Post hoc analyses of response rates to pharmacological treatments in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Lack of consensus regarding how best to define treatment response hinders translation from trials to the clinic. These post hoc analyses examine three commonly used response criteria in six trials of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Data from four short-term randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two long-term open-label studies were analysed. Children and adolescents with ADHD received either dose-optimised (30-70 mg/day) or fixed-dose (70 mg/day) LDX. The RCTs included osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) or atomoxetine (ATX) as a head-to-head comparator or as a reference treatment. Three definitions of response were used in these analyses: reductions of ⩾30% or ⩾50% in ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score plus a Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement (CGI-I) score of 1 or 2, or an ADHD-RS-IV total score of ⩽18. RESULTS: At the end point, LDX response rates for the least stringent criterion of ⩾30% reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score plus a CGI-I score of 1 or 2 ranged from 69.6% to 82.6%. The proportion achieving the more stringent criterion of a reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score of ⩾50% plus a CGI-I score of 1 or 2 at the end point ranged from 59.8% to 74.8%. An ADHD-RS-IV total score of ⩽18 at the end point was achieved by 56.7-79.9% of participants. Response rates remained stable throughout the long-term open-label studies. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates were similar for the two more stringent response criteria. The less stringent criterion resulted in higher response rates and may include partial responders

Moderator effects of working memory on the stability of ADHD symptoms by dopamine receptor gene polymorphisms during development

We tested the hypothesis that dopamine D1 and D2 receptor gene (DRD1 and DRD2, respectively) polymorphisms and the development of working memory skills can interact to influence symptom change over 10 years in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Specifically, we examined whether improvements in working memory maintenance and manipulation from childhood to early adulthood predicted the reduction of ADHD symptoms as a function of allelic variation in DRD1 and DRD2. Participants were 76 7-11-year-old children with ADHD who were genotyped and prospectively followed for almost 10 years. ADHD symptoms were rated using the Attention Problems scale on the Child Behavior Checklist, and verbal working memory maintenance and manipulation, measured by Digit Span forward and backward, respectively, were assessed at baseline and follow-up. After correction for multiple testing, improvements in working memory manipulation, not maintenance, predicted reduction of symptomatology over development and was moderated by major allele homozygosity in two DRD1 polymorphisms (rs4532 and rs265978) previously linked with variation in D1 receptor expression. Depending on genetic background, developmental factors including age-dependent variation in DRD1 penetrance may facilitate the link between improvements in higher-order working memory and the remission of symptoms in individuals with childhood-diagnosed ADHD. Furthermore, the current findings suggest that DRD1 might contribute minimally to the emergence of symptoms and cognitive difficulties associated with ADHD in childhood, but may act as a modifier gene of these clinical features and outcome during later development for those with ADHD

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 Evaluation of Child Behavior Checklist-Derived Scales in Children Clinically Referred for Emotional and Behavioral Dysregulation

Background: We recently developed the Child Behavior Checklist-Mania Scale (CBCL-MS), a novel and short instrument for the assessment of mania-like symptoms in children and adolescents derived from the CBCL item pool and have demonstrated its construct validity and temporal stability in a longitudinal general population sample. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of the 19-item CBCL-MS in a clinical sample and to compare its discriminatory ability to that of the 40-item CBCL-dysregulation profile (CBCL-DP) and the 34-item CBCL-Externalizing Scale. Methods: The study sample comprised 202 children, aged 7–12 years, diagnosed with DSM-defined attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder (CD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and mood and anxiety disorders based on the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children. The construct validity of the CBCL-MS was tested by means of a confirmatory factor analysis. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and logistic regression analyses adjusted for sex and age were used to assess the discriminatory ability relative to that of the CBCL-DP and the CBCLExternalizing Scale. Results: The CBCL-MS had excellent construct validity (comparative fit index = 0.97; Tucker–Lewis index = 0.96; root mean square error of approximation = 0.04). Despite similar overall performance across scales, the clinical range scores of the CBCL-DP and the CBCL-Externalizing Scale were associated with higher odds for ODD and CD, while the clinical range scores of the CBCL-MS were associated with higher odds for mood disorders. The concordance rate among the children who scored within the clinical range of each scale was over 90%. Conclusion: CBCL-MS has good construct validity in general population and clinical samples and is therefore suitable for both clinical practice and research

Time courses of improvement and symptom remission in children treated with atomoxetine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: analysis of Canadian open-label studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The relatively short durations of the initial pivotal randomized placebo-controlled trials involving atomoxetine HCl for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) provided limited insight into the time courses of ADHD core symptom responses to this nonstimulant, selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate time courses of treatment responses or remission, as assessed by attainment of prespecified scores on the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version: Investigator Administered and Scored (ADHDRS-IV-PI) and the Clinical Global Impressions-ADHD-Severity (CGI-ADHD-S) scales, during up to 1 year of atomoxetine treatment in children with ADHD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using pooled data from three Canadian open-label studies involving 338 children ages 6-11 years with ADHD who were treated with atomoxetine for 3, 6 and 12 months, and survival analysis methods for interval-censored data, we estimated the time to: 1) improvement and robust improvement defined by ≥25% and ≥40% reductions from baseline ADHDRS-IV-PI total scores, respectively; and 2) remission using two definitions: a final score of ADHDRS-IV-PI ≤18 or a final score of CGI-ADHD-S ≤2.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The median time to improvement was 3.7 weeks (~1 month), but remission of symptoms did not occur until a median of 14.3 weeks (~3.5 months) using the most stringent CGI-ADHD-S threshold. Probabilities of robust improvement were 47% at or before 4 weeks of treatment; 76% at 12 weeks; 85% at 26 weeks; and 96% at 52 weeks. Probabilities of remission at these corresponding time points were 30%, 59%, 77%, and 85% (using the ADHDRS-IV scale) and 8%, 47%, 67%, and 75% (using the CGI-ADHD-S scale). The change from atomoxetine treatment month 5 to month 12 of -1.01 (1.03) was not statistically significant (<it>p </it>= .33).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Reductions in core ADHD symptoms during atomoxetine treatment are gradual. Although approximately one-half of study participants showed improvement at 1 month of atomoxetine treatment, remission criteria were not met until about 3 months. Understanding the time course of children's responses to atomoxetine treatment may inform clinical decision making and also influence the durations of trials comparing the effects of this medication with other ADHD treatments.</p> <p>Trial Registrations</p> <p>clinicaltrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00191633">NCT00191633</a>, <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00216918">NCT00216918</a>, <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00191880">NCT00191880</a>.</p

Evidence, Interpretation, and Qualification From Multiple Reports of Long- Term Outcomes in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With ADHD (MTA) Part II: Supporting Details

Objective: To review and provide details about the primary and secondary findings from the Multimodal Treatment study of ADHD (MTA) published during the past decade as three sets of articles. Method: In the second of a two part article, we provide additional background and detail required by the complexity of the MTA to address confusion and controversy about the findings outlined in part I (the Executive Summary). Results: We present details about the gold standard used to produce scientific evidence, the randomized clinical trial (RCT), which we applied to evaluate the long-term effects of two well-established unimodal treatments, Medication Management (MedMGT) and behavior therapy (Beh), the multimodal combination (Comb), and treatment “as usual” in the community (CC). For each of the first three assessment points defined by RCT methods and included in intent-to-treat analyses, we discuss our definition of evidence from the MTA, interpretation of the serial presentations of findings at each assessment point with a different definition of long-term varying from weeks to years, and qualification of the interim conclusions about long-term effects of treatments for ADHD based on many exploratory analyses described in additional published articles. Conclusions: Using a question and answer format, we discuss the possible clinical relevance of the MTA and present some practical suggestions based on current knowledge and uncertainties facing families, clinicians, and investigators regarding the long-term use of stimulant medication and behavioral therapy in the treatment of children with ADHD. (J. of Att. Dis. 2008; 12(1) 15-43