A systematic review of the safety information contained within the Summaries of Product Characteristics of medications licensed in the United Kingdom for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. how does the safety prescribing advice compare with national guidance?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The safety of paediatric medications is paramount and contraindications provide clear pragmatic advice. Further advice may be accessed through Summaries of Product Characteristics (SPCs) and relevant national guidelines. The SPC can be considered the ultimate independent guideline and is regularly updated. In 2008, the authors undertook a systematic review of the SPC contraindications of medications licensed in the United Kingdom (UK) for the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). At that time, there were fewer contraindications reported in the SPC for atomoxetine than methylphenidate and the specific contraindications varied considerably amongst methylphenidate formulations. In 2009, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) mandated harmonisation of methylphenidate SPCs. Between September and November 2011, there were three changes to the atomoxetine SPC that resulted in revised prescribing information. In addition, Clinical Guidance has also been produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2008), the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2009) and the British National Formulary for Children (BNFC).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An updated systematic review of the Contraindications sections of the SPCs of all medications currently licensed for treatment of ADHD in the UK was undertaken and independent statements regarding contraindications and relevant warnings and precautions were then compared with UK national guidance with the aim of assessing any disparity and potential areas of confusion for prescribers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>As of November 2011, there were seven medications available in the UK for the treatment of ADHD. There are 15 contraindications for most formulations of methylphenidate, 14 for dexamfetamine and 5 for atomoxetine. Significant differences exist between the SPCs and national guidance part due to the ongoing reactive process of amending the former as new information becomes known. In addition, recommendations are made outside UK SPC licensed indications and a significant contraindication for methylphenidate (suicidal behaviours) is missing from both the NICE and SIGN guidelines. Particular disparity exists relating to monitoring for suicidal and psychiatric side effects. The BNFC has not yet been updated in line with the European Union (EU) Directive on methylphenidate; it does not include any contraindications for atomoxetine but describes contraindications for methylphenidate that are no longer in the SPC.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Clinicians seeking prescribing advice from critical independent sources of data, such as SPCs and national guidelines, may be confused by the disparity that exists. There are major differences between guidelines and SPCs and neither should be referred to in isolation. The SPC represents the most relevant source of safety data to aid prescribing of medications for ADHD as they present the most current safety data in line with increased exposure. National guidelines may need more regular updates.</p

Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use for children with ADHD with and without a co-occurring reading disorder: A retrospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often have a co-occurring reading disorder (RD). The purpose of this research was to assess differences between children with ADHD without RD (ADHD-only) and those with ADHD and co-occurring RD (ADHD+RD).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using data from the U.S. Thomson Reuter Marketscan^®Databases for the years 2005 through 2007, this analysis compared the medical records--including patient demographics, comorbidities, and medication use--of children (age < 18) with ADHD-only to those with ADHD+RD.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients with ADHD+RD were significantly younger, more likely to have received a procedure code associated with formal psychological or non-psychological testing, and more likely to have been diagnosed with comorbid bipolar disorder, conduct disorder, or depression. They were no more likely to have received an antidepressant, anti-manic (bipolar), or antipsychotic, and were significantly less likely to have received a prescription for a stimulant medication.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Relying on a claims database, there appear to be differences in the patient characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use when comparing children with ADHD-only to those with ADHD+RD.</p

Does switching from oral extended-release methylphenidate to the methylphenidate transdermal system affect health-related quality-of-life and medication satisfaction for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder?

Background: To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQL) and medication satisfaction after switching from a stable dose of oral extended-release methylphenidate (ER-MPH) to methylphenidate transdermal system (MTS) via a dose-transition schedule in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In a 4-week, multisite, open-label study, 171 children (164 in the intent-to-treat [ITT] population) aged 6-12 years diagnosed with ADHD abruptly switched from a stable dose of oral ER-MPH to MTS nominal dosages of 10, 15, 20, and 30 mg using a predefined dose-transition schedule. Subjects remained on the scheduled dose for the first week, after which the dose was then titrated to an optimal effect. The ADHD Impact Module-Children (AIM-C), a disease-specific validated HRQL survey instrument measuring child and family impact, was used to assess the impact of ADHD symptoms on the lives of children and their families at baseline and study endpoint. Satisfaction with MTS use was assessed via a Medication Satisfaction Survey (MSS) at study endpoint. Both the AIM-C and MSS were completed by a caregiver (parent/legally authorized representative). Tolerability was monitored by spontaneous adverse event (AE) reporting. Results: AIM-C child and family HRQL mean scores were above the median possible score at baseline and were further improved at endpoint across all MTS doses. Similar improvements were noted for behavior, missed doses, worry, and economic impact AIM-C item scores. Overall, 93.8% of caregivers indicated a high level of satisfaction with their child's use of the study medication. The majority of treatment-emergent AEs (> 98%) were mild to moderate in intensity, and the most commonly reported AEs included headache, decreased appetite, insomnia, and abdominal pain. Seven subjects discontinued the study due to intolerable AEs (n = 3) and application site reactions (n = 4). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that MTS, when carefully titrated to optimal dose, may further improve child and family HRQL, as well as behavioral, medication worry, and economic impact item scores, as measured by the AIM-C in subjects switching to MTS from a stable dose of routinely prescribed oral ER-MPH after a short treatment period. Furthermore, following the abrupt conversion from oral ER-MPH to MTS, the majority of caregivers reported being highly satisfied with MTS as a treatment option for their children with ADHD. Trial Registration: NCT0015198

Working together to provide better support for young people : plan of action /

Titre de la couv

The effects of patient characteristics on ADHD diagnosis and treatment: a factorial study of family physicians

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a costly and prevalent disorder in the U.S., especially among youth. However, significant disparities in diagnosis and treatment appear to be predicted by the race and insurance status of patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study employed a web-based factorial survey with four ADHD cases derived from an ADHD clinic, two diagnosed with ADHD in actual evaluation, and two not. Randomized measures included race and insurance status of the patients. Participants N = (187) included clinician members of regional and national practice-based research networks and the U.S. clinical membership of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine. The main outcomes were decisions to 1) diagnose and 2) treat the cases, based upon the information presented, analyzed via binary logistic regression of the randomized factors and case indicators on diagnosis and treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ADHD-positive cases were 8 times more likely to be diagnosed and 12 times more likely to be treated, and the male ADHD positive case was more likely to be diagnosed and treated than the female ADHD positive case. Uninsured cases were significantly more likely to be treated overall, but male cases that were uninsured were about half as likely to be diagnosed and treated with ADHD. Additionally, African-American race appears to increase the likelihood of medicinal treatment for ADHD and being both African-American and uninsured appears to cut the odds of medicinal treatment in half, but not significantly.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Family physicians were competent at discerning between near-threshold ADHD-negative and ADHD positive cases. However, insurance status and race, as well as gender, appear to affect the likelihood of diagnosis and treatment for ADHD in Family Medicine settings.</p

Do inattention and hyperactivity symptoms equal scholastic impairment? evidence from three European cohorts

Background Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) affects many children, adolescents, and adults and is associated with a number of impairments. Poor academic performance is related to ADHD in clinical samples. However, it is unclear to what extent core ADHD symptoms and scholastic impairment are related in non-referred school-aged children. Methods Data come from three population-based cohorts from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, which are part of the Nordic Network on ADHD. The combined sample size was 13,087 children who were studied at ages 7–8 or 10–12 years. Teachers rated children on inattention and hyperactivity symptoms and reported children's scholastic performance on basic skills. Results There was a significant association in all cohorts between core ADHD symptoms and scholastic impairment in reading, writing, and mathematics. Particularly, inattention was related to a two to tenfold increase in scholastic impairment. Prevalence of hyperactivity symptoms was similar across the three cohorts, but inattention was lowest among children from the Finnish cohort, after stratification on living conditions. Conclusion These results extend previous reports of scholastic impairment among children with clinically diagnosed ADHD to non-referred population samples from three European countries. Surveillance policies should be implemented in school systems to catch children in need of behavioral or scholastic support early