Molybdenum cofactor deficiency: A natural history.

Molybdenum cofactor deficiency (MoCD) includes three ultrarare autosomal recessive inborn errors of metabolism (MoCD type A [MoCD-A], MoCD-B, and MoCD-C) that cause sulfite intoxication disorders. This natural history study analyzed retrospective data for 58 living or deceased patients (MoCD-A, n = 41; MoCD-B, n = 17). MoCD genotype, survival, neuroimaging, and medical history were assessed retrospectively. Prospective biomarker data were collected for 21 living MoCD patients. The primary endpoint was survival to 1 year of age in MoCD-A patients. Of the 58 MoCD patients, 49 (MoCD-A, n = 36; MoCD-B, n = 13) had first presenting symptoms by Day 28 (neonatal onset; median: 2 and 4 days, respectively). One-year survival rates were 77.4% (overall), 71.8% (neonatal onset MoCD-A), and 76.9% (neonatal onset MoCD-B); median ages at death were 2.4, 2.4, and 2.2 years, respectively. The most common presenting symptoms in the overall population were seizures (60.3%) and feeding difficulties (53.4%). Sequelae included profound developmental delay, truncal hypotonia, limb hypertonia that evolved to spastic quadriplegia or diplegia, dysmorphic features, and acquired microcephaly. In MoCD-A and MoCD-B, plasma and urinary xanthine and S-sulfocysteine concentrations were high; urate remained below the normal reference range. MOCS1 mutation homozygosity was common. Six novel mutations were identified. MoCD is a severe neurodegenerative disorder that often manifests during the neonatal period with intractable seizures and feeding difficulties, with rapidly progressive significant neurologic disabilities and high 1-year mortality rates. Delineation of MoCD natural history supports evaluations of emerging replacement therapy with cPMP for MoCD-A, which may modify disease course for affected individuals.

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).

Late-Onset Molybdenum Cofactor Deficiency Type A: A Treatable Cause of Developmental Delay.

Molybdenum cofactor deficiency classically presents in neonates with intractable seizures; however, milder cases generally present before age 2 years with developmental delays and may go undiagnosed. Early diagnosis, and safe, US Food and Drug Administration-approved substrate replacement are critical to preserve neurologic function. This article discusses 2 children who presented with late-onset molybdenum cofactor deficiency type A.

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

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

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

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

Industry and Patient Perspectives on Child Participation in Clinical Trials: The Pediatric Assent Initiative Survey Report.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining assent from children participating in clinical trials acknowledges autonomy and developmental ability to contribute to the consent process. This critical step in pediatric drug development remains poorly understood, with significant room for improving the clarity, efficiency, and implementation of the assent process. Beyond ethical necessity of informing children about their treatment, the assent process provides the advantages of including children in discussions about their diagnosis and treatment-allowing greater understanding of interventions included in the study. A formalized assent process acknowledges the child as a volunteer and provides a forum for questions and feedback. Legal, cultural, and social differences have historically prevented the development of clear, concise, and accessible materials to ensure children understand the clinical trial design. Published guidelines on obtaining pediatric assent are vague, with many decisions left to local institutional review boards and ethics committees, underscoring the need for collaboratively designed standards. To address this need, 2 surveys were conducted to quantify perspectives on assent in pediatric clinical trials. METHODS: Two digital surveys were circulated in the United States and internationally (October 2014 to January 2015). The first survey targeted children, parents, and/or caregivers. The second polled clinical trial professionals on their organizations' experience and policies regarding pediatric assent. RESULTS: Forty-five respondents completed the child and parent/caregiver survey; 57 respondents completed the industry survey. Respondents from both surveys detailed experiences with clinical trials and the impediments to securing assent, offering potential solutions to attaining assent in pediatric patients. CONCLUSIONS: An important opportunity exists for standardized practices and tools to ensure pediatric patients make well-informed decisions regarding their participation in clinical trials, using materials appropriate to their level of understanding. These tools would establish a baseline standard for the assent process and be made available to researchers, improving their ability to secure assent from young patients.

Best Practice Recommendations Regarding the Assessment of Palatability and Swallowability in the Development of Oral Dosage Forms for Pediatric Patients.

The palatability of oral drugs influences patient adherence to prescribed regimens, especially for children. Various factors influence palatability, including smell, taste, texture, and dose volume. Evaluation of these factors plays an important role in pediatric drug development and is a target for regulatory scrutiny. The Global Alliance for Pediatric Therapeutics, a public-private consortium under the guidance of the Institute for Pediatric Innovation, convened the Alliance Palatability Working Group to discuss the issues related to the assessment of palatability in the development of pediatric oral dosage forms. An extensive scientific literature search was conducted, in addition to a multicompany industry survey and a series of workshops with the Alliance Palatability Working Group. Based on the results, 3 best practice recommendations emerged regarding the assessment of palatability for oral dosage forms in pediatric drug development. These best practice recommendations offer researchers guidance for the preclinical and clinical assessment of palatability of oral dosage forms and serve to operationalize the assessment process within the overall drug development program.

Health-related quality of life and functional outcomes from a randomized-withdrawal study of long-term lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: The stimulant prodrug lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for the symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Positive impacts of LDX on health-related quality of life and functional impairment have previously been demonstrated in a 7-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study in children and adolescents in Europe. Maintenance of these broad benefits, as well as symptomatic control, is a key goal of long-term management of ADHD. OBJECTIVE: Secondary objectives of this multinational study in children and adolescents with ADHD were to assess the long-term maintenance of effectiveness of LDX in improving health-related quality of life and reducing functional impairment, as gauged using the Child Health and Illness Profile-Child Edition: Parent Report Form (CHIP-CE: PRF) and the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report (WFIRS-P), respectively. METHODS: Patients aged 6-17 years with diagnosed ADHD and a baseline ADHD Rating Scale IV total score of at least 28 were enrolled from the previous European study and from US sites. Patients who completed an open-label LDX treatment period of at least 26 weeks were randomized (1:1) to continue on their optimized dose of LDX or to switch to placebo for a 6-week, double-blind, withdrawal period. Parents completed CHIP-CE: PRF and WFIRS-P questionnaires at weeks 0, 8 and 26 of the open-label period and at weeks 0 and 6 of the randomized-withdrawal period, or at early termination. The endpoint of each period was defined as the last visit with valid data. Effect sizes were the difference (LDX minus placebo) in least-squares (LS)-mean change from baseline to endpoint divided by root-mean-square error. P values were nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: The open-label and randomized full analysis sets comprised 262 and 153 (LDX n = 76; placebo n = 77) patients, respectively. Mean pretreatment CHIP-CE: PRF T-scores were more than one standard deviation below the normative mean in four of the five domains, and there was significant improvement across all domains from baseline to endpoint of the open-label period. In the randomized-withdrawal period, LS-mean CHIP-CE: PRF T-scores deteriorated in all domains in the placebo group, but not in the LDX group. Compared with placebo, the effect of LDX was significant in the Risk Avoidance (effect size 0.829; p < 0.001), Achievement (0.696; p < 0.001) and Satisfaction (0.636; p < 0.001) domains. Mean pretreatment WFIRS-P scores were lowest in the Family domain and the Learning and School domain. WFIRS-P total score and scores in all domains improved significantly from baseline to endpoint of the open-label period. In the randomized-withdrawal period, LS-mean scores deteriorated in the placebo group but not in the LDX group. Compared with placebo, the effect of LDX was significant in the Family, Learning and School, and Risky Activities domains and in total (effect size 0.908; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Using parent-rated instruments, long-term maintenance of the beneficial effect of LDX in multiple domains of health-related quality of life and functional impairment was demonstrated by comparison of treatment continuation and withdrawal under randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled conditions.

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.

A Systematic Literature Review on the Assessment of Palatability and Swallowability in the Development of Oral Dosage Forms for Pediatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: Palatability and swallowability of oral dosage forms are important considerations in the development of medications for pediatric populations. As a result of recent legislation, the number of pharmaceutical products being developed with formulations for children is increasing. However, there are limited recommendations and published literature regarding appropriate palatability and swallowability assessment scales in pediatric patients. OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review aimed to identify and evaluate tools currently utilized to assess palatability and swallowability in clinical trials for pediatric oral dosage forms and identify any potential relationships between palatability and treatment adherence. Literature databases were searched for clinical trials that evaluated palatability of oral dosage forms targeted for pediatric patients. The searches were limited to papers in the English language from January 2008 to March 2013. RESULTS: A total of 137 citations were identified, with 27 articles included in the final full-text analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Various limitations to this systematic review exist, primarily focused on the unavailability of published, early phase development data related to palatability. However, based on results of this review, palatability is often assessed in clinical trials of pediatric dosage forms through the utilization of 2 unvalidated, yet widely accepted, visual scales. There is no standard statistical methodology for analyzing the results of these scales or the cross-comparison of results across studies. Limited evidence regarding a correlation between palatability and treatment adherence in pediatric patients was identified.

Industry Survey on Current Practices in the Assessment of Palatability and Swallowability in the Development of Pediatric Oral Dosage Forms.

An industry-based survey was conducted by the Global Alliance for Pediatric Therapeutics in February 2013 to determine and evaluate the current industry practices in the assessment of palatability and swallowability during the development of pediatric oral solid dosage forms, including the design and statistical analysis of such studies. In addition, the survey was designed to identify areas where regulatory guidance is most needed. The survey was distributed to 6 research-based pharmaceutical companies and to members of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Provisional Section on Advances in Therapeutics and Technology. In general, while all responding companies have experience developing pediatric medicines, there was no consistent approach among respondents to the assessment of organoleptic properties of solid dosage forms, including excipients. In the direct assessment of palatability in pediatric patients in clinical trials, the survey identified that a variety of methods is used across companies, including visual analogue scales, simple and complex hedonic scales, and simplistic Likert-type scales. No assessment method identified was acknowledged as validated or with any statistical correlates, with many respondents stating that scales used in the pharmaceutical industry are adapted from the significant work conducted in the food service industry. Based on findings from the industry survey, the authors believe that there is an opportunity for consensus of the assessment of palatability and swallowability in the development of pediatric oral solid dosage forms.

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.

Health-related quality of life and functional outcomes from a randomized, controlled study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) aims not only to ameliorate patients' symptoms, but also to improve health-related quality of life (HRQL) and functioning. A pivotal, 7-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study in children and adolescents in ten European countries demonstrated that the stimulant prodrug lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment for symptoms of ADHD. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess HRQL and functional impairment outcomes in this clinical trial, using the Child Health and Illness Profile-Child Edition: Parent Report Form (CHIP-CE:PRF) and the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report (WFIRS-P), respectively. METHODS: Patients (aged 6-17 years) with diagnosed ADHD and a baseline ADHD Rating Scale IV total score ≥28 were randomized (1:1:1) to 7 weeks of double-blind treatment with once-daily LDX, placebo or the reference treatment, osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH). Participants' parents (or legally authorized representatives) completed the CHIP-CE:PRF and WFIRS-P questionnaires at baseline, at weeks 4 and 7, and/or at early termination. Endpoint was defined as the last on-treatment visit with valid data (≤30 % missing items). The CHIP-CE:PRF Achievement domain was pre-specified as the primary HRQL outcome. RESULTS: The full analysis set comprised 317 patients (LDX, n = 104; placebo, n = 106; OROS-MPH, n = 107), the majority of whom completed the study (LDX, n = 77; placebo, n = 42; OROS-MPH, n = 72). Baseline CHIP-CE:PRF T-scores in four of the five domains were ≥1 standard deviation below norms (US community samples). Compared with placebo, LDX was associated with statistically significantly improved T-scores from baseline to endpoint in these four domains, with effect sizes of 1.280 (p < 0.001) in Achievement, 1.079 (p < 0.001) in Risk Avoidance, 0.421 (p < 0.01) in Resilience and 0.365 (p < 0.05) in Satisfaction. In LDX-treated patients, placebo-adjusted improvements from baseline to endpoint in WFIRS-P scores were statistically significant (p < 0.001) for total score and four of the six domains, with effect sizes of 0.924 (total score), 1.249 (Learning and School), 0.730 (Family), 0.643 (Social Activities) and 0.640 (Risky Activities). OROS-MPH treatment showed similar patterns of improvement from baseline to endpoint in both CHIP-CE:PRF and WFIRS-P scores. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline HRQL and functional impairment scores reflect the burden of untreated ADHD. The benefits of short-term stimulant treatment in children and adolescents with ADHD extend beyond symptomatic relief and impact positively on HRQL and daily functioning.

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.

Maintenance of efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: randomized withdrawal design.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate lisdexamfetamine dimesylate maintenance of efficacy in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Adults (aged 18-55 years) who had ADHD meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria, baseline ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with adult prompts total scores of < 22, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) ratings of 1, 2, or 3 were enrolled. After previously receiving commercially available lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (30, 50, or 70 mg/d) for ≥ 6 months with acceptable tolerability and maintaining response during a 3-week open-label phase at a stable lisdexamfetamine dimesylate dose, the participants entered a 6-week double-blind randomized withdrawal phase on treatment with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (same dose) or placebo. Data were collected from April 2009 to July 2010. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants having symptom relapse (≥ 50% increase in ADHD-RS-IV score and ≥ 2 rating-point increase in CGI-S score). RESULTS: A total of 116 participants were randomized (lisdexamfetamine dimesylate n = 56; placebo n = 60). At the randomized withdrawal phase baseline, mean (SD) ADHD-RS-IV scores for lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and placebo were 10.6 (4.96) and 10.6 (4.82), respectively. At endpoint, 8.9% (5/56) of adults taking lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and 75.0% (45/60) taking placebo (P < .0001) showed symptom relapse; most showed relapse after 1 and 2 weeks of the randomized withdrawal phase (4 and 0 adults taking lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, 26 and 10 taking placebo, respectively). During the randomized withdrawal phase, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 48.2% and 30.0% of participants in the lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and placebo groups, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events with incidence ≥ 5% in the lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and placebo groups were headache (14.3% and 5.0%), insomnia (5.4% and 5.0%), and upper respiratory tract infection (8.9% and 0%). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with ADHD on medium- to long-term treatment, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate demonstrated maintenance of efficacy vs placebo upon randomized withdrawal. A majority of patients given placebo showed symptom relapse by 2 weeks. The safety profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was generally consistent with previous lisdexamfetamine dimesylate studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00877487.

Efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To examine lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) efficacy and safety versus placebo in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Adolescents (13 through 17) with at least moderately symptomatic ADHD (ADHD Rating Scale IV: Clinician Version [ADHD-RS-IV] score ≥28) were randomized to placebo or LDX (30, 50, or 70 mg/d) in a 4-week, forced-dose titration, double-blind study. Primary and secondary efficacy measures were the ADHD-RS-IV, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I), and Youth QOL-Research Version (YQOL-R). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, laboratory findings, physical examinations, and ECG. RESULTS: Overall, 314 participants were randomized; 309 were in efficacy analyses and 49 withdrew (11 due to TEAEs). Least squares mean (SE) change from baseline at endpoint in ADHD-RS-IV total scores were -18.3 (1.25), -21.1 (1.28), -20.7 (1.25) for 30, 50, and 70 mg/d LDX, respectively; -12.8 (1.25) for placebo (p ≤ .0056 versus placebo for each). Differences in ADHD-RS-IV total scores favored all LDX doses versus placebo at all weeks (p ≤ .0076). On the CGI-I, 69.1% of participants were rated very much/much improved at endpoint with LDX all doses versus placebo (39.5%) (p < .0001). YQOL-R changes at endpoint scores for LDX groups versus placebo were not significant. Commonly reported LDX (all doses combined) TEAEs (≥5%) were decreased appetite, headache, insomnia, decreased weight, and irritability. Small mean increases in pulse and blood pressure and no clinically meaningful trends in ECG changes were noted with LDX. CONCLUSIONS: LDX at all doses was effective versus placebo in treating adolescent ADHD and demonstrated a safety profile consistent with previous LDX studies. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY INFORMATION: Efficacy and Safety of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate (LDX) in Adolescents With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00735371.

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.

Methylphenidate patch-test protocol and irritancy threshold determination in healthy adult subjects.

BACKGROUND: The methylphenidate transdermal system (MTS) (Daytrana [Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd., Wayne, PA]) has been shown to be well tolerated and effective; however, skin reactions, typically redness and itching, have also been noted with MTS use. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the irritancy threshold of methylphenidate (MPH), the active ingredient in the MTS, in healthy adults for use in subsequent patch testing. METHODS: This was an open-label single-site pilot study. Eligible subjects had MPH (six different concentrations in two vehicles) patch tests applied to the paraspinous region of the upper back. Subjects returned after 48 hours and 96 hours for investigator assessments of each reaction. RESULTS: All enrolled subjects (n = 20) completed the study. There were no definite positive reactions in any subject at any test concentration. Overall, doubtful (macular erythema) reactions were noted on 12 sites at the 48-hour reading and on 6 sites at the 96-hour reading. With both aqueous and petrolatum vehicles, more doubtful reactions were noted at the lower MPH test concentrations. CONCLUSION: When performing patch testing to confirm possible allergic contact dermatitis from topical MPH, several test concentrations in the low-to-middle range (such as 0.1%, 1%, and 10%) prepared in petrolatum are advisable.

A 13-hour laboratory school study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in school-aged children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is indicated for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children 6 to 12 years of age and in adults. In a previous laboratory school study, LDX demonstrated efficacy 2 hours postdose with duration of efficacy through 12 hours. The current study further characterizes the time course of effect of LDX. METHODS: Children aged 6 to 12 years with ADHD were enrolled in a laboratory school study. The multicenter study consisted of open-label, dose-optimization of LDX (30, 50, 70 mg/d, 4 weeks) followed by a randomized, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover phase (1 week each). Efficacy measures included the SKAMP (deportment [primary] and attention [secondary]) and PERMP (attempted/correct) scales (secondary) measured at predose and at 1.5, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12, and 13 hours postdose. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), physical examination, vital signs, and ECGs. RESULTS: A total of 117 subjects were randomized and 111 completed the study. Compared with placebo, LDX demonstrated significantly greater efficacy at each postdose time point (1.5 hours to 13.0 hours), as measured by SKAMP deportment and attention scales and PERMP (P < .005). The most common treatment-emergent AEs during dose optimization were decreased appetite (47%), insomnia (27%), headache (17%), irritability (16%), upper abdominal pain (16%), and affect lability (10%), which were less frequent in the crossover phase (6%, 4%, 5%, 1%, 2%, and 0% respectively). CONCLUSION: In school-aged children (6 to 12 years) with ADHD, efficacy of LDX was maintained from the first time point (1.5 hours) up to the last time point assessed (13.0 hours). LDX was generally well tolerated, resulting in typical stimulant AEs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Official Title: A Phase IIIb, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multi-Center, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Optimization, Cross-Over, Analog Classroom Study to Assess the Time of Onset of Vyvanse (Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate) in Pediatric Subjects Aged 6-12 With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00500149 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00500149.