A modelled economic evaluation comparing atomoxetine with methylphenidate in the treatment of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurobehavioural disorder, affecting 3-6% of school age children and adolescents in Spain. Methylphenidate (MPH), a mild stimulant, had long been the only approved medication available for ADHD children in Spain. Atomoxetine is a non-stimulant alternative in the treatment of ADHD with once-a-day oral dosing. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atomoxetine compared to MPH. In addition, atomoxetine is compared to 'no medication' for patient populations who are ineligible for MPH (i.e. having stimulant-failure experience or co-morbidities precluding stimulant medication). METHODS: An economic model with Markov processes was developed to estimate the costs and benefits of atomoxetine versus either MPH or 'no medication'. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was calculated for atomoxetine relative to the comparators. The Markov process incorporated 14 health states, representing a range of outcomes associated with treatment options. Utility values were obtained from the utility valuation survey of 83 parents of children with ADHD. The clinical data were based on a thorough review of controlled clinical trials and other clinical literature, and validated by international experts. Costs and outcomes were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation over a 1-year duration, with costs estimated from the perspective of the National Health Service in Spain. RESULTS: For stimulant-naive patients without contra-indications to stimulants, the incremental costs per QALY gained for atomoxetine were euro 34,308 (compared to an immediate-release MPH) and euro 24,310 (compared to an extended-release MPH). For those patients who have stimulant-failure experience or contra-indications to stimulants, the incremental costs per QALY gained of atomoxetine compared to 'no medication' were euro 23,820 and euro 23,323, respectively. CONCLUSION: The economic evaluation showed that atomoxetine is an effective alternative across a range of ADHD populations and offers value-for money in the treatment of ADHD.

Assessing the value of atomoxetine in treating children and adolescents with ADHD in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation of healthcare technologies is becoming increasingly relevant, enabling decision makers to assess and compare treatments within the context of costs and outcomes. Moreover, it is increasingly important for clinicians and prescribers to have some understanding of economic evaluation. For attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), economic evaluations have largely focused on pharmacotherapy, and results indicate that such treatments are cost-effective compared with other interventions. AIMS: This review provides an overview of ADHD, its consequences and pharmacotherapy; describes the principles of health economic analysis, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and a cost-effectiveness model of atomoxetine for ADHD treatment; and outlines guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence on ADHD pharmacotherapy. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of atomoxetine for children with ADHD in the UK was compared with treatment alternatives using an economic model with Markov processes. The model evaluated atomoxetine in five patient subgroups according to treatment history and comorbidities precluding stimulants. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was calculated and compared between treatment algorithms. The Markov process incorporated 18 health states, representing a range of outcomes across the treatments. Utility values were derived from a survey of 83 parents of children with ADHD, and treatment efficacy and safety were based on a review of controlled clinical trials and literature, and validated by international experts. Costs and outcomes were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation over 1-year. RESULTS: Atomoxetine was a cost-effective treatment across the whole ADHD population, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from pound 11,500 to pound 15,900 per QALY, compared with alternative pharmacotherapies, which are within UK and rest of Europe acceptability limits. Higher utility values achieved treating ADHD with atomoxetine, compensate for the relatively higher acquisition cost compared with stimulants. CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine is cost-effective and may have advantages over stimulants, including benefits to HRQL and no abuse liability and is the only treatment in the UK licensed for continued treatment into adulthood in adolescents who have shown a response from treatment.

A modeled economic evaluation comparing atomoxetine with stimulant therapy in the treatment of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of atomoxetine for children with attention-deficity/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United Kingdom compared with current alternatives. METHODS: An economic model with Markov processes was developed to estimate the costs and benefits of atomoxetine versus other current ADHD treatment options. The model evaluated atomoxetine in five patient subgroups according to treatment history and the existence of comorbidities precluding stimulant medication. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was calculated for atomoxetine treatment algorithms compared with comparator algorithms. The Markov process incorporated 18 health states, representing a range of outcomes across all treatment options included in the algorithms. Utility values were derived from a survey of 83 parents of children with ADHD. The effectiveness and safety aspects of the treatment options were based on a thorough review of controlled clinical trials and other clinical literature, and validated by international experts. Costs and outcomes were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation over a 1-year duration, with costs estimated from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales. RESULTS: For stimulant-naive patients, the incremental cost per QALY gained for the atomoxetine algorithm compared with immediate-release methylphenidate hydrochloride (MPH) was pound 15,224 ( pound 13,241 compared with extended-release MPH). In the stimulant-exposed populations, the incremental cost per QALY for the atomoxetine algorithm was between pound 14,169 and pound 15,878. For patients contraindicated for stimulant therapies, the incremental cost per QALY was pound 11,523 and pound 12,370 for stimulant-naive and stimulant-exposed populations, respectively. CONCLUSION: The economic evaluation showed atomoxetine is an effective alternative across a range of ADHD populations and offers value-for-money in the treatment of ADHD.

Health care costs of adults treated for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder who received alternative drug therapies.

BACKGROUND: Many therapies exist for treating adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), also referred to as attention-deficit disorder (ADD), but there is no research regarding cost differences associated with initiating alternative ADD/ADHD drug therapies in adults. OBJECTIVE: To compare from the perspective of a large self-insured employer the risk-adjusted direct health care costs associated with 3 alternative drug therapies for ADD in newly treated patients: extended-release methylphenidate (osmotic release oral system-MPH), mixed amphetamine salts extended release (MAS-XR), or atomoxetine. METHODS: We analyzed data from a US claims database of 5 million beneficiaries from 31 large self-insured employers (1999-2004). Analysis was restricted to adults aged 18 to 64 years with at least 1 diagnosis of ADD/ADHD (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] codes 314.0x--attention deficit disorder; 314.00--attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity; or 314.01--attention-deficit disorder with hyperactivity) and at least 1 pharmacy claim for OROS-MPH, MAS-XR, or atomoxetine identified using National Drug Codes. In preliminary analysis, we calculated the duration of index ADHD drug therapy as time from index therapy initiation to a minimum 60-day gap. Because the median duration of index ADHD drug therapy was found to be approximately 90 days, the primary measures were total direct medical plus drug costs and medical-only costs computed over 6 months following therapy initiation. Adults were required to have continuous eligibility 6 months before and 6 months after their latest drug therapy initiation and no ADHD therapy during the previous 6 months. Cost was measured as the payment amount made by the health plan to the provider rather than billed charges, and it excluded patient copayments and deductibles. Medical costs included costs incurred for all-cause inpatient and outpatient/other services. Costs were adjusted for inflation to 2004 U.S. dollars using the consumer price index for medical care. T tests were used for descriptive cost comparisons. Generalized linear models (GLMs) were used to compare costs of adults receiving alternative therapies, adjusting for demographic characteristics, substance abuse, depression, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: Of the 4,569 patients who received 1 of these 3 drug therapies for ADHD, 31.8% received OROS-MPH for a median duration of 99 days of therapy, 34.0% received MAS-XR for a median 128 days, and 34.2% received atomoxetine for a median 86 days. In the 6-month follow-up period, the mean (standard deviation) total medical and drug costs were $2,008 ($3,231) for OROS-MPH, $2,169 ($4,828) for MAS-XR, and $2,540 ($4,269) for atomoxetine-treated adults. The GLM for patient characteristics suggested that 6-month, risk-adjusted mean medical costs, excluding drug costs, for adults treated with OROS-MPH were $142 less (10.4%, $1,220 vs. $1,362) compared with MAS-XR (P =0.022) and $132 less (9.8%, $1,220 vs. $1,352) compared with atomoxetine (P =0.033); risk-adjusted mean medical costs were not significantly different between MAS-XR and atomoxetine. The GLM comparison of risk-adjusted total direct costs, including drug cost, was on average $156 less (8.0%, $1,782 vs. $1,938) for OROS-MPH compared with MAS-XR (P = 0.017) and $226 less (11.3%, $1,782 vs. $2,008) compared with atomoxetine (P <0.001); the risk-adjusted total direct costs were not significantly different between MAS-XR and atomoxetine. Two high-cost outliers (greater than 99.96th percentile, 1 each for OROS-MPH and atomoxetine) accounted for $47 (30%) of the $156 cost difference between OROS-MPH and MAS-XR and $11 (5%) of the $226 cost difference between OROS-MPH and atomoxetine, and the medical diagnoses for the highest-cost claims for these 2 outlier patients were unrelated to ADHD. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for patient characteristics including substance abuse, depression, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index, adults treated with OROS-MPH had, on average, slightly lower medical and total medical and drug costs than those treated with MAS-XR or atomoxetine over the 6-month period after drug therapy initiation. Approximately 30% of the cost difference compared with MAS-XR was attributable to 1 high-cost outlier with medical diagnoses for the highest-cost claim that were unrelated to ADHD.

Update on drugs for hyperactivity in childhood.

In 2001, we concluded that methylphenidate or dexamfetamine can be useful adjunctive therapy for children with severe hyperactivity in whom non-drug approaches alone have been inadequate. Since then, atomoxetine (pronounced a-toe-moks-e-teen; Strattera - Lilly) and three modified-release formulations of methylphenidate have been launched for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Here we reconsider drugs for ADHD in childhood, focusing on the newer products.

Purity, adulteration and price of drugs bought on-line versus off-line in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: On-line drug markets flourish and consumers have high expectations of on-line quality and drug value. The aim of this study was to (i) describe on-line drug purchases and (ii) compare on-line with off-line purchased drugs regarding purity, adulteration and price. DESIGN: Comparison of laboratory analyses of 32 663 drug consumer samples (stimulants and hallucinogens) purchased between January 2013 and January 2016, 928 of which were bought on-line. SETTING: The Netherlands. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome measures were (i) the percentage of samples purchased on-line and (ii) the chemical purity of powders (or dosage per tablet); adulteration; and the price per gram, blotter or tablet of drugs bought on-line compared with drugs bought off-line. FINDINGS: The proportion of drug samples purchased on-line increased from 1.4% in 2013 to 4.1% in 2015. The frequency varied widely, from a maximum of 6% for controlled, traditional substances [ecstasy tablets, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) powder, amphetamine powder, cocaine powder, 4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine (2C-B) and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)] to more than a third for new psychoactive substances (NPS) [4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA), 5/6-(2-aminopropyl)benzofuran (5/6-APB) and methoxetamine (MXE)]. There were no large differences in drug purity, yet small but statistically significant differences were found for 4-FA (on-line 59% versus off-line 52% purity for 4-FA on average, P = 0.001), MDMA powders (45 versus 61% purity for MDMA, P = 0.02), 2C-B tablets (21 versus 10 mg 2C-B/tablet dosage, P = 0.49) and ecstasy tablets (131 versus 121 mg MDMA/tablet dosage, P = 0.05). The proportion of adulterated samples purchased on-line and off-line did not differ, except for 4-FA powder, being less adulterated on-line (χ2  = 8.3; P < 0.02). Drug prices were mainly higher on-line, ranging for various drugs from 10 to 23% higher than that of drugs purchased off-line (six of 10 substances: P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Dutch drug users increasingly purchase drugs on-line: new psychoactive substances in particular. Purity and adulteration do not vary considerably between drugs purchased on-line and off-line for most substances, while on-line prices are mostly higher than off-line prices.

Cost effectiveness of guanfacine extended-release versus atomoxetine for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: application of a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

BACKGROUND: About 7% of children and adolescents are diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the US. Patients with ADHD who are intolerant of or do not have an optimal response to stimulants often use non-stimulants as alternative therapies. Guanfacine extended-release (GXR) and atomoxetine (ATX) are the only non-stimulants approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for once-daily use in the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD in the US. ATX has been on the market since 2002 while GXR was recently approved in 2009. To date, there is no comparative effectiveness or cost-effectiveness study comparing the two drugs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of GXR versus ATX for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents, using the comparative efficacy results from a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). METHODS: The MAIC method was used to compare the efficacy between GXR (target dose and lower doses) and ATX (target dose) in the absence of head-to-head clinical trials. Individual patients in the GXR trials were weighted such that the summary baseline characteristics and the efficacy of the placebo arm of the GXR trials matched exactly with those from published ATX trials. After weighting, the efficacy (i.e. change in the ADHD rating scale, fourth edition [ADHD-RS-IV] total score from baseline) was compared between each GXR dosing group and the ATX group. The results from the MAIC analyses were used to populate a 1-year Markov model that is used to compare the cost effectiveness of GXR versus ATX from a US third-party payer perspective. Effectiveness outcomes for each treatment group were estimated as the proportion of responders, defined as patients with ≥25% reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline, and average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Utilities associated with response/non-response and disutilities due to adverse events were applied in the model. Costs included drug and medical service costs and were inflated to 2011 US dollars ($US). Incremental cost/QALY and incremental cost/responder were estimated. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying all model parameters, including costs, utilities, and response rate. RESULTS: The target dose of GXR was 0.12 mg/kg/day. In match-adjusted populations with balanced baseline characteristics, patients receiving GXR at the dose of 0.09-0.12(p = 0.0016) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] and 0.075-0.09 mg/kg/day (p = 0.0248) had better efficacy, while those receiving GXR at the dose of 0.046-0.075 mg/kg/day had comparable efficacy (p = 0.0699), compared with patients receiving ATX at the target dose of 1.2 mg/kg/day. In the base case of the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), GXR had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $US10 637/QALY and $US853/responder, compared with ATX (incremental costs: $US74; incremental effectiveness: 0.007 QALYs and 86 responders per 1000 patients treated). Results of all univariate sensitivity analyses showed that the model results were robust to changes in model inputs. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first application of the novel comparative efficacy method of MAIC to a CEA model. The MAIC results indicate that GXR (0.075-0.12 mg/kg/day) was more effective than ATX (1.2 mg/kg/day) in the trial population. The CEA results indicate that GXR is cost effective compared with ATX for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents.

ADHD medication use, adherence, persistence and cost among Texas Medicaid children.

OBJECTIVES: (1) Describe ADHD medication use, adherence and persistence. (2) Determine factors (e.g., medication type, demographics, concomitant medication use) associated with ADHD medication adherence and persistence. (3) Compare ADHD medication costs. METHODS: Continuously enrolled Texas Medicaid children (3-18 years) with ≥ 2 ADHD prescription claims (July 2002-December 2008) were included. Prescription claims were grouped by medication type (i.e., immediate-release, extended-release, prodrug, non-stimulant); medication class (i.e., stimulant, non-stimulant); and duration of action (i.e., long-acting, short-acting). Adherence, using medication possession ratio, was measured continuously and dichotomously (80% cut-off). Persistence was days of continuous therapy without a 30-day gap and medication costs were reimbursement amount paid to dispensing pharmacies. RESULTS: The study sample (n = 62,789) was primarily 6-12 years (61.7%) and male (69.2%). The majority of the subjects were prescribed extended-release agents (70.3%), stimulant agents (86.4%), and long-acting agents (84.5%). Adherence and persistence (adherence mean ± SD; adherence dichotomous; persistence mean ± SD) varied among medication type and was highest for non-stimulants (52.5 ± 30.9; 25.8%; 153.3 ± 124.3), followed by extended-release stimulants (52.1 ± 30.2; 24.1%; 143.7 ± 120.8), prodrug stimulants (47.6 ± 30.9; 21.1%; 113.3 ± 100.5) and immediate-release stimulants (37.2 ± 27.1; 9.8%; 95.4 ± 92.6). Logistic regression showed immediate-release stimulant users were 67% less adherent than non-stimulant users (p < 0.0001) and linear regression showed immediate-release, extended-release and long-acting users (p < 0.0001) were significantly less persistent than non-stimulant users. Females, increase in total number of medications, and comorbid medications were associated with better adherence and persistence. Non-stimulant agents ($4.04 ± $2.15) had the highest mean medication cost per patient per day and immediate-release stimulants had the lowest ($1.24 ± $0.97). CONCLUSIONS: ADHD medication adherence and persistence was suboptimal. Although there was no difference in adherence between long-acting stimulant and non-stimulant users, non-stimulant users were more persistent compared to stimulant users. This study was limited due to the use of retrospective prescription claims data, which cannot capture actual patient use patterns, ICD-9 diagnoses, family history and support, or side effect profiles. Because ADHD can be effectively treated with pharmacotherapy, providers should be proactive in identifying patients with poor adherence and intervene to address barriers to medication adherence and persistence.

The discrepancy in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications diffusion: 1994-2003--a global pharmaceutical data analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper was to examine the patterns of spending, price, and the utilization of ADHD medications during the 10-year period, from 1994 to 2003 among 4 different per capita GDP group countries. METHODS: This study used the IMS Health database and included both branded and generic ADHD medications. We examined the changes in quantity and price as well as the mixed effects of these changes in the U.S.A. and 3 other groups of countries classified according to their level of per capita GDP. RESULTS: During this study (1994-2003), the U.S. expenditures for ADHD medications increased 594%; sales volume rose by 80%; and price increased by 285%. In other high GDP countries, expenditures increased 493%, sales volume 328%, and price increased by 39%. In the middle GDP countries, expenditures increased 164%, sales volume 141%, and price increased by 9%. In the countries with a lower per capita GDP, expenditures increased 149%, sales volume 464%, however price decreased by 37%. CONCLUSIONS: The launch of long-acting ADHD medications has dramatically increased the total medication expenditure in the U.S. as well as in other high GDP markets. In the other countries quantity was the most important growth factor.

Atomoxetine's effect on societal costs in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To compare societal costs between patients treated with atomoxetine and placebo in Sweden. METHOD: Ninety-nine pediatric ADHD patients were randomized to a 10-week double-blind treatment with atomoxetine (n = 49) or placebo (n = 50). All parents received four sessions of psycho-education. Parents filled out a resource utilization questionnaire covering the 10 weeks prior to treatment and the 10-week on-treatment period. Published unit costs/prices were used to calculate costs. RESULTS: Mean on-treatment costs in the atomoxetine group (SEK [Swedish Krona] 4,558) were significantly lower compared with placebo (SEK 7,684) after adjusting for baseline costs and site (p = .007). All 99 patients entered an open atomoxetine extension phase. Both groups had numerical reductions in direct and indirect costs while on atomoxetine treatment during the extension phase. The atomoxetine medication costs were offset by the reductions in direct nonmedical and indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide preliminary evidence that atomoxetine together with parental psycho education reduces nonmedication costs associated with ADHD in Sweden.

[Drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]. / Farmacos para el trastorno por deficit de atencion/hiperactividad.

Quantitative studies have highlighted differences in several drugs approved for use in Spain in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. No clear differences are observed, however, in the case of qualitative studies. The number of patients needed to be treated in order for one to reach complete remission (NNT) of methylphenidate (MTF) is from 2.2 to 5, and the effect size (ES) is 0.9. Atomoxetine has an NNT of 4 and an ES of 0.7. The advantages of immediate-release MTF (IR-MTF) over the extended-release version (ER-MTF) lie in its low cost, its flexibility and the better results obtained in quantitative studies. In contrast, ER-MTF offers a lower risk of abuse, needs to be taken fewer times with less need for third parties to control administration, and there is a lower risk of stigmatisation. Combination or changes of IR-MTF and ER-MTF and the combination of MTF with atomoxetine are sometimes necessary to adjust the weekday or weekend doses. Starting treatment with IR-MTF and then maintaining or changing to ER-MTF offers certain advantages as regards safety, dose adjustments and dosage. Atomoxetine is the best alternative if there is a background of adverse events with low or moderate doses of stimulants, or lack of response to high doses of stimulants. In cases of notable comorbid anxiety, both MTF and atomoxetine have the same level of indication. If there is a risk of substance abuse, both atomoxetine and ER-MTF are the preferred treatment. For the other indications, MTF is the preferred treatment.

InforMatrix for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The purpose of this review is to facilitate discussion on drug selection for the treatment of ADHD by using only clinically relevant selection criteria and providing an up-to-date overview. The InforMatrix method was used to select drugs to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The following selection criteria were applied: clinical efficacy, safety, tolerability, ease of use, applicability, and cost. The drugs approved for ADHD in the Netherlands were included in the analysis, namely: atomoxetine, immediate-release methylphenidate, and various formulations of slow-release methylphenidate (Concerta, Equasym and Medikinet). Most studies are of limited quality, duration, and size. In one study, Concerta was more effective than atomoxetine. Although no relevant differences were seen in other comparative studies, the clinical experience with atomoxetine is still limited and unexpected toxicity cannot be excluded; few studies have been published with Equasym and Medikinet. No major differences were seen in general tolerability between the drugs. The ease of use of immediate-release methylphenidate is less than for the other drugs. The acquisition cost of immediate-release methylphenidate is considerably lower than that of the slow-release formulations. Atomoxetine is the most expensive drug. The InforMatrix program is available in an interactive format. It enables the user to judge both the importance of the selection criteria and the properties of each therapeutic option per criterion on the basis of his or her own personal expertise and/or the present document.

Second opinions improve ADHD prescribing in a medicaid-insured community population.

OBJECTIVE: The appropriate use of psychotropic medications in youths is an important public health concern. In this article, we describe a review process developed to monitor the use of stimulants and atomoxetine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity syndrome (ADHD) in youths receiving fee-for-service Medicaid services. METHOD: Washington State Medicaid developed threshold safety parameters for ADHD medications through a process involving the community. A second opinion was mandated when safety thresholds based on dose, combination therapies, or age was exceeded. Use and cost were compared 2 years before and after the program began. RESULTS: From May 2006 to April 2008, 5.35% of ADHD prescriptions exceeded safety thresholds, resulting in 1,046 second-opinion reviews. Of those, 538 (51.4%) resulted in a prescription adjustment. Adjustments were made to primary care physician (52%), psychiatrist (50%), nurse practitioner (54%), and physician assistant-written (51%) prescriptions. When the preperiod and postperiod were compared, second opinions reduced ADHD medication at high doses (53%), in combinations (44%), and for patients 5 years of age and younger (23%). The review process resulted in a savings of $1.2 million, with 538 fewer patients exceeding safety thresholds. This was a 10:1 return over administrative costs; however, the overall Medicaid expenditures for ADHD medication still increased because of higher unit costs and the preferential use by clinicians of newer brands entering the market. CONCLUSIONS: A statewide second-opinion process reduced outlier ADHD medication prescription practices and was cost-effective. Suggestions for process and quality improvements in prescribing to children diagnosed with ADHD are discussed.

Atomoxetine for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Seven randomized, double-blinded, controlled trials in children, adolescents and adults have shown that atomoxetine improves attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms compared to placebo. There is no evidence that atomoxetine has greater efficacy or a better safety profile than currently used therapy. Atomoxetine has been submitted for regulatory approval in Canada and is currently approved in the US. The price of atomoxetine in Canada has not been established.

Review of new compounds available in Australia for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, efficacy, safety and cost of Ritalin LA, Concerta and Strattera, three compounds recently released in Australia for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: MEDLINE was searched for relevant review articles and primary treatment studies. Data were augmented by product information supplied by the respective manufacturers. Costing information was obtained by surveying five community pharmacy outlets in Newcastle-Lake Macquarie, New South Wales. RESULTS: The three compounds reviewed have similar tolerability and efficacy to immediate-release methylphenidate, with the advantage of once daily dosing. The properties of these agents, particularly Strattera, make them less able to be abused. Ritalin LA may be superior to Concerta in controlling symptoms of ADHD in the first 4 h following ingestion, but the data should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: The newer treatments for ADHD offer advantages over immediate-release methyphenidate in dosing schedule and duration of action that may be of particular benefit to adolescent and adult patients. Prescription of these medications may be limited by their expense to the patient.