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)

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

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background: Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice; however, available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions is inconclusive. Therefore, we sought to compare and rank all available treatment interventions for the acute treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents. Methods: We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest, CINAHL, LiLACS, international trial registries, and the websites of regulatory agencies for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials from database inception until Jan 1, 2019. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 16 antidepressants, seven psychotherapies, and five combinations of antidepressant and psychotherapy that are used for the acute treatment of children and adolescents (≤18 years old and of both sexes) with depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of fewer than ten patients were excluded. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcome measures, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using validated methods. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to any cause). We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with credible intervals (CrIs) using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020841. Findings: From 20 366 publications, we included 71 trials (9510 participants). Depressive disorders in most studies were moderate to severe. In terms of efficacy, fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more effective than CBT alone (–0·78, 95% CrI −1·55 to −0·01) and psychodynamic therapy (–1·14, −2·20 to −0·08), but not more effective than fluoxetine alone (–0·22, −0·86 to 0·42). No pharmacotherapy alone was more effective than psychotherapy alone. Only fluoxetine plus CBT and fluoxetine were significantly more effective than pill placebo or psychological controls (SMDs ranged from −1·73 to −0·51); and only interpersonal therapy was more effective than all psychological controls (–1·37 to −0·66). Nortriptyline (SMDs ranged from 1·04 to 2·22) and waiting list (SMDs ranged from 0·67 to 2·08) were less effective than most active interventions. In terms of acceptability, nefazodone and fluoxetine were associated with fewer dropouts than sertraline, imipramine, and desipramine (ORs ranged from 0·17 to 0·50); imipramine was associated with more dropouts than pill placebo, desvenlafaxine, fluoxetine plus CBT, and vilazodone (2·51 to 5·06). Most of the results were rated as “low” to “very low” in terms of confidence of evidence according to Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis. Interpretation: Despite the scarcity of high-quality evidence, fluoxetine (alone or in combination with CBT) seems to be the best choice for the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depressive disorder in children and adolescents. However, the effects of these interventions might vary between individuals, so patients, carers, and clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of efficacy, acceptability, and suicide risk of all active interventions in young patients with depression on a case-by-case basis. Funding: National Key Research and Development Program of China

Systematic review of quality of life and functional outcomes in randomized placebo-controlled studies of medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Children, adolescents and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) experience functional impairment and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in addition to symptoms of inattention/hyperactivity-impulsivity. To synthesize qualitatively the published evidence from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy on functional impairment or HRQoL in patients with ADHD, a systematic PubMed searching and screening strategy was designed to identify journal articles meeting pre-specified criteria. Post hoc analyses and meta-analyses were excluded. HRQoL outcomes, functional outcomes and the principal ADHD symptom-based outcome were extracted from included studies. An effect size of 0.5 versus placebo was used as a threshold for potential clinical relevance (unreported effect sizes were calculated when possible). Of 291 records screened, 35 articles describing 34 studies were included. HRQoL/functioning was usually self-rated in adults and proxy-rated in children/adolescents. Baseline data indicated substantial HRQoL deficits in children/adolescents. Placebo-adjusted effects of medication on ADHD symptoms, HRQoL and functioning, respectively, were statistically or nominally significant in 18/18, 10/12 and 7/9 studies in children/adolescents and 14/16, 9/11 and 9/10 studies in adults. Effect sizes were ≥0.5 versus placebo for symptoms, HRQoL and functioning, respectively, in 14/16, 7/9 and 4/8 studies in children/adolescents; and 6/12, 1/6 and 1/8 studies in adults. Effect sizes were typically larger for stimulants than for non-stimulants, for symptoms than for HRQoL/functioning, and for children/adolescents than for adults. The efficacy of ADHD medication extends beyond symptom control and may help reduce the related but distinct functional impairments and HRQoL deficits in patients with ADHD

NHS health checks: a cross- sectional observational study on equity of uptake and outcomes

Background The National Health Checks programme aims to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular diseases and health inequalities in England. We assessed equity of uptake and outcomes from NHS Health Checks in general practices in Bristol, UK. Methods A cross-sectional study using patient-level data, from 38 general practices. We descriptively analysed the socioeconomic status (SES) of patients invited and the SES and ethnicity of those attending. Logistic regression was used to test associations between invitation and attendance, with population characteristics. Results Between June 2010 to October 2014, 31,881 patients were invited, and 13,733 NHS Health Checks completed. 47% of patients invited from the three least and 39% from the two most-deprived index of multiple deprivation quintiles, completed a Check. Proportions of invited patients, by ethnicity were 64% non-black and Asian and 31% black and Asian. Men were less likely to attend than women (OR 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.80), as were patients ≤ 49 compared to ≥ 70 years (OR 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.83). After controlling for SES and population characteristics, compared to patients with low CVD risk, high risk patients were more likely to be prescribed cardiovascular drugs (OR 6.2, 95% confidence interval 4.51 to 8.40). Compared to men, women (OR 01.18, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.35) were more likely to be prescribed cardiovascular drugs, as were those ≤ 49 years (50–59 years, OR 1.42, 95% confidence intervals 1.13–1.79, 60–69 years, OR 1.60, 95% confidence intervals, 1.22–2.10, ≥ 70 years, OR 1.64, 95% confidence intervals, 1.14 to 2.35). Controlling for population characteristics, the following groups were most likely to be referred to lifestyle services: younger women (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.94), those in the most deprived IMD quintile (OR 3.22, 95% CI 1.63 to 6.36) and those at highest risk of CVD (OR, 2.77, 95% CI 1.91 to 4.02). Conclusions We found no statistically significant evidence of inequity in attendance for an NHS Health Check by SES. Being older or a woman were associated with better attendance. Targeting men, younger patients and ethnic minority groups may improve equity in uptake for NHS Health Checks

Type 2 innate lymphoid cells treat and prevent acute gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease

Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) is the most common complication for patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Despite extremely aggressive therapy targeting donor T cells, patients with grade III or greater aGVHD of the lower GI tract, who do not respond to therapy with corticosteroids, have a dismal prognosis. Thus, efforts to improve understanding of the function of local immune and non-immune cells in regulating the inflammatory process in the GI tract during aGVHD are needed. Here, we demonstrate, using murine models of allogeneic BMT, that type 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2s) in the lower GI tract are sensitive to conditioning therapy and show very limited ability to repopulate from donor bone marrow. Infusion of donor ILC2s was effective in reducing the lethality of aGVHD and in treating lower GI tract disease. ILC2 infusion was associated with reduced donor proinflammatory Th1 and Th17 cells, accumulation of donor myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) mediated by ILC2 production of IL-13, improved GI tract barrier function, and a preserved graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) response. Collectively, these findings suggest that infusion of donor ILC2s to restore gastrointestinal tract homeostasis may improve treatment of severe lower GI tract aGVHD

The Human Operculo-Insular Cortex Is Pain-Preferentially but Not Pain-Exclusively Activated by Trigeminal and Olfactory Stimuli

Increasing evidence about the central nervous representation of pain in the brain suggests that the operculo-insular cortex is a crucial part of the pain matrix. The pain-specificity of a brain region may be tested by administering nociceptive stimuli while controlling for unspecific activations by administering non-nociceptive stimuli. We applied this paradigm to nasal chemosensation, delivering trigeminal or olfactory stimuli, to verify the pain-specificity of the operculo-insular cortex. In detail, brain activations due to intranasal stimulation induced by non-nociceptive olfactory stimuli of hydrogen sulfide (5 ppm) or vanillin (0.8 ppm) were used to mask brain activations due to somatosensory, clearly nociceptive trigeminal stimulations with gaseous carbon dioxide (75% v/v). Functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) images were recorded from 12 healthy volunteers in a 3T head scanner during stimulus administration using an event-related design. We found that significantly more activations following nociceptive than non-nociceptive stimuli were localized bilaterally in two restricted clusters in the brain containing the primary and secondary somatosensory areas and the insular cortices consistent with the operculo-insular cortex. However, these activations completely disappeared when eliminating activations associated with the administration of olfactory stimuli, which were small but measurable. While the present experiments verify that the operculo-insular cortex plays a role in the processing of nociceptive input, they also show that it is not a pain-exclusive brain region and allow, in the experimental context, for the interpretation that the operculo-insular cortex splay a major role in the detection of and responding to salient events, whether or not these events are nociceptive or painful