Distinguishing the efficacy and sedative effects of guanfacine extended release in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

The present study investigated whether symptom reduction in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treated with guanfacine extended release (GXR) can be explained by sedative effects of the medication. Data from four double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials of GXR monotherapy (1-7 mg/day; morning administration) in children (aged 6-12 years) and adolescents (aged 13-17 years) with ADHD were analyzed post hoc. Two studies used forced-dose titration and two used flexible-dose titration. Efficacy was determined using ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) scores. Sedative treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) included somnolence, sedation and hypersomnia. The proportion of responders (≥ 30% reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score) increased from weeks 1 to 4 and remained stable to study endpoint. Sedative TEAEs generally peaked at the first week in which the target dose was achieved and then declined. In subgroup analyses, significant placebo-adjusted improvements in ADHD-RS-IV total scores were observed in participants without any sedative TEAEs in the forced-dose and flexible-dose studies (nominal p < 0.001). In addition, GXR was associated with significant improvements in both inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms, as assessed by the ADHD-RS-IV subscale scores (nominal p < 0.001) and by the ADHD-RS-IV total score in participants with different ADHD subtypes (nominal p < 0.05). Thus, the efficacy of GXR in children and adolescents with ADHD is not primarily due to sedation, although some contribution to symptom reduction cannot be excluded, especially early in treatment when rates of sedative TEAEs are at their highest.

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate augmentation for adults with major depressive disorder and inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy: Results from 2 phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) augmentation of antidepressant monotherapy in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) from two phase 3 studies are reported. METHODS: Across study 1 (placebo, n=201; LDX, n=201) and study 2 (placebo, n=213; LDX, n=211), most participants (placebo and LDX) in the safety analysis set were female (study 1: 66.2% and 64.2%; study 2: 67.1% and 66.8%); mean±SD ages were 41.8±12.04 with placebo and 42.2±12.32 with LDX in study 1 and 42.6±11.41 with placebo and 42.0±11.63 with LDX in study 2. Participants (18-65 y) had DSM-IV-TR-diagnosed MDD and lead-in baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores ≥24. Eight-week antidepressant lead-in phases prospectively assessed antidepressant response. Then, 8 weeks of randomized (1:1), double-blind treatment with dose-optimized LDX (20-70mg) or placebo in participants exhibiting inadequate antidepressant monotherapy responses (augmentation baseline MADRS total scores ≥18 and <50% MADRS total score reductions from lead-in baseline to augmentation baseline) was initiated. The primary endpoint was MADRS total score change from augmentation baseline to week 16. Safety and tolerability measures included the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: Least squares mean (95% CI) treatment differences (LDX-placebo) for MADRS total score changes from augmentation baseline to week 16 were not statistically significant in study 1 (0.1 [-1.7, 2.0], P=0.883) or study 2 (-0.5 [-2.3, 1.3], P=0.583). The only TEAE reported by >5% of LDX participants at twice the placebo rate in both studies was dry mouth. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidities/active medical disorders, the inability to assess specific MDD symptom domains (eg, anhedonia, cognition) or subtypes, the use of telephone-based depression assessments, and the potential influence of placebo response. CONCLUSION: Contrary to expectations, LDX augmentation was not superior to placebo in reducing depressive symptoms in individuals with MDD exhibiting inadequate responses to antidepressant monotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine for treatment of adults with moderate to severe binge-eating disorder: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Binge-eating disorder (BED), a public health problem associated with psychopathological symptoms and obesity and possibly with metabolic syndrome, lacks approved pharmacotherapies. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, a dextroamphetamine prodrug, to treat moderate to severe BED. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, forced dose titration, placebo-controlled clinical trial at 30 sites from May 10, 2011, through January 30, 2012. Safety and intention-to-treat analyses included 259 and 255 adults with BED, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate at dosages of 30, 50, or 70 mg/d or placebo were provided to study participants (1:1:1:1). Dosages were titrated across 3 weeks and maintained for 8 weeks. We followed up participants for a mean (SD) of 7 (2) days after the last dose. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We assessed the change in binge-eating (BE) behaviors measured as days per week (baseline to week 11) with a mixed-effects model using transformed log (BE days per week) + 1. Secondary measures included BE cessation for 4 weeks. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events, vital signs, and change in weight. RESULTS: At week 11, log-transformed BE days per week decreased with the 50-mg/d (least squares [LS] mean [SE] change, -1.49 [0.066]; P = .008) and 70-mg/d (LS mean [SE] change, -1.57 [0.067]; P < .001) treatment groups but not the 30-mg/d treatment group (LS mean [SE] change, -1.24 [0.067]; P = .88) compared with the placebo group. Nontransformed mean (SD) days per week decreased for placebo and the 30-, 50-, and 70-mg/d treatment groups by -3.3 (2.04), -3.5 (1.95), -4.1 (1.52), and -4.1 (1.57), respectively. The percentage of participants achieving 4-week BE cessation was lower with the placebo group (21.3%) compared with the 50-mg/d (42.2% [P = .01]) and 70-mg/d (50.0% [P < .001]) treatment groups. The incidence of any treatment-emergent adverse events was 58.7% for the placebo group and 84.7% for the combined treatment group. In the treatment groups, 1.5% of participants had serious treatment-emergent adverse effects. Events with a frequency of at least 5% and changes in heart rate were generally consistent with the known safety profile. The mean (SD) change in body weight was -0.1 (3.09), -3.1 (3.64), -4.9 (4.43), -4.9 (3.93), and -4.3 (4.09) kg for the placebo group, the 30-, 50-, and 70-mg/d treatment groups, and the combined treatment groups, respectively (P < .001 for each dose vs placebo group comparison in post hoc analysis). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The 50- and 70-mg/d treatment groups demonstrated efficacy compared with the placebo group in decreased BE days, BE cessation, and global improvement. The safety profile was generally consistent with previous findings in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Further investigation of lisdexamfetamine in BED is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01291173.

A generalized estimating equation approach to analysis of maintenance of wakefulness testing in a study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, armodafinil, and placebo in sleep-deprived adults.

In a study of acute sleep deprivation in healthy male volunteers randomized to double-blind treatment with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (20, 50, or 70 mg), placebo control, or an active control (armodafinil 250 mg), Maintenance of Wakefulness Test data were compared using a generalized estimating equation analysis to eliminate the need for unequivocal sleep latency imputation. Compared with placebo across all Maintenance of Wakefulness Tests, all active treatments were associated with lower risk of falling asleep (risk ratio [95% confidence interval]): 0.45 (0.27-0.76; P = 0.0026), 0.10 (0.05-0.20; P < 0.0001), and 0.05 (0.02-0.14; P < 0.0001) for 20, 50, and 70 mg lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, respectively, and 0.11 (0.06-0.21; P < 0.0001) for the active control. Sleep-risk ratios were similar for lisdexamfetamine dimesylate 50 or 70 mg and for the active control, but lisdexamfetamine 20 mg was associated with a greater risk of falling asleep compared with the active control (4.13 [1.97-8.67]; P = 0.0002). Generalized estimating equation analysis detected wake-promoting effects of active treatments and eliminating data imputation, suggesting model utility in future studies.

Maintenance of wakefulness with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, compared with placebo and armodafinil in healthy adult males undergoing acute sleep loss.

This study evaluated daytime alertness and performance with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate during acute sleep loss. In a randomized, double-blind study in healthy adult men (n = 135) undergoing 24-hour sleep loss, the alerting effects of single oral lisdexamfetamine dimesylate doses (20, 50, or 70 mg) were compared with a placebo and an active control (armodafinil 250 mg). Primary end point was mean unequivocal sleep latency on the 30-minute maintenance of wakefulness test taken every 2 hours from midnight to 8:00 A.M. Secondary end points included the Karolinska sleepiness scale and psychomotor vigilance task. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and vital signs. Least squares mean (SE) maintenance of wakefulness test unequivocal sleep latency (in minutes) was longer with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate 20, 50, and 70 mg, or armodafinil 250 mg (23.3 [1.10], 27.9 [0.64], 29.3 [0.44], or 27.6 [0.63], respectively) versus placebo (15.3 [1.00]; P < 0.0001). Longer mean unequivocal sleep latency was seen with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate 70 mg versus armodafinil (P = 0.0351) and armodafinil versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate 20 mg (P = 0.0014). On Karolinska sleepiness scale, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate 50 and 70 mg improved estimated sleepiness versus placebo (P ≤ 0.0002) and armodafinil (P ≤ 0.03). Active treatments improved psychomotor vigilance task performance versus placebo (P < 0.0001). The TEAEs were mild/moderate. No serious adverse events occurred. The most common TEAE was headache with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and armodafinil (7.4% each) versus placebo (3.7%). Small mean increases in vital signs were observed with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and armodafinil. In sleep-deprived healthy men, alertness was greater with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and armodafinil versus placebo on the primary end point. Studies are needed in clinical populations and using longer durations of administration.

A randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate as augmentation therapy in adults with residual symptoms of major depressive disorder after treatment with escitalopram.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate augmentation for major depressive disorder (MDD) in escitalopram nonremitters. METHOD: In this proof-of-concept study (conducted from July 2009-August 2010) with a prespecified critical α = .10, adults with nonpsychotic MDD (DSM-IV-TR criteria) and residual depressive symptoms (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score ≥ 4) after 8 weeks of open-label escitalopram were randomized to 6 weeks of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (20-50 mg/d) or placebo augmentation. The primary endpoint, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score change in escitalopram nonremitters (MADRS total score > 10) from week 8 (augmentation baseline) to week 14/end of study, was assessed using analysis of covariance, with last observation carried forward. RESULTS: For nonremitters (placebo, n = 64; lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, n = 65), the least squares (LS) mean (90% CI) treatment difference for MADRS total score reduction at week 14/end of study (-2.3 [-4.5 to -0.1]; P = .0902) met the prespecified criterion for lisdexamfetamine dimesylate superiority (adjusted effect size, -0.3); the number needed to treat for MADRS remission (MADRS total score ≤ 10) was 6.7. The LS mean treatment difference in remitters was not statistically significant (1.2 [-1.6 to 4.0]; P = .4726). Among randomized participants, 49.4% (42/85) receiving placebo and 60.2% (53/88) receiving lisdexamfetamine dimesylate had ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event, the most frequent with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate being dry mouth and headache (both 11.4%). Mean (SD) vital sign and electrocardiogram changes (placebo vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate) were 0.5 (8.98) versus 2.3 (9.04) mm Hg (systolic blood pressure), -1.0 (7.19) versus 0.9 (6.61) mm Hg (diastolic blood pressure), -0.4 (7.39) versus 4.8 (8.64) beats per minute (heart rate), and -1.6 (11.23) versus -4.9 (11.84) milliseconds (Fridericia-adjusted QTc). CONCLUSIONS: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate augmentation reduced depressive symptoms in participants with inadequate escitalopram response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00905424.

Adjunctive lisdexamfetamine dimesylate therapy in adult outpatients with predominant negative symptoms of schizophrenia: open-label and randomized-withdrawal phases.

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia (NSS), related to hypodopaminergic activity in the mesocortical pathway and prefrontal cortex, are predictive of poor outcomes and have no effective treatment. Use of dopamine-enhancing drugs (eg, psychostimulants) has been limited by potential adverse effects. This multicenter study examined lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), a d-amphetamine prodrug, as adjunctive therapy to antipsychotics in adults with clinically stable schizophrenia and predominant NSS. Outpatients with stable schizophrenia, predominant NSS, limited positive symptoms, and maintained on stable atypical antipsychotic therapy underwent a 3-week screening, 10-week open-label adjunctive LDX (20-70 mg/day), and 4-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled withdrawal. Efficacy measures included a modified Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS-18) and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total and subscale scores. Ninety-two participants received open-label LDX; 69 received double-blind therapy with placebo (n=35) or LDX (n=34). At week 10 (last observation carried forward; last open-label visit), mean (95% confidence interval) change in SANS-18 scores was -12.9 (-15.0, -10.8; P<0.0001). At week 10, 52.9% of participants demonstrated a minimum of 20% reduction from baseline in SANS-18 score. Open-label LDX was also associated with significant improvement in PANSS total and subscale scores. During the double-blind/randomized-withdrawal phase, no significant differences (change from randomization baseline) were found between placebo and LDX in SANS-18 or PANSS subscale scores. In adults with clinically stable schizophrenia, open-label LDX appeared to be associated with significant improvements in negative symptoms without positive symptom worsening. Abrupt LDX discontinuation was not associated with positive or negative symptom worsening. Confirmation with larger controlled trials is warranted.

Effects of open-label lisdexamfetamine dimesylate on self-reported quality of life in adults with ADHD.

OBJECTIVE: To assess improvements in quality of life measurements during the open-label portion of a trial examining duration of efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in a simulated adult workplace environment. METHODS: A 4-week, open-label, dose-optimization phase followed by a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover phase to evaluate safety and efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in the adult workplace environment was conducted. Clinical assessments included the ADHD Impact Module for Adults (AIM-A) to assess the effect of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate on perception of quality of life and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity/Improvement to assess symptom severity at baseline and improvement over time. Safety assessments included physical examination, treatment-emergent adverse events, vital signs, and electrocardiogram measurements. RESULTS: Questions 1 and 4 of the AIM-A suggest improvement from baseline in overall quality of life at week 4 with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment. Post-hoc analysis revealed no significant differences attributable to either age or sex. Overall responses to questions 2 and 3, which related to overall life goals, did not change in a majority of participants during the 4-week open-label phase of this study. For all lisdexamfetamine dimesylate doses combined, treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in ≥ 5% of participants during the dose-optimization phase were decreased appetite (36.6%), dry mouth (30.3%), headache (19.7%), insomnia (18.3%), upper respiratory tract infection (9.9%), irritability (8.5%), nausea (7.7%), anxiety (5.6%), and feeling jittery (5.6%). CONCLUSIONS: At the end of the dose-optimization phase, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment suggested quality of life improvements in adults with ADHD, with a safety profile consistent with long-acting stimulant use.

Effect size of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To examine duration of efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by effect size in performance and symptom improvement in a simulated adult workplace environment (AWE). METHODS: Adults (aged 18-55 years) with ADHD enrolled in the AWE study of LDX with open-label dose-optimization and randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 2-way crossover phases. Efficacy measures included the Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP)-Attempted (-A) and PERMP-Correct (-C) scores assessed throughout the day and the ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with adult prompts. Model-based least-squares (LS) mean effect size was assessed for PERMP and post-hoc ADHD-RS-IV with adult prompts. Remission was defined as an ADHD-RS-IV total scores ≤ 18. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and vital signs. RESULTS: Least-squares mean (standard error [SE]) effect sizes were 0.9 (0.17) for PERMP-A and 0.8 (0.16) for PERMP-C for all postdose sessions. For PERMP-A, postdose LS mean (SE) effect sizes were 0.5 (0.15), 0.8 (0.16), 0.7 (0.16), 0.7 (0.16), 0.7 (0.16), and 0.6 (0.16) at 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, and 14 hours, respectively. Medium-to-large effect sizes (0.5-0.8) were generally maintained from 2 to 14 hours for all PERMP assessments. Overall LS mean (SE) ADHD-RS-IV total and subscale effect sizes were -1.2 (0.19), -1.2 (0.19), and -1.0 (0.17), respectively. Remission was achieved in 67.6% of participants receiving LDX. Treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 5% with LDX) during the 4-week dose-optimization phase were decreased appetite, dry mouth, headache, insomnia, upper respiratory tract infection, irritability, nausea, anxiety, and feeling jittery. During the crossover week on LDX, there were no TEAEs ≥ 5%. CONCLUSIONS: In adults studied in the AWE, medium-to-large model-based effect sizes were maintained from 2 to 14 hours postdose, on a performance-based measure of productivity, suggesting participants experienced improvement in sustained attention throughout the day and into the evening hours. Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate demonstrated a safety profile consistent with long-acting stimulants.

Executive function deficits in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and improvement with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in an open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on executive function (EF) behaviors in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: This observational, open-label, 7-week, dose-optimization study of LDX (20-70 mg/day) in children with ADHD evaluated efficacy with the ADHD Rating Scale IV; safety measures included adverse events (AEs). EF was assessed with the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). Post hoc analyses examined BRIEF scores by sex, ADHD subtype, comorbid psychiatric symptoms, and common treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs). ADHD Rating Scale IV scores were assessed in subjects categorized by baseline BRIEF global executive composite T scores with clinically significant (≥65) or not clinically significant (<65) impairment in EF. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) change from baseline to endpoint for BRIEF of -17.9 (12.5) for Global Executive Composite, -15.4 (12.6) for Behavioral Regulation Index, and -17.6 (12.3) for Metacognition Index demonstrated improvement with LDX (pooled doses; p < 0.0001 for all). Improvements in BRIEF scores were seen regardless of sex, ADHD subtype, comorbid psychiatric symptoms, common TEAEs, or baseline EF impairment category. TEAEs included decreased appetite, decreased weight, irritability, insomnia, headache, upper abdominal pain, and initial insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements were demonstrated in EF behaviors and ADHD symptoms with LDX. LDX safety profile was consistent with long-acting stimulant use.

Open-label administration of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate improves executive function impairments and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: Executive function (EF) impairment in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may account for behavioral symptoms such as poor concentration, impaired working memory, problems in shifting among tasks, and prioritizing and planning complex sets of tasks or completing long-term projects at work or school. Poor self-regulation and control of emotional behaviors frequently are seen in patients with ADHD. This study assessed EF behaviors in adults with ADHD at baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX). METHODS: Executive function behavior was assessed using the Brown Attention-Deficit Disorder Scale (BADDS) during the 4-week open-label dose-optimization phase prior to a 2-period, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of LDX (30-70 mg/day). The ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with adult prompts assessed ADHD symptoms. Change in EF behavioral symptoms was evaluated based on week 4 BADDS total and cluster scores; analyses of shifts from baseline among subjects with BADDS scores < 50, 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and ≥ 70; and scores less than or greater than baseline 90% confidence range (eg, reliably improved or worsened, respectively). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were described. RESULTS: At week 4, BADDS total and cluster scores were reduced (ie, improved; all P < 0.0001 vs baseline [n = 127]). The ADHD-RS-IV with adult prompts scores also improved (all P < 0.0001 vs baseline). At week 4, 62.7% of subjects had a BADDS total score of < 50, and 78.9% were reliably improved; 1.4% were reliably worsened. Common TEAEs (≥ 5%) during the dose-optimization phase were decreased appetite (36.6%), dry mouth (30.3%), headache (19.7%), insomnia (18.3%), upper respiratory tract infection (9.9%), irritability (8.5%), nausea (7.7%), anxiety (5.6%), and feeling jittery (5.6%). CONCLUSION: Clinically optimized doses of LDX (30-70 mg/day) significantly improved EF behaviors in adults with ADHD. Treatment-emergent adverse events with LDX were consistent with those observed with long-term stimulant use.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of the efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: novel findings using a simulated adult workplace environment design.

BACKGROUND: Duration of efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) was assessed in adults (18-55 years) with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using the simulated adult workplace environment. METHODS: After open-label dose optimization (4-week) with LDX, 30-70 mg/d, subjects entered a 2-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover phase. Efficacy assessments included the Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP) total score (attempted+correct) measured predose and from 2 to 14 hours postdose, averaged across postdose sessions (primary) and at each time point vs placebo (secondary), and ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with adult prompts at baseline and crossover visits. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: Of 127 randomized subjects, 105 were in the intention-to-treat population and 103 completed the study. While receiving LDX vs placebo, adults had greater improvement (P < .0001) in average PERMP total scores as measured by difference in least squares (LS) mean (95% CI): 23.4 (15.6, 31.2). Absolute (P or=10%) during dose optimization were decreased appetite, dry mouth, headache, and insomnia; no TEAEs >or=5% were reported during crossover phase for adults receiving LDX. CONCLUSIONS: LDX significantly improved PERMP scores vs placebo and maintained improvement throughout the day from the first (2 hours) to last (14 hours) postdose time point vs placebo in adults with ADHD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00697515. Safety and Efficacy Workplace Environment Study of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate (LDX) in Adults With Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00697515?term=NCT00697515&rank=1.

Effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: an open-label, dose-optimization study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: This was a 7-week, open-label study evaluating 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, or 70 mg/day LDX in 318 children aged 6-12 years with ADHD. The ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) was the primary efficacy assessment. Secondary measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I), Expression and Emotion Scale for Children (EESC), and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: At end point, mean (standard deviation [SD]) improvement from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score was 28.6 (10.9) (p < 0.0001). Most subjects (89.9%) were rated "improved" (i.e., CGI-I 1 or 2). Improvements from baseline were observed in the EESC total and subscale scores (p < or = 0.0002). LDX treatment resulted in significant improvement on the Global Executive Composite, Behavioral Regulation, and Metacognition indices of the BRIEF (p < 0.0001). TEAEs (incidences > or =10%) were decreased appetite, decreased weight, irritability, insomnia, headache, upper abdominal pain, and initial insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: LDX was effective and generally well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with long-acting stimulant use. There was overall improvement in ADHD symptoms and executive function measures and no worsening of emotional expression measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00500071.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in the treatment of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Following a 4-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, 349 adults with ADHD were enrolled into an open-label, single-arm study for up to 12 months. Treatment was initiated at 30 mg/day and titrated up to 70 mg/day at subsequent visits to achieve optimal effectiveness and tolerability. Safety assessments included adverse events inquiries, vital signs, and electrocardiograms while the primary effectiveness assessment was the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) total score. RESULTS: A total of 191 (54.7%) subjects completed the study. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were upper respiratory tract infection (21.8%), insomnia (19.5%), headache (17.2%), dry mouth (16.6%), decreased appetite (14.3%), and irritability (11.2%). Most TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity. At endpoint, small but statistically significant increases in pulse and blood pressure were noted. Significant improvements in mean ADHD-RS total scores were observed at week 1 and sustained throughout the study (P < .0001 at all postbaseline visits). At endpoint, the mean improvement from baseline ADHD-RS total score was 24.8 (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: LDX demonstrated a safety profile consistent with long-acting stimulant use and provided continued effectiveness in adults with ADHD for up to 12 months.

Single-dose, patient-initiated famciclovir: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial for episodic treatment of herpes labialis.

BACKGROUND: The brief period of viral replication in recurrent herpes labialis lesions suggests shorter therapeutic regimens are a logical episodic treatment strategy. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of single-dose and single-day famciclovir treatments. METHODS: In all, 701 randomly assigned patients self-initiated therapy with famciclovir (1500 mg once [single dose] or 750 mg twice a day for 1 day [single day]) or placebo within 1 hour of onset of the prodromal symptoms of an episode of herpes labialis. Lesion healing was monitored by diaries and frequent clinic visits. RESULTS: Median healing times of primary (first to appear) vesicular lesions in the famciclovir single-dose, famciclovir single-day, and placebo groups were 4.4, 4.0, and 6.2 days, respectively. There was no significant difference between the famciclovir regimens. Adverse events in the famciclovir groups were similar to placebo. LIMITATIONS: The active arms of this trial were not directly compared to other antiviral regimens. CONCLUSION: Single-dose famciclovir reduced time to healing of herpes labialis lesions by approximately 2 days compared with placebo.

Single-day, patient-initiated famciclovir therapy for recurrent genital herpes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Orally administered antiviral therapy for genital herpes improves the time to lesion healing and resolves symptoms during an outbreak. Although traditional therapy for a recurrent episode for healthy adults has consisted of twice-daily dosing for 5 days, recent studies have indicated that shorter courses of antiviral therapy are effective. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of a patient-initiated, single-day regimen of famciclovir therapy, compared with placebo, in immunocompetent adult patients with recurrent genital herpes. METHODS: This multicenter, multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study compared single-day, patient-initiated oral famciclovir (1000 mg given twice daily) with placebo for the treatment of recurrent genital herpes. Patients were instructed to initiate therapy within 6 h after onset of prodromal symptoms or genital herpes lesions. RESULTS: Famciclovir reduced (P < .001) the time to healing of nonaborted lesions (i.e., those that progressed [corrected] beyond the papule stage) (median time, 4.3 vs. 6.1 days) and all nonaborted and aborted lesions (median time, 3.5 vs. 5.0 days), compared with placebo. The proportion of patients with aborted lesions was larger in the famciclovir group than in the placebo group (23.3% vs. 12.7%; P = .003). Adverse events in the famciclovir group were infrequent overall; most were of mild-to-moderate severity and were similar to adverse events in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: A single-day regimen of patient-initiated famciclovir treatment was well tolerated and safe, and the healing of recurrent genital herpes lesions occurred approximately 2 days faster than with placebo. Moreover, single-day famciclovir treatment stopped the development or progression of lesions beyond the papule stage. This convenient single-day regimen has the potential for improving patient compliance and satisfaction with therapy.