Assessment of centanafadine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, atomoxetine hydrochloride, and viloxazine extended-release.

BACKGROUND: Head-to-head trials comparing centanafadine, an investigational therapy for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with other treatment options are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine sustained-release vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), and viloxazine extended-release (viloxazine ER), respectively, using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). METHODS: This MAIC included patient-level data pooled from 2 centanafadine trials (NCT03605680 and NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from comparable trials of 3 comparators-lisdexamfetamine (NCT00334880), atomoxetine (NCT00190736), and viloxazine ER (NCT04016779)-in adult patients with ADHD. Propensity score weighting was used to match characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials to aggregate baseline characteristics from the respective comparator trials. Safety outcomes were rates of adverse events for which information was available in the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. Efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score (ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] was used as proxy in the comparison with lisdexamfetamine). Anchored indirect comparisons were conducted across matched populations of the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. RESULTS: After matching, baseline characteristics in the centanafadine trials were the same as those in the respective comparator trials. Compared with lisdexamfetamine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of lack of appetite (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: 23.42), dry mouth (19.27), insomnia (15.35), anxiety (5.21), nausea (4.90), feeling jittery (3.70), and diarrhea (3.47) (all P < 0.05) but a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score (6.58-point difference; P < 0.05). Compared with atomoxetine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of nausea (RD in percentage points: 18.64), dry mouth (17.44), fatigue (9.21), erectile dysfunction (6.76), lack of appetite (6.71), and urinary hesitation (5.84) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. Compared with viloxazine ER, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of fatigue (RD in percentage points: 11.07), insomnia (10.67), nausea (7.57), and constipation (4.63) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. CONCLUSIONS: In an anchored MAIC, centanafadine showed a significantly better short-term safety profile than lisdexamfetamine, atomoxetine, and viloxazine ER; efficacy was lower than with lisdexamfetamine and comparable (ie, nondifferent) with atomoxetine and viloxazine ER. This MAIC provides important insights on the relative safety and efficacy of common treatment options to help inform treatment decisions in adults with ADHD. Safety assessment was limited to rates of adverse events reported in both trials of a given comparison. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03605680, NCT03605836, NCT00334880, NCT00190736, and NCT04016779.

Health care resource utilization and costs associated with psychiatric comorbidities in adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a heterogeneous condition with extensive psychiatric comorbidities. ADHD has been associated with substantial clinical and economic burden; however, little is known about the incremental burden specifically attributable to psychiatric comorbidities of ADHD in adults. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of psychiatric comorbidities, specifically anxiety and depression, on health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs in treated adults with ADHD in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective case-cohort study was conducted. Adults with ADHD were identified in the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database (10/01/2015-09/30/2021). The index date was defined as the date of initiation of a randomly selected ADHD treatment. The baseline period was defined as the 6 months prior to the index date, and the study period as the 12 months following the index date. Patients with at least 1 diagnosis for anxiety and/or depression during both the baseline and study periods were classified in the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort, whereas those without diagnoses for anxiety or depression at any time were classified in the ADHD-only cohort. Entropy balancing was used to create reweighted cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. All-cause HRU and health care costs were assessed during the study period and compared between cohorts using regression analyses. Cost analyses were also conducted in subgroups stratified by comorbid conditions. RESULTS: After reweighting, patients in the ADHD-only cohort (N = 276,906) and ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort (N = 217,944) had similar characteristics (mean age 34.1 years; 54.8% male). All-cause HRU was higher in the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort than the ADHD-only cohort (incidence rate ratios for inpatient admissions: 4.5, emergency department visits: 1.8, outpatient visits: 2.0, and psychotherapy visits: 6.4; all P < 0.01). All-cause health care costs were more than 2 times higher in the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort than the ADHD-only cohort (mean per-patient per-year [PPPY] costs in ADHD-only vs ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort: $5,335 vs $11,315; P < 0.01). Among the ADHD+anxiety/depression cohort, average all-cause health care costs were $9,233, $10,651, and $15,610 PPPY among subgroup of patients with ADHD and only anxiety, only depression, and both anxiety and depression, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid anxiety and depression is associated with additional HRU and costs burden in patients with ADHD. Comanagement of these conditions is important and has the potential to alleviate the burden experienced by patients and the health care system.

A real-world assessment of healthcare costs associated with agitation in Alzheimer's dementia.

AIMS: To describe and compare clinical characteristics, healthcare costs, and institutionalization/mortality outcomes among patients with and without agitation associated with Alzheimer's dementia (AAD). METHODS: Data from the Reliant Medical Group database (01/01/2016-03/31/2020) were used, including claims, electronic medical records, and clinical information/physician notes abstracted from medical charts. Patients aged ≥55 years with Alzheimer's dementia (AD) were observed during a randomly selected 12-month study period after AD diagnosis. Using information recorded in medical charts, patients were classified into cohorts based on experiencing (agitation cohort) and not experiencing (no agitation cohort) agitated behaviours during the study period. Entropy balancing was used to create reweighted cohorts with similar characteristics. Study outcomes (patient demographic and clinical characteristics, treatments received, healthcare costs, institutionalization and death events) were compared between cohorts; agitation characteristics were described for the agitation cohort only. RESULTS: Among 711 patients included in the study, 240 were classified in the agitation cohort and 471 in the no agitation cohort. After reweighting, several comorbidities were more frequently observed in the agitation versus no agitation cohort, including infection, depression, and altered mental status. Use of antidepressants, anticonvulsants, antipsychotics, and antianxiety medications was more common in the agitation versus no agitation cohort. Common agitated behaviours included hitting (20.8%), pacing/aimless wandering (17.5%), and cursing/verbal aggression (15.0%). Total all-cause healthcare costs were $4287 per-patient-per-year higher in the agitation cohort versus no agitation cohort (p = 0.04), driven by higher inpatient costs. Death was more common and time to death and institutionalization were shorter in the agitation versus no agitation cohort. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to the US population with AD. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AD, agitation was associated with shorter time to death/institutionalization and increased comorbidities, medication use, and healthcare costs, highlighting the additional clinical and economic burden that agitation poses to patients and the healthcare system.

Exclusive breastfeeding in hospital predicts longer breastfeeding duration in Canada: Implications for health equity.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding has many established health benefits for women and children. We examined the association between maternal education, newborn feeding in hospital, and long-term breastfeeding duration. METHODS: We studied 3195 Canadian mother-infant dyads in the CHILD pregnancy cohort. Newborn feeding was documented from hospital records. Caregivers reported sociodemographic factors and infant feeding at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. RESULTS: Overall, 97% of newborns initiated breastfeeding and 74% were exclusively breastfed in hospital. Exclusively breastfed newborns were ultimately breastfed longer compared with those who received formula supplementation during their hospital stay (median 11.0 vs 7.0 months, P < .001). After controlling for maternal age, ethnicity, birth mode, and gestational age, exclusively breastfed newborns had a 21% reduced risk of breastfeeding cessation (HR = 0.79, 0.71-0.87). This effect was strongest among women without a postsecondary education (HR = 0.65, 0.53-0.79). DISCUSSION: Exclusive breastfeeding in hospital is associated with longer breastfeeding duration, particularly among women of lower socioeconomic status. Initiatives that support exclusive breastfeeding of newborns in hospital could improve long-term breastfeeding rates and help reduce health inequities arising in early life.

Physician step prescription and monitoring to improve ARTERial health (SMARTER): A randomized controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

AIMS: There are few proven strategies to enhance physical activity and cardiometabolic profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. We examined the effects of physician-delivered step count prescriptions and monitoring. METHODS: Participants randomized to the active arm were provided with pedometers and they recorded step counts. Over a 1-year period, their physicians reviewed their records and provided a written step count prescription at each clinic visit. The overall goal was a 3000 steps/day increase over 1 year (individualized rate of increase). Control arm participants were advised to engage in physical activity 30 to 60 min/day. We evaluated effects on step counts, carotid femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV, primary) and other cardiometabolic indicators including haemoglobin A1c in diabetes (henceforth abbreviated as A1c) and Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) in participants not receiving insulin therapy. RESULTS: A total of 79% completed final evaluations (275/347; mean age, 60 years; SD, 11). Over 66% of participants had type 2 diabetes and over 90% had hypertension. There was a net 20% increase in steps/day in active vs control arm participants (1190; 95% CI, 550-1840). Changes in cfPWV were inconclusive; active vs control arm participants with type 2 diabetes experienced a decrease in A1c (-0.38%; 95% CI, -0.69 to -0.06). HOMA-IR also declined in the active arm vs the control arm (ie, assessed in all participants not treated with insulin; -0.96; 95% CI, -1.72 to -0.21). CONCLUSIONS: A simple physician-delivered step count prescription strategy incorporated into routine clinical practice led to a net 20% increase in step counts; however, this was below the 3000 steps/day targeted increment. While conclusive effects on cfPWV were not observed, there were improvements in both A1c and insulin sensitivity. Future studies will evaluate an amplified intervention to increase impact.