Cognitive Function of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in a 2-Year Open-Label Study of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate

BACKGROUND: SPD489-404 was the first 2-year safety study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. In accordance with advice from the European Medicines Agency, assessment of cognitive function was a predefined safety outcome in SPD489-404. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess cognitive function over 2 years in study SPD489-404, using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB). METHODS: Participants aged 6-17 years received dose-optimised open-label lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (30, 50 or 70 mg/day) for 104 weeks. Cognition was assessed using four CANTAB tasks; Delayed Matching to Sample (DMS), Spatial Working Memory (SWM), Stop Signal Task (SST) and Reaction Time (RTI). Key and additional variables were pre-specified for each CANTAB task; groupwise mean percentage changes in key variables from baseline of > 5% were considered potentially clinically significant. RESULTS: All 314 enrolled participants received lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and were included in the safety population, and 191 (60.8%) completed the study. No potentially clinically significant deteriorations from baseline were observed in any key CANTAB variable over the 2 years of the study. Based on predefined thresholds, potentially clinically significant improvements from baseline were observed at 6 months (DMS median reaction time, mean per cent change, - 6.6%; SWM total between-search errors, - 22.8%; SST stop signal reaction time, -18.9%), and at the last on-treatment assessment (DMS median reaction time, - 6.5%; SWM total between-search errors, - 32.6%; SST stop signal reaction time, - 25.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment for 2 years was not associated with deterioration of cognitive function in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Although improvements in some cognitive measures were observed, lack of a control group makes interpretation of the findings difficult. Further studies of the impact of stimulants on cognition are required

Resilience and return-to-work pain interventions:systematic review

Background:- Resilience is a developing concept in relation to pain, but has not yet been reviewed in return-to-work (RTW) contexts. Aims:- To explore the role of resilience enhancement in promoting work participation for chronic pain sufferers, by reviewing the effectiveness of existing interventions. Methods:- Resilience was operationalized as: self-efficacy, active coping, positive affect, positive growth, positive reinforcement, optimism, purpose in life and acceptance. Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) whose interventions included an element of resilience designed to help RTW/staying at work for chronic pain sufferers. Study appraisal comprised the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and additional quality assessment. Findings were synthesized narratively and between-group differences of outcomes were reported. Heterogeneous PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) elements precluded meta-analysis. Results:- Thirty-four papers from 24 RCTs were included. Interventions varied; most were multidisciplinary, combining behavioural, physical and psychological pain management and vocational rehabilitation. Four found RTW/staying at work improved with intensive multidisciplinary interventions compared with less intensive, or no, treatment. Of these, one had low RoB; three scored poorly on allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Four trials had mixed results, e.g. interventions enabling reduced sick leave for people on short-term not long-term leave; 16 showed no improvement. Five trials reported resilience outcomes were improved by interventions but these were not always trials in which RTW improved. Conclusions:- Effectiveness of resilience interventions for chronic pain sufferers on RTW is uncertain and not as helpful as anticipated. Further agreement on its conceptualization and terminology and that of RTW is needed

Post hoc analyses of response rates to pharmacological treatments in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Lack of consensus regarding how best to define treatment response hinders translation from trials to the clinic. These post hoc analyses examine three commonly used response criteria in six trials of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Data from four short-term randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two long-term open-label studies were analysed. Children and adolescents with ADHD received either dose-optimised (30-70 mg/day) or fixed-dose (70 mg/day) LDX. The RCTs included osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) or atomoxetine (ATX) as a head-to-head comparator or as a reference treatment. Three definitions of response were used in these analyses: reductions of ⩾30% or ⩾50% in ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score plus a Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement (CGI-I) score of 1 or 2, or an ADHD-RS-IV total score of ⩽18. RESULTS: At the end point, LDX response rates for the least stringent criterion of ⩾30% reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score plus a CGI-I score of 1 or 2 ranged from 69.6% to 82.6%. The proportion achieving the more stringent criterion of a reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score of ⩾50% plus a CGI-I score of 1 or 2 at the end point ranged from 59.8% to 74.8%. An ADHD-RS-IV total score of ⩽18 at the end point was achieved by 56.7-79.9% of participants. Response rates remained stable throughout the long-term open-label studies. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates were similar for the two more stringent response criteria. The less stringent criterion resulted in higher response rates and may include partial responders

Functional impairment outcomes in clinical trials of different ADHD medications:post hoc responder analyses and baseline subgroup analyses

Several recent phase 3 clinical trials of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications have used the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report (WFIRS-P). Here, we assess WFIRS-P response in individual patients in two pivotal trials of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and guanfacine extended release (GXR). We also analysed pooled WFIRS-P data from seven phase 3 studies of ADHD medications to shed light on factors associated with baseline functional impairment. The proportion of patients with a change in WFIRS-P score that exceeded the minimal important difference (MID) criteria for response was greater for LDX than placebo in the Family, Learning and School, and Risky Activities domains, and was greater for GXR than placebo in the Social Activities, Learning and School, and Family domains. Responders had significantly worse baseline scores in all WFIRS-P domains (all p < 0.001) than non-responders. In the pooled analyses, baseline WFIRS-P scores in all domains were significantly worse in participants with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) than in those without ODD. Having combined type or hyperactive-impulsive type ADHD, being enrolled into a study in Europe, being male and being younger also had modest negative effects on baseline WFIRS-P scores. The present analysis of WFIRS-P response shows that previously reported group-level improvements in WFIRS-P functional impairment score translated into clinically relevant improvements in many individual participants. Functional impairment is a diverse and subjective construct that is influenced by multiple factors. Optimal management of individuals with ADHD should involve monitoring improvements in functioning and quality of life, as well as symptomatic improvement

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate in Children and Adolescents with ADHD:A Phase IV, 2-Year, Open-Label Study in Europe

Background: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is increasingly recognized as a persistent disorder requiring long-term management. Objectives: Our objective was to evaluate the 2-year safety and efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in children and adolescents with ADHD. Methods: Participants (aged 6–17 years) with ADHD received open-label, dose-optimized LDX 30, 50, or 70 mg/day for 104 weeks. Safety monitoring included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, electrocardiography, and growth. The TEAEs decreased appetite, weight decrease, insomnia events (including insomnia, initial insomnia, middle insomnia, and terminal insomnia), headache, and psychiatric TEAEs were pre-defined as being of special interest. Efficacy was assessed as a secondary objective using the ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV), the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale, and the CGI-Severity (CGI-S) scale. Results: Of 314 participants enrolled, 191 completed the study. TEAEs were reported in 89.8% of participants, led to discontinuation in 12.4%, and were reported as serious in 8.9%. TEAEs that were reported by ≥5% of participants and considered by investigators as related to LDX were decreased appetite (49.4%), weight decrease (18.2%), insomnia (13.1%), initial insomnia (8.9%), irritability (8.6%), nausea (6.7%), headache (5.7%), and tic (5.1%). The median time to first onset and duration, respectively, of TEAEs of special interest were as follows: decreased appetite, 13.5 and 169.0 days; weight decrease, 29.0 and 225.0 days; insomnia, 17.0 and 42.8 days; and headache, 22.0 and 2.0 days. Reports of decreased appetite, weight decrease, insomnia, and headache were highest in the first 4–12 weeks. Psychiatric TEAEs were infrequent: psychosis and mania (n = 1), suicidal events (suicidal ideation, n = 2; suicide attempt, n = 1), and aggression events (aggression, n = 14; anger, n = 2; hostility, n = 1). At the last on-treatment assessment (LOTA), mean increases from baseline in vital signs were as follows: pulse rate, 7.0 bpm (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.7–8.2); systolic blood pressure (SBP), 3.4 mmHg (95% CI 2.2–4.5); and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), 3.2 mmHg (95% CI 2.2–4.2). Pre-defined thresholds for a potentially clinically important (PCI) high pulse rate were met at one or more visits by 22 participants (7.0%), for PCI high SBP were met by 45 children (22.4%) and 17 adolescents (15.2%), and for PCI high DBP were met by 78 children (38.8%) and 24 adolescents (21.4%). The mean QT interval corrected using Fridericia’s formula (QTcF) decreased from baseline to LOTA (−0.6 ms [95% CI −2.3 to 1.2]; range −50 to +53). Mean changes in growth from baseline to LOTA were weight, 2.1 kg (95% CI 1.5–2.8); height, 6.1 cm (95% CI 5.6–6.7); and body mass index (BMI), −0.5 kg/m2 (95% CI −0.7 to −0.3). There was a general shift to lower z score categories for height, weight, and BMI from baseline to LOTA. The mean change in ADHD-RS-IV from baseline to LOTA was −25.8 (95% CI −27.0 to −24.5) for total score, −12.6 (95% CI −13.4 to −11.9) for the hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale score, and −13.1 (95% CI −13.8 to −12.4) for the inattention subscale score. At LOTA, 77.9% of participants had a CGI-I score of 1 or 2. In addition, 77.3 and 69.2% of participants were classified as treatment responders, based on a CGI-I score of 1 or 2 and a ≥30% or ≥50% reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score, respectively. Conclusions: The safety profile of LDX in this longer-term study was similar to that reported in previous studies. The efficacy of LDX was maintained throughout the 2-year study period. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01328756

Functional outcomes from a head-to-head, randomized, double-blind trial of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and an inadequate response to methylphenidate

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with functional impairments in multiple domains of patients' lives. A secondary objective of this randomized, active-controlled, head-to-head, double-blind, dose-optimized clinical trial was to compare the effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and atomoxetine (ATX) on functional impairment in children and adolescents with ADHD. Patients aged 6-17 years with an ADHD Rating Scale IV total score ≥ 28 and an inadequate response to methylphenidate treatment (judged by investigators) were randomized (1:1) to once-daily LDX or ATX for 9 weeks. Parents/guardians completed the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report (WFIRS-P) at baseline and at week 9 or early termination. p values were nominal and not corrected for multiple comparisons. Of 267 randomized patients, 200 completed the study (LDX 99, ATX 101). At baseline, mean WFIRS-P total score in the LDX group was 0.95 [standard deviation (SD) 0.474; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87, 1.03] and in the ATX group was 0.91 (0.513; 0.82, 1.00). Scores in all WFIRS-P domains improved from baseline to endpoint in both groups, with least-squares mean changes in total score of -0.35 (95% CI -0.42, -0.29) for LDX and -0.27 (-0.33, -0.20) for ATX. The difference between LDX and ATX was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for the Learning and School (effect size of LDX vs ATX, 0.43) and Social Activities (0.34) domains and for total score (0.27). Both treatments reduced functional impairment in children and adolescents with ADHD; LDX was statistically significantly more effective than ATX in two of six domains and in total score

Correlations Between Clinical Trial Outcomes Based on Symptoms, Functional Impairments, and Quality of Life in Children and Adolescents With ADHD

OBJECTIVE: To assess relationships between treatment-associated changes in measures of ADHD symptoms, functional impairments, and health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with ADHD. METHOD: Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated post hoc for changes from baseline to endpoint in outcomes of one randomized, placebo- and active-controlled trial of lisdexamfetamine (osmotic-release methylphenidate reference) and one of guanfacine extended-release (atomoxetine reference). RESULTS: Changes in ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score generally correlated moderately with changes in Child Health and Illness Profile-Child Edition: Parent Report Form (CHIP-CE:PRF) Achievement and Risk Avoidance ( r ≈ .4), but weakly with Resilience, Satisfaction, and Comfort ( r ≈ .2); and moderately with Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent (WFIRS-P) total score ( r ≈ .5). CHIP-CE: PRF Achievement and Risk Avoidance correlated moderately to strongly with WFIRS-P total score ( r ≈ .6). CONCLUSION: The ADHD-RS-IV, CHIP-CE:PRF, and WFIRS-P capture distinct but interconnected aspects of treatment response in individuals with ADHD

Treatment response and remission in a double-blind, randomized, head-to-head study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Objectives A secondary objective of this head-to-head study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and ato-moxetine (ATX) was to assess treatment response rates in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactiv-ity disorder (ADHD) and an inadequate response to methylphenidate (MPH). The primary efficacy and safety outcomes of the study, SPD489-317 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01106430), have been published previously. Methods In this 9-week, double-blind, active-controlled study, patients aged 6–17 years with a previous inadequate response to MPH were randomized (1:1) to dose-optimized LDX (30, 50 or 70 mg/day) or ATX (patients \70 kg: 0.5–1.2 mg/kg/day, not to exceed 1.4 mg/kg/day; patients C70 kg: 40, 80 or 100 mg/day). Treatment response was a secondary efficacy outcome and was predefined as a reduction from baseline in ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score of at least 25, 30 or 50 %. Sustained response was predefined as a reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score (C25, C30 or C50 %) or a Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)–Improvement (CGI–I) score of 1 or 2 throughout weeks 4–9. CGI– Severity (CGI–S) scores were also assessed, as an indicator of remission. Results A total of 267 patients were enrolled (LDX, n = 133; ATX, n = 134) and 200 completed the study (LDX, n = 99; ATX, n = 101). By week 9, significantly (p \ 0.01) greater proportions of patients receiving LDX than ATX met the response criteria of a reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score of at least 25 % (90.5 vs. 76.7 %), 30 % (88.1 vs. 73.7 %) or 50 % (73.0 vs. 50.4 %). Sustained response rates were also signifi-cantly (p \ 0.05) higher among LDX-treated patient

Efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate throughout the day in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder:results from a randomized, controlled trial

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is a long-acting, prodrug stimulant therapy for patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This randomized placebo-controlled trial of an optimized daily dose of LDX (30, 50 or 70 mg) was conducted in children and adolescents (aged 6–17 years) with ADHD. To evaluate the efficacy of LDX throughout the day, symptoms and behaviors of ADHD were evaluated using an abbreviated version of the Conners’ Parent Rating Scale-Revised (CPRS-R) at 1000, 1400 and 1800 hours following early morning dosing (0700 hours). Osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) was included as a reference treatment, but the study was not designed to support a statistical comparison between LDX and OROS-MPH. The full analysis set comprised 317 patients (LDX, n = 104; placebo, n = 106; OROS-MPH, n = 107). At baseline, CPRS-R total scores were similar across treatment groups. At endpoint, differences (active treatment − placebo) in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline CPRS-R total scores were statistically significant (P < 0.001) throughout the day for LDX (effect sizes: 1000 hours, 1.42; 1400 hours, 1.41; 1800 hours, 1.30) and OROS-MPH (effect sizes: 1000 hours, 1.04; 1400 hours, 0.98; 1800 hours, 0.92). Differences in LS mean change from baseline to endpoint were statistically significant (P < 0.001) for both active treatments in all four subscales of the CPRS-R (ADHD index, oppositional, hyperactivity and cognitive). In conclusion, improvements relative to placebo in ADHD-related symptoms and behaviors in children and adolescents receiving a single morning dose of LDX or OROS-MPH were maintained throughout the day and were ongoing at the last measurement in the evening (1800 hours)