Post hoc analyses of the impact of previous medication on the efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a randomized, controlled trial

David R Coghill,1 Tobias Banaschewski,2 Michel Lecendreux,3 César Soutullo,4 Alessandro Zuddas,5 Ben Adeyi,6 Shaw Sorooshian7 1Division of Neuroscience, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK; 2Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany; 3Paediatric Sleep Centre and National Reference Centre for Orphan Diseases: Narcolepsy, Idiopathic Hypersomnia and Kleine-Levin Syndrome, Robert-Debré University Hospital, Paris, France; 4Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Unit, Department of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology, University of Navarra Clinic, Pamplona, Spain; 5Department of Biomedical Sciences, Section of Neuroscience and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy; 6Shire, Wayne, PA, USA; 7Shire, Eysins, Switzerland Background: Following the approval of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in several European countries for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents with an inadequate response to methylphenidate (MPH) treatment, the aim of the present analysis was to establish the response to LDX in subgroups of patients with different ADHD medication histories. Methods: This was a post hoc subgroup analysis of data from a 7-week, European, double-blind, dose-optimized, Phase III study. Patients aged 6–17 years were randomized 1:1:1 to LDX, placebo, or osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH). OROS-MPH was included as a reference arm rather than as a direct comparator. Efficacy was assessed in patients categorized according to their ADHD medication history using the ADHD Rating Scale IV and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scores. Results: The difference between active drug and placebo in least-squares mean change from baseline to endpoint in ADHD Rating Scale IV total score (95% confidence interval) was similar between the overall study population (n=317; LDX, -18.6 [-21.5, -15.7]; OROS- MPH, -13.0 [-15.9, -10.2]) and treatment-naïve individuals (n=147; LDX, -15.1 [-19.4, -10.9]; OROS-MPH, -12.7 [-16.8, -8.5]) or patients previously treated with any ADHD medication (n=170; LDX, -21.5 [-25.5, -17.6]; OROS-MPH, -14.2 [-18.1, -10.3]). In addition, similar proportions of patients receiving active treatment were categorized as improved based on CGI-I score (CGI-I of 1 or 2) in the overall study population and among treatment-naïve individuals or patients previously treated with any ADHD medication. Conclusion: In these post hoc analyses, the response to LDX treatment, and to the reference treatment OROS-MPH, was similar to that observed for the overall study population in subgroups of patients categorized according to whether or not they had previously received ADHD medication. Keywords: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, methylphenidate, central nervous system stimulant

Lauflumide (NLS-4) Is a New Potent Wake-Promoting Compound.

Psychostimulants are used for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness in a wide range of sleep disorders as well as in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or cognitive impairment in neuropsychiatric disorders. Here, we tested in mice the wake-promoting properties of NLS-4 and its effects on the following sleep as compared with those of modafinil and vehicle. C57BL/6J mice were intraperitoneally injected with vehicle, NLS-4 (64 mg/kg), or modafinil (150 mg/kg) at light onset. EEG and EMG were recorded continuously for 24 h after injections and vigilance states as well as EEG power densities were analyzed. NLS-4 at 64 mg/kg induced significantly longer wakefulness duration than modafinil at 150 mg/kg. Although no significant sleep rebound was observed after sleep onset for both treatments as compared with their vehicles, modafinil-treated mice showed significantly more NREM sleep when compared to NLS-4. Spectral analysis of the NREM EEG after NLS-4 treatment indicated an increased power density in delta activity (0.75-3.5 Hz) and a decreased power in theta frequency range (6.25-7.25 Hz), while there was no differences after modafinil treatment. Also, time course analysis of the delta activity showed a significant increase only during the first 2 time intervals of sleep after NLS-4 treatment, while delta power was increased during the first 9 time intervals after modafinil. Our results indicate that NLS-4 is a highly potent wake-promoting drug with no sign of hypersomnia rebound. As opposed to modafinil, recovery sleep after NLS-4 treatment is characterized by less NREM amount and delta activity, suggesting a lower need for recovery despite longer drug-induced wakefulness

Lauflumide (NLS-4) Is a New Potent Wake-Promoting Compound

Psychostimulants are used for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness in a wide range of sleep disorders as well as in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or cognitive impairment in neuropsychiatric disorders. Here, we tested in mice the wake-promoting properties of NLS-4 and its effects on the following sleep as compared with those of modafinil and vehicle. C57BL/6J mice were intraperitoneally injected with vehicle, NLS-4 (64 mg/kg), or modafinil (150 mg/kg) at light onset. EEG and EMG were recorded continuously for 24 h after injections and vigilance states as well as EEG power densities were analyzed. NLS-4 at 64 mg/kg induced significantly longer wakefulness duration than modafinil at 150 mg/kg. Although no significant sleep rebound was observed after sleep onset for both treatments as compared with their vehicles, modafinil-treated mice showed significantly more NREM sleep when compared to NLS-4. Spectral analysis of the NREM EEG after NLS-4 treatment indicated an increased power density in delta activity (0.75–3.5 Hz) and a decreased power in theta frequency range (6.25–7.25 Hz), while there was no differences after modafinil treatment. Also, time course analysis of the delta activity showed a significant increase only during the first 2 time intervals of sleep after NLS-4 treatment, while delta power was increased during the first 9 time intervals after modafinil. Our results indicate that NLS-4 is a highly potent wake-promoting drug with no sign of hypersomnia rebound. As opposed to modafinil, recovery sleep after NLS-4 treatment is characterized by less NREM amount and delta activity, suggesting a lower need for recovery despite longer drug-induced wakefulness

European, randomized, phase 3 study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

AbstractThis study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) compared with placebo in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Europe. Osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) was included as a reference arm. Patients (6–17 years old) with a baseline ADHD Rating Scale version IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score ≥28 were randomized (1:1:1) to dose-optimized LDX (30, 50, or 70mg/day), OROS-MPH (18, 36, or 54mg/day) or placebo for 7 weeks. Primary and key secondary efficacy measures were the investigator-rated ADHD-RS-IV and the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) rating, respectively. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), electrocardiograms, and vital signs. Of 336 patients randomized, 196 completed the study. The difference between LDX and placebo in least squares mean change in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline to endpoint was −18.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −21.5 to −15.7) (p<0.001; effect size, 1.80). The difference between OROS-MPH and placebo in least squares mean change in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline to endpoint was −13.0 (95% CI: −15.9 to −10.2) (p<0.001; effect size, 1.26). The proportions (95% CI) of patients showing improvement (CGI-I of 1 or 2) at endpoint were 78% (70–86), 14% (8–21), and 61% (51–70) for LDX, placebo, and OROS-MPH. The most common TEAEs for LDX were decreased appetite, headache, and insomnia. Mean changes in vital signs were modest and consistent with the known profile of LDX. LDX was effective and generally well tolerated in children and adolescents with ADHD

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)

Diagnosis of central disorders of hypersomnolence: A reappraisal by European experts

Summary The aim of this European initiative is to facilitate a structured discussion to improve the next edition of the International Classification of Sleep Disorders (ICSD), particularly the chapter on central disorders of hypersomnolence. The ultimate goal for a sleep disorders classification is to be based on the underlying neurobiological causes of the disorders with clear implication for treatment or, ideally, prevention and or healing. The current ICSD classification, published in 2014, inevitably has important shortcomings, largely reflecting the lack of knowledge about the precise neurobiological mechanisms underlying the majority of sleep disorders we currently delineate. Despite a clear rationale for the present structure, there remain important limitations that make it difficult to apply in routine clinical practice. Moreover, there are indications that the current structure may even prevent us from gaining relevant new knowledge to better understand certain sleep disorders and their neurobiological causes. We suggest the creation of a new consistent, complaint driven, hierarchical classification for central disorders of hypersomnolence; containing levels of certainty, and giving diagnostic tests, particularly the MSLT, a weighting based on its specificity and sensitivity in the diagnostic context. We propose and define three diagnostic categories (with levels of certainty): 1/“Narcolepsy” 2/“Idiopathic hypersomnia”, 3/“Idiopathic excessive sleepiness” (with subtypes)Peer reviewe

European guideline and expert statements on the management of narcolepsy in adults and children

Background and purpose: Narcolepsy is an uncommon hypothalamic disorder of presumed autoimmune origin that usually requires lifelong treatment. This paper aims to provide evidence-based guidelines for the management of narcolepsy in both adults and children. Methods: The European Academy of Neurology (EAN), European Sleep Research Society (ESRS), and European Narcolepsy Network (EU-NN) nominated a task force of 18 narcolepsy specialists. According to the EAN recommendations, 10 relevant clinical questions were formulated in PICO format. Following a systematic review of the literature (performed in Fall 2018 and updated in July 2020) recommendations were developed according to the GRADE approach. Results: A total of 10,247 references were evaluated, 308 studies were assessed and 155 finally included. The main recommendations can be summarized as follows: (i) excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in adults-scheduled naps, modafinil, pitolisant, sodium oxybate (SXB), solriamfetol (all strong); methylphenidate, amphetamine derivatives (both weak); (ii) cataplexy in adults-SXB, venlafaxine, clomipramine (all strong) and pitolisant (weak); (iii) EDS in children-scheduled naps, SXB (both strong), modafinil, methylphenidate, pitolisant, amphetamine derivatives (all weak); (iv) cataplexy in children-SXB (strong), antidepressants (weak). Treatment choices should be tailored to each patient's symptoms, comorbidities, tolerance and risk of potential drug interactions. Conclusion: The management of narcolepsy involves non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches with an increasing number of symptomatic treatment options for adults and children that have been studied in some detail.Peer reviewe

Maintenance of efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder:randomized-withdrawal study design

Objective In this phase 3 extension study, the long-term maintenance of efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was evaluated using a randomized-withdrawal study design. Method European and US patients (6–17 years; N = 276) with ADHD were entered into a 26-week open-label trial of LDX treatment. Those who completed the open-label period (n = 157) were randomized 1:1 to their optimized dose of LDX (30, 50, or 70 mg per day) or placebo for a 6-week randomized-withdrawal period (RWP). The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients meeting treatment failure criteria (≥50% increase in ADHD Rating Scale IV total score and ≥2-point increase in Clinical Global Impressions–Severity of Illness [CGI-S] score, compared with RWP start point). Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. Results During the RWP (LDX, n = 78; placebo, n = 79), significantly fewer patients receiving LDX met treatment failure criteria (15.8%) compared with those receiving placebo (67.5%; difference = –51.7%; 95% confidence interval = –65.0, –38.5; p < .001 ). Most treatment failures occurred at or before the week 2 visit after randomization. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 39.7% and 25.3% of patients receiving LDX and placebo, respectively, during the RWP. Conclusions These data demonstrate the maintenance of efficacy of LDX during long-term treatment in children and adolescents with ADHD. The rapid return of symptoms on LDX withdrawal demonstrates the need for continuing treatment. The safety profile of LDX was consistent with that of other stimulants