Characteristics of ADHD symptom response/remission in a clinical trial of methylphenidate extended release

Clinical trials in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have typically measured outcome using clinician ratings on the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale, Fourth Edition (ADHD-RS-IV) and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale. Remission has been defined as an endpoint score of less than or equal to 18 on the ADHD-RS-IV (or a mean score of 1). Responders have been defined as patients who achieve a CGI-I score of much or very much improved (1 or 2). There is a lack of agreement in the literature on what percent change in symptoms on the ADHD-RS-IV should be used to define improvement or remission. This study uses data from a clinical trial of a methylphenidate extended release (MPH-MLR; Aptensio XR®) phase III clinical trial to attempt to determine the percent change of symptoms that best corresponds with improvement and remission. Symptom remission at endpoint (ADHD-RS-IV total score ≤18) was most closely aligned with a ≥46% reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score. Clinical improvement was most closely aligned with a ≥40% reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score. The three different measures of outcome were strongly aligned during double blind and open label treatment, and were independent of subtype status. Our data suggest that at least 40% improvement in symptoms is needed to achieve a robust response at endpoint

Effect of Aptensio XR (Methylphenidate HCl Extended-Release) Capsules on Sleep in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Abstract Objective: To evaluate measures of sleep (exploratory endpoints) in two pivotal studies of a multilayer bead extended-release methylphenidate (MPH-MLR) treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children. Methods: Study 1 evaluated the time course of response to MPH-MLR (n = 26) patients in an analog classroom setting through four phases: screening (≤28 days), open label (OL) dose optimization (4 weeks), double-blind (DB) crossover (2 weeks; placebo vs. optimized dose), and follow-up call. Study 2 was a forced-dose parallel evaluation of MPH-MLR (n = 230) in four phases: screening (≤28 days), DB (1 week; placebo or MPH-MLR 10, 15, 20, or 40 mg/day), OL dose optimization (11 weeks), and follow-up call. Sleep was evaluated by parents using the Children's or Adolescent Sleep Habits Questionnaire (CSHQ or ASHQ) during the DB and OL phases. DB analysis: Study 1 (crossover), analysis of variance; Study 2, analysis of covariance. OL analysis: paired t-test. Results: DB: treatments were significantly different in Study 1 only for CSHQ Sleep Onset Delay (MPH-MLR, 1.90 vs. placebo, 1.34; p = 0.0046, placebo was better), and Study 2 for CSHQ Parasomnias (treatment, p = 0.0295), but no MPH-MLR treatment was different from placebo (pairwise MPH-MLR treatment to placebo, all p ≥ 0.170). OL: CSHQ total and Bedtime Resistance, Sleep Duration, Sleep Anxiety, Night Wakings, Parasomnias, and Sleep-disordered Breathing subscales decreased (improved, Study 1) significant only for CSHQ Night Wakings (p < 0.05); in Study 2 CSHQ total and Bedtime Resistance, Sleep Duration, Night Wakings, Parasomnias, and Daytime Sleepiness, and ASHQ total, Bedtime, Sleep Behavior, and Morning Waking all significantly improved (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In both studies, there was minimal negative impact of MPH-MLR on sleep during the brief DB phase and none during the longer duration OL phase. Some measures of sleep improved with optimized MPH-MLR dose