Efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate throughout the day in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: results from a randomized, controlled trial.

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is a long-acting, prodrug stimulant therapy for patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This randomized placebo-controlled trial of an optimized daily dose of LDX (30, 50 or 70 mg) was conducted in children and adolescents (aged 6-17 years) with ADHD. To evaluate the efficacy of LDX throughout the day, symptoms and behaviors of ADHD were evaluated using an abbreviated version of the Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised (CPRS-R) at 1000, 1400 and 1800 hours following early morning dosing (0700 hours). Osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) was included as a reference treatment, but the study was not designed to support a statistical comparison between LDX and OROS-MPH. The full analysis set comprised 317 patients (LDX, n = 104; placebo, n = 106; OROS-MPH, n = 107). At baseline, CPRS-R total scores were similar across treatment groups. At endpoint, differences (active treatment - placebo) in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline CPRS-R total scores were statistically significant (P < 0.001) throughout the day for LDX (effect sizes: 1000 hours, 1.42; 1400 hours, 1.41; 1800 hours, 1.30) and OROS-MPH (effect sizes: 1000 hours, 1.04; 1400 hours, 0.98; 1800 hours, 0.92). Differences in LS mean change from baseline to endpoint were statistically significant (P < 0.001) for both active treatments in all four subscales of the CPRS-R (ADHD index, oppositional, hyperactivity and cognitive). In conclusion, improvements relative to placebo in ADHD-related symptoms and behaviors in children and adolescents receiving a single morning dose of LDX or OROS-MPH were maintained throughout the day and were ongoing at the last measurement in the evening (1800 hours).

A systematic review of the safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate.

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

Treatment response and remission in a double-blind, randomized, head-to-head study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVES: A secondary objective of this head-to-head study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and atomoxetine (ATX) was to assess treatment response rates in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and an inadequate response to methylphenidate (MPH). The primary efficacy and safety outcomes of the study, SPD489-317 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01106430), have been published previously. METHODS: In this 9-week, double-blind, active-controlled study, patients aged 6-17 years with a previous inadequate response to MPH were randomized (1:1) to dose-optimized LDX (30, 50 or 70 mg/day) or ATX (patients <70 kg: 0.5-1.2 mg/kg/day, not to exceed 1.4 mg/kg/day; patients ≥70 kg: 40, 80 or 100 mg/day). Treatment response was a secondary efficacy outcome and was predefined as a reduction from baseline in ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score of at least 25, 30 or 50 %. Sustained response was predefined as a reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score (≥25, ≥30 or ≥50 %) or a Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-Improvement (CGI-I) score of 1 or 2 throughout weeks 4-9. CGI-Severity (CGI-S) scores were also assessed, as an indicator of remission. RESULTS: A total of 267 patients were enrolled (LDX, n = 133; ATX, n = 134) and 200 completed the study (LDX, n = 99; ATX, n = 101). By week 9, significantly (p < 0.01) greater proportions of patients receiving LDX than ATX met the response criteria of a reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score of at least 25 % (90.5 vs. 76.7 %), 30 % (88.1 vs. 73.7 %) or 50 % (73.0 vs. 50.4 %). Sustained response rates were also significantly (p < 0.05) higher among LDX-treated patients (ADHD-RS-IV ≥25, 66.1 %; ADHD-RS-IV ≥30, 61.4 %; ADHD-RS-IV ≥50, 41.7 %; CGI-I, 52.0 %) than among ATX-treated individuals (ADHD-RS-IV ≥25, 51.1 %; ADHD-RS-IV ≥30, 47.4 %; ADHD-RS-IV ≥50, 23.7 %; CGI-I, 39.3 %). Finally, by week 9, 60.7 % of patients receiving LDX and 46.3 % of those receiving ATX had a CGI-S score of 1 (normal, not at all ill) or 2 (borderline mentally ill), and greater proportions of patients in the LDX group than the ATX group experienced a reduction from baseline of at least one CGI-S category. CONCLUSIONS: Both LDX and ATX treatment were associated with high levels of treatment response in children and adolescents with ADHD and a previous inadequate response to MPH. However, within the parameters of the study, LDX was associated with significantly higher treatment response rates than ATX across all response criteria examined. In addition, higher proportions of patients in the LDX group than the ATX group had a CGI-S score of 1 or 2 by week 9, indicating remission of symptoms. Both treatments were generally well tolerated, with safety profiles consistent with those observed in previous studies.

Maintenance of efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: randomized-withdrawal study design.

OBJECTIVE: In this phase 3 extension study, the long-term maintenance of efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was evaluated using a randomized-withdrawal study design. METHOD: European and US patients (6-17 years; N = 276) with ADHD were entered into a 26-week open-label trial of LDX treatment. Those who completed the open-label period (n = 157) were randomized 1:1 to their optimized dose of LDX (30, 50, or 70 mg per day) or placebo for a 6-week randomized-withdrawal period (RWP). The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients meeting treatment failure criteria (≥50% increase in ADHD Rating Scale IV total score and ≥2-point increase in Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness [CGI-S] score, compared with RWP start point). Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: During the RWP (LDX, n = 78; placebo, n = 79), significantly fewer patients receiving LDX met treatment failure criteria (15.8%) compared with those receiving placebo (67.5%; difference = -51.7%; 95% confidence interval = -65.0, -38.5; p < .001 ). Most treatment failures occurred at or before the week 2 visit after randomization. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 39.7% and 25.3% of patients receiving LDX and placebo, respectively, during the RWP. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate the maintenance of efficacy of LDX during long-term treatment in children and adolescents with ADHD. The rapid return of symptoms on LDX withdrawal demonstrates the need for continuing treatment. The safety profile of LDX was consistent with that of other stimulants. Clinical trial registration information-Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Withdrawal, Extension, Safety and Efficacy Study of LDX in Children and Adolescents Aged 6-17; http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00784654.

European, randomized, phase 3 study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) compared with placebo in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Europe. Osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) was included as a reference arm. Patients (6-17 years old) with a baseline ADHD Rating Scale version IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score ≥ 28 were randomized (1:1:1) to dose-optimized LDX (30, 50, or 70 mg/day), OROS-MPH (18, 36, or 54 mg/day) or placebo for 7 weeks. Primary and key secondary efficacy measures were the investigator-rated ADHD-RS-IV and the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) rating, respectively. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), electrocardiograms, and vital signs. Of 336 patients randomized, 196 completed the study. The difference between LDX and placebo in least squares mean change in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline to endpoint was -18.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -21.5 to -15.7) (p<0.001; effect size, 1.80). The difference between OROS-MPH and placebo in least squares mean change in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline to endpoint was -13.0 (95% CI: -15.9 to -10.2) (p<0.001; effect size, 1.26). The proportions (95% CI) of patients showing improvement (CGI-I of 1 or 2) at endpoint were 78% (70-86), 14% (8-21), and 61% (51-70) for LDX, placebo, and OROS-MPH. The most common TEAEs for LDX were decreased appetite, headache, and insomnia. Mean changes in vital signs were modest and consistent with the known profile of LDX. LDX was effective and generally well tolerated in children and adolescents with ADHD.

A post hoc comparison of the effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate on symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited head-to-head data comparing the efficacy of long-acting amfetamine- and methylphenidate-based psychostimulants as treatments for individuals with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This post hoc analysis provides the first parallel-group comparison of the effect of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine) and osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) on symptoms of ADHD in children and adolescents. STUDY DESIGN: This was a post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-optimized, placebo-controlled, phase III study. SETTING: The phase III study was carried out in 48 centres across ten European countries. PATIENTS: The phase III study enrolled children and adolescents (aged 6-17 years) who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria for a primary diagnosis of ADHD and who had a baseline ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score of 28 or higher. INTERVENTION: Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive a once-daily, optimized dose of lisdexamfetamine (30, 50 or 70 mg/day), placebo or OROS-MPH (18, 36 or 54 mg/day) for 7 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In this post hoc analysis, efficacy was assessed using the ADHD-RS-IV and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale. Responders were defined as those achieving at least a 30% reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score and a CGI-I score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved). The proportion of patients achieving an ADHD-RS-IV total score less than or equal to the mean for their age (based on normative data) was also determined. Endpoint was the last on-treatment visit with a valid assessment. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and vital signs. RESULTS: Of the 336 patients randomized, 332 were included in the safety population, 317 were included in the full analysis set and 196 completed the study. The mean (standard deviation) ADHD-RS-IV total score at baseline was 40.7 (7.31) for lisdexamfetamine, 41.0 (7.14) for placebo and 40.5 (6.72) for OROS-MPH. The least-squares (LS) mean change (standard error) in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline to endpoint was -24.3 (1.16) for lisdexamfetamine, -5.7 (1.13) for placebo and -18.7 (1.14) for OROS-MPH. The difference between lisdexamfetamine and OROS-MPH in LS mean change (95% confidence interval [CI]) in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline to endpoint was statistically significant in favour of lisdexamfetamine (-5.6 [-8.4 to -2.7]; p < 0.001). The difference between lisdexamfetamine and OROS-MPH in the percentage of patients (95% CI) with a CGI-I score of 1 or 2 at endpoint was 17.4 (5.0-29.8; p < 0.05; number needed to treat [NNT] 6), and the difference in the percentage of patients (95% CI) achieving at least a 30% reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score and a CGI-I score of 1 or 2 was 18.3 (5.4-31.3; p < 0.05; NNT 6). The difference between lisdexamfetamine and OROS-MPH in the percentage of patients (95% CI) with an ADHD-RS-IV total score less than or equal to the mean for their age at endpoint was 14.0 (0.6-27.4; p = 0.050). The overall frequency of TEAEs and the frequencies of decreased appetite, insomnia, decreased weight, nausea and anorexia TEAEs were greater in patients treated with lisdexamfetamine than in those treated with OROS-MPH, whereas headache and nasopharyngitis were more frequently reported in patients receiving OROS-MPH. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis showed that, at the doses tested, patients treated with lisdexamfetamine showed statistically significantly greater improvement in symptoms of ADHD than those receiving OROS-MPH, as assessed using the ADHD-RS-IV and CGI-I. The safety profiles of lisdexamfetamine and OROS-MPH were consistent with the known effects of stimulant medications.

Efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a head-to-head, randomized, double-blind, phase IIIb study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the prodrug psychostimulant lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and the non-stimulant noradrenergic compound atomoxetine (ATX) in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who had previously responded inadequately to methylphenidate (MPH). METHODS: This 9-week, head-to-head, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study (SPD489-317; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01106430) enrolled patients (aged 6-17 years) with at least moderately symptomatic ADHD and an inadequate response to previous MPH therapy. Patients were randomized (1:1) to an optimized daily dose of LDX (30, 50 or 70 mg) or ATX (patients <70 kg, 0.5-1.2 mg/kg with total daily dose not to exceed 1.4 mg/kg; patients ≥70 kg, 40, 80 or 100 mg). The primary efficacy outcome was time (days) to first clinical response. Clinical response was defined as a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved). Secondary efficacy outcomes included the proportion of responders at each study visit and the change from baseline in ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS-IV) and CGI-Severity scores. Tolerability and safety were assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), height and weight, vital signs and electrocardiogram parameters. Endpoint was defined as the last post-baseline, on-treatment visit with a valid assessment. RESULTS: Of 267 patients randomized (LDX, n = 133; ATX, n = 134), 200 (74.9%) completed the study. The median time to first clinical response [95% confidence interval (CI)] was significantly shorter for patients receiving LDX [12.0 days (8.0-16.0)] than for those receiving ATX [21.0 days (15.0-23.0)] (p = 0.001). By week 9, 81.7% (95% CI 75.0-88.5) of patients receiving LDX had responded to treatment compared with 63.6% (95% CI 55.4-71.8) of those receiving ATX (p = 0.001). Also by week 9, the difference between LDX and ATX in least-squares mean change from baseline (95% CI) was significant in favour of LDX for the ADHD-RS-IV total score [-6.5 (-9.3 to -3.6); p < 0.001; effect size 0.56], inattentiveness subscale score [-3.4 (-4.9 to -1.8); p < 0.001; effect size 0.53] and the hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale score [-3.2 (-4.6 to -1.7); p < 0.001; effect size 0.53]. TEAEs were reported by 71.9 and 70.9% of patients receiving LDX and ATX, respectively. At endpoint, both treatments were associated with mean (standard deviation) increases in systolic blood pressure [LDX, +0.7 mmHg (9.08); ATX, +0.6 mmHg (7.96)], diastolic blood pressure [LDX, +0.1 mmHg (8.33); ATX, +1.3 mmHg (8.24)] and pulse rate [LDX, +3.6 bpm (10.49); ATX, +3.7 bpm (10.75)], and decreases in weight [LDX, -1.30 kg (1.806); ATX, -0.15 kg (1.434)]. CONCLUSIONS: LDX was associated with a faster and more robust treatment response than ATX in children and adolescents with at least moderately symptomatic ADHD who had previously responded inadequately to MPH. Both treatments displayed safety profiles consistent with findings from previous clinical trials.

Methylphenidate transdermal system: a multisite, open-label study of dermal reactions in pediatric patients diagnosed with ADHD.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize dermal reactions and examine methylphenidate (MPH) sensitization in subjects receiving methylphenidate transdermal system (MTS). METHOD: This multicenter, open-label, dose-optimization study utilized MTS doses of 10, 15, 20, and 30 mg in children aged 6 to 12 years, inclusive (N = 305), with a DSM-IV-TR primary diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The study was conducted between January 8, 2007, and August 23, 2007. Subjects wore MTS on their hips for 9 hours per day, alternating sides daily for a total of 7 weeks. Assessments included the Experience of Discomfort scale, Transdermal System Adherence scale, and Dermal Response Scale (DRS; 0 = no irritation, 7 = strong reaction). On-study reevaluations were conducted to characterize DRS scores ≥ 4. Epicutaneous allergy patch testing was conducted for DRS scores ≥ 6, persistent DRS scores ≥ 4, DRS score increase following an assessment of ≥ 4, or DRS scores of 4 or 5 following elective discontinuation. RESULTS: Approximately half of subjects experienced definite erythema at the patch site that generally dissipated within 24 hours. Four subjects experienced a DRS score of 4 (1%): erythema in 1 subject resolved on study treatment, 2 cases resolved poststudy and subjects tolerated oral MPH, and 1 subject discontinued treatment. The latter subject was referred for patch testing and was diagnosed with allergic contact sensitization to MPH. CONCLUSIONS: Few severe dermal effects were seen with MTS treatment. Dermal reactions were characterized as contact dermatitis and dissipated rapidly. On patch testing, 1 subject (0.3%) manifested sensitization to MPH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00434213.

A 6-month, open-label, extension study of the tolerability and effectiveness of the methylphenidate transdermal system in adolescents diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the tolerability and effectiveness of the methylphenidate transdermal system (MTS) over 6 months in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: This was an industry-sponsored, 30-center, open-label study of subjects aged 13-17 years with ADHD. Subjects were dose-optimized with MTS (10-30 mg/9 hours) over 5 weeks and then dose-maintained for up to 5 months. Tolerability evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and dermal responses. Effectiveness was assessed with the ADHD-Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV). RESULTS: A total of 162 subjects received MTS treatment. The majority of TEAEs (>99%) were mild or moderate in intensity, and the most frequently reported TEAE was decreased appetite (15.4%). Thirteen subjects discontinued the study due to TEAEs. The majority (93.6%) of dermatologic reactions indicated mild erythema. There was significant improvement in mean ADHD-RS-IV total scores from study entry to end point (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Slightly more than half (54.0%) of subjects completed this 6-month, open-label extension study of MTS; the primary reason for discontinuation was withdrawn consent (36.0%). Reported TEAEs and skin tolerability findings were similar to those observed with MTS use in children and adolescents. MTS treatment resulted in a decrease in ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians.

Role of insulin-like growth factor-I in the treatment of painful small fiber predominant neuropathy.

Idiopathic, painful, small fiber predominant peripheral neuropathy is resistant to symptomatic treatment. Previous treatments have not been directed toward repairing the underlying deficit. Growth factors hold promise as agents to encourage axonal regrowth. In vitro, insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) has been shown to prevent neuronal apoptosis, to increase axonal growth, and to support myelination. Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled design, 40 patients were randomized to treatment with recombinant human IGF-I (0.05 mg/kg twice daily by subcutaneous injection) or placebo for 6 months. There were no significant adverse events and minor adverse events occurred equally in both groups. The primary outcome measure was change in score on an analog pain scale. Secondary endpoints included quantitative sensory testing, quantitative autonomic testing, neuropathy impairment score, nerve conduction studies, and neuropathy symptom and change score. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between the two groups. Analysis of secondary endpoints and a global impression of improvement by patients and physicians did not show consistent differences between the groups. IGF-I was safe, but did not improve symptoms in this 6-month trial.