A systematic review of the safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate

BACKGROUND: Here we review the safety and tolerability profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), the first long-acting prodrug stimulant for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted for English-language articles published up to 16 September 2013 using the following search terms: (lisdexamfetamine OR lisdexamphetamine OR SPD489 OR Vyvanse OR Venvanse OR NRP104 NOT review [publication type]). RESULTS: In short-term, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase III trials, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in children, adolescents, and adults receiving LDX were typical for those reported for stimulants in general. Decreased appetite was reported by 25-39 % of patients and insomnia by 11-19 %. The most frequently reported TEAEs in long-term studies were similar to those reported in the short-term trials. Most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Literature relating to four specific safety concerns associated with stimulant medications was evaluated in detail in patients receiving LDX. Gains in weight, height, and body mass index were smaller in children and adolescents receiving LDX than in placebo controls or untreated norms. Insomnia was a frequently reported TEAE in patients with ADHD of all ages receiving LDX, although the available data indicated no overall worsening of sleep quality in adults. Post-marketing survey data suggest that the rate of non-medical use of LDX was lower than that for short-acting stimulants and lower than or equivalent to long-acting stimulant formulations. Small mean increases were seen in blood pressure and pulse rate in patients receiving LDX. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and tolerability profile of LDX in individuals with ADHD is similar to that of other stimulants

Self-efficacy instruments for patients with chronic diseases suffer from methodological limitations - a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Measurement of self-efficacy requires carefully developed and validated instruments. It is currently unclear whether available self-efficacy instruments for chronic diseases fulfill these requirements. Our aim was to systematically identify all existing self-efficacy scales for five major chronic diseases and to assess their development and validation process. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in electronic databases (MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, and EMBASE) to identify studies describing the development and/or validation process of self-efficacy instruments for the five chronic diseases diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, arthritis, and heart failure. Two members of the review team independently selected articles meeting inclusion criteria. The self-efficacy instruments were evaluated in terms of their development (aim of instrument, a priori considerations, identification of items, selection of items, development of domains, answer options) and validation (test-retest reliability, internal consistency reliability, validity, responsiveness) process. RESULTS: Of 584 potentially eligible papers we included 25 (13 for diabetes, 5 for asthma, 4 for arthritis, 3 for COPD, 0 for heart failure) which covered 26 different self-efficacy instrument versions. For 8 instruments (30.8%), the authors described the aim before the scales were developed whereas for the other instruments the aim was unclear. In one study (3.8%) a priori considerations were specified. In none of the studies a systematic literature search was carried out to identify items. The item selection process was often not clearly described (38.5%). Test-retest reliability was assessed for 9 instruments (34.6%), validity using a correlational approach for 18 (69.2%), and responsiveness to change for 3 (11.5%) instruments. CONCLUSION: The development and validation process of the majority of the self-efficacy instruments had major limitations. The aim of the instruments was often not specified and for most instruments, not all measurement properties that are important to support the specific aim of the instrument (for example responsiveness for evaluative instruments) were assessed. Researchers who develop and validate self-efficacy instruments should adhere more closely to important methodological concepts for development and validation of patient-reported outcomes and report their methods more transparently. We propose a systematic five step approach for the development and validation of self-efficacy instruments

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

BACKGROUND: Stimulant medications for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder have a history of safe and effective use; however, concerns exist that they may adversely affect growth trajectories in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the longer-term effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate on weight, height, body mass index and pubertal development in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. METHODS: Children and adolescents aged 6-17 years with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder took open-label lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (30, 50 or 70 mg/day) in this open-label 2-year safety and efficacy study. Safety evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events, measurement of weight, height and body mass index, and self-reported pubertal status using Tanner staging. RESULTS: The safety analysis population comprised all enrolled participants (N = 314) and 191 (60.8%) completed the study. Weight decrease was reported as a treatment-emergent adverse event in 63 participants (20.1%) and two participants (0.6%) discontinued the study as a result of treatment-emergent adverse events of weight decrease. Growth retardation of moderate intensity was reported as a treatment-emergent adverse event for two participants. From baseline to the last on-treatment assessment, there were increases in mean weight of 2.1 kg (standard deviation 5.83) and height of 6.1 cm (standard deviation 4.90), and a body mass index decrease of 0.5 kg/m2 (standard deviation 1.72). Mean weight, height and body mass index z-scores decreased over the first 36 weeks of the study and then stabilised. Changes from baseline to the last on-treatment assessment in mean z-scores for weight, height and body mass index were significantly less than zero (- 0.51, - 0.24 and - 0.59, respectively; nominal p < 0.0001). The proportion of participants with a z-score of < - 1 ranged from 5.1% (baseline) to 22.1% (week 84) for weight, 8.2% (baseline) to 12.6% (week 96) for height, and 8.3% (baseline) to 28.8% (week 96) for body mass index. Thirteen participants (4.1%) shifted to a weight below the fifth percentile at the last on-treatment assessment from a higher weight category at baseline. At the last on-treatment assessment, most participants remained at their baseline Tanner stage or had shifted higher. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this comprehensive examination of growth outcomes associated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment over 2 years were consistent with previous studies of stimulant medications. Whilst mean weight and height increased over the course of the study, there was a small but transient reduction in mean weight, height and body mass index z-scores. A small increase in the proportion of participants in the lowest weight and body mass index categories highlights the importance of the regular monitoring of weight and height. There was no evidence of delayed onset of puberty. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01328756

ADHD and EEG-neurofeedback: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled feasibility study

Electroencephalography (EEG)-neurofeedback has been shown to offer therapeutic benefits to patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in several, mostly uncontrolled studies. This pilot study is designed to test the feasibility and safety of using a double-blind placebo feedback-controlled design and to explore the initial efficacy of individualized EEG-neurofeedback training in children with ADHD. Fourteen children (8–15 years) with ADHD defined according to the DSM-IV-TR criteria were randomly allocated to 30 sessions of EEG-neurofeedback (n = 8) or placebo feedback (n = 6). Safety measures (adverse events and sleep problems), ADHD symptoms and global improvement were monitored. With respect to feasibility, all children completed the study and attended all study visits and training sessions. No significant adverse effects or sleep problems were reported. Regarding the expectancy, 75% of children and their parent(s) in the active neurofeedback group and 50% of children and their parent(s) in the placebo feedback group thought they received placebo feedback training. Analyses revealed significant improvements of ADHD symptoms over time, but changes were similar for both groups. This pilot study shows that it is feasible to conduct a rigorous placebo-controlled trial to investigate the efficacy of neurofeedback training in children with ADHD. However, a double-blind design may not be feasible since using automatic adjusted reward thresholds may not work as effective as manually adjusted reward thresholds. Additionally, implementation of active learning strategies may be an important factor for the efficacy of EEG-neurofeedback training. Based on the results of this pilot study, changes are made in the design of the ongoing study

Packages of Care for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

In the sixth in a series of six articles on packages of care for mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries, Alan Flisher and colleagues discuss the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Specific Cognitive Deficits in ADHD: A Diagnostic Concern in Differential Diagnosis

We present a critical account of existing tools used to diagnose children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and to make a case for the assessment of cognitive impairments as a part of diagnostic system. Surveys have shown that clinicians rely almost entirely upon subjective reports or their own clinical judgment when arriving at diagnostic decisions relating to this prevalent disorder. While information from parents and teachers should always be carefully considered, they are often influenced by a host of emotional and perceptual factors. It increases the possibility for misdiagnosis of a condition like ADHD. Recent experimental literature on ADHD has identified unique underlying cognitive dysfunction, specific to ADHD. Therefore, we propose that there is a need to incorporate information on cognitive mechanisms underlying ADHD and inculcate such information in the diagnostic system, which will provide a more sensitive as well as specific tool in differential diagnosis of ADHD

Impact of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) on prescription dug spending for children and adolescents: increasing relevance of health economic evidence

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>During the last decade, pharmaceutical spending for patients with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been escalating internationally.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>First, to estimate future trends of ADHD-related drug expenditures from the perspectives of the statutory health insurance (SHI; Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung, GKV) in Germany and the National Health Service (NHS) in England, respectively, for children and adolescents age 6 to 18 years. Second, to evaluate the budgetary impact on individual prescribers (child and adolescent psychiatrists and pediatricians treating patients with ADHD) in Germany.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A model was developed to predict plausible scenarios of future pharmaceutical expenditures for treatment of ADHD. Model inputs were derived from demographic and epidemiological data, a literature review of past spending trends, and an analysis of new pharmaceutical products in development for ADHD. Only products in clinical development phase III or later were considered. Uncertainty was addressed by way of scenario analysis. For each jurisdiction, five scenarios used different assumptions of future diagnosis prevalence, treatment prevalence, rates of adoption and unit costs of novel drugs, and treatment intensity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Annual ADHD pharmacotherapy expenditures for children and adolescents will further increase and may exceed €310 m (D; E: ₤78 m) in 2012 (2002: ~€21.8 m; ~₤7.0 m). During this period, overall drug spending by individual physicians may increase 2.3- to 9.5-fold, resulting from the multiplicative effects of four variables: increased number of diagnosed cases, growing acceptance and intensity of pharmacotherapy, and higher unit costs of novel medications.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Even for an extreme low case scenario, a more than six-fold increase of pharmaceutical spending for children and adolescents is predicted over the decade from 2002 to 2012, from the perspectives of both the NHS in England and the GKV in Germany. This budgetary impact projection represents a partial analysis only because other expenditures are likely to rise as well, for instance those associated with physician services, including diagnosis and psychosocial treatment. Further to this, by definition budgetary impact analyses have little to nothing to say about clinical appropriateness and about value of money.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Providers of care for children and adolescents with ADHD should anticipate serious challenges related to the cost-effectiveness of interventions.</p

Bright light therapy versus physical exercise to prevent co-morbid depression and obesity in adolescents and young adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The risk for major depression and obesity is increased in adolescents and adults with attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and adolescent ADHD predicts adult depression and obesity. Non-pharmacological interventions to treat and prevent these co-morbidities are urgently needed. Bright light therapy (BLT) improves day– night rhythm and is an emerging therapy for major depression. Exercise intervention (EI) reduces obesity and improves depressive symptoms. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been performed to establish feasibility and efficacy of these interventions targeting the prevention of co-morbid depression and obesity in ADHD. We hypothesize that the two manualized interventions in combination with mobile health-based monitoring and reinforcement will result in less depressive symptoms and obesity compared to treatment as usual in adolescents and young adults with ADHD. Methods: This trial is a prospective, pilot phase-IIa, parallel-group RCT with three arms (two add-on treatment groups [BLT, EI] and one treatment as usual [TAU] control group). The primary outcome variable is change in the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology total score (observer-blinded assessment) between baseline and ten weeks of intervention. This variable is analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures approach investigating the treatment effect with respect to all three groups. A total of 330 participants with ADHD, aged 14 – < 30 years, will be screened at the four study centers. To establish effect sizes, the sample size was planned at the liberal significance level of α = 0.10 (two-sided) and the power of 1-β = 80% in order to find medium effects. Secondary outcomes measures including change in obesity, ADHD symptoms, general psychopathology, health-related quality of life, neurocognitive function, chronotype, and physical fitness are explored after the end of the intervention and at the 12-week follow-up. This is the first pilot RCT on the use of BLT and EI in combination with mobile health-based monitoring and reinforcement targeting the prevention of co-morbid depression and obesity in adolescents and young adults with ADHD. If at least medium effects can be established with regard to the prevention of depressive symptoms and obesity, a larger scale confirmatory phase-III trial may be warranted.The trial is funded by the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon 2020 (Project no. 667302). Funding period: January 2016–December 2020. This funding source had no role in the design of this study and will not have any role during its execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results. Some local funds additionally contributed to carry out this study, especially for the preparation of the interventions: FBO research activity is by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness – MINECO (RYC-2011-09011) and by the University of Granada, Plan Propio de Investigación 2016, Excellence actions: Unit of Excellence on Exercise and Health (UCEES)