Resistance analysis following sotrovimab treatment in participants with COVID-19 during the phase III COMET-ICE study.

Aim: Sotrovimab is an engineered human monoclonal antibody that binds a conserved region of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The COMET-ICE phase III study evaluated sotrovimab for treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in nonhospitalized participants with ≥1 risk factor for severe disease progression. Materials & methods: We evaluated the presence of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern or interest (VOCs/VOIs) and characterized the presence of baseline, post-baseline and emergent amino acid substitutions detected in the epitope of sotrovimab in SARS-CoV-2. Results: None of the sotrovimab-treated participants with baseline epitope substitutions, and 1 of 48 sotrovimab-treated participants with post-baseline epitope substitutions, met the primary clinical endpoint for progression. Conclusion: Overall, progression was not associated with identified VOC/VOI or the presence of epitope substitutions in sotrovimab-treated participants.

Analysis of the genetics of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from participants in a clinical study for treatment of COVID-19 In a large clinical study, the ability of the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab to treat patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 was looked at. This paper focuses on the genetics of the SARS-CoV-2 viruses from participants in this clinical study. Overall, most participants in the study were infected with the original 'wild type' variant of SARS-CoV-2. We also looked for changes in the virus at the positions on the viral spike protein where sotrovimab binds. In participants treated with sotrovimab, changes in the virus at the site where sotrovimab binds on the viral surface protein were not associated with negative outcomes in participants. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04545060 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Assessment of symptoms in COMET-ICE, a phase 2/3 study of sotrovimab for early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COMET-ICE trial demonstrated that sotrovimab clinically and statistically significantly reduces the risk of all-cause > 24-h hospitalization or death due to any cause among patients with COVID-19 at high risk of disease progression. Patient-reported outcomes are important to capture symptom burden of COVID-19 and assess treatment effectiveness. This study investigated symptoms and their impact over the acute phase of COVID-19 infection among patients on sotrovimab versus placebo. METHODS: Randomized (1:1), double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 study in 57 centers across five countries. Participants were non-hospitalized patients with symptomatic, mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and ≥ 1 baseline risk factor for disease progression (aged ≥ 55 years or ≥ 1 of the following: diabetes requiring medication, obesity, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or moderate-to-severe asthma). An intravenous infusion of sotrovimab 500 mg or placebo was administered on Day 1. The FLU-PRO Plus questionnaire was administered once-daily with 24-h recall from Day 1-21, and at Day 29. Intensity and duration of COVID-19 symptoms were determined from area under the curve (AUC) and mean change in total and individual domain scores through Days 7, 14, and 21. Time to symptom alleviation was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 1057 patients were randomized to sotrovimab (n = 528) or placebo (n = 529). At Day 7, mean decrease in FLU-PRO Plus total score (measured by AUC) was statistically significantly greater for patients on sotrovimab (-3.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.27 to -2.83]) than placebo (-1.98 [95% CI -2.20 to -1.76]; difference -1.07 [95% CI -1.38 to -0.76]; p < 0.001). Significant differences were also observed at Days 14 and 21. A more rapid decline in symptom severity was observed with sotrovimab versus placebo through Week 1 and the first 21 days post-treatment. By Day 21, 41% of patients on sotrovimab and 34% on placebo reported symptom resolution. In a post-hoc analysis, median time to symptom alleviation was 4 and 6 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sotrovimab provides significant and rapid improvements in patient-reported COVID-19 symptoms, as measured by the FLU-PRO Plus. These results further show the benefits of sotrovimab in alleviating symptoms among high-risk patients with COVID-19. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT04545060 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04545060 ). Date of registration: September 10, 2020 (retrospectively registered).

Intramuscular vs Intravenous SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Sotrovimab for Treatment of COVID-19 (COMET-TAIL): A Randomized Noninferiority Clinical Trial.

Background: Convenient administration of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment in community settings is desirable. Sotrovimab is a pan-sarbecovirus dual-action monoclonal antibody formulated for intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) administration for early treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19. Method: This multicenter phase 3 study based on a randomized open-label design tested the noninferiority of IM to IV administration according to an absolute noninferiority margin of 3.5%. From June to August 2021, patients aged ≥12 years with COVID-19, who were neither hospitalized nor receiving supplemental oxygen but were at high risk for progression, were randomized 1:1:1 to receive sotrovimab as a single 500-mg IV infusion or a 500- or 250-mg IM injection. The primary composite endpoint was progression to (1) all-cause hospitalization for >24 hours for acute management of illness or (2) all-cause death through day 29. Results: Sotrovimab 500 mg IM was noninferior to 500 mg IV: 10 (2.7%) of 376 participants vs 5 (1.3%) of 378 met the primary endpoint, respectively (absolute adjusted risk difference, 1.06%; 95% CI, -1.15% to 3.26%). The 95% CI upper limit was lower than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.5%. The 250-mg IM group was discontinued early because of the greater proportion of hospitalizations vs the 500-mg groups. Serious adverse events occurred in <1% to 2% of participants across groups. Four participants experienced serious disease-related events and died (500 mg IM, 2/393, <1%; 250 mg IM, 2/195, 1%). Conclusions: Sotrovimab 500-mg IM injection was well tolerated and noninferior to IV administration. IM administration could expand outpatient treatment access for COVID-19. Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04913675.

Effect of Sotrovimab on Hospitalization or Death Among High-risk Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Older patients and those with comorbidities who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be at increased risk of hospitalization and death. Sotrovimab is a neutralizing antibody for the treatment of high-risk patients to prevent COVID-19 progression. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of sotrovimab in preventing progression of mild to moderate COVID-19 to severe disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial including 1057 nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic, mild to moderate COVID-19 and at least 1 risk factor for progression conducted at 57 sites in Brazil, Canada, Peru, Spain, and the US from August 27, 2020, through March 11, 2021; follow-up data were collected through April 8, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to an intravenous infusion with 500 mg of sotrovimab (n = 528) or placebo (n = 529). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with COVID-19 progression through day 29 (all-cause hospitalization lasting >24 hours for acute illness management or death); 5 secondary outcomes were tested in hierarchal order, including a composite of all-cause emergency department (ED) visit, hospitalization of any duration for acute illness management, or death through day 29 and progression to severe or critical respiratory COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation. Results: Enrollment was stopped early for efficacy at the prespecified interim analysis. Among 1057 patients randomized (median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-62], 20% were ≥65 years of age, and 65% Latinx), the median duration of follow-up was 103 days for sotrovimab and 102 days for placebo. All-cause hospitalization lasting longer than 24 hours or death was significantly reduced with sotrovimab (6/528 [1%]) vs placebo (30/529 [6%]) (adjusted relative risk [RR], 0.21 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.50]; absolute difference, -4.53% [95% CI, -6.70% to -2.37%]; P < .001). Four of the 5 secondary outcomes were statistically significant in favor of sotrovimab, including reduced ED visit, hospitalization, or death (13/528 [2%] for sotrovimab vs 39/529 [7%] for placebo; adjusted RR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.63]; absolute difference, -4.91% [95% CI, -7.50% to -2.32%]; P < .001) and progression to severe or critical respiratory COVID-19 (7/528 [1%] for sotrovimab vs 28/529 [5%] for placebo; adjusted RR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.59]; absolute difference, -3.97% [95% CI, -6.11% to -1.82%]; P = .002). Adverse events were infrequent and similar between treatment groups (22% for sotrovimab vs 23% for placebo); the most common events were diarrhea with sotrovimab (n = 8; 2%) and COVID-19 pneumonia with placebo (n = 22; 4%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and at risk of disease progression, a single intravenous dose of sotrovimab, compared with placebo, significantly reduced the risk of a composite end point of all-cause hospitalization or death through day 29. The findings support sotrovimab as a treatment option for nonhospitalized, high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, although efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged since the study was completed is unknown. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04545060.

Early Treatment for Covid-19 with SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Sotrovimab.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) disproportionately results in hospitalization or death in older patients and those with underlying conditions. Sotrovimab is a pan-sarbecovirus monoclonal antibody that was designed to prevent progression of Covid-19 in high-risk patients early in the course of disease. METHODS: In this ongoing, multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic Covid-19 (≤5 days after the onset of symptoms) and at least one risk factor for disease progression to receive a single infusion of sotrovimab at a dose of 500 mg or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was hospitalization (for >24 hours) for any cause or death within 29 days after randomization. RESULTS: In this prespecified interim analysis, which included an intention-to-treat population of 583 patients (291 in the sotrovimab group and 292 in the placebo group), 3 patients (1%) in the sotrovimab group, as compared with 21 patients (7%) in the placebo group, had disease progression leading to hospitalization or death (relative risk reduction, 85%; 97.24% confidence interval, 44 to 96; P = 0.002). In the placebo group, 5 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit, including 1 who died by day 29. Safety was assessed in 868 patients (430 in the sotrovimab group and 438 in the placebo group). Adverse events were reported by 17% of the patients in the sotrovimab group and 19% of those in the placebo group; serious adverse events were less common with sotrovimab than with placebo (in 2% and 6% of the patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, sotrovimab reduced the risk of disease progression. No safety signals were identified. (Funded by Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline; COMET-ICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04545060.).

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of AR19, a Manipulation-Resistant Formulation of Amphetamine Sulfate, in Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of AR19 in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosed by DSM-5 criteria in adults from 18 through 55 years of age. AR19 is a pellets-in-capsule, immediate-release amphetamine sulfate investigational formulation with physical and chemical barriers designed to resist manipulation to deter snorting, smoking, and intravenous injection.Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose, forced titration, multicenter trial investigated the safety and efficacy of AR19 from September 2018 to April 2019. Study participants were randomized and titrated to 20 mg or 40 mg AR19 daily or placebo. Study medication was dosed once in the morning and again 4 to 6 hours later for a period of 5 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the total score on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS).Results: Participants (N = 320) were randomized and received at least 1 dose of study medication. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups. The least squares mean treatment differences versus placebo (97.5% CI) were -7.2 (-11.3 to -3.1) for the AR19 20-mg group and -7.3 (-11.4 to -3.2) for the AR19 40-mg group (each P < .001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in participants in the AR19 treatment groups were insomnia, dry mouth, decreased appetite, palpitations, headache, and tachycardia and are consistent with the known safety profile of amphetamine sulfate.Conclusions: AR19 demonstrated efficacy on all endpoints and was generally well tolerated, supporting the efficacy and safety of AR19 20 mg and 40 mg in adults with ADHD.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03659929.

Post hoc Responder and Remission Analyses from Two Studies of SHP465 Mixed Amphetamine Salts Extended-Release Among Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Objectives: In two studies of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) extended-release significantly reduced ADHD-Rating Scale, 4th Edition total score (ADHD-RS-IV-TS) versus placebo (PBO). This report describes post hoc analyses of SHP465 MAS treatment response and remission rates from those studies. Methods: Adults with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision-defined ADHD were randomized to SHP465 MAS (12.5-75 mg) or PBO in a 7-week dose-optimization study and to SHP465 MAS (25, 50, or 75 mg) or PBO in a 6-week fixed-dose study. Response was examined using three definitions (definition 1: ≥30% ADHD-RS-IV-TS reduction + Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement [CGI-I] rating of 1 or 2; definition 2: ≥50% ADHD-RS-IV-TS reduction + CGI-I rating of 1 or 2; definition 3: ADHD-RS-IV-TS ≤18). Remission was defined as ADHD-RS-IV-TS ≤12. The Kaplan-Meier analyses assessed time to response or remission. Results: The intent-to-treat populations included 136 SHP465 MAS and 132 PBO participants in the dose-optimization study and 302 SHP465 MAS and 103 PBO participants in the fixed-dose study. Percentages of participants meeting response criteria (SHP465 MAS vs. PBO) at the final treatment week in the dose-optimization and fixed-dose studies, respectively, were 66.0% versus 31.6% and 72.7% versus 28.3% (definition 1); 47.9% versus 27.6% and 60.6% versus 16.7% (definition 2); and 54.3% versus 30.3% and 52.6% versus 18.3% (definition 3). The remission criterion (SHP465 MAS vs. PBO) at the final treatment week was met by 37.2% versus 19.7% of participants in the dose-optimization study and 39.7% versus 10.0% of participants in the fixed-dose study. Times to response and remission favored SHP465 MAS over PBO in both studies (all nominal log-rank p < 0.0001). Conclusion: These post hoc analyses indicate that SHP465 MAS was associated with greater response and remission rates than PBO in adults with ADHD, with times to response and remission also nominally favoring SHP465 MAS.

A 12-Month Open-Label Extension Study of the Safety and Tolerability of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate for Major Depressive Disorder in Adults.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Psychostimulant augmentation is considered a potential treatment strategy for individuals with major depressive disorder who do not adequately respond to antidepressant monotherapy. The primary objective of this 12-month open-label extension study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) as augmentation therapy to an antidepressant in adults with major depressive disorder. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Eligible adults who completed 1 of 3 short-term antecedent LDX augmentation of antidepressant monotherapy studies were treated with dose-optimized LDX (20-70 mg) for up to 52 weeks while continuing on the index antidepressant (escitalopram, sertraline, venlafaxine extended-release, or duloxetine) assigned during the antecedent short-term studies. Safety and tolerability assessments included the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events and vital sign changes. FINDINGS/RESULTS: All 3 antecedent studies failed to meet the prespecified primary efficacy endpoint, so this open-label study was terminated early. Headache (15.5% [241/1559]), dry mouth (13.6% [212/1559]), insomnia (13.1% [204/1559]), and decreased appetite (12.1% [189/1559]) were the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events. The greatest mean ± SD increases observed for systolic and diastolic blood pressure and for pulse were 2.6 ± 10.85 and 1.7 ± 7.94 mm Hg and 6.9 ± 10.27 bpm, respectively. Monitoring determined that less than 1% of participants experienced potentially clinically important changes in systolic blood pressure (10 [0.6%]), diastolic blood pressure (8 [0.5%]), or pulse (6 [0.4%]). IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: The overall safety and tolerability of long-term LDX augmentation of antidepressant monotherapy was consistent with the profiles of the short-term antecedent studies, with no evidence of new safety signals.

A 6-Month Open-Label Extension Study of Vortioxetine in Pediatric Patients with Depressive or Anxiety Disorders.

OBJECTIVES: In this 6-month open-label extension (OLE) of NCT01491035 (a 14-day, open-label, pharmacokinetic/safety lead-in study), the long-term safety and tolerability of vortioxetine (5-20 mg/day) were investigated in children and adolescents with a DSM-IV-TR™ diagnosis of depressive or anxiety disorder in the United States or Germany. The study also was designed to provide data to inform dose selection and titration in future pediatric studies with vortioxetine. METHODS: Safety evaluations included spontaneously reported adverse events (AEs), the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), and the Pediatric Adverse Events Rating Scale (PAERS; clinician administered). Clinical effectiveness was determined by Clinical Global Impressions. Comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was permitted, including concomitant use of stimulant medication (US sites only). RESULTS: Of the 47 patients who completed the lead-in period, 41 continued into the OLE. Most patients (n = 39 [95%]) continued their previous dose regimen. Twenty-one patients (51%) withdrew during the OLE; the most common primary reasons were administrative [n = 8], AEs [n = 4], and lack of efficacy [n = 3]. Thirty-five patients (85%) had ≥1 AE, 86% of which were mild or moderate in severity. Five patients (12%) reported a severe AE, none of which was considered related to study medication. The most common AEs (≥10%) were headache (27%), nausea (20%), dysmenorrhea (females; 19%), and vomiting (15%), with no relationship between AE intensity and age or dose. Five patients reported instances of suicidal ideation during the OLE, one of whom also reported this during the lead-in period. Two patients had nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior; one had a nonfatal suicide attempt. Throughout the study, there was a decrease over time in the incidence and intensity of AEs collected using the PAERS. Effectiveness assessment indicated a trend toward improvement based on numeric results. CONCLUSION: This OLE confirms the findings from the lead-in study, which concluded that a dosing strategy of 5-20 mg/day is safe, well tolerated, and suitable for future clinical studies of vortioxetine in pediatric patients.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate augmentation for major depressive disorder in adults with inadequate response to antidepressant therapy.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated dose-response relationships of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate when used as augmentation for major depressive disorder in individuals exhibiting inadequate responses to antidepressant monotherapy. METHODS: Eligible adults (18-65 years) were assigned to antidepressant monotherapy (escitalopram or venlafaxine extended-release) plus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate-matching placebo during an eight-week single-blind lead-in phase. Participants meeting randomization criteria were randomized (1:1:1:1:1) to eight weeks of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (10, 30, 50, or 70 mg) or placebo while maintaining antidepressant therapy. Dose-responses for changes from augmentation baseline to week 16/early termination for Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and vital signs (systolic and diastolic blood pressure and pulse) were assessed using multiple comparisons procedures with modeling. RESULTS: For Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score change, no significant dose-responses were observed for any candidate dose-response curve (all p>0.10). In the dose-response evaluable population, least squares mean (90% confidence interval) treatment differences versus placebo for Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score change at week 16 were -1.4 (-3.9, 1.2), 0.1 (-2.5, 2.7), -0.7 (-3.4, 2.0), and -0.9 (-3.5, 1.6) with 10, 30, 50, and 70 mg lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, respectively. For all vital sign parameters, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate exhibited significant dose-responses for all candidate dose-response curves (all p<0.10), with increases observed as lisdexamfetamine dimesylate dose increased; a linear relationship provided the best fit. Mean±standard deviation changes from augmentation baseline for systolic and diastolic blood pressure and pulse at week 16/early termination were -0.7±9.90 and -0.3±7.24 mm Hg and 0.2±10.57 bpm with placebo and were 1.9±9.47 and 0.8±7.40 mm Hg and 3.6±9.74 bpm with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (all doses combined). The safety and tolerability profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was consistent with previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate augmentation did not provide benefit over placebo in adults with inadequate responses to antidepressant monotherapy based on the assessed efficacy measures.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Vortioxetine in Pediatric Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and tolerability of single and multiple doses of vortioxetine in children and adolescents with a depressive or anxiety disorder and to provide supportive information for appropriate dosing regimens for pediatric clinical trials. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, multinational, multisite, multiple-dose trial enrolled 48 patients (children and adolescents; 1:1 ratio) divided into 8 cohorts (4 adolescent and 4 child), with each cohort including 6 patients. The cohorts in each age group were assigned to receive one of four dosing regimens: vortioxetine 5, 10, 15, or 20 mg q.d. for 14 days. The total treatment period lasted 14-20 days with patients in the higher dose cohorts uptitrated over 2-6 days. Plasma samples for PK analysis were obtained on the first and last days of dosing. RESULTS: Among children and adolescents, respectively, 62% and 92% had depression and 58% and 33% had anxiety disorder. Comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was present in 50% of children and 38% of adolescents. After 14 days q.d. at the target dose, the PK of vortioxetine concentrations was generally proportional to the dose in both age groups. Exposure, as assessed by maximum plasma concentrations and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours, was 30%-40% lower in adolescents than in children. There was no significant relationship between sex, height, or ADHD diagnosis and PK parameters. Most adverse events were mild in severity and consistent with those seen in adults. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the dosages of vortioxetine evaluated (5-20 mg q.d.; approved for treatment in adults) and the uptitration schedule used are appropriate for pediatric efficacy and safety trials.

Atomoxetine Increased Effect over Time in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treated for up to 6 Months: Pooled Analysis of Two Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Changes in the magnitude of efficacy throughout 26 weeks of atomoxetine treatment, along with impact of dosing, were evaluated in adults with ADHD from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. AIMS: Pooled placebo (n = 485) and atomoxetine (n = 518) patients, dosed 25, 40, 60, 80 (target dose), or 100 mg daily, were assessed. Change from baseline in Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Investigator Rated Scale: Screening Version (CAARS) total ADHD symptoms score and Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) total score were analyzed using mixed-model repeated measures, with least squares mean change, effect size, and response rate calculated at 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 22, and 26 weeks. RESULTS: Decreases on CAARS for atomoxetine- versus placebo-treated patients were consistently statistically significantly greater at every time point beginning at one week (P ≤ 0.006, 0.28 effect size). By 4 weeks, comparison was -13.19 compared with -8.84 (P < 0.0001, 0.45 effect size). By 26 weeks, mean change was -15.42 versus -9.71 (0.52 effect size); increase in effect size over time was most pronounced in the 80 mg group (0.82 effect size). AISRS demonstrated similar results. Atomoxetine response rate (CAARS 50% decrease) continued to increase throughout 26 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine treatment in adults with ADHD was associated with small effect sizes after 4 weeks and moderate effect sizes by 6 months of treatment. The data support increased effect size and response rate over time during longer-term treatment at target dose.

Atomoxetine monotherapy compared with combination therapy for the treatment of ADHD: a retrospective chart review study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) in ADHD patients treated with atomoxetine (ATX) monotherapy versus ATX combination therapy with another ADHD-indicated medication. METHODS: This was a 2-site retrospective observational chart review study of child and adult ADHD patients, not necessarily treatment naïve, but treated ≥50 days post baseline with an endpoint assessment. To adjust for measured confounders, monotherapy (n = 77) versus combination (n = 108) cohort comparisons were performed using propensity score stratification and adjusted ANCOVA. RESULTS: There were no significant baseline cohort differences after propensity stratification. CGI-S scores after a mean 264 days of treatment were not statistically significantly different between cohorts, with no cohort differences observed in any assessed symptom subcategory. The cohorts were similar in discontinuation due to any reason, adverse event, and lack of efficacy. CONCLUSION: ATX combination therapy showed no evidence of additional benefit over ATX monotherapy in the treatment of ADHD in a community-based setting.

Addressing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the workplace.

Although generally considered a childhood disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can persist into adulthood and impede achievement in the workplace. Core ADHD symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity can be associated with poor organization, time management, and interpersonal relationships. Employment levels, earning power, and productivity are reduced among individuals with ADHD compared with those without ADHD. Furthermore, the costs of employing individuals with ADHD are higher because of work absences and lost productivity. The primary care provider plays an integral role in managing ADHD symptoms and providing the necessary resources that will help individuals with ADHD succeed in the workplace. Pharmacotherapy can reduce ADHD symptoms and improve functioning; however, it is also important to consider how positive traits associated with ADHD, such as creative thinking, can be used in the workplace. Workplace accommodations and behavioral therapies, such as coaching, can also enhance time management and organizational skills. This review describes how ADHD symptoms affect workplace behaviors, the effect of ADHD on employment and workplace performance, and the management of ADHD in working adults.

Atomoxetine treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in young adults with assessment of functional outcomes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with significant impairment in multiple functional domains. This trial evaluated efficacy in ADHD symptoms and functional outcomes in young adults treated with atomoxetine. METHODS: Young adults (18-30 years old) with ADHD were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with atomoxetine (n = 220) or placebo (n = 225). The primary efficacy measure of ADHD symptom change was Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS): Investigator-Rated: Screening Version Total ADHD Symptoms score with adult prompts. Secondary outcomes scales included the Adult ADHD Quality of Life-29, Clinical Global Impression-ADHD-Severity, Patient Global Impression-Improvement, CAARS Self-Report, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version Self-Report, and assessments of depression, anxiety, sleepiness, driving behaviors, social adaptation, and substance use. RESULTS: Atomoxetine was superior to placebo on CAARS: Investigator-Rated: Screening Version (atomoxetine [least-squares mean ± SE, -13.6 ± 0.8] vs placebo [-9.3 ± 0.8], 95% confidence interval [-6.35 to -2.37], P < 0.001), Clinical Global Impression-ADHD-Severity (atomoxetine [-1.1 ± 0.1] vs placebo [-0.7 ± 0.1], 95% confidence interval [-0.63 to -0.24], P < 0.001), and CAARS Self-Report (atomoxetine [-11.9 ± 0.8] vs placebo [-7.8 ± 0.7], 95% confidence interval [-5.94 to -2.15], P < 0.001) but not on Patient Global Impression-Improvement. In addition, atomoxetine was superior to placebo on Adult ADHD Quality of Life-29 and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version Self-Report. Additional assessments failed to detect significant differences (P ≥ 0.05) between atomoxetine and placebo. The adverse event profile was similar to that observed in other atomoxetine studies. Nausea, decreased appetite, insomnia, dry mouth, irritability, dizziness, and dyspepsia were reported significantly more often with atomoxetine than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine reduced ADHD symptoms and improved quality of life and executive functioning deficits in young adults compared with placebo. Atomoxetine was also generally well tolerated.

Once-daily treatment with atomoxetine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Atomoxetine (ATX) once daily was compared with placebo (PBO) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) at 12 and 24 weeks. METHODS: Patients were randomized to PBO (n = 234) or ATX (60-100 mg; n = 268) for 24 weeks following a 2-week on-label (40 mg for 3 days then 80 mg) or slow (40 mg for 7 days then 80 mg) titration. After 24 weeks, PBO patients were rerandomized to either ATX titration strategy. Efficacy measures included the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale Total ADHD Symptoms score, Clinical Global Impression-ADHD-Severity, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. General and titration safety measures and tolerability were evaluated. RESULTS: Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale Total ADHD Symptoms score reduction was greater with ATX over PBO at 12 weeks (-14.33 vs -10.05; P < 0.001) and 24 weeks (-16.43 vs -8.65; P < 0.001; effect size, 0.57). Response (25% decrease on Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale Total ADHD Symptoms) was greater for ATX (68%) than PBO (42%; P < 0.001) at 24 weeks. Clinical Global Impression-ADHD-Severity improvement was greater for ATX over PBO at 8 and 24 weeks (P < 0.001; effect sizes, 0.45 and 0.46, respectively). There were no significant changes in depressive or anxiety measures for either group. Discontinuation due to an adverse event was greater for on-label versus slow titration, although the rate of patients experiencing adverse events were comparable. Common adverse events included dry mouth, nausea, and decreased appetite. CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine demonstrated significant improvement in ADHD symptoms at 12 and 24 weeks over PBO. Adverse events overall and for on-label or slow titration to ATX were similar and consistent with previous adult ATX studies.

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.

Atomoxetine alone or combined with fluoxetine for treating ADHD with comorbid depressive or anxiety symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Symptoms of depression and anxiety are commonly comorbid with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The authors assessed the safety and effectiveness of atomoxetine monotherapy compared with combined atomoxetine/fluoxetine therapy in a population of children and adolescents with ADHD and concurrent symptoms of depression or anxiety. METHOD: Patients were randomized to treatment with fluoxetine (n = 127) or placebo (n = 46) under double-blind conditions for 8 weeks, with concomitant atomoxetine use the last 5 weeks. RESULTS: At end point, reductions in ADHD, depressive, and anxiety symptoms were marked for both treatment groups (p < .001 for the relevant scale in each symptom cluster). Some differences between treatment groups for depressive symptoms were significant, but the magnitudes of the differences were small and likely of limited clinical importance. Completion rates for the two groups were similar, as were discontinuation rates for adverse events. The combination group had greater increases in blood pressure and pulse than did the monotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric patients with ADHD and comorbid symptoms of depression or anxiety, atomoxetine monotherapy appears to be effective for treating ADHD. Anxiety and depressive symptoms also improved, but the absence of a placebo-only arm does not allow us to conclude that these effects are specifically the result of treatment with atomoxetine. Combined atomoxetine/fluoxetine therapy was well tolerated.

Self-regulation and inhibition in comorbid ADHD children: an evaluation of executive functions.

The relationship between executive function and comorbid diagnoses in ADHD children is examined. One hundred six children between 7 and 15 years of age are assessed using the Tower of London (TOL), a test of executive function, and the Kiddie Schedule of Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, Present and Lifetime Version, a diagnostic interview. All children met the diagnostic criteria for ADHD. A majority of the children had comorbid anxiety disorders, mood disorders, or oppositional defiant disorder. Measures on the TOL are total move score, total initiation time, and total rule violations. Age is predictive in all three measures of executive function as assessed by the TOL. Gender is predictive of total initiation time and total rule violations. Comorbid disorders are found to not have significance on executive function as measured by the TOL. This study concludes that comorbid disorders may not affect executive function.