Quality of Life and Outcomes Associated with Adverse Effects in Pediatric Patients with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Their Parents/Caregivers.

Objectives: To assess quality of life and outcomes associated with adverse effects (AEs) in pediatric patients receiving pharmacological treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and their parents/caregivers. Methods: An online survey was conducted (10/13/2023-10/20/2023) among parents/caregivers recruited from Dynata's U.S. panel who lived with a pediatric patient (6-17 years) currently treated for ADHD. Patient and parent/caregiver characteristics and outcomes were descriptively reported. Patients were considered to have AEs if they experienced symptoms/complications in the past 30 days that appeared, worsened, or remained unchanged after initiating their latest ADHD treatment. Regression analyses were used to estimate correlations between the number of AEs and key outcomes, including patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL; based on the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory) and parents/caregivers' work and activity impairments (based on Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Caregiver) and mental health (based on Patient Health Questionnaire-4). Results: A total of 401 parents/caregivers from all U.S. regions completed the survey (caregiver median age: 38 years, 58.9% female; patient median age: 11 years; 37.7% female). In the 30 days prior to data collection, 66.8% of patients had AEs (overall mean: 1.2 AEs), with insomnia/sleep disturbances and decreased appetite/weight loss being the most frequently reported (14.2% and 11.7%, respectively). The number of AEs was significantly correlated with reduced patient's HRQoL (including reduced physical, emotional, and school functioning), increased parent/caregiver's work and activity impairment, and a higher likelihood of parents/caregivers having generalized anxiety disorder or major depressive disorder, respectively (all p < 0.001). Conclusions: AEs are common among pediatric patients receiving pharmacological treatment for ADHD and are associated with poorer quality of life and outcomes in pediatric patients and their parents/caregivers. Therapies with better safety profiles may help improve patient's HRQoL and parent/caregiver outcomes.

An Open-Label Extension Study Assessing the Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Viloxazine Extended-Release Capsules in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Viloxazine ER (extended-release capsules; Qelbree®) is a nonstimulant medication that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children (> 6 years old) and adults. This phase 3 open-label extension to a pivotal phase 3, double-blind trial evaluated the long-term safety and continued efficacy of viloxazine ER in adults with ADHD. METHODS: This was a multicenter, flexible-dose, open-label extension to a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT04016779). Viloxazine ER was initiated at 200 mg/day and adjusted (between 200 and 600 mg/day) to achieve optimal efficacy and tolerability. Trial enrollment was halted temporarily (24 March 2020 to 23 July 2020) due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Participants completing double-blind treatment during that time were offered delayed enrollment upon trial requalification. Safety outcomes were the primary objectives. Secondary objectives were efficacy outcomes, including the ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS), and were assessed relative to double-blind baseline (or trial re-entry baseline for those whose enrollment was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic). RESULTS: Overall, 159 participants (133 immediate and 26 delayed rollover) received viloxazine ER, with a mean exposure of 265 ± 254.9 days. Adverse events (AEs) included (> 10% incidence) insomnia (13.8%), nausea (13.8%), headache (10.7%), and fatigue (10.1%). AEs led to discontinuation for 17.6% of participants [most commonly insomnia (2.5%), nausea (2.5%), and fatigue (1.9%)]. AISRS total score [baseline mean ± standard deviation (SD): 37.9 ± 6.3] improved by the first follow-up visit (-11.4 ± 9.5; week 2) with continued improvement at subsequent visits (last on-study visit: -18.2 ± 11.54). Similar patterns of improvement were seen for other measures of efficacy, including quality of life and executive function. Following initial dose optimization, most participants (73%) used viloxazine ER doses ≥ 400 mg/day, with 36% using doses of 600 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term viloxazine ER use was well tolerated, with no new long-term safety findings. Improvements in ADHD symptoms and associated measures were sustained throughout trial participation. In total, 73% percent of adult participants in this long-term study used viloxazine ER doses of 400 mg or more during maintenance treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04143217.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is common in children and adults and characterized by inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity that can substantially interfere with everyday life. On the basis of positive efficacy and safety results from clinical studies in children, adolescents, and adults, viloxazine ER (viloxazine extended-release capsules) received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval as a new treatment for ADHD and is marketed under the brand name Qelbree® (Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc). Adults who participated in the short-term (6 weeks) double-blind study that eventually led to the FDA approval of viloxazine ER were invited to enroll in this open-label extension trial to monitor the medication's long-term safety and continued efficacy. This study also provided a pathway for study participants to continue receiving viloxazine ER until its FDA approval and commercial availability. Participants in the study received viloxazine ER at dosages between 200 and 600 mg/day on the basis of symptom response and side effects (most used at least 400 mg/day). Viloxazine ER was demonstrated to have a good safety and tolerability profile. The most common side effects were insomnia (13.8%), nausea (13.8%), headache (10.7%), and fatigue (10.1%). Long-term treatment led to continued improvement in ADHD symptoms, quality of life, and executive function (executive function includes cognitive skills such as organizing and following through with tasks). The study results further support the continued use of viloxazine ER as a long-term treatment option for adults with ADHD.

Real world analysis of treatment change and response in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) alone and with concomitant psychiatric comorbidities: results from an electronic health record database study is the United States.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to examine the association of psychiatric comorbidities and patient characteristics with treatment change and response as well as to assess the association between treatment change and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and psychiatric comorbidities. METHODS: De-identified electronic health records from the NeuroBlu Database (2002-2021) were used to select patients ≥ 18 years with ADHD who were prescribed ADHD-specific medication. The index date was set as the first prescription of ADHD medication. The outcomes were treatment change (discontinuation, switch, add-on, or drop) and HCRU (inpatient, outpatient, composite) within 12 months of follow-up. Cox proportional-hazard model was used to assess the association between clinical and demographic patient characteristics and treatment change, while generalized linear model with negative binomial distribution and log link function was used to assess the association between key risk factors linked to treatment change and HCRU rates. RESULTS: A total of 3,387 patients with ADHD were included (ADHD only: 1,261; ADHD + major depressive disorder (MDD): 755; ADHD + anxiety disorder: 467; ADHD + mood disorder: 164). Nearly half (44.8%) of the study cohort experienced a treatment change within the 12-month follow-up period. Treatment switch and add-on were more common in patients with ADHD and comorbid MDD and anxiety disorder (switch: 18.9%; add-on: 20.5%) compared to other cohorts (range for switch: 8.5-13.6%; range for add-on: 8.9-12.1%) Survival analysis demonstrated that the probability of treatment change within 12 months from treatment initiation in the study cohort was estimated to be 42.4%. Outpatient visit rates statistically significantly increased from baseline (mean [SD] 1.03 [1.84] visits/month) to 3 months post-index (mean [SD] 1.62 [1.91] visits/month; p < 0.001), followed by a gradual decline up to 12 months post-index. Being prescribed both a stimulant and a non-stimulant at index date was statistically significantly associated with increased risk of treatment change (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.13, 2.38; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study found that treatment change was common among patients with ADHD and psychiatric comorbidities. These findings support the need for future studies to examine the unmet medical and treatment needs of this complex patient population.

Treatment Preferences of Adult Patients with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder - A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Background: Understanding patient preferences for treatments may facilitate shared decision-making. This study assessed adult patient preferences for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments in a sample of 600 patients in the United States (US). Methods: A web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was conducted among treated adults with ADHD. Participants were recruited from Dynata's US panel (06/22/2023-07/06/2023). Attributes and levels, identified based on clinical inputs and published data, included efficacy and safety. Participants' preferences were estimated using conditional logistic regression. Willingness to trade-off and attributes' relative importance were calculated. Overall preferences for treatment profiles approximating centanafadine, lisdexamfetamine, atomoxetine, and viloxazine were estimated using adjusted total utilities. Results were stratified by current treatment status. Sensitivity analyses including participants who passed validity tests were conducted. Results: Among the 600 participants (mean age 37.9 years; 66.2% female; 50.8% treated), all attributes had a statistically significant impact on preferences for ADHD treatments (p < 0.001); the most important attribute was improvement in ADHD symptoms (36%), followed by risks of nausea (25%), insomnia (20%), anxiety (8%), dry mouth (6%), and feeling jittery (5%). Together, safety attributes accounted for >60% of relative importance in decision-making. Participants were willing to forgo 0.59, 0.57, 0.49, 0.32, and 0.17 percentage points of symptom improvement to achieve one-percentage-point reduced risk of insomnia, nausea, anxiety, feeling jittery, and dry mouth, respectively. Centanafadine profile had consistently higher adjusted total utilities than its comparators. Similar results were obtained in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Efficacy was the most important attribute for patients when making treatment decision, but taken together, AEs had greater relative importance than efficacy alone. Accordingly, a profile resembling that of centanafadine would be preferred by an average patient compared to key competitors due to its favorable safety profile. These findings may help improve treatment decision-making, enhance treatment satisfaction, and foster adherence.

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: long-term safety and efficacy.

Aim: To compare long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), respectively, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Patients & methods: Patient-level data from a centanafadine trial (NCT03605849) and published aggregate data from a lisdexamfetamine trial (NCT00337285), a methylphenidate trial (NCT00326300) and an atomoxetine trial (NCT00190736) were used. Patient characteristics were matched in each comparison using propensity score weighting. Study outcomes were assessed up to 52 weeks and included safety (rates of adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] or ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] score). Results: In all comparisons of matched populations, risks of AEs were statistically significantly lower with centanafadine or non-different between centanafadine and comparator; the largest differences in AE rates included upper respiratory tract infection (risk difference in percentage points: 18.75), insomnia (12.47) and dry mouth (12.33) versus lisdexamfetamine; decreased appetite (20.25), headache (18.53) and insomnia (12.65) versus methylphenidate; and nausea (26.18), dry mouth (25.07) and fatigue (13.95) versus atomoxetine (all p < 0.05). Centanafadine had a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score versus lisdexamfetamine (6.15-point difference; p < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score versus methylphenidate (1.75-point difference; p = 0.13) and versus atomoxetine (1.60-point difference; p = 0.21). Conclusion: At up to 52 weeks, centanafadine showed significantly lower incidence of several AEs than lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine; efficacy was lower than lisdexamfetamine and non-different from methylphenidate and atomoxetine.

Assessment of centanafadine in adults with ADHD: a matching adjusted indirect comparison versus methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release (Concerta).

OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and efficacy of centanafadine versus methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release (ER; Concerta) in adults with ADHD. METHODS: Without head-to-head trials, anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) of adverse event rates reported across trials and mean change from baseline in Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER were conducted. Pooled patient-level data from two centanafadine trials (NCT03605680/NCT03605836) and aggregate data from one published methylphenidate hydrochloride ER trial (NCT00937040) were used. Characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials were matched to aggregate baseline characteristics from the methylphenidate hydrochloride ER trial using propensity score weighting. A sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the results to the capping of extreme weights (i.e. >99th percentile). RESULTS: Compared with methylphenidate hydrochloride ER, centanafadine was associated with significantly lower risk of dry mouth (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: -11.95), initial insomnia (-11.10), decreased appetite (-8.05), anxiety (-5.39), palpitations (-5.25), and feeling jittery (-4.73) though a significantly smaller reduction in AISRS score (4.16-point). In the sensitivity analysis, the safety results were consistent with the primary analysis but there was no significant difference in efficacy between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER. CONCLUSION: In this MAIC, centanafadine had better safety and possibly lower efficacy than methylphenidate hydrochloride ER. While safety results were robust across analyses, there was no efficacy difference between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER in the sensitivity analysis. Considering its favorable safety profile, centanafadine may be preferred among patients for whom treatment-related adverse events are a concern.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with psychiatric comorbidities in pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a claims-based case-cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been shown to pose considerable clinical and economic burden; however, research quantifying the excess burden attributable to common psychiatric comorbidities of ADHD among pediatric patients is scarce. This study assessed the impact of anxiety and depression on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and healthcare costs in pediatric patients with ADHD in the United States. METHODS: Patients with ADHD aged 6-17 years were identified in the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database (10/01/2015-09/30/2021). The index date was the date of initiation of a randomly selected ADHD treatment. Patients with ≥ 1 diagnosis for anxiety and/or depression during both the baseline (6 months pre-index) and study period (12 months post-index) were classified in the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort; those without diagnoses for anxiety nor depression during both periods were classified in the ADHD-only cohort. Entropy balancing was used to create reweighted cohorts. All-cause HRU and healthcare costs during the study period were compared using regression analyses. Cost analyses were also performed in subgroups by comorbid conditions. RESULTS: The reweighted ADHD-only cohort (N = 204,723) and ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort (N = 66,231) had similar characteristics (mean age: 11.9 years; 72.8% male; 56.2% had combined inattentive and hyperactive ADHD type). The ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort had higher HRU than the ADHD-only cohort (incidence rate ratios for inpatient admissions: 10.3; emergency room visits: 1.6; outpatient visits: 2.3; specialist visits: 5.3; and psychotherapy visits: 6.1; all p < 0.001). The higher HRU translated to greater all-cause healthcare costs; the mean per-patient-per-year (PPPY) costs in the ADHD-only cohort vs. ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort was $3,988 vs. $8,682 (p < 0.001). All-cause healthcare costs were highest when both comorbidities were present; among patients with ADHD who had only anxiety, only depression, and both anxiety and depression, the mean all-cause healthcare costs were $7,309, $9,901, and $13,785 PPPY, respectively (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid anxiety and depression was associated with significantly increased risk of HRU and higher healthcare costs among pediatric patients with ADHD; the presence of both comorbid conditions resulted in 3.5 times higher costs relative to ADHD alone. These findings underscore the need to co-manage ADHD and psychiatric comorbidities to help mitigate the substantial burden borne by patients and the healthcare system.

Assessment of centanafadine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, atomoxetine hydrochloride, and viloxazine extended-release.

BACKGROUND: Head-to-head trials comparing centanafadine, an investigational therapy for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with other treatment options are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine sustained-release vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), and viloxazine extended-release (viloxazine ER), respectively, using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). METHODS: This MAIC included patient-level data pooled from 2 centanafadine trials (NCT03605680 and NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from comparable trials of 3 comparators-lisdexamfetamine (NCT00334880), atomoxetine (NCT00190736), and viloxazine ER (NCT04016779)-in adult patients with ADHD. Propensity score weighting was used to match characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials to aggregate baseline characteristics from the respective comparator trials. Safety outcomes were rates of adverse events for which information was available in the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. Efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score (ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] was used as proxy in the comparison with lisdexamfetamine). Anchored indirect comparisons were conducted across matched populations of the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. RESULTS: After matching, baseline characteristics in the centanafadine trials were the same as those in the respective comparator trials. Compared with lisdexamfetamine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of lack of appetite (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: 23.42), dry mouth (19.27), insomnia (15.35), anxiety (5.21), nausea (4.90), feeling jittery (3.70), and diarrhea (3.47) (all P < 0.05) but a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score (6.58-point difference; P < 0.05). Compared with atomoxetine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of nausea (RD in percentage points: 18.64), dry mouth (17.44), fatigue (9.21), erectile dysfunction (6.76), lack of appetite (6.71), and urinary hesitation (5.84) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. Compared with viloxazine ER, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of fatigue (RD in percentage points: 11.07), insomnia (10.67), nausea (7.57), and constipation (4.63) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. CONCLUSIONS: In an anchored MAIC, centanafadine showed a significantly better short-term safety profile than lisdexamfetamine, atomoxetine, and viloxazine ER; efficacy was lower than with lisdexamfetamine and comparable (ie, nondifferent) with atomoxetine and viloxazine ER. This MAIC provides important insights on the relative safety and efficacy of common treatment options to help inform treatment decisions in adults with ADHD. Safety assessment was limited to rates of adverse events reported in both trials of a given comparison. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03605680, NCT03605836, NCT00334880, NCT00190736, and NCT04016779.

Health care resource utilization and costs associated with psychiatric comorbidities in adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a heterogeneous condition with extensive psychiatric comorbidities. ADHD has been associated with substantial clinical and economic burden; however, little is known about the incremental burden specifically attributable to psychiatric comorbidities of ADHD in adults. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of psychiatric comorbidities, specifically anxiety and depression, on health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs in treated adults with ADHD in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective case-cohort study was conducted. Adults with ADHD were identified in the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database (10/01/2015-09/30/2021). The index date was defined as the date of initiation of a randomly selected ADHD treatment. The baseline period was defined as the 6 months prior to the index date, and the study period as the 12 months following the index date. Patients with at least 1 diagnosis for anxiety and/or depression during both the baseline and study periods were classified in the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort, whereas those without diagnoses for anxiety or depression at any time were classified in the ADHD-only cohort. Entropy balancing was used to create reweighted cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. All-cause HRU and health care costs were assessed during the study period and compared between cohorts using regression analyses. Cost analyses were also conducted in subgroups stratified by comorbid conditions. RESULTS: After reweighting, patients in the ADHD-only cohort (N = 276,906) and ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort (N = 217,944) had similar characteristics (mean age 34.1 years; 54.8% male). All-cause HRU was higher in the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort than the ADHD-only cohort (incidence rate ratios for inpatient admissions: 4.5, emergency department visits: 1.8, outpatient visits: 2.0, and psychotherapy visits: 6.4; all P < 0.01). All-cause health care costs were more than 2 times higher in the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort than the ADHD-only cohort (mean per-patient per-year [PPPY] costs in ADHD-only vs ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort: $5,335 vs $11,315; P < 0.01). Among the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort, average all-cause health care costs were $9,233, $10,651, and $15,610 PPPY among subgroup of patients with ADHD and only anxiety, only depression, and both anxiety and depression, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid anxiety and depression is associated with additional HRU and costs burden in patients with ADHD. Comanagement of these conditions is important and has the potential to alleviate the burden experienced by patients and the health care system.

Two single arm trials of AKL-T01, a digital therapeutic for adolescents and adults with ADHD.

Inattention symptoms represent a key driver of functional impairment in ADHD and often persist into adolescence and adulthood, underscoring a need for novel treatments targeting attentional control. We evaluated AKL-T01-a digital therapeutic that is FDA-cleared for children 8-12 y with ADHD-in adolescents and adults with ADHD in two independent single-arm trials: STARS-ADHD-Adolescent, a 4-week trial in adolescents 13-17 y (n = 162 enrolled), and STARS-ADHD-Adult, a 6-week trial in adults 18 and older (n = 221 enrolled). AKL-T01 was linked with improvements on the Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA®) Attention Comparison Score (ACS) of 2.6 (95% CI: 2.02, 3.26; p < 0.0001) in adolescents and 6.5 in adults (95% CI: 5.35, 7.57; p < 0.0001), along with improvements in secondary endpoints. 15 participants reported adverse device effects, all mild or moderate. Though limited by a single-arm design, results provide preliminary support for the safety and efficacy of AKL-T01 for adolescents and adults with ADHD.

Recent advances in pharmacological management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: moving beyond stimulants.

INTRODUCTION: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurobehavioral disorder characterized by impairing inattention and/or hyperactivity and impulsivity in children and adults. Although medications have been available to treat ADHD symptoms for decades, many are stimulant formulations. Stimulants, such as amphetamine and methylphenidate, are available in more than two dozen formulations, but all have similar adverse effects and carry a risk of misuse and dependence. AREAS COVERED: In the United States (US), several nonstimulants are available to treat ADHD. Two, including atomoxetine and viloxazine extended-release (ER), are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of ADHD in children and adults. Two others, clonidine ER and guanfacine ER, are only approved for children and adolescents in the US. Several other compounds are under investigation. Drugs in Phase 3 trials include centanafadine, solriamfetol, and L-threonic acid magnesium salt. Efficacy and safety data for nonstimulants is presented. EXPERT OPINION: Although many effective formulations for the treatment of ADHD are available, more than 33% of children and 50% of adults discontinue treatment during the first year. The lack of individual drug response and tolerability are reasons many stop treatment. The development of new nonstimulants may offer hope for patients who need medication alternatives.

From Consensus Statement to Pills to Pixels: New Innovations in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Care.

Objectives: This review aims to present recent innovations and advancements in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) care, encompassing international consensus statement, new medication formulations, digital therapeutics, and neurostimulation devices. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of relevant articles published in the past five years was conducted, emphasizing the evidence base, efficacy, safety, and practical implications of these advancements. Results: The World Federation of ADHD Consensus Statement offers an updated diagnostic and treatment framework rooted in global scientific evidence. There are several newer ADHD medication formulations, including a nonstimulant (Viloxazine extended release) and the first transdermal amphetamine patch approved to treat ADHD. These options offer some unique benefits to personalize treatment based on symptom profile, lifestyle, preferences, and response. Digital tools offer additional means to restructure environments for individuals with ADHD, reducing impairment and reliance on others. In addition, digital therapeutics enhance access, affordability, personalization, and feasibility of ADHD care, complementing or augmenting existing interventions. Trigeminal nerve stimulation emerges as a well-tolerated nonpharmacological, device-based treatment for pediatric ADHD, with initial trials indicating effect sizes comparable to nonstimulant medications. Conclusions: These innovations in ADHD care represent clinically significant new treatment options and opportunities for personalized care. Health care professionals should integrate these developments into clinical practice, mindful of individual patient and family needs and preferences. Future research should assess long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability of these innovations.

A Post-Hoc Analysis of Emotional Lability With Delayed-Release/Extended-Release Methylphenidate in Children Aged 6 to 12 Years of Age Participating in Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: DR/ER-MPH (formerly HLD200) is an evening-dosed delayed-release and extended-release methylphenidate approved for the treatment of ADHD in patients ≥6 years. Post hoc analyses of two pivotal Phase 3 trials: HLD200-107 (NCT02493777) and HLD200-108 (NCT02520388) evaluated emotional lability (EL) with DR/ER-MPH treatment. METHODS: Differences in Conners Global Index-Parent (CGI-P) EL subscale scores and age- and gender-adjusted T-scores over an open-label titration phase (HLD200-107) and between treatment and placebo groups at endpoint (HLD200-108) were evaluated. RESULTS: In HLD200-107 (N = 117) mean CGI-P EL subscale scores improved from 5.3 to 1.3 (p < .0001) after 6 weeks; in HLD200-108 significant improvements were observed in the treatment group (n = 81) versus placebo (n = 80; 3.11 vs. 4.08; p = .0053). T-scores showed an improvement with DR/ER-MPH treatment in both trials. Few emotional adverse events (AEs) were reported. CONCLUSION: DR/ER-MPH treatment resulted in statistically significant improvements in EL to the level of non-ADHD peers as contextualized by T-scores.

Costs associated with adverse events during treatment episodes for adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication is frequently associated with adverse events (AEs), but limited real-world data exist regarding their costs from a payer's perspective. Therefore, this study evaluated the healthcare costs associated with common AEs among adult patients treated for ADHD in the US. METHODS: Eligible adults treated for ADHD were identified from a large US claims database (1 October 2015-30 September 2021). A retrospective cohort study design was used to assess excess healthcare costs and costs directly related to AE-specific claims per-patient-per-month (PPPM) associated with 10 selected AEs during ADHD treatment. To account for all costs associated with the AE, treatment episodes with a given AE were compared to similar treatment episodes without this AE. Entropy balancing was used to create cohorts with similar characteristics. Studied AEs were selected based on their prevalence in clinical trials for common ADHD medications and were identified from ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes recorded in claims. RESULTS: Among the 461,464 patients included (mean age: 34.2 years; 45.5% males), 49.4% had ≥1 AE during their treatment episode. Treatment episodes with AEs were associated with statistically significant AE-specific medical costs (erectile dysfunction: $57; fatigue: $82; dry mouth: $90; diarrhea: $162; insomnia: $147; anxiety: $281; nausea: $299; constipation: $356; urinary hesitation: $491; feeling jittery: $723) and excess healthcare costs PPPM (erectile dysfunction: $120, fatigue: $248, insomnia: $265, anxiety: $380, diarrhea: $441, dry mouth: $485, nausea: $709, constipation: $802, urinary hesitation: $1,105, feeling jittery: $1,160; p < .05). LIMITATIONS: AEs were identified based on recorded diagnosis on medical claims and likely represent more severe AEs. Therefore, costs may not be representative of milder AEs. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that AEs occurring during ADHD treatment episodes are associated with significant healthcare costs. This highlights the potential of treatments with favorable safety profiles to alleviate the burden experienced by patients and the healthcare system.

A critical review of the dextroamphetamine transdermal system for the treatment of ADHD in adults and pediatric patients.

INTRODUCTION: The dextroamphetamine transdermal system (d-ATS) is a stimulant patch recently approved by the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). AREAS COVERED: The composition of the d-ATS, pharmacokinetics, and metabolism are presented along with data from dermal trials evaluating the tolerability of patch application at various skin sites. Efficacy and safety data from a laboratory classroom study in children and adolescents including effect sizes are assessed. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of variable wear times is also discussed. EXPERT OPINION: Although stimulants are recommended as first-line treatment for ADHD in the U.S. some patients may have difficulty swallowing intact tablets and capsules, or dislike the taste or texture of chewable, oral disintegrating, or liquid formulations. The d-ATS fills an unmet need for those with ADHD who are unable or prefer not to take medication orally. Varying wear time of the d-ATS also gives flexibility in length of stimulant effect which may be useful for patients with changing schedules. However, dermal discomfort must be considered in addition to the usual amphetamine side effects when prescribing the d-ATS. Patient and provider experience will determine how frequent the use of d-ATS becomes.

Serdexmethylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: dose optimization from a laboratory classroom study.

Objective: To evaluate treatment responder rate using the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score based on optimized dose level of serdexmethylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate (SDX/d-MPH) and changes in ADHD severity in children (aged 6-12 years) with ADHD. Methods: During a 21-day dose-optimization phase, 155 patients initiated treatment with 39.2/7.8 mg SDX/d-MPH in the first week and then were titrated to an optimum dose; 5 patients were downtitrated to 26.1/5.2 mg, 76 were uptitrated to 52.3/10.4 mg, and 69 remained at 39.2/7.8 mg during the following 2 weeks. Responder threshold values were 30% and 50% based on the percent change from baseline (day 0) to days 7, 14, and 21 in the ADHD-RS-5 score. The Conners 3rd Edition-Parent score was used to assess weekly changes in ADHD severity during the dose-optimization and treatment phases. Results: Of the 5 subjects whose dose was optimized at 26.1/5.2 mg, ≥80% across all days had ≥50% responder rate. Of the 69 subjects whose dose was optimized at 39.2/7.8 mg, 81.2% had ≥50% responder rate by day 21. Of the 76 subjects whose dose was optimized to 52.3/10.4 mg, 72.4% had ≥50% responder rate by day 21. Changes in ADHD severity, based on mean Conners 3rd Edition-Parent scores, improved from baseline at each visit during dose optimization for each subscale. At the dose-optimization phase, Conners 3rd Edition-Parent scores improved from baseline for SDX/d-MPH in all subscales. Conclusion: A high percentage of subjects were responders upon reaching their final optimized dose. SDX/d-MPH demonstrated significant reductions in ADHD severity in children based on the Conners 3rd Edition-Parent scores. Determining the optimal dosage of SDX/d-MPH and its effect on ADHD severity could enable the development of a more clinically relevant treatment regimen in children with ADHD.

Risk factors associated with newly diagnosed attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults: a retrospective case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of risk factors for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may facilitate early diagnosis; however, studies examining a broad range of potential risk factors for ADHD in adults are limited. This study aimed to identify risk factors associated with newly diagnosed ADHD among adults in the United States (US). METHODS: Eligible adults from the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database (10/01/2015-09/30/2021) were classified into the ADHD cohort if they had ≥ 2 ADHD diagnoses (index date: first ADHD diagnosis) and into the non-ADHD cohort if they had no observed ADHD diagnosis (index date: random date) with a 1:3 case-to-control ratio. Risk factors for newly diagnosed ADHD were assessed during the 12-month baseline period; logistic regression with stepwise variable selection was used to assess statistically significant association. The combined impact of selected risk factors was explored using common patient profiles. RESULTS: A total of 337,034 patients were included in the ADHD cohort (mean age 35.2 years; 54.5% female) and 1,011,102 in the non-ADHD cohort (mean age 44.0 years; 52.4% female). During the baseline period, the most frequent mental health comorbidities in the ADHD and non-ADHD cohorts were anxiety disorders (34.4% and 11.1%) and depressive disorders (27.9% and 7.8%). Accordingly, a higher proportion of patients in the ADHD cohort received antianxiety agents (20.6% and 8.3%) and antidepressants (40.9% and 15.8%). Key risk factors associated with a significantly increased probability of ADHD included the number of mental health comorbidities (odds ratio [OR] for 1 comorbidity: 1.41; ≥2 comorbidities: 1.45), along with certain mental health comorbidities (e.g., feeding and eating disorders [OR: 1.88], bipolar disorders [OR: 1.50], depressive disorders [OR: 1.37], trauma- and stressor-related disorders [OR: 1.27], anxiety disorders [OR: 1.24]), use of antidepressants (OR: 1.87) and antianxiety agents (OR: 1.40), and having ≥ 1 psychotherapy visit (OR: 1.70), ≥ 1 specialist visit (OR: 1.30), and ≥ 10 outpatient visits (OR: 1.51) (all p < 0.05). The predicted risk of ADHD for patients with treated anxiety and depressive disorders was 81.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health comorbidities and related treatments are significantly associated with newly diagnosed ADHD in US adults. Screening for patients with risk factors for ADHD may allow early diagnosis and appropriate management.

Viloxazine extended-release capsules for the treatment of attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder in adult patients.

INTRODUCTION: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurobehavioral disorder with symptoms that may persist in up to 90% of adults diagnosed during childhood and continue to cause significant impairment throughout the lifespan. In the United States (US), amphetamine and methylphenidate formulations have been available to treat ADHD for several decades. Only one nonstimulant, atomoxetine, was available for the treatment of ADHD in adults until recently. In April 2022, a second nonstimulant, viloxazine extended-release (VLX-ER), became available in the US for the treatment of adult ADHD. Efficacy was previously established in placebo-controlled trials in children and adolescents. AREAS COVERED: VLX-ER is a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor with serotonin activity. The efficacy in adults, adverse event profile, pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions, and metabolism of VLX-ER are reviewed. EXPERT OPINION: Despite the availability of effective pharmacological treatments for ADHD, many patients discontinue treatment in less than 1 year. Stimulants are effective in more than 80% of patients; however, some may have difficulty tolerating them. Although there were no head-to-head studies, the effect size of VLX-ER in an adult efficacy trial was lower than has been shown for stimulants. Nevertheless, the approval of VLX-ER adds another effective ADHD treatment option for adults.

An updated safety review of the current drugs for managing ADHD in children.

INTRODUCTION: Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a highly prevalent condition that causes persistent problems with attention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity and often results in significant impairment when left untreated. Medications for this disorder continue to evolve and provide new treatment options. Ongoing review of related medication safety and tolerability remains an important task for prescribers. AREAS COVERED: This manuscript provides an updated safety review of medications used to treat ADHD in children and adolescents. PubMed and OneSearch online databases were utilized to search for literature relevant to the topic of ADHD medications and safety. Clinical trials of medications used to treat ADHD, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and articles covering specific safety issues (adverse or unfavorable events) such as cardiovascular effects, seizures, impact on growth, depression, suicidal ideation, substance use disorders, psychosis, and tics are described. EXPERT OPINION: Available pharmacologic treatments for ADHD have favorable efficacy, safety and tolerability and allow many patients to achieve significant improvement of their symptoms. Despite the availability of multiple stimulant and non-stimulant formulations, some individuals with ADHD may not tolerate available medications or attain satisfactory improvement. To satisfy unmet clinical needs, ADHD pharmaceutical research with stimulant and nonstimulant formulations targeting dopamine, norepinephrine, and novel receptors is ongoing.

Serdexmethylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate effects on sleep in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Introduction: Sleep-related problems are common in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Sleep disorders are also side effects of all stimulant ADHD medications. Serdexmethylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate (SDX/d-MPH) is a once-daily treatment approved for patients age 6 years and older with ADHD. In this analysis, sleep behavior was assessed during SDX/d-MPH treatment in children with ADHD. Methods: In a 12-month, dose-optimized, open-label safety study in 6- to 12-year-old participants (NCT03460652), a secondary endpoint was assessment of sleep behavior based on the Children's Sleep Habits Questionnaire (CSHQ) consisting of 8 sleep domains (bedtime resistance, sleep onset delay, sleep duration, sleep anxiety, night wakings, parasomnias, sleep-disordered breathing, and daytime sleepiness). This post hoc analysis examined the individual sleep domains in the 12-month safety study. Results: Of 282 participants enrolled, 238 were included in the sleep analysis. At baseline, mean (SD) CSHQ total sleep disturbance score was 53.4 (5.9). After 1 month of treatment, the mean (SD) CSHQ total score significantly decreased to 50.5 (5.4); least-squares mean change from baseline was -2.9 (95% CI: -3.5 to -2.4; p < 0.0001) and remained decreased up to 12 months. Mean sleep-score improvements from baseline to 12 months were statistically significant (p < 0.0001) for 5 of 8 sleep domains, including bedtime resistance, sleep anxiety, night wakings, parasomnias, and daytime sleepiness. Parasomnias and daytime sleepiness sleep domains showed the greatest mean improvement from baseline to 12 months. Sleep onset delay and sleep duration scores increased from baseline to 12 months. No statistically significant worsening occurred from baseline in sleep duration and sleep-disordered breathing domains; however, worsening of sleep onset delay was statistically significant. Conclusion: In this analysis of children taking SDX/d-MPH for ADHD, sleep problems did not worsen based on the mean CSHQ total sleep disturbance score. Statistically significant improvements in most CSHQ sleep domains were observed after 1 month and lasted for up to 12 months of treatment.