Functional outcomes from a head-to-head, randomized, double-blind trial of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and an inadequate response to methylphenidate.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with functional impairments in multiple domains of patients' lives. A secondary objective of this randomized, active-controlled, head-to-head, double-blind, dose-optimized clinical trial was to compare the effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and atomoxetine (ATX) on functional impairment in children and adolescents with ADHD. Patients aged 6-17 years with an ADHD Rating Scale IV total score ≥ 28 and an inadequate response to methylphenidate treatment (judged by investigators) were randomized (1:1) to once-daily LDX or ATX for 9 weeks. Parents/guardians completed the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report (WFIRS-P) at baseline and at week 9 or early termination. p values were nominal and not corrected for multiple comparisons. Of 267 randomized patients, 200 completed the study (LDX 99, ATX 101). At baseline, mean WFIRS-P total score in the LDX group was 0.95 [standard deviation (SD) 0.474; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87, 1.03] and in the ATX group was 0.91 (0.513; 0.82, 1.00). Scores in all WFIRS-P domains improved from baseline to endpoint in both groups, with least-squares mean changes in total score of -0.35 (95% CI -0.42, -0.29) for LDX and -0.27 (-0.33, -0.20) for ATX. The difference between LDX and ATX was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for the Learning and School (effect size of LDX vs ATX, 0.43) and Social Activities (0.34) domains and for total score (0.27). Both treatments reduced functional impairment in children and adolescents with ADHD; LDX was statistically significantly more effective than ATX in two of six domains and in total score.

Clinical response and symptomatic remission in short- and long-term trials of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: Despite the overall high degree of response to pharmacotherapy, consensus is lacking on how to judge clinical response or define optimal treatment/remission when treating adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study examined clinical response and symptomatic remission in analyses of 2 studies of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in adults with ADHD. METHODS: In a 4-week, double-blind, forced-dose trial, adults with ADHD were randomized to LDX 30, 50, and 70 mg/day (mg/d) or placebo. In a second, open-label, follow-up trial, adults entering from the 4-week study were titrated to an "optimal" LDX dose (30 mg/d [n=44], 50 mg/d [n=112], and 70 mg/d [n=171]) over 4 weeks, and maintained for 11 additional months. The ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with adult prompts and the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale assessed efficacy. Clinical response was defined, post hoc, as ≥30% reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV and CGI-I rating of 1 or 2; symptomatic remission was defined as ADHD-RS-IV total score ≤18. Log rank analysis examined overall significance among the treatment groups in time to response or remission. RESULTS: Four hundred and fourteen participants in the 4-week study and 345 in the open-label, extension study were included in the efficacy populations. All LDX groups improved by ADHD-RS-IV and CGI-I scores in both studies. In the 4-week study (n=414), 69.3% responded and 45.5% achieved remission with LDX (all doses); 37.1% responded and 16.1% achieved remission with placebo; time (95% CI) to median clinical response (all LDX doses) was 15.0 (15.0, 17.0) days and to remission was 31.0 (28.0, 37.0) days (P<.0001 overall). In the open-label study, with LDX (all doses), 313 (95.7%) and 278 (85.0%) of 327 participants with evaluable maintenance-phase data met criteria for response and remission, respectively. Of participants who completed dose optimization, 75.2% remained responders and 65.7% remained in remission in the 12-month study. Overall, 285 (82.6%) and 227 (65.8%) of 345 participants were responders and remitters, respectively, at their final visits. CONCLUSION: In the long-term study, with open-label, dose-optimized LDX treatment, most adults with ADHD achieved clinical response and/or symptomatic remission; almost two-thirds maintained symptomatic remission over the remaining 11 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Numbers: NCT00334880 and NCT01070394CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: clinicaltrials.gov.

Safety and efficacy of a pentavalent human-bovine (WC3) reassortant rotavirus vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus is a leading cause of childhood gastroenteritis and death worldwide. METHODS: We studied healthy infants approximately 6 to 12 weeks old who were randomly assigned to receive three oral doses of live pentavalent human-bovine (WC3 strain) reassortant rotavirus vaccine containing human serotypes G1, G2, G3, G4, and P[8] or placebo at 4-to-10-week intervals in a blinded fashion. Active surveillance was used to identify subjects with serious adverse and other events. RESULTS: The 34,035 infants in the vaccine group and 34,003 in the placebo group were monitored for serious adverse events. Intussusception occurred in 12 vaccine recipients and 15 placebo recipients within one year after the first dose including six vaccine recipients and five placebo recipients within 42 days after any dose (relative risk, 1.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.4 to 6.4). The vaccine reduced hospitalizations and emergency department visits related to G1-G4 rotavirus gastroenteritis occurring 14 or more days after the third dose by 94.5 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 91.2 to 96.6 percent). In a nested substudy, efficacy against any G1-G4 rotavirus gastroenteritis through the first full rotavirus season after vaccination was 74.0 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 66.8 to 79.9 percent); efficacy against severe gastroenteritis was 98.0 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 88.3 to 100 percent). The vaccine reduced clinic visits for G1-G4 rotavirus gastroenteritis by 86.0 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 73.9 to 92.5 percent). CONCLUSIONS: This vaccine was efficacious in preventing rotavirus gastroenteritis, decreasing severe disease and health care contacts. The risk of intussusception was similar in vaccine and placebo recipients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00090233.)

Treatment With Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate Improves Self- and Informant-Rated Executive Function Behaviors and Clinician- and Informant-Rated ADHD Symptoms in Adults: Data From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the level of agreement between self- and observer-reported ratings of ADHD symptoms and executive function (EF) behaviors in adults with moderate to severe ADHD and EF deficits. METHOD: During a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the effect of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on EF was assessed by self-report and informant report (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version), and ADHD symptoms were assessed by clinician- and informant-rated scales (ADHD Rating Scale IV with adult prompts and Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scales-Observer Report: Short Version, respectively). Post hoc analysis used Pearson correlations to assess relationships between self- and informant-rated EF and clinician- and informant-rated ADHD symptoms. RESULTS: Correlations between self-ratings versus informant ratings and clinician versus informant ratings were greater at Week 10/early termination (EF: placebo [0.5231-0.6085], LDX [0.3543-0.5167]; ADHD symptoms: placebo [0.4169], LDX [0.4004]) versus baseline (EF: placebo [0.3208-0.5023], LDX [0.2852-0.3439]; ADHD symptoms: placebo [0.1511], LDX [-0.0408]). CONCLUSION: LDX improved EF and ADHD symptoms, based on participant, informant, and clinician ratings. Increased rater agreement over time may reflect improved symptom awareness.

ADHD Symptom Rebound and Emotional Lability With Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate in Children Aged 6 to 12 Years.

OBJECTIVE: To describe symptom rebound in children with ADHD treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) or placebo. METHOD: During a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of LDX, parents/caregivers completed the Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised: Short Form symptom rating scale throughout the day. Response, rebound, and emotional lability (EL) were assessed post hoc based on predefined criteria. RESULTS: Most participants given LDX ( n = 207) were responders throughout the day (50.7%-55.6%) versus placebo ( n = 72; 11.1%-22.2%). A total of seven (3.4%) LDX participants showed rebound in the afternoon and/or evening versus seven (9.7%) with placebo. In both groups, most incidences of rebound occurred in the evening. EL (mean) was higher in LDX rebounders and nonresponders (range = 4.2-9.0) versus LDX responders (range = 1.3-1.6) and versus placebo rebounders (range = 0.7-1.9). CONCLUSION: ADHD symptom rebound occurred in few participants (3.3%) given LDX (accompanied by clinically significant EL). Overall, more participants given LDX versus placebo responded throughout the day.

Ertapenem monotherapy versus combination therapy with ceftriaxone plus metronidazole for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults.

The efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) ertapenem, 1 and 1.5 g once a day, for treatment of adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection were compared with those of IV ceftriaxone 2 g once a day plus IV metronidazole 500 mg every 8 h. After at least 3 days of IV therapy and satisfactory clinical response, patients could be switched to oral ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole. Fifty-nine patients were randomized to receive ertapenem 1 g and 51 to receive ertapenem 1.5 g; 55 patients were randomized to each comparator group. At the test of cure, 4-6 weeks post therapy, in the 1 g cohort, 84% (26/31) of patients treated with ertapenem and 85% (35/41) with comparator therapy had a favourable clinical and microbiological assessment. Success rates in the 1.5 g cohort were 83% (22/29) and 77% (24/31) in the ertapenem and comparator groups, respectively. Drug-related adverse events were generally similar in both treatment groups. Ertapenem 1 or 1.5 g once a day followed by optional oral therapy appeared similar to combined therapy with ceftriaxone plus metronidazole with the same optional oral switch for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults. Although not compared directly in a randomized fashion, the efficacy and safety profiles of ertapenem 1 and 1.5 g appeared comparable. Ertapenem was generally well tolerated and had an overall safety profile similar to ceftriaxone plus metronidazole.

Relationship of ADHD symptoms and global illness severity in adults treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate.

UNLABELLED: The relationship between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and global clinical assessment of functionality is complex. This post-hoc analysis explores this relationship and suggests implications for patient assessment in clinical practice. Adults with ADHD on a stable lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) dose for ≥ 6 months were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal study. Participants entered a 3-week open-label phase continuing their prior LDX dose and were then randomized to placebo or the same LDX dose for a 6-week, double-blind, randomized withdrawal phase. ADHD symptom distribution was measured by the ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with Adult Prompts total score reflecting DSM-IV-TR ADHD symptom criteria and severity by Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) ratings at study entry and at end of study. Of 123 participants enrolled in the open-label phase, 116 were included in the randomized withdrawal phase (placebo, n = 60; LDX, n = 56). As reported in a prior publication, mean (standard deviation) ADHD-RS-IV total score change from baseline (week 3) to end of study (randomized-withdrawal phase) was 16.8 (11.80) for placebo and 1.6 (8.63) for LDX. At end of study, for placebo and LDX, 5.0% and 32.1% of participants, respectively, had a CGI-S = 1, 11.7% and 35.7% had a CGI-S = 2, 11.7% and 17.9% had a CGI-S = 3, 33.3% and 7.1% had a CGI-S = 4, 35.0% and 7.1% had a CGI-S = 5, and 3.3% and 0% had a CGI-S = 6; no participants had a CGI-S = 7 (P < 0.0001). The CGI-S ratings increased (worsened) as ADHD symptom scores worsened. Post-hoc regression analysis between ADHD-RS-IV scores and CGI-S demonstrated shared variance of 47% at week 3 and 69% for both placebo and LDX at end of study. Although ADHD symptom scores demonstrate a linear relationship with global illness severity, the variance suggests that other factors not captured by symptom scales are also important in assessing patient outcomes in clinical practice. ( TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00877487.).

Post hoc analyses of the impact of previous medication on the efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Following the approval of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in several European countries for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents with an inadequate response to methylphenidate (MPH) treatment, the aim of the present analysis was to establish the response to LDX in subgroups of patients with different ADHD medication histories. METHODS: This was a post hoc subgroup analysis of data from a 7-week, European, double-blind, dose-optimized, Phase III study. Patients aged 6-17 years were randomized 1:1:1 to LDX, placebo, or osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH). OROS-MPH was included as a reference arm rather than as a direct comparator. Efficacy was assessed in patients categorized according to their ADHD medication history using the ADHD Rating Scale IV and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scores. RESULTS: The difference between active drug and placebo in least-squares mean change from baseline to endpoint in ADHD Rating Scale IV total score (95% confidence interval) was similar between the overall study population (n=317; LDX, -18.6 [-21.5, -15.7]; OROS-MPH, -13.0 [-15.9, -10.2]) and treatment-naïve individuals (n=147; LDX, -15.1 [-19.4, -10.9]; OROS-MPH, -12.7 [-16.8, -8.5]) or patients previously treated with any ADHD medication (n=170; LDX, -21.5 [-25.5, -17.6]; OROS-MPH, -14.2 [-18.1, -10.3]). In addition, similar proportions of patients receiving active treatment were categorized as improved based on CGI-I score (CGI-I of 1 or 2) in the overall study population and among treatment-naïve individuals or patients previously treated with any ADHD medication. CONCLUSION: In these post hoc analyses, the response to LDX treatment, and to the reference treatment OROS-MPH, was similar to that observed for the overall study population in subgroups of patients categorized according to whether or not they had previously received ADHD medication.

The effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate on emotional lability in children 6 to 12 years of age with ADHD in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on emotional lability (EL) in children with ADHD. METHOD: Post hoc analyses of a placebo-controlled trial of LDX-stratified children (aged 6-12 years) with ADHD to prominent and not prominent EL at baseline (score >3 or ≤3, respectively, on Conners' Parent Rating Scale [CPRS] items of anger, loss of temper, and irritability). Efficacy was assessed by change in CPRS EL scores and ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total and subscale scores. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: LDX showed improvement versus placebo (p < .0005) for EL item least squares (LS) mean change scores at endpoint and throughout the day. At baseline, 138 and 73 participants randomized to LDX treatment and having baseline and endpoint CPRS scores were categorized with CPRS-derived prominent and not prominent baseline EL, respectively; 41 and 31 participants randomized to placebo were categorized with CPRS-derived prominent and not prominent baseline EL, respectively. ADHD-RS-IV total and subscale scores decreased with LDX regardless of baseline EL severity. TEAEs included decreased appetite, insomnia, upper abdominal pain, headache, and irritability. CONCLUSION: EL and ADHD symptoms improved with LDX regardless of baseline EL symptom severity. LDX demonstrated a safety profile consistent with long-acting psychostimulant use.

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.

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.

Treatment outcomes with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children who have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with emotional control impairments.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) treatment effects based on baseline emotional control dysfunction in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) categorized with or without impairments of executive function (EF) emotional control. METHODS: Post-hoc analyses of a 7 week, open-label LDX study in children with ADHD (American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revision [DSM-IV-TR] defined) and impairments in EF control of emotional response. At baseline, participants were dichotomized by Behavior Rating Inventory of EF (BRIEF) emotional control domain T-scores of ≥65 (with impairment) or <65 (without impairment). ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV), BRIEF Global Executive Composite and emotional control domain, Expression and Emotion Scale for Children (EESC) scores, Pearson correlations for BRIEF versus ADHD-RS-IV and EESC, and Clinical Global Impressions scores were assessed at baseline and end of study (week 7)/early termination (EOS/ET) by baseline category of BRIEF emotional control impairment. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: At baseline and EOS/ET, respectively, 53.0% and 20.7% met criteria for emotional control impairment. Participants with and without emotional control impairments had similar ADHD-RS-IV change scores. Mean (SD) change from baseline for those with and without emotional control impairments were -20.8 (12.89) and -14.6 (11.25) for BRIEF global scores and -16.0 (13.19) and -5.0 (9.48) for BRIEF emotional control domain scores. Participants with emotional control impairments had greater mean EESC total score changes. BRIEF emotional control domain and all ADHD-RS-IV scores indicated moderate correlations between change scores (all p<0.0001). Overall, 84.9% of participants had TEAEs (mostly mild-to-moderate in severity); 3.8% discontinued because of TEAEs. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of children with behavioral impairments in EF control of emotional response decreased during LDX treatment. ADHD symptoms improved in both groups. The moderate correlations between EF behaviors and ADHD symptoms suggest there may be utility in evaluating behavioral domains beyond core ADHD symptoms.

Parent-reported executive function behaviors and clinician ratings of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in children treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to describe the relationships between parent-rated executive function (EF) and clinician-rated attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms before and after lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) treatment in children with and without EF deficit. METHODS: In post-hoc analyses of children with ADHD who participated in a 7 week open-label, dose-optimized (LDX 20-70 mg/day) trial, ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) change scores were compared (using two-sample t tests) between youth with and without clinically significant EF impairment at baseline. Clinically significant impairment was defined as parent-rated Behavior Rating Inventory of EF (BRIEF) Global Executive Composite (GEC) t scores ≥65. Relationships between baseline and endpoint BRIEF and ADHD-RS-IV scores were examined using Pearson correlations and generalized effect linear model. Safety assessment included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: At baseline, 265/315 participants (84.1%) had a clinically significant BRIEF score. Their mean (SD) ADHD-RS-IV total score at baseline was 42.1 (6.64) for those with, and 36.5 (6.67) for those without, clinically significant BRIEF. At endpoint, ADHD-RS-IV total and subscale scores were significantly improved (p<0.0001) for both those with and those without clinically significant baseline BRIEF scores. Moderately strong, positive Pearson correlations were observed between BRIEF and ADHD-RS-IV total and subscale scores. In the generalized effect linear model, ADHD-RS-IV change scores were significantly correlated with endpoint BRIEF scores (r(2)=0.35, ß=0.73, p<0.0001). In the subgroup without clinically significant BRIEF t scores at endpoint, parents and clinicians rated 90% and 95%, respectively, as improved. In the subgroup with clinically significant BRIEF t scores at endpoint, parents and clinicians rated 69% and 78%, respectively, as improved. TEAEs were experienced by 269/318 (84.9%) participants; most (82.7%) experienced events mild to moderate in intensity. A total of 12/318 (4.1%) participants discontinued because of TEAEs. CONCLUSION: Clinically significant impairment of EF behaviors in children with ADHD was associated with more severe ADHD symptoms. LDX therapy improved ADHD symptom severity, and at endpoint, fewer participants displayed impairment of EF behaviors (versus baseline). The parent-rated BRIEF may describe clinically important EF behaviors not assessed by the 18-item ADHD-RS-IV.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period, crossover trial to examine the pharmacokinetics of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in healthy older adults.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacokinetic and safety data on stimulants in older adults are limited. The objective of this study was to characterize the pharmacokinetics of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), a d-amphetamine prodrug, in older adults. METHODS: In this two-period crossover trial, healthy adults (n = 47) stratified by age (55-64, 65-74, and ≥ 75 years) and gender received randomized, double-blind, single doses of LDX 50 mg or placebo. Baseline creatinine clearance, d-amphetamine and intact LDX pharmacokinetics, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Mean (±standard deviation) baseline creatinine clearance in participants aged 55-64, 65-74, and ≥ 75 years was 102.5 ± 26.1, 105.3 ± 23.1, and 94.9 ± 27.3 mL per minute, respectively. In the groups aged 55-64, 65-74, and ≥ 75 years, the mean maximum plasma d-amphetamine concentration in men was 44.2 ± 11.1, 47.7 ± 7.0, and 53.4 ± 19.4 ng/mL, respectively; area under the concentration time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC(0-inf)) was 915.0 ± 164.9, 1123.0 ± 227.0, and 1325.0 ± 464.4 nghour/mL; median time to reach peak plasma concentration was 4.5, 3.5, and 5.5 hours; in women, mean maximum plasma d-amphetamine concentration was 51.0 ± 6.7, 50.2 ± 6.8, and 64.3 ± 12.1 ng/mL, AUC(0-inf) was 1034.5 ± 154.6, 988.4 ± 80.5, and 1347.8 ± 198.9 ng hour/mL, and median time to reach peak plasma concentration was 3.5, 4.1, and 5.5 hours, respectively. d-Amphetamine clearance was unrelated to baseline creatinine clearance. Five participants aged 55-64 years reported treatment-emergent adverse events (versus one each aged 65-74 and ≥ 75 years), and as did six women (versus one man). No trends in blood pressure or pulse changes were seen with LDX according to age. In participants aged 55-64, 65-74, and ≥ 75 years, the mean change from time-matched baseline pulse ranged from -5.0 to 14.7, -4.3 to 9.5, and -3.0 to 14.7 beats per minute; for systolic blood pressure, from -3.9 to 18.5 mmHg, -2.1 to 14.5 mmHg, and -5.9 to 16.0 mmHg; for diastolic blood pressure from -2.5 to 8.3 mmHg, from -0.8 to 9.4 mmHg, and -0.6 to 9.5 mmHg. Vital sign changes were similar between men and women. CONCLUSION: Clearance of d-amphetamine decreased with age and was unrelated to creatinine clearance. No trends in pulse or blood pressure changes with LDX were seen according to age. The safety profile of LDX was consistent with prior observations in younger adult study participants.

Efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and recent methylphenidate use.

INTRODUCTION: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is a long-acting prodrug stimulant for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Post hoc subgroup analyses were performed from two studies in children with ADHD to compare the efficacy of LDX in participants who had received prior methylphenidate (MPH) treatment with that of the overall study populations. METHODS: Study 1 (7-week; open-label design) and study 2 (randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, laboratory school design) enrolled children aged 6-12 years with ADHD and baseline ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score ≥28. Both studies excluded children whose prestudy ADHD treatment provided effective control of ADHD symptoms with an acceptable safety profile. Post hoc efficacy analyses were performed in children who had received MPH within 6 months of study enrollment. Efficacy measures included the following scales: ADHD-RS-IV, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I), Expression and Emotion Scale for Children (EESC), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham (SKAMP), and Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP). RESULTS: In studies 1 and 2, 83/318 (26%) and 67/129 (52%) participants, respectively, had received MPH within 6 months and were not adequately controlled on current medication with acceptable tolerability; most of these participants had received long-acting MPH. In prior MPH participants, efficacy assessments demonstrated improvements from baseline (study 1) and versus placebo (study 2) that were comparable with those seen in the respective overall study population. Safety profiles were consistent with long-acting stimulant use. CONCLUSION: In two studies, children who had received prior MPH treatment improved during treatment with LDX and experienced similar improvements in their symptoms as the overall study populations. For children with ADHD who were previously treated with MPH, LDX may, therefore, be an efficacious treatment option.

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.

Efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder previously treated with amphetamines: analyses from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled titration study.

BACKGROUND: To examine the efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who remained symptomatic (ADHD Rating Scale IV [ADHD-RS-IV] total score >18) on amphetamine (AMPH) therapy (mixed AMPH salts and/or d-AMPH formulations) prior to enrollment in a 4-week placebo-controlled LDX trial vs the overall study population. In these post hoc analyses from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, forced-dose titration study, clinical efficacy of LDX (30-70 mg/d) in adults with ADHD receiving AMPH treatment at screening vs the overall study population was evaluated. ADHD symptoms were assessed using the ADHD-RS-IV with adult prompts at screening, baseline (after prior treatment washout), and endpoint. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, laboratory findings, and electrocardiogram. RESULTS: Of 414 participants (62, placebo; 352, LDX) included in the overall study population, 41 were receiving AMPH therapy at screening (2, placebo; 39, LDX); mean AMPH dose was 35.0 and 34.1 mg/d for participants in placebo and all LDX groups, respectively. Of the 41 participants, 36 remained symptomatic (ADHD-RS-IV >18) at screening despite receiving AMPH. For the 36 participants in the placebo (n = 2) and LDX (n = 34) groups, respectively, at endpoint, mean change from screening ADHD-RS-IV total scores were -5.5 and -14.8 and from baseline scores were -13.5 and -17.8. For the overall study population, endpoint mean change from baseline ADHD-RS-IV total scores were -7.8 for placebo and -17.5 for LDX. In the prior AMPH subgroup, 2/2 (100.0%) in the placebo group and 22/39 (56.4%) participants in the LDX (all doses) group reported any TEAE. Events that occurred in ≥5% for LDX were dry mouth (5/39; 12.8%), headache (5/39; 12.8%), fatigue (3/39; 7.7%), insomnia (3/39; 7.7%), decreased appetite (2/39; 5.1%), and nausea (2/39; 5.1%). None of these events occurred in the 2 placebo patients with prior AMPH use. CONCLUSION: In these post hoc analyses, adults with significant baseline ADHD symptoms despite adequate AMPH treatment dose showed similar improvements in ADHD symptoms with LDX treatment as the overall study population. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. The safety profile of LDX in the overall study population was consistent with long-acting psychostimulant use. TRIAL REGISTRY: Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of NRP104 in Adults With Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00334880.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder subtypes and symptom response in adults treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptom subtypes who exhibit predominantly inattention, hyperactivity/ impulsivity, or combined symptom clusters. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: This is a post-hoc analysis from a multicenter, one-year, open-label lisdexamfetamine dimesylate study in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder previously completing two weeks or more in a four-week, randomized, placebo-controlled lisdexamfetamine dimesylate study, using Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale IV symptom ratings as an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder subtype proxy (N=349). MEASUREMENTS: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale IV was measured at baseline of prior study and throughout the open-label study. Proxy subtypes were based on item scores of 2 (moderate) or 3 (severe), representing endorsement of at least six of nine symptoms on respective subscales; predominantly combined type endorsed at least six of nine symptoms on each subscale. Overall safety evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: At baseline, 93 of 345 participants exhibited predominantly inattention, 13 predominantly hyperactivity/ impulsivity, 236 combined symptom clusters, and three were unassigned. For the three subgroups, respectively, mean (standard deviation) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale IV total scores at baseline were 34.5 (4.02), 33.8 (3.27), and 43.6 (5.24); change from baseline to endpoint scores were -19.3 (9.48), -24.0 (7.22), and -27.3 (11.78). Mean (standard deviation) end-of-study lisdexamfetamine dimesylate dose was 57.7 (14.75), 53.1 (16.01), and 56.9 (14.94)mg/day, respectively.Treatment-emergent adverse events (>5%) were upper respiratory tract infection (21.8%), insomnia (19.5%), headache (17.2%), dry mouth (16.6%), decreased appetite (14.3%), irritability (11.2%), anxiety (8.3%), nasopharyngitis (7.4%), sinusitis (6.6%), decreased weight (6.0%), back pain (5.4%), and muscle spasms (5.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was effective in participants with predominantly inattention, hyperactivity/ impulsivity, and combined attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptom clusters. Groups exhibiting specific predominant subtype symptoms did not differ in clinical response to lisdexamfetamine dimesylate.

Clinically relevant changes in emotional expression in children with ADHD treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinically relevant effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on emotional expression (EE) in children with ADHD. METHOD: Children with ADHD participated in a 7-week, open-label, LDX dose-optimization study. Expression and Emotion Scale for Children (EESC) change scores were analyzed post hoc using two methods to determine proportion of participants with different categories of clinical response based on (a) clinically significant (movement >2 SD from baseline mean)/reliable change (not due to measurement error) and (b) standard error of measurement (SEM) as a measure of clinically meaningful change. RESULTS: With LDX, no participants showed clinically significant/reliable improvement; 0.7% showed clinically significant/reliable deterioration of EE by reliable change index and movement from baseline mean. One third of participants had improved EE by SEM criteria; 9.2% had categorical worsening. CONCLUSION: Using clinically meaningful change and clinically significant/reliable change categories derived from the EESC, most participants had no worsening of EE with LDX.