ADHD: Is There an App for That? A Suitability Assessment of Apps for the Parents of Children and Young People With ADHD

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a highly comorbid disorder that can impact significantly on the individual and their family. ADHD is managed via pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. Parents also gain support from parent support groups, which may include chat rooms, as well as face-to-face meetings. With the growth of technology use over recent years, parents have access to more resources that ever before. A number of mobile apps have been developed to help parents manage ADHD in their children and young people. Unfortunately many of these apps are not evidence-based, and little is known of their suitability for the parents or whether they are helpful in ADHD management. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the (1) parents' views of the suitability of the top ten listed apps for parents of children and young people with ADHD and (2) the views of clinicians that work with them on the suitability and value of the apps. METHODS: The top 10 listed apps specifically targeted toward the parents of children and young people with ADHD were identified via the Google Play (n=5) and iTunes store (n=5). Interviews were then undertaken with 7 parents of children or young people with ADHD and 6 clinicians who specialize in working with this population to explore their opinions of the 10 apps identified and what they believe the key components are for apps to be suitable and valuable for this population. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from clinician and parent interviews: (1) the importance of relating to the app, (2) apps that address ADHD-related difficulties, (3) how the apps can affect family relationships, and (4) apps as an educational tool. Two additional themes emerged from the clinician interviews alone: monitoring ADHD symptoms and that apps should be practical. Parents also identified an additional theme: the importance of the technology. Overall, the characteristics of the current top 10 listed apps did not appear to match well to the views of our sample. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that these apps may not fully meet the complex needs of this parent population. Further research is required to explore the value of apps with this population and how they can be tailored to their very specific needs

A 13-hour laboratory school study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in school-aged children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

BackgroundLisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is indicated for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children 6 to 12 years of age and in adults. In a previous laboratory school study, LDX demonstrated efficacy 2 hours postdose with duration of efficacy through 12 hours. The current study further characterizes the time course of effect of LDX.MethodsChildren aged 6 to 12 years with ADHD were enrolled in a laboratory school study. The multicenter study consisted of open-label, dose-optimization of LDX (30, 50, 70 mg/d, 4 weeks) followed by a randomized, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover phase (1 week each). Efficacy measures included the SKAMP (deportment [primary] and attention [secondary]) and PERMP (attempted/correct) scales (secondary) measured at predose and at 1.5, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12, and 13 hours postdose. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), physical examination, vital signs, and ECGs.ResultsA total of 117 subjects were randomized and 111 completed the study. Compared with placebo, LDX demonstrated significantly greater efficacy at each postdose time point (1.5 hours to 13.0 hours), as measured by SKAMP deportment and attention scales and PERMP (P < .005). The most common treatment-emergent AEs during dose optimization were decreased appetite (47%), insomnia (27%), headache (17%), irritability (16%), upper abdominal pain (16%), and affect lability (10%), which were less frequent in the crossover phase (6%, 4%, 5%, 1%, 2%, and 0% respectively).ConclusionIn school-aged children (6 to 12 years) with ADHD, efficacy of LDX was maintained from the first time point (1.5 hours) up to the last time point assessed (13.0 hours). LDX was generally well tolerated, resulting in typical stimulant AEs.Trial registrationOfficial Title: A Phase IIIb, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multi-Center, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Optimization, Cross-Over, Analog Classroom Study to Assess the Time of Onset of Vyvanse (Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate) in Pediatric Subjects Aged 6-12 With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00500149 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00500149

Efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder previously treated with methylphenidate: a post hoc analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurobehavioral psychiatric disorder that afflicts children, with a reported prevalence of 2.4% to 19.8% worldwide. Stimulants (methylphenidate [MPH] and amphetamine) are considered first-line ADHD pharmacotherapy. MPH is a catecholamine reuptake inhibitor, whereas amphetamines have additional presynaptic activity. Although MPH and amphetamine can effectively manage ADHD symptoms in most pediatric patients, many still fail to respond optimally to either. After administration, the prodrug stimulant lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is converted to l-lysine and therapeutically active d-amphetamine in the blood. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of LDX in children with ADHD who remained symptomatic (ie, nonremitters; ADHD Rating Scale IV [ADHD-RS-IV] total score > 18) on MPH therapy prior to enrollment in a 4-week placebo-controlled LDX trial, compared with the overall population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this post hoc analysis of data from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, forced-dose titration study, we evaluated the clinical efficacy of LDX in children aged 6-12 years with and without prior MPH treatment at screening. ADHD symptoms were assessed using the ADHD-RS-IV scale, Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised short form (CPRS-R), and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale, at screening, baseline, and endpoint. ADHD-RS-IV total and CPRS-R ADHD Index scores were summarized as mean (SD). Clinical response for the subgroup analysis was defined as a ≥ 30% reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV score and a CGI-I score of 1 or 2. Dunnett test was used to compare change from baseline in all groups. Number needed to treat to achieve one clinical responder or one symptomatic remitter was calculated as the reciprocal of the difference in their proportions on active treatment and placebo at endpoint.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 290 randomized participants enrolled, 28 received MPH therapy at screening, of which 26 remained symptomatic (ADHD-RS-IV > 18). ADHD-RS-IV total scores, changes from baseline, clinical responsiveness, and rates of symptomatic remission in this subgroup were comparable to the overall population. The safety and tolerability profiles for LDX were comparable to other stimulants currently available.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this analysis, children with significant clinical ADHD symptoms despite MPH treatment improved during treatment with LDX and experienced similar improvements in their symptoms as the overall study population.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00556296">NCT00556296</a></p

Therapeutic effects of methylphenidate for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children with borderline intellectual functioning or intellectual disability: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) frequently co-occurs with intellectual disability in children, and may further compromise learning. Methylphenidate is a first-line treatment for ADHD, however no previous meta-analysis has evaluated its overall efficacy for ADHD in children with comorbid intellectual disability (ID) or borderline intellectual functioning. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and ScienceDirect databases were systematically searched from inception through 2018/7/15 for clinical studies that investigated the effects of methylphenidate in children with ADHD and ID. A random-effects model meta-analysis was used for data synthesis. Eight studies (average Jadad score = 2.5) enrolling 242 participants receiving methylphenidate and 181 participants receiving placebo were included. The meta-analysis showed that methylphenidate led to a significant improvement in ADHD symptoms relative to placebo (Hedges’ g = 0.878, p < 0.001). Meta-regression analysis pointed to an association between the dose of methylphenidate and overall improvement in ADHD severity (slope = 1.334, p < 0.001). Finally, there was no significant difference in drop-out rate [odds ratio (OR) = 1.679, p = 0.260] or rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR = 4.815, p = 0.053) between subjects receiving methylphenidate and those taking placebos. Our study suggests that methylphenidate retains its efficacy in children with ADHD and borderline intellectual functioning or ID

Color perception deficits in co-existing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and chronic tic disorders

Preliminary findings suggest that color perception, particularly of blue-yellow stimuli, is impaired in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as in chronic tic disorders (CTD). However, these findings have been not replicated and it is unclear what these deficits mean for the comorbidity of ADHD + CTD. Four groups (ADHD, CTD, ADHD + CTD, controls) of children with similar age, IQ and gender distribution were investigated with the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test (FMT) and the Stroop-Color-Word Task using a factorial design. Color perception deficits, as indexed by the FMT, were found for both main factors (ADHD and CTD), but there were no interaction effects. A preponderance of deficits on the blue-yellow compared to the red-green axis was detected for ADHD. In the Stroop task only the 'pure' ADHD group showed impairments in interference control and other parameters of Stroop performance. No significant correlations between any FMT parameter and color naming in the Stroop task were found. Basic color perception deficits in both ADHD and CTD could be found. Beyond that, it could be shown that these deficits are additive in the case of comorbidity (ADHD + CTD). Performance deficits on the Stroop task were present only in the 'pure' ADHD group. Hence, the latter may be compensated in the comorbid group by good prefrontal capabilities of CTD. The influence of color perception deficits on Stroop task performance might be negligible. © 2007 Springer-Verlag

Efficacy and tolerability of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: sex and age effects and effect size across the day

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Efficacy and safety profiles by sex and age (6-9 vs 10-12 years) and magnitude and duration of effect by effect size overall and across the day of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) vs placebo were assessed.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study enrolled children (6-12 years) with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in an open-label dose optimization with LDX (30-70 mg/d) followed by a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover phase. Post hoc analyses assessed interaction between sex or age and treatment and assessed effect sizes for Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham (SKAMP) and Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP) scales and ADHD Rating Scale IV measures. No corrections for multiple testing were applied on time points and subgroup statistical comparisons.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>129 participants enrolled; 117 randomized. Both sexes showed improvement on all assessments at postdose time points; females showed less impairment than males for SKAMP and PERMP scores in treatment and placebo groups at nearly all times. Both age groups improved on all assessments at postdose time points. Children 10-12 years had less impairment in SKAMP ratings than those 6-9 years. Treatment-by-sex interactions were observed at time points for SKAMP-D, SKAMP total, and PERMP scores; no consistent pattern across scales or time points was observed. LDX demonstrated significant improvement vs placebo, by effect size, on SKAMP-D from 1.5-13 hours postdose. The overall LS mean (SE) SKAMP-D effect size was -1.73 (0.18). In the dose-optimization phase, common (≥2%) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in males were upper abdominal pain, headache, affect lability, initial insomnia, and insomnia; in females were nausea and decreased weight. During the crossover phase for those taking LDX, higher incidence (≥2% greater) was observed in males for upper abdominal pain and insomnia and in females for nausea and headache. Overall incidence of TEAEs in age groups was similar.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Apparent differences in impairment level between sex and age groups were noted. However, these results support the efficacy of LDX from 1.5 hours to 13 hours postdose in boys and girls with medium to large effect sizes across the day with some variability in TEAE incidence by sex.</p> <p>Trial Registration Number</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: <a href="http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00500149">NCT00500149</a>.</p