searched network meta-analyses and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), individual RCTs, and cohort studies reporting on 78 a priori selected adverse events across 19 categories of 80 psychotropic medications - including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications and mood stabilizers - in children and adolescents with mental disorders. We included data from nine network meta-analyses, 39 meta-analyses, 90 individual RCTs, and eight cohort studies, including 337,686 children and adolescents. Data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events were available for six antidepressants (sertraline, escitalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, venlafaxine and vilazodone), eight antipsychotics (risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole, lurasidone, paliperidone, ziprasidone, olanzapine and asenapine), three anti-ADHD medications (methylphenidate, atomoxetine and guanfacine), and two mood stabilizers (valproate and lithium). Among these medications with data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events, a safer profile emerged for escitalopram and fluoxetine among antidepressants, lurasidone for antipsychotics, methylphenidate among anti-ADHD medications, and lithium among mood stabilizers. The available literature raised most concerns about the safety of venlafaxine, olanzapine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and valproate. Nausea/vomiting and discontinuation due to adverse event were most frequently associated with antidepressants; sedation, extrapyramidal side effects, and weight gain with antipsychotics; anorexia and insomnia with anti-ADHD medications; sedation and weight gain with mood stabilizers. The results of this comprehensive and updated quantitative systematic meta-review of top-tier evidence regarding the safety of antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-ADHD medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents can inform clinical practice, research and treatment guidelines.

Illicit Stimulant Use Development in Adolescence and Early Adulthood Among Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors Predicting Heterogeneity

The objectives of this article are to identify groups of trajectories of stimulant use across adolescence and early adulthood among juvenile offenders and to identify risk factors predicting development. Group-based trajectory modeling was used to identify developmental subgroups of stimulant users during the study period. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine baseline covariates’ relevance for predicting assignment to identified trajectory groups. A six-group model of stimulant use was found to best fit the data. Race, history of direct victimization at baseline, gender, low school commitment at baseline, low religiosity at baseline, and other substance use at baseline were all identified as predictors of trajectory group assignment. Juvenile offenders, particularly White and female offenders, are at elevated risk of illicit stimulant use during adolescence and early adulthood. Despite this, the vast majority of juvenile offenders in the sample had desisted by age 23, differing from research on other substances using this same sample.

Adverse drug events related to mood and emotion in paediatric patients treated for ADHD: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

ADHD is frequently comorbid with anxiety and mood disorders, which may increase the severity of inattention and hyperactivity symptoms. Emotional symptoms (anxiety, irritability, mood lability) also affect patients without comorbidity or emerge as adverse drug events. The influence of ADHD drugs on emotional symptoms demands investigation to improve therapies.

METHODS

Systematic review of trials reporting adverse events in patients pharmacologically treated for ADHD. Meta-analysis of the occurrence of irritability, anxiety, apathy, reduced talk, sadness, crying, emotional lability, biting nails, staring, perseveration, euphoria. Meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-five trials were meta-analysed. The most frequently reported outcomes were irritability, anxiety, sadness, and apathy. Methylphenidates, especially immediate-release formulations, were most studied; amphetamines were half as studied and were predominantly mixed amphetamine salts. Reports on atomoxetine were scant. Meta-analysis showed that methylphenidates reduced the risk of irritability, anxiety, euphoria, whereas they worsened the risk of apathy and reduced talk; amphetamines worsened the risk of emotional lability. Factors influencing risks were study year and design, patients' sex and age, drug dose and release formulation.

LIMITATIONS

Possible discrepancy between adverse events as indicated in clinical trials and as summarised herein. Confounding due to the aggregation of drugs into groups; uninvestigated sources of bias; incomplete lists of adverse events; lack of observations on self-injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Methylphenidates appeared safer than amphetamines, although younger patients and females may incur higher risks, especially with high-dose, immediate-release methylphenidates. Only atomoxetine holds a black-box warning, but amphetamines and methylphenidates also did not show a safe profile regarding mood and emotional symptoms.

Efficacy and Safety of Amphetamine Extended-Release Oral Suspension in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of amphetamine extended-release oral suspension (AMPH EROS) in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a dose-optimized, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study.

METHODS

Boys and girls aged 6 to 12 years diagnosed with ADHD were enrolled. During a 5-week, open-label, dose-optimization phase, patients began treatment with 2.5 or 5 mg/day of AMPH EROS; doses were titrated until an optimal dose (maximum 20 mg/day) was reached. During the double-blind phase, patients were randomized to receive treatment with either their optimized dose (10-20 mg/day) of AMPH EROS or placebo for 1 week. Efficacy was assessed in a laboratory classroom setting on the final day of double-blind treatment using the Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham (SKAMP) Rating Scale and Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP) test. Safety was assessed measuring adverse events (AEs) and vital signs.

RESULTS

The study was completed by 99 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint (change from predose SKAMP-Combined score at 4 hours postdose) and secondary endpoints (change from predose SKAMP-Combined scores at 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 13 hours postdose) were statistically significantly improved with AMPH EROS treatment versus placebo at all time points. Onset of treatment effect was present by 1 hour postdosing, the first time point measured, and duration of efficacy lasted 13 hours postdosing. PERMP data mirrored the SKAMP-Combined score data. AEs (>5%) reported during dose optimization were decreased appetite, insomnia, affect lability, upper abdominal pain, mood swings, and headache.

CONCLUSION

AMPH EROS was effective in reducing symptoms of ADHD and had a rapid onset and extended duration of effect. Reported AEs were consistent with those of other extended-release amphetamine products.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in people with Intellectual Disability

Two case reports of people with severe intellectual disability (ID), Autism and challenging behaviour are discussed here to describe the presentation of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in people with ID. Both cases highlight how the diagnosis of ADHD can be missed and the behaviours attributed to ID and autism, which could lead to using ineffective treatment strategies. The case reports illustrate the importance of the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in people with ID and how it can make a difference to their clinical presentation and quality of life.

SHP465 Mixed Amphetamine Salts in the Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind dose-optimization study enrolled children and adolescents (6-17 years) meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision ADHD criteria and having baseline ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total scores ≥28. Participants were randomized 1:1 to placebo or dose-optimized SHP465 MAS (12.5-25 mg) for 4 weeks. Total score change (baseline to week 4) on the ADHD-RS-IV (primary endpoint) and the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale score at week 4 (key secondary endpoint) were assessed using linear mixed-effects models for repeated measures. Safety and tolerability assessments (secondary endpoints) included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and vital sign changes.

RESULTS

Of 264 randomized participants (placebo, n = 132; SHP465 MAS, n = 132), 234 (placebo, n = 118; SHP465 MAS, n = 116) completed the study. The least squares mean (95% confidence interval) treatment difference significantly favored SHP465 MAS over placebo for ADHD-RS-IV total score change from baseline to week 4 (-9.9 [-13.0, -6.8]; p < 0.001; effect size = 0.80) and CGI-I score at week 4 (-0.8 [-1.1, -0.5]; p < 0.001; effect size = 0.65). TEAE frequency was 46.6% (61/131) with placebo and 67.4% (89/132) with SHP465 MAS; no serious TEAEs were reported. TEAEs reported at a frequency of ≥5% and ≥2 times the placebo rate were decreased appetite, insomnia, irritability, nausea, and decreased weight. Mean ± standard deviation increases (baseline to final on-treatment assessment) were higher with SHP465 MAS than placebo for pulse (5.7 ± 11.78 vs. 0.7 ± 10.79), systolic blood pressure (3.8 ± 9.15 vs. 2.1 ± 8.72), and diastolic blood pressure (4.0 ± 8.23 vs. 0.5 ± 7.45).

CONCLUSIONS

SHP465 MAS demonstrated superiority over placebo in improving ADHD symptoms and global functioning in children and adolescents with ADHD. The safety and tolerability profile of SHP465 MAS was consistent with that of SHP465 MAS in adults and other long-acting psychostimulants in children and adolescents.

Is dopamine transporter-mediated dopaminergic signaling in the retina a noninvasive biomarker for attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder? A study in a novel dopamine transporter variant Val559 transgenic mouse model

Background

Dopamine (DA) is a critical neuromodulator in the retina. Disruption of retinal DA synthesis and signaling significantly attenuates light-adapted, electroretinogram (ERG) responses, as well as contrast sensitivity and acuity. As these measures can be detected noninvasively, they may provide opportunities to detect disease processes linked to perturbed DA signaling. Recently, we identified a rare, functional DA transporter (DAT, SLC6A3) coding substitution, Ala559Val, in subjects with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), demonstrating that DAT Val559 imparts anomalous DA efflux (ADE) with attendant physiological, pharmacological, and behavioral phenotypes. To understand the broader impact of ADE on ADHD, noninvasive measures sensitive to DAT reversal are needed.

Methods

Here, we explored this question through ERG-based analysis of retinal light responses, as well as HPLC measurements of retinal DA in DAT Val559 mice.

Results

Male mice homozygous (HOM) for the DAT Val559 variant demonstrated increased, light-adapted ERG b-wave amplitudes compared to wild type (WT) and heterozygous (HET) mice, whereas dark-adapted responses were indistinguishable across genotypes. The elevated amplitude of the photopic light responses in HOM mice could be mimicked in WT mice by applying D₁ and D₄ DA receptor agonists and suppressed in HOM mice by introducing D₄ antagonist, supporting elevated retinal DA signaling arising from ADE. Following the challenge with amphetamine, WT exhibited an increase in light-adapted response amplitudes, while HOM did not. Total retinal DA content was similar across genotypes. Interestingly, female DAT Val559 HOM animals revealed no significant difference in photopic ERG responses when compared with WT and HET littermates.

Conclusions

These data reveal that noninvasive, in vivo evaluation of retinal responses to light can reveal physiological signatures of ADE, suggesting a possible approach to the segregation of neurobehavioral disorders based on the DAT-dependent control of DA signaling.

Neural Processing of Threat Cues in Young Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Symptoms

A growing literature indicates that attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) involves difficulty processing threat-related emotion faces. This deficit is especially important to understand in young children, as threat emotion processing is related to the development of social skills and related behavioral regulation. Therefore, the current study aimed to better understand the neural basis of this processing in young children with ADHD symptoms. Forty-seven children between 4 and 7 years of age were included in the analysis, 28 typical developing and 19 with clinically significant levels of ADHD hyperactive/impulsive symptoms. Participants completed a passive affective face-viewing task. Event-related potentials were assessed for each emotion, and parental report of child behavior and emotion regulation abilities was assessed. Children with ADHD symptoms showed altered N170 modulation in response to specific emotion faces, such that the N170 was less negative in response to fearful compared to neutral faces, whereas typically developing children showed the opposite pattern. Groups did not differ in reactivity to anger or non-threat-related emotion faces. The N170 difference in fearful compared to neutral faces correlated with reported behavior, such that less fear reactivity predicted fewer prosocial behaviors. Abnormalities in the underlying neural systems for fear processing in young children with ADHD symptoms may play an important role in social and behavioral deficits within this population.

Morning and Evening Effects of Guanfacine Extended Release Adjunctive to Psychostimulants in Pediatric ADHD

OBJECTIVE

To examine efficacy and safety of adjunctive guanfacine extended release (GXR) on morning and evening ADHD symptoms using the Conners' Global Index-Parent (CGI-P) and Before-School Functioning Questionnaire (BSFQ).

METHOD

Participants 6 to 17 years with ADHD ( N = 461) and suboptimal psychostimulant response were maintained on current psychostimulants and randomized to dose-optimized GXR (≤4 mg/d) in the morning (GXR AM) or evening (GXR PM), or placebo.

RESULTS

CGI-P scores improved with GXR (morning assessment, GXR AM, placebo-adjusted least squares [LS] mean = -1.7, GXR PM = -2.6; evening assessment, GXR AM = -2.4, GXR PM = -3.0; all ps < .01). Parent-rated BSFQ scores reflected improved morning functioning with GXR (GXR AM, placebo-adjusted LS mean = -5.1; GXR PM = -4.7; both ps < .01). Most adverse events were mild or moderate.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive GXR AM or GXR PM was associated with improvements in morning and evening ADHD symptoms in children and adolescents.

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.

Effects of single dose mixed amphetamine salts--extended release on processing speed in multiple sclerosis: a double blind placebo controlled study

RATIONALE

Multiple sclerosis (MS) commonly affects cognitive function, most frequently presenting as impaired processing speed (PS). There are currently no approved treatments for PS in this population, but previous studies suggest amphetamines may be beneficial.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine if mixed amphetamine salts, extended release (MAS-XR) has the potential to improve impaired PS in MS patients in a randomized controlled pre- and post-dose testing study.

METHODS

Fifty-two MS patients demonstrating PS impairment on either the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) or Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) were randomized to a single dose of 5 mg MAS-XR (n = 18), 10 mg MAS-XR (n = 20), or placebo (n = 14). Subjects were evaluated a second time, after taking the blinded medication. ANOVA was used to compare the change on the SDMT and PASAT in each of the treatment groups compared to the placebo. Cohen's d was used to calculate effect size.

RESULTS

At baseline, the mean SDMT score was 43.3 ± 7.2 and the mean PASAT was 34.8 ± 13.4, with 47 (90.4 %) and 25 (48.1 %) categorized as impaired on the SDMT and PASAT, respectively. The change in SDMT scores from baseline to post-treatment demonstrated significant improvement for the MAS-XR 10-mg dose compared to placebo, increasing by 5.2 ± 4.5 vs. 0.6 ± 4.4 points (p = 0.043), with a medium effect size of 0.47. Change on the PASAT was not significantly different in either treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports MAS-XR 10 mg as a potential treatment for MS patients with demonstrated PS impairment, warranting a larger longitudinal study.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Guanfacine Extended Release in Adolescents With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

OBJECTIVE

Despite the continuity of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) into adolescence, little is known regarding use of nonstimulants to treat ADHD in adolescents. This phase 3 trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of guanfacine extended release (GXR) in adolescents with ADHD.

METHOD

This 13-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated once-daily GXR (1-7 mg per day) in adolescents with ADHD aged 13 to 17 years. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score; key secondary endpoints included scores from the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S), and Learning and School domain and Family domain scores from the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report (WFIRS-P) at week 13.

RESULTS

A total of 314 participants were randomized (GXR, n = 157; placebo, n = 157). The majority of participants received optimal doses of 3, 4, 5, or 6 mg (30 [22.9%], 26 [19.8%], 27 [20.6%], or 24 [18.3%] participants, respectively), with 46.5% of participants receiving an optimal dose above the currently approved maximum dose limit of 4 mg. Participants receiving GXR showed improvement in ADHD-RS-IV total score compared with placebo (least-squares mean score change, -24.55 [GXR] versus -18.53 [placebo]; effect size, 0.52; p <.001). More participants on GXR also showed significant improvement in CGI-S scores compared with placebo (50.6% versus 36.1%; p = .010). There was no statistically significant difference between treatments at week 13 in the 2 WFIRS-P domains. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate, with sedation-related events reported most commonly.

CONCLUSION

GXR was associated with statistically significant improvements in ADHD symptoms in adolescents. GXR was well tolerated, with no new safety signals reported.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

Dose-Optimization in Adolescents Aged 13-17 Diagnosed With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Using Extended-Release Guanfacine HCl; http://ClinicalTrials.gov/; NCT01081132.

Meta-Analysis: Reduced Risk of Anxiety with Psychostimulant Treatment in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

OBJECTIVE

Anxiety is a commonly reported side-effect of psychostimulant treatment. Our goal was to quantify the risk of anxiety as a side effect of psychostimulant treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

We conducted a PubMed search to identify all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials examining the efficacy of psychostimulant medications in the treatment of children with ADHD. We used a fixed-effects meta-analysis to examine the risk ratio of anxiety reported as a side effect in children treated with psychostimulants compared with those treated with placebo. We used stratified subgroup analysis and meta-regression to examine the effects of stimulant type, dosage, duration of use, and trial design on the measured risk of anxiety.

RESULTS

We identified 23 studies involving 2959 children with ADHD for inclusion in our meta-analysis. The risk of anxiety associated with psychostimulant treatment was significantly lower than that experienced with placebo (relative risk [RR] = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.77, 0.95], z = -2.90, p < 0.05). Higher doses of psychostimulants were associated with a reduced measured risk of anxiety of psychostimulants when compared with placebo (β = -0.0039 [95% CI: -0.00718, -0.00064], z = -2.34, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis suggests that treatment with psychostimulants significantly reduced the risk of anxiety when compared with placebo. This finding does not rule out the possibility that some children experience increased anxiety when treated with psychostimulants, but suggests that those risks are outweighed by the number of children who experience improvement in anxiety symptoms (possibly as a secondary effect of improved control of ADHD symptoms). Clinicians should consider rechallenging children with ADHD who report new-onset or worsening anxiety with psychostimulants, as these symptoms are much more likely to be coincidental rather than caused by psychostimulants.

The Efficacy and Safety of Evekeo, Racemic Amphetamine Sulfate, for Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms: A Multicenter, Dose-Optimized, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Crossover Laboratory Classroom Study

OBJECTIVE

The study goal was to determine the efficacy and safety of an optimal dose of Evekeo, racemic amphetamine sulfate, 1:1 d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine (R-AMPH), compared to placebo in treating children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a laboratory classroom setting.

METHODS

A total of 107 children ages 6-12 years were enrolled in this multicenter, dose-optimized, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. After 8 weeks of open-label dose optimization, 97 subjects were randomized to 2 weeks of double-blind treatment in the sequence of R-AMPH followed by placebo (n=47) or placebo followed by R-AMPH (n=50). Efficacy measures included the Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham (SKAMP) Rating Scale and Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP) administered predose and at 0.75, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 hours postdose on 2 laboratory classroom days. Safety assessments included physical examination, chemistry, hematology, vital signs, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

Compared to placebo, a single daily dose of R-AMPH significantly improved SKAMP-Combined scores (p<0.0001) at each time point tested throughout the laboratory classroom days, with effect onset 45 minutes postdose and extending through 10 hours. R-AMPH significantly improved PERMP number of problems attempted and correct (p<0.0001) throughout the laboratory classroom days. During the twice-daily dose-optimization open-label phase, improvements were observed with R-AMPH in scores of the ADHD-Rating Scale IV and Clinical Global Impressions Severity and Improvement Scales. TEAEs and changes in vital signs associated with R-AMPH were generally mild and not unexpected. The most common TEAEs in the open-label phase were decreased appetite (27.6%), upper abdominal pain (14.3%), irritability (14.3%), and headache (13.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, R-AMPH was effective in treating children aged 6-12 years with ADHD, beginning at 45 minutes and continuing through 10 hours postdose, and was well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01986062. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01986062.

Mindfulness training as an adjunct to evidence-based treatment for ADHD within families

OBJECTIVE

Individuals with ADHD face significant neurodevelopmental hurdles with inattention and/or hyperactive/impulsive behavior through their life span. Mindfulness training may be one self-regulatory method for strengthening attentional processes (orienting, alerting, and executive attention). This review's goals are to (a) argue for the use of mindfulness training as an adjunct to evidence-based treatment for ADHD and (b) call for improving psychosocial intervention for ADHD within families by integrating mindfulness training with behavioral parent training.

METHOD

EBSCOhost was utilized to search 29 psychology-related research databases through Athabasca University.

RESULTS

Mindfulness training should be incorporated into current treatment guidelines as a psychosocial option for families with ADHD.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary findings suggest significant improvements in attentional processes, and prominent mindfulness-based approaches have been successfully adapted for ADHD.

An open-label pilot study of homeopathic treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and youth

BACKGROUND

An open-label pilot study of individualized homeopathy for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was conducted to assess the potential for future studies with a focus on the feasibility of the recruitment plan and outcome measure schedules; identification of any group characteristics of participants who respond significantly to the therapy; and establishing the length of time required for an improvement in ADHD symptoms.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants (aged 6-16) were recruited through community advertisement and outreach. Participants completed 1 screening and 9 individualized homeopathic follow-up consultations. ADHD symptoms were assessed using the Conners 3 - Parent Questionnaire administered at each consultation. The pre- and post-study difference in Conners Global Index - Parent (CGI-P) T-score was evaluated for each participant. Baseline data of those who showed a statistically significant improvement (responders) were compared to those who did not (non-responders).

RESULTS

35 participants were enrolled over 11 months. 80% completed all 10 consultations in a median of 12.1 months. 63% had a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome, first occurring after a mean of 4.5 visits. Overall scores for participants completing at least 2 data points decreased from a baseline median of 85.5 to 74.0 (p < 0.001, CI 95%). There were no significant baseline differences between responders and non-responders. No serious adverse events related to the therapy were reported.

CONCLUSION

The change in the median CGI-P T-score from baseline to the end of this open-label pilot study was statistically significant. The research methods are feasible. Future studies are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01141634.

Safety of medicines used for ADHD in children: a review of published prospective clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term safety of drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHODS

A bibliographic search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases for prospective studies evaluating the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in children and adolescents treated for ADHD.

RESULTS

A total of six prospective studies that monitored drug safety during therapy for at least 12 weeks were retrieved. The drugs studied were atomoxetine (two studies, 802 patients), osmotic-controlled released oral methylphenidate formulation (two studies, 512 patients), extended release formulation of mixed amphetamine salts (one study, 568 patients) and transdermal methylphenidate (one study, 326 patients). Heterogeneity was found in the duration of follow-up (ranging between 1 and 4 years) and in the way data were reported. The rate of treatment-related AEs ranged from 58% to 78%, and the rate of discontinuation due to AEs ranged from 8% to 25% of the children. Decreased appetite, insomnia, headache and abdominal pain were the most common AEs observed. Most AEs and cases of discontinuation occurred during the first few months of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies evaluated the long-term safety of drugs for ADHD. Heterogeneity in follow-up duration and in data reporting made comparing different studies and drugs difficult. A systematic monitoring of long-term safety is needed.

The advent of a new pseudoephedrine product to combat methamphetamine abuse

Background:

The personal and societal effects of methamphetamine abuse are well documented. The ease of accessibility to methamphetamine and the quality of the “high” it produces makes the drug highly desired by its abusers. Over time, many methamphetamine users will also become methamphetamine cooks, where pseudoephedrine in over-the-counter cold products is converted to methamphetamine through a simple, albeit extremely dangerous, process. New laws limiting access to these products have had limited success. No existing commercial pseudoephedrine products offer significant impediments to slow or limit the extraction and conversion of pseudoephedrine in clandestine methamphetamine laboratories.

Objective and Methods:

A new pseudoephedrine 30 mg tablet product using Impede technology (Nexafed®) to deter methamphetamine production has recently been introduced into the marketplace. Using methods designed to mimic clandestine laboratory processes, the ability of this product to disrupt extraction and conversion of pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine yet provide therapeutic effectiveness was evaluated.

Results:

Impede™ technology tablets limited the extraction and/or conversion of pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine when compared to a commercially marketed pseudoephedrine product (Sudafed®). Nexafed® tablets were also shown to be bioequivalent to the same control product, thus ensuring therapeutic equivalence.

Conclusions:

With the advent of new pseudoephedrine products in the marketplace with features to limit the extraction and conversion of pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine, new tools are now available to minimize the clandestine manufacture of the drug and potentially limit its social impact.

Pharmacological and psychosocial treatments for adolescents with ADHD: an updated systematic review of the literature

Smith, Waschbusch, Willoughby, and Evans (2000) reviewed a small treatment literature on ADHD in adolescents and concluded that methylphenidate stimulant medication was a well-established treatment and behavior therapy (BT) demonstrated preliminary efficacy. This review extends and updates the findings of the prior one based on the previous 15years of research. Studies published since 1999 were identified and coded using standard criteria and effect sizes were calculated where appropriate. Highlights of the last 15years of research include an expansion of pharmacological treatment options and developmentally appropriate psychosocial treatment packages for adolescents with ADHD. Additionally, nonstimulant medications (e.g., atomoxetine) are now approved for the treatment of ADHD in adolescence. The review concludes that medication and BT produce a similar range of therapeutic effects on the symptoms of adolescents with ADHD. However, results suggest that BT may produce greater overall benefits on measures of impairment. There was no evidence that cognitive enhancement trainings, such as working memory training or neurofeedback improved the functioning of adolescents with ADHD. Whether to use medication, BT, or their combination to treat an adolescent with ADHD is complicated and we provide evidence-informed guidelines for treatment selection. The reviewed evidence does not support current American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry professional guidelines, which state that stimulant medication is the preferred treatment for adolescents with ADHD. Recommendations for assessment, practice guidelines, and future research are discussed.

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.

A long-term open-label safety and effectiveness trial of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVE

Information on psychostimulant treatment in long-term studies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adolescents is limited. This study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) over 52 weeks in adolescents with ADHD.

METHODS

This open-label multicenter study enrolled eligible participants after their participation in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 4 week trial in adolescents with ADHD. Following a 4 week dose-optimization phase, participants were maintained on treatment for up to ∼48 weeks on an optimal dose. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, laboratory findings, and electrocardiograms. Effectiveness measures included the ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV; primary) and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I). The Youth Quality of Life-Research Version (YQOL-R) was also included in this study; raw scores are transformed to a 0-100 point scale.

RESULTS

Of 269 enrolled (from the antecedent study), 265 (98.5%) were in the safety population and effectiveness population. Common TEAEs (≥5%) with LDX included upper respiratory tract infection (21.9%), decreased appetite (21.1%), headache (20.8%), decreased weight (16.2%), irritability (12.5%), insomnia (12.1%), nasopharyngitis (7.2%), influenza (6.8%), dizziness (5.3%), and dry mouth (5.3%). At end point, for all LDX doses in the overall safety population, mean (SD) increase from baseline in systolic blood pressure was 2.3 (10.53) mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure was 2.5 (8.37) mm Hg, and pulse rate was 6.3 (12.74) bpm. No clinically meaningful electrocardiogram or vital sign changes were observed. At end point with LDX treatment, the ADHD-RS-IV mean (SD) total score change from antecedent study baseline was -26.2 (9.75) (p<0.001); 87.2% of participants were improved (CGI-I=1 or 2). Baseline (antecedent study) mean (SD) YQOL-R perceptual total score was 79.8 (11.28) and increased by 3.9 (9.73) at end point (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

LDX demonstrated a long-term safety profile similar to that of other long-acting psychostimulants and was effective, as indicated by improvements in ADHD symptoms and participant-perceived YQOL, in adolescents with ADHD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00764868, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00764868?term=SPD489-306&rank=1.

Drug therapy of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: current trends

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is a developmental disorder with an age onset prior to 7 years. Children with ADHD have significantly lower ability to focus and sustain attention and also score higher on impulsivity and hyperactivity. Stimulants, such as methylphenidate, have remained the mainstay of ADHD treatment for decades with evidence supporting their use. However, recent years have seen emergence of newer drugs and drug delivery systems, like osmotic release oral systems and transdermal patches, to mention a few. The use of nonstimulant drugs like atomoxetine and various other drugs, such as α-agonists, and a few antidepressants, being used in an off-label manner, have added to the pharmacotherapy of ADHD. This review discusses current trends in drug therapy of ADHD and highlights the promise pharmacogenomics may hold in the future.

A randomized, double-blind study of 30 versus 20 mg dexmethylphenidate extended-release in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: late-day symptom control

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmethylphenidate extended-release (d-MPH-ER) 30 versus 20 mg in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a 12-hour laboratory classroom setting. In a randomized, double-blind, 3-period × 3-treatment, crossover study, children aged 6 to 12 years with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-diagnosed ADHD previously stabilized on MPH (40-60 mg/d) or D-MPH (20-30 mg/day) [corrected] were randomized to receive D-MPH-ER 20 mg/day, 30 mg/day, [corrected] or placebo for 7 days each. Primary efficacy measurements were change in the average SKAMP-Combined [corrected] score from predose to 10, 11, and 12 hours postdose [Avg(10-12)] between 30 mg [corrected] and 20 mg D-MPH-ER. Safety was assessed by adverse events, (AEs), [corrected] vital sign monitoring, and ECGs. [corrected] A total of 165 children were randomized, and 162 included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Mean Avg (10-12) change from pre-dose [corrected] in SKAMP-Combined score was significantly greater for D-MPH-ER 30 mg (-4.47) compared with D-MPH-ER 20 mg (-2.02; P = 0.002). Most common adverse events (≥ 3% in any group) were decreased appetite (6.1%, 4.9%, and 0%), headache (4.3%, 4.3%, and 1.9%), abdominal pain (3.7%, 3.1%, and 3.1%), and tachycardia (1.2%, 3.1%, and 0.6%) for D-MPH-ER 30 mg, D-MPH-ER 20 mg, and placebo, respectively). Significantly greater improvement in ADHD symptoms was noted with D-MPH-ER 30 mg compared with D-MPH-ER 20 mg at hours 10 through 12. Tolerability was comparable between doses. Dexmethylphenidate extended-release 30-mg dose may provide further benefit to patients who do not maintain optimal symptom control later in the day with D-MPH-ER 20 mg.

[The medical treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with amphetamines in children and adolescents]

INTRODUCTION

Psychostimulants (methylphenidate and amphetamines) are the drugs of first choice in the pharmacological treatment of children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

OBJECTIVE

We summarize the pharmacological characteristics of amphetamines and compare them with methylphenidate, special emphasis being given to a comparison of effects and side effects of the two substances. Finally, we analyze the abuse and addiction risks.

METHODS

Publications were chosen based on a Medline analysis for controlled studies and meta-analyses published between 1980 and 2011; keywords were amphetamine, amphetamine salts, lisdexamphetamine, controlled studies, and metaanalyses.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Amphetamines generally exhibit some pharmacologic similarities with methylphenidate. However, besides inhibiting dopamine reuptake amphetamines also cause the release of monoamines. Moreover, plasma half-life is significantly prolonged. The clinical efficacy and tolerability of amphetamines is comparable to methylphenidate. Amphetamines can therefore be used if the individual response to methylphenidate or tolerability is insufficient before switching to a nonstimulant substance, thus improving the total response rate to psychostimulant treatment. Because of the high abuse potential of amphetamines, especially in adults, the prodrug lisdexamphetamine (Vyvanse) could become an effective treatment alternative. Available study data suggest a combination of high clinical effect size with a beneficial pharmacokinetic profile and a reduced abuse risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to methylphenidate, amphetamines serve as important complements in the psychostimulant treatment of ADHD. Future studies should focus on a differential comparison of the two substances with regard to their effects on different core symptom constellations and the presence of various comorbidities.

Clinically relevant changes in emotional expression in children with ADHD treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate

OBJECTIVE

To describe clinically relevant effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on emotional expression (EE) in children with ADHD.

METHOD

Children with ADHD participated in a 7-week, open-label, LDX dose-optimization study. Expression and Emotion Scale for Children (EESC) change scores were analyzed post hoc using two methods to determine proportion of participants with different categories of clinical response based on (a) clinically significant (movement >2 SD from baseline mean)/reliable change (not due to measurement error) and (b) standard error of measurement (SEM) as a measure of clinically meaningful change.

RESULTS

With LDX, no participants showed clinically significant/reliable improvement; 0.7% showed clinically significant/reliable deterioration of EE by reliable change index and movement from baseline mean. One third of participants had improved EE by SEM criteria; 9.2% had categorical worsening.

CONCLUSION

Using clinically meaningful change and clinically significant/reliable change categories derived from the EESC, most participants had no worsening of EE with LDX.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, stimulant therapy, and the patient with congenital heart disease: evidence and reason

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common neurobehavioral disorder of childhood, and congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common form of birth defect. Children with CHD are at increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD. Stimulant medications, specifically methylphenidates and amphetamines, are frequently prescribed and effective in reducing the symptoms of ADHD. Despite their efficacy and long history of use, the safety of these medications has recently come into question due to isolated reports describing sudden unexplained death of children undergoing treatment. This review summarizes the current literature on the cardiovascular risks associated with the use of pharmacologic therapy for ADHD, with an emphasis on patients who had CHD.

The pharmacology and clinical outcomes of amphetamines to treat ADHD: does composition matter?

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment options include pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches. In North America, psychostimulants (amphetamine and methylphenidate) are considered first-line pharmacological treatments for patients (children, adolescents and adults) with ADHD. However, in the UK, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines have placed short-acting d-amphetamine as a third-line treatment option due to a lack of contemporary, published clinical trials on its efficacy and the concerns from clinical and patient experts regarding the potential for increased abuse and/or misuse compared with methylphenidate. These guidelines do not account for some of the more recent amphetamine products that have been developed to alleviate some of these concerns, but that are not currently approved in the UK or other European countries. The purpose of this review is to describe the pharmacology and clinical efficacy of various amphetamine compositions, as well as to explore the apparent differences in these compositions and their associated risks and benefits. A PubMed literature search was conducted to investigate amphetamine pharmacology, clinical efficacy and safety and ADHD outcomes in the published literature from 1980 through March 2011. Search terms included the keywords 'ADHD' or 'ADD' or 'hyperkinetic disorder' and any of the following keywords combined with 'or': 'amphetamine', 'dexamphetamine', 'mixed amphetamine salts', 'lisdexamfetamine' and 'methamphetamine'. The search included English-language primary research articles and review articles but excluded editorial articles and commentaries. The literature search resulted in 330 articles. Pertinent articles relating to amphetamine pharmacology, compositions, clinical efficacy and safety, effectiveness and tolerability, ADHD outcomes and abuse liability were included in this review. The different delivery profiles of amphetamine compositions result in pharmacological and pharmacokinetic differences that contribute to varying effects in the clinical treatment of ADHD, ADHD outcomes and abuse liability. The efficacy and safety of amphetamine compositions for the treatment of ADHD have been demonstrated in clinical trials and meta-analyses, and the long-acting amphetamine compositions have been widely studied and found efficacious without increased adverse effects. Long-acting amphetamine compositions offer the obvious advantage of enhanced duration of action over short-acting amphetamine compositions, and lisdexamfetamine has been shown to have reduced abuse liability compared with short-acting amphetamine.

Understanding the effect size of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate for treating ADHD in children and adults

OBJECTIVE

An earlier meta-analysis of pediatric clinical trials indicated that lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) had a greater effect size than other stimulant medications. This work tested the hypothesis that the apparent increased efficacy was artifactual.

METHOD

The authors assessed two potential artifacts: an unusually high precision of measurement and an unusually low placebo effect. The authors evaluated generalizability from children of adults.

RESULTS

The LDX effect sizes for children were significantly larger than the pooled stimulant effect sizes from studies using the same outcome measures. However, although no other individual stimulant study had an effect size greater than LDX, there was overlap between the 95% confidence intervals for some of these studies and the LDX study. The high LDX effect sizes were not due measurement or placebo effect artifacts. LDX effect sizes for adults were not larger than the stimulant effect sizes from other studies.

CONCLUSION

The high LDX effect size for children could not attributed to measurement artifacts. The superiority of LDX in the pediatric clinical trial reflected the greater efficacy of amphetamine products, compared with methylphenidate products but required replication in children because (a) the results were based on only one trial of LDX in children, and (b) the finding did not generalize to adults.

Dose response effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment in adults with ADHD: an exploratory study

OBJECTIVE

To explore dose-response effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) treatment for ADHD.

METHOD

This was a 4-week, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, forced-dose titration study in adult participants, aged 18 to 55 years, meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.) criteria for ADHD.

RESULTS

Nearly all participants assigned to an LDX dose achieved their assigned dose with the exception of about 4% of participants assigned to the 50 mg or 14% assigned to the 70 mg doses. Higher doses of LDX led to greater improvements in ADHD-rating scale scores, independent of prior pharmacotherapy. This was evident for both inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms. The authors found some evidence for an interaction between LDX dose and baseline severity of ADHD symptoms.

CONCLUSION

For LDX doses between 30 and 70 mg/d, the dose-response efficacy effect for LDX is not affected by prior pharmacotherapy, but patients with a greater severity of illness may benefit more from higher doses, especially for hyperactive-impulsive symptoms. The results do not provide information about doses above 70 mg/d, which is the maximum approved dose of LDX and the highest dose studied in ADHD clinical trials.

Dose effects and comparative effectiveness of extended release dexmethylphenidate and mixed amphetamine salts

OBJECTIVE

To compare the dose effects of long-acting extended-release dexmethylphenidate (ER d-MPH) and ER mixed amphetamine salts (ER MAS) on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptom dimensions, global and specific impairments, and common adverse events associated with stimulants.

METHODS

Fifty-six children and adolescents with ADHD participated in an 8-week, double-blind, crossover study comparing ER d-MPH (10, 20, 25-30 mg) and ER MAS (10, 20, 25-30) with a week of randomized placebo within each drug period. Efficacy was assessed with the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV), whereas global and specific domains of impairment were assessed with the Clinical Global Impressions Severity and Improvement Scales and the parent-completed Weiss Functional Impairment Scale, respectively. Insomnia and decreased appetite, common stimulant-related adverse events, were measured with the parent-completed Stimulant Side Effects Rating Scale.

RESULTS

Both ER d-MPH and ER MAS were associated with significant reductions in ADHD symptoms. Improvement in Total ADHD and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity symptoms were strongly associated with increasing dose, whereas improvements in Inattentive symptoms were only moderately associated with dose. About 80% demonstrated reliable change on ADHD-RS-IV at the highest dose level of ER MAS compared with 79% when receiving ER d-MPH. Decreased appetite and insomnia were more common at higher dose levels for both stimulants. Approximately 43% of the responders were preferential responders to only one of the stimulant formulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose level, rather than stimulant class, was strongly related to medication response.

Misuse of prescribed stimulant medication for ADHD and associated patterns of substance use: preliminary analysis among college students

OBJECTIVES

To explore the prevalence and characteristics associated with college students who misuse their prescribed stimulants for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and examine diversion and substance use behaviors as a function of misuse.

METHODS

Cohort of 55 past-year prescribed stimulant users was identified from a random sample (n = 1738) at a large Midwestern research university following the self-administration of a web-based survey. An index was created to assess misuse of prescribed stimulants (i.e., Misuse Index).

RESULTS

Of 55 college students who reported past-year use of prescribed stimulants for ADHD, 22 (40%) endorsed at least one item on the misuse index. The most frequently endorsed misuse items were used too much (36%), self-reported misuse (19%), and intentionally used with alcohol or other drugs (19%). Misusers of prescribed stimulant medication were more likely to report cigarette smoking (p = 0.022), binge drinking (p = 0.022), illicit use of cocaine (p = 0.032), and screen positive on the Drug Abuse Screening test (DAST-10) criteria (p = 0.002). The bivariate odds ratio for the DAST-10 findings was 8.4 (95% CI: 2.0-34.6). Diversion of prescribed stimulants was common (36%) and occurred more frequently among stimulant misusers (57%; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

There is a strong relationship between misuse of prescribed stimulants for ADHD and substance use behaviors, as well as other deleterious behaviors such as diversion. These findings suggest the need for close screening, assessment, and therapeutic monitoring of medication use in the college population.

Psychomotor functioning and alertness with guanfacine extended release in subjects with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether treatment with guanfacine extended release (GXR) in subjects with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) disrupted psychomotor functioning and alertness, or impacted daytime sleepiness.

METHOD

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 2, dose-optimization, noninferiority, laboratory classroom study of GXR (1, 2, and 3 mg/day) in 182 subjects aged 6 to 17 years with ADHD. Psychomotor functioning and alertness were assessed through several measures, including the Choice Reaction Time (CRT) test from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery. Sedative effects were examined via spontaneously reported adverse events of sedation, somnolence, and hypersomnia as well as fatigue and lethargy, and with two validated subject- and observer-rated sleepiness scales. Standard efficacy measures for ADHD also were included. Cardiovascular and laboratory parameters were assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the GXR and placebo groups on measures of psychomotor functioning or alertness from the CRT at endpoint (least-square mean difference: 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI): -22.9, 28.0], p = 0.8 for CRT; 2.5 [95% CI: -21.5, 26.4], p = 0.84 for correct responses; 15.5 [95% CI: -45.1, 14.1], p = 0.30 for movement time; and -8.2 [95% CI: -54.1, 37.6] p = 0.72 for total time). Most sedative adverse events were mild to moderate, occurred during dose titration, decreased with dose maintenance, and resolved during the study period. One subject in the GXR group discontinued due to fatigue and somnolence. GXR was not associated with increased daytime sleepiness. GXR treatment was associated with significant improvement in ADHD symptoms (6.3 [95% CI: 2.7, 9.8], p = 0.001 for ADHD Rating Scale IV total scores at endpoint).

CONCLUSIONS

At doses that resulted in significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, impairment on cognitive tasks was not observed. Daytime sleepiness did not differ with GXR compared with placebo. Results suggest that the beneficial effects of GXR on ADHD symptoms are independent of sedation.

Efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVE

To examine lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) efficacy and safety versus placebo in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

METHOD

Adolescents (13 through 17) with at least moderately symptomatic ADHD (ADHD Rating Scale IV: Clinician Version [ADHD-RS-IV] score ≥28) were randomized to placebo or LDX (30, 50, or 70 mg/d) in a 4-week, forced-dose titration, double-blind study. Primary and secondary efficacy measures were the ADHD-RS-IV, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I), and Youth QOL-Research Version (YQOL-R). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, laboratory findings, physical examinations, and ECG.

RESULTS

Overall, 314 participants were randomized; 309 were in efficacy analyses and 49 withdrew (11 due to TEAEs). Least squares mean (SE) change from baseline at endpoint in ADHD-RS-IV total scores were -18.3 (1.25), -21.1 (1.28), -20.7 (1.25) for 30, 50, and 70 mg/d LDX, respectively; -12.8 (1.25) for placebo (p ≤ .0056 versus placebo for each). Differences in ADHD-RS-IV total scores favored all LDX doses versus placebo at all weeks (p ≤ .0076). On the CGI-I, 69.1% of participants were rated very much/much improved at endpoint with LDX all doses versus placebo (39.5%) (p < .0001). YQOL-R changes at endpoint scores for LDX groups versus placebo were not significant. Commonly reported LDX (all doses combined) TEAEs (≥5%) were decreased appetite, headache, insomnia, decreased weight, and irritability. Small mean increases in pulse and blood pressure and no clinically meaningful trends in ECG changes were noted with LDX.

CONCLUSIONS

LDX at all doses was effective versus placebo in treating adolescent ADHD and demonstrated a safety profile consistent with previous LDX studies. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY INFORMATION: Efficacy and Safety of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate (LDX) in Adolescents With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00735371.

Safety of stimulant treatment in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: part II

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common childhood psychiatric disorder and in at least 50% of cases persists into adulthood. Treatment of ADHD with stimulants is one of the oldest and most effective pharmacological treatments in psychiatry. Yet, there continues to be controversy over the safety of stimulant medications in the treatment of ADHD.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This paper is a continuation of an earlier paper that reviewed the safety profile of newer stimulant agents, especially in relation to special populations. This part II reviews, through essentially an organ-system approach, the various clinical concerns that have been raised over the safety of stimulant medications. This includes neuropsychiatric, cardiovascular effects on growth and development, and a number of other less common concerns.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

A thorough review of safety concerns in stimulants that emphasizes clinical information, case reports, open series or controlled trials relating to stimulant use in the treatment of ADHD.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

While many safety concerns have been raised in the use of stimulants, the vast majority of treatment complications are either quickly reversible or easily manageable with appropriate clinical care. The negative consequences of untreated ADHD clearly outweigh the risks of the stimulant medicines when used in an appropriate and careful manner.

The occurrence of adverse drug reactions reported for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications in the pediatric population: a qualitative review of empirical studies

BACKGROUND

To review empirical studies of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported to be associated with the use of medications generally licensed for treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in the pediatric population.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO(®) databases were searched from origin until June 2011. Studies reporting ADRs from amphetamine derivates, atomoxetine, methylphenidate, and modafinil in children from birth to age 17 were included. Information about ADR reporting rates, age and gender of the child, type, and seriousness of ADRs, setting, study design, ADR assessors, authors, and funding sources were extracted.

RESULTS

The review identified 43 studies reporting ADRs associated with medicines for treatment of ADHD in clinical studies covering approximately 7000 children, the majority of 6- to 12-year-old boys, and particularly in the United States of America (USA). The most frequently reported ADRs were decrease in appetite, gastrointestinal pain, and headache. There were wide variations in reported ADR occurrence between studies of similar design, setting, included population, and type of medication. Reported ADRs were primarily assessed by the children/their parents, and very few ADRs were rated as being serious. A large number of children dropped out of studies due to serious ADRs, and therefore, the actual number of serious ADRs from use of psychostimulants is probably higher. A large number of studies were conducted by the same groups of authors and sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the respective medications.

CONCLUSION

Reported ADRs from use of psychostimulants in children were found in clinical trials of short duration. Since ADHD medications are prescribed for long-term treatment, there is a need for long-term safety studies. The pharmaceutical companies should make all information about ADRs reported for these medications accessible to the public, and further studies are needed on the impact of the link between researchers and the manufacturers of the respective products.