Are all ADHD medications created equal? Exploring the differences that enable evening dosing.

With more than 30 available stimulant medications, choosing among therapeutic options for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has become increasingly complex and patient specific. All ADHD stimulants owe their action to variants of either amphetamine or methylphenidate, yet formulation and delivery system differences create unique pharmacokinetic and clinical profiles for each medication. A benefit of the diversity within ADHD pharmacotherapy is that it facilitates tailoring treatment to meet patient needs. Historically, there has been a constant among long-acting stimulant options, regardless of formulation, which was morning dosing. The introduction of delayed-release and extended-release methylphenidate (DR/ER-MPH) is the first long-acting stimulant that patients take in the evening, with the clinical effect delayed until awakening in the morning. This paradigm shift has generated questions among clinicians and continued interest in real-world experience and data. This review used available clinical data, real-world evidence, emerging analyses, and clinical experience to evaluate the characteristics of DR/ER-MPH and its clinical utility within the greater context of ADHD medications and to provide clinicians with practical guidance on the use of DR/ER-MPH in children, adolescents, and adults with ADHD.

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

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