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.

Assessment of probiotic strain Lactobacillus acidophilus LB supplementation as adjunctive management of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to examine the possible efficacy of the probiotic strain Lactobacillus acidophilus LB (Lacteol Fort) on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptomatology and evaluate its influence on cognition function. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 80 children and adolescents with ADHD diagnosis, aged 6-16 years, were included. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups: one group received probiotics plus atomoxetine, whereas the other group received atomoxetine only. ADHD symptomatology was assessed using the Conners Parent Rating Scale-Revised Long Version (CPRS-R-L) and Child Behavioral Checklist (CBCL/6-18). The participants were evaluated for their vigilance and executive function using Conner's Continuous Performance Test (CPT) and Wisconsin Card Sort Test (WCST). Both groups were assessed at the beginning of the study and the end of the twelve weeks. RESULTS: The probiotic group comprised 36 patients, whereas the control group comprised 40 patients in the final analysis after four patients dropped out of the trial. After 3 months of probiotic supplementation, a significant improvement in the CPRS-R-L and CBCL total T scores was observed compared with those in the control group (p = 0.032, 0.024, respectively). Additionally, the probiotic group demonstrated improved focus attention (target accuracy rate and omission errors;p = 0.02, 0.043, respectively) compared with the control group. An analysis of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) performance demonstrated that the probiotic group had significantly lower perseverative (p = 0.017) and non-perseverative errors (p = 0.044) but no significant differences compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: Lactobacillus acidophilus LB supplementation combined with atomoxetine for 3 months had a beneficial impact on ADHD symptomology and a favorable influence on cognitive performance. As a result, the efficacy of probiotics as an adjunctive treatment for managing ADHD may be promising. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04167995). Registration date: 19-11-2019.

Medication Use in the Management of Comorbidities Among Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorder From a Large Nationwide Insurance Database.

Importance: Although there is no pharmacological treatment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) itself, behavioral and pharmacological therapies have been used to address its symptoms and common comorbidities. A better understanding of the medications used to manage comorbid conditions in this growing population is critical; however, most previous efforts have been limited in size, duration, and lack of broad representation. Objective: To use a nationally representative database to uncover trends in the prevalence of co-occurring conditions and medication use in the management of symptoms and comorbidities over time among US individuals with ASD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based cohort study mined a nationwide, managed health plan claims database containing more than 86 million unique members. Data from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019, were used to analyze prescription frequency and diagnoses of comorbidities. A total of 26 722 individuals with ASD who had been prescribed at least 1 of 24 medications most commonly prescribed to treat ASD symptoms or comorbidities during the 6-year study period were included in the analysis. Exposures: Diagnosis codes for ASD based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quantitative estimates of prescription frequency for the 24 most commonly prescribed medications among the study cohort and the most common comorbidities associated with each medication in this population. Results: Among the 26 722 individuals with ASD included in the analysis (77.7% male; mean [SD] age, 14.45 [9.40] years), polypharmacy was common, ranging from 28.6% to 31.5%. Individuals' prescription regimens changed frequently within medication classes, rather than between classes. The prescription frequency of a specific medication varied considerably, depending on the coexisting diagnosis of a given comorbidity. Of the 24 medications assessed, 15 were associated with at least a 15% prevalence of a mood disorder, and 11 were associated with at least a 15% prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. For patients taking antipsychotics, the 2 most common comorbidities were combined type attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (11.6%-17.8%) and anxiety disorder (13.1%-30.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study demonstrated considerable variability and transiency in the use of prescription medications by US clinicians to manage symptoms and comorbidities associated with ASD. These findings support the importance of early and ongoing surveillance of patients with ASD and co-occurring conditions and offer clinicians insight on the targeted therapies most commonly used to manage co-occurring conditions. Future research and policy efforts are critical to assess the extent to which pharmacological management of comorbidities affects quality of life and functioning in patients with ASD while continuing to optimize clinical guidelines, to ensure effective care for this growing population.

Drug Prescriptions for Children With ADHD in Japan: A Study Based on Health Insurance Claims Data Between 2005 and 2015.

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the trend of prescription drugs for children with ADHD in Japan. Method: Using health insurance claims data of 3,672,951 people between January 2005 and December 2015, we investigated the trend of prescription drugs for 7,856 children with ADHD. Results: After approval in 2007, the proportion of prescriptions for methylphenidate-osmotic-controlled release oral delivery system tablets was 31.4% in 2009 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [2.12, 3.51]) and reached a plateau approximately after 2009 (AOR = 0.96; 95% CI = [0.94, 0.98]). The proportion of prescriptions for atomoxetine increased from 6.1% in 2008 to 21.8% in 2014 (AOR = 1.12; 95% CI = [1.13, 1.18]). The proportion of prescriptions for aripiprazole and ramelteon increased (all trend p < .001). Conclusion: Prescriptions of drugs for children with ADHD have changed. We need to monitor the safety of ADHD medications among children with ADHD.

Cost of ADHD treatment using methylphenidate and atomoxetine in the South African private healthcare sector.

Introduction: The prevalence of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has risen over the last two decades, with a corresponding increase in the cost of its medication. Drug utilization studies in South Africa focusing on ADHD are limited.Areas covered: The primary aim was to determine the cost of methylphenidate and atomoxetine (used for ADHD). The Intercontinental Marketing Service (IMS) database which contains data of the private healthcare sector was interrogated from 2013 to 2016 (48-month period) focussing on methylphenidate and atomoxetine. Drug consumption was expressed in number of DDDs, DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day and cost in Rands.Expert opinion: Methylphenidate-containing products constituted a considerably higher percentage of the market share when compared to atomoxetine (90.30% versus 9.70%). The DDD/1000 inhabitants/day for methylphenidate was 6.010 with an annual cost for R266 691 778 in 2013, which increased to 7.827 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day with an annual cost of R436 041 506 in 2016. Consumption of both methylphenidate and atomoxetine increased from 2013 to 2016. There was a preference for long-acting extended-release methylphenidate tablets even though the unit costs were higher when compared to the short-acting formulations. Despite increases in unit costs, the spend in South Africa showed an upward trend for methylphenidate and atomoxetine.

Consumption of methylphenidate and atomoxetine in the private healthcare sector in South Africa: a longitudinal study.

Background Globally Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has been in the spotlight. Despite some controversies, treatment of ADHD remains the cornerstone of patient care. Objective To describe the consumption of methylphenidate and atomoxetine in the private healthcare sector in South Africa over a four-year period (2013-2016). Method Data were extracted from the Intercontinental Marketing Service (IMS) database for the drug utilisation study. Consumption patterns were expressed as number of Defined Daily Doses (DDDs)/1000 inhabitants/day and number of DDDs/1000 inhabitants/month. Results Methylphenidate (95.85%) was the medication of choice when compared to atomoxetine (4.15%) in 2013. The corresponding figures for 2016 were 96.40% and 3.60%. Consumption of ADHD medication showed slight changes over the 4-year period. If only the private healthcare sector population is considered, consumption of methylphenidate was 6.010 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day in 2013, and 7.827 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day in 2016. A previous study (1994-1996) reported 0.12 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day for methylphenidate. Consumption of atomoxetine was 0.044 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day in 2013 and 0.050 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day in 2016. Conclusion Consumption showed an increase in use of methylphenidate in South Africa, with small changes observed over the study period. Further studies are required.

Population-Based Epidemiology of Pediatric Patients with Treated Tic Disorders from Real-World Evidence in Korea.

Objectives: Although tic disorder (TD) is a common mental disorder in children and adolescents, epidemiological data based on real-world evidence (RWE) are insufficient. Using RWE, this study sought to examine the prevalence of treated TD, use of medical utilization, and use of prescription drugs among patients with TD with respect to TD type and comorbid psychiatric illness. Methods: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study. Using the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service Pediatric Patient Sample data from 2009 to 2016, we analyzed 20,599 patients with TD (Korean Standard Classification of Diseases-6/7 code: F95.x) aged 2-19 years. Results: The annual average TD prevalence was 2.6/1000 population (95% confidence interval, 2.3-2.8/1000). Between 2009 and 2016, a slight increase in TD prevalence was observed from 1.9 to 2.9/1000 population. The TD prevalence rate in male patients was four times higher than that in female patients. Differences were observed in health care utilization and drug prescription types between patients with Tourette syndrome and chronic or transient TD. In addition, more than half of patients with TD had comorbid psychiatric disorders, and one-third of patients with TD had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Patients with TD without comorbidities were frequently prescribed aripiprazole, while patients with TD and comorbid ADHD were frequently prescribed atomoxetine, methylphenidate, risperidone, and aripiprazole. Conclusion: This study described the epidemiological characteristics of TD based on recent RWE from Korea, and its findings can help establish future TD evidence-based clinical guidelines and related policies.

Healthcare utilization and costs of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder initiating atomoxetine versus extended-release guanfacine.

OBJECTIVES: To compare 1-year direct healthcare costs and utilization among children and adolescents initiating non-stimulant medications atomoxetine (ATX) or extended-release guanfacine (GXR). METHODS: In this retrospective, observational cohort study, children and adolescents aged 6-17 years with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who had ≥1 prescription claim for ATX or GXR between December 31, 2009 and January 1, 2011 were identified in the MarketScan Commercial or Multi-State Medicaid claims databases. The first claim was set as the index. Patients with no claims for other ADHD medications that overlapped with the days' supply for the index therapy during the post-period were classified as initiating monotherapy. All-cause and ADHD-related utilization and costs (2011 US$) and treatment patterns (adherence and persistence) were evaluated during the 12 months following index. Propensity score adjustment accounted for differences in patient characteristics, and bootstrapping was used for comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 13,239 children and adolescents with ADHD met the study criteria (4,411 ATX initiators and 8,828 GXR initiators). There were 2,699 ATX monotherapy patients. In propensity-score-adjusted analyses, mean all-cause total costs were significantly less for monotherapy ATX initiators than for GXR initiators ($7,553 vs $10,639; difference = -$3,086, p < .0001), as were mean ADHD-related total costs ($3,213 vs $4,544; difference = -$1,330, p < .0001). Monotherapy ATX initiators had significantly fewer all-cause and ADHD-related total medical visits and ∼22 days shorter persistence to index therapy (p < .0001). Results were similar for secondary analyses comparing all ATX with all GXR initiators, regardless of monotherapy or combination regimen, and comparing only monotherapy initiators. CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents with ADHD who initiated ATX monotherapy incurred lower all-cause and ADHD-related total healthcare costs than patients who initiated GXR. This was due in part to less healthcare resource utilization and slightly shorter persistence for ATX patients. These findings may aid decision-making and inform future studies, but must be tempered due to inherent observational research limitations.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in the treatment of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a chronic neurobehavioral disorder in children that may persist into adulthood. Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is approved in many countries for ADHD treatment in children, adolescents, and adults. OBJECTIVES: Estimate the cost-effectiveness of LDX as a first- or second-line treatment for adults with ADHD from the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective compared with methylphenidate extended release (MPH-ER) and atomoxetine (ATX). METHODS: A 1-year decision-analytic model was developed. Health outcomes included response, non-response and inability to tolerate. Efficacy data were obtained from a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC). Response was a score of 1 or 2 on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale. Tolerability was assessed by discontinuation rates due to adverse events. Utilities were identified via a systematic literature review. Health care resource use estimates were obtained via a survey of clinicians. Daily drug costs were estimated from mean doses reported in the trials used in the MTC. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed. RESULTS: LDX dominated MPH-ER and ATX; reducing mean per-patient annual cost by £5 and £200, and increasing mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.005 and 0.009, respectively. In the PSA, the probability of cost-effectiveness for LDX vs. MPH-ER and ATX at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY was 61% and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the UK NHS, LDX is likely to provide a cost-effective treatment for adults with ADHD. This conclusion may be drawn with more certainty in comparison with ATX than with MPH-ER.

Autism spectrum disorder: Consensus guidelines on assessment, treatment and research from the British Association for Psychopharmacology.

An expert review of the aetiology, assessment, and treatment of autism spectrum disorder, and recommendations for diagnosis, management and service provision was coordinated by the British Association for Psychopharmacology, and evidence graded. The aetiology of autism spectrum disorder involves genetic and environmental contributions, and implicates a number of brain systems, in particular the gamma-aminobutyric acid, serotonergic and glutamatergic systems. The presentation of autism spectrum disorder varies widely and co-occurring health problems (in particular epilepsy, sleep disorders, anxiety, depression, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and irritability) are common. We did not recommend the routine use of any pharmacological treatment for the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder. In children, melatonin may be useful to treat sleep problems, dopamine blockers for irritability, and methylphenidate, atomoxetine and guanfacine for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The evidence for use of medication in adults is limited and recommendations are largely based on extrapolations from studies in children and patients without autism spectrum disorder. We discuss the conditions for considering and evaluating a trial of medication treatment, when non-pharmacological interventions should be considered, and make recommendations on service delivery. Finally, we identify key gaps and limitations in the current evidence base and make recommendations for future research and the design of clinical trials.

Patient and provider characteristics related with prescribing of ADHD medication: Nationwide health insurance claims database study in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the association between prescribing of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication and the patient's age, gender, and type of medical institution in Asia region. INTRODUCTION: This study investigates the prevalence and factors of diagnosis and pharmacological treatment of ADHD in the pediatric population. METHODS: Using the Korea Health Insurance database, study participants were identified as pediatric patients (≤17 years) with at least 1 diagnosis of ADHD (ICD-10, F90) from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011. The annual prevalence of ADHD diagnosis and medication was calculated. Annual differences in the prevalence between 2007 and 2011 with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. We conducted multiple logistic regression analysis to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and their 95% CI to investigate predictors associated with prescribing of ADHD medication. RESULTS: The prevalence of ADHD medication prescribing increased by 26.57% (95% CI, 26.27-26.88) from 0.53% in 2007 to 0.72% in 2011. The prevalence increased by 41.56% (95% CI, 40.51-42.65) in females compared with 34.91% (95% CI, 34.47-35.36) in males. Whereas the prevalence decreased in patients younger than 6 years old, it increased by 74.30% (95% CI, 72.84-75.79) in the 13 to 17-year group. Males were more likely than females to be treated with ADHD medication (aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.10-1.13). Physician specialty (psychiatry vs non-psychiatry) (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.34-1.40) were associated with prescribing of ADHD medication. CONCLUSION: Rapid increases in the diagnosis and pharmacological treatment of ADHD in the pediatric population have been observed. While demographic characteristics were similar to other countries, provider characteristics were different with others reporting that the majority of patients were treated by physicians specializing in psychiatry.

Assessment of effects of atomoxetine in adult patients with ADHD: consistency among three geographic regions in a response maintenance study.

A previous study (Upadhyaya et al. in Eur J Psychiatry 2013b; 27:185-205) reported that adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) demonstrated maintenance of response for up to 25 weeks after initially responding to atomoxetine treatment. In the present report, the consistency of treatment effect across three geographic regions (Europe, United States/Canada [US/Can], and Latin America [Latin Am]) was explored. Data were analyzed from a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, maintenance-of-response (randomized withdrawal) trial of atomoxetine versus placebo in adults with ADHD. Patients were randomized to atomoxetine (N = 266) or placebo (N = 258) for 25 weeks. Consistency assessments included the interaction test, pairwise t tests, noninferiority, and the criteria from Basic Principles on Global Clinical Trials (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan 2007). Atomoxetine-treated patients maintained the improved ADHD symptoms relative to placebo-treated patients on the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale Investigator-Rated: Screening Version 18-Item (CAARS-Inv:SV) total score in all three regions (atomoxetine-placebo mean difference = -4.55, -3.18, and -0.07 for Europe, US/Can, and Latin Am, respectively). For the Latin Am region, the mean change in total score (0.41) was notably smaller for the placebo group than for Europe (5.87) and US/Can (4.39). Similar results were observed for the CAARS-Inv:SV hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention subscale scores. Overall, patients maintained the response with atomoxetine treatment compared to placebo; however, the magnitude of treatment effect differed among the regions studied, being numerically higher in the EU and US/Can than Latin Am. Trial registration http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/(NCT00700427 ).

Utilization of Stimulants and Atomoxetine for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder among 5.4 Million Children Using Population-Based Longitudinal Data.

Use of stimulants to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has increased over the past two decades and varies substantially between countries. The objective of this multinational population-based study was to examine utilization of ADHD drugs (stimulants and atomoxetine) including comedication with other psychotropic drugs in the entire child population in the five Nordic countries. We included longitudinal data on dispensed ADHD drugs from five Nordic prescription registers during 2008-2012, which in 2012 comprised 48,296 individuals among 5.42 million inhabitants aged 0-17 years. Prevalence of filling ≥1 prescriptions of ADHD drugs among children aged 6-17 years increased during 2008-2012 from 5.9 to 11.2 and 19.4 to 31.0 per 1000 girls and boys, respectively. Prevalence by country showed that Iceland, Finland and Sweden had a steady increase during the study period, while in Norway the prevalence was quite stable and in Denmark it levelled off from 2010. Use in preschoolers (aged 0-5 years) was rare. Iceland had much higher prevalence and incidence than the other Nordic countries. The incidence of ADHD drug use increased during the study period, from 4.0 to 4.9 and from 1.5 to 2.3 per 1000 boys and girls, respectively. The increasing number of new users levelled off somewhat after 2010. Comedication with other psychotropic drugs was more common among girls (33.9%) than boys (27.0%) and was mainly melatonin, followed by antidepressants and antipsychotics. Overall prevalence of ADHD drug use increased among Nordic girls and boys aged 6-17 years, whereas the incidence increased slightly during 2008-2010 but levelled off through 2012. The substantial differences in ADHD drug use across the Nordic countries and high degree of comedication with other psychotropic drugs underscore the importance of close monitoring of treatment for ADHD among children.

Psychotropic Medication Use among Insured Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

This study examined psychotropic medication use among 7901 children aged 1-17 with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in five health systems, comparing to matched cohorts with no ASD. Nearly half (48.5 %) of children with ASD received psychotropics in the year observed; the most common classes were stimulants, alpha-agonists, or atomoxetine (30.2 %), antipsychotics (20.5 %), and antidepressants (17.8 %). Psychotropic treatment was far more prevalent among children with ASD, as compared to children with no ASD (7.7 % overall), even within strata defined by the presence or absence of other psychiatric diagnoses. The widespread use of psychotropics we observed, particularly given weak evidence supporting the effectiveness of these medications for most children with ASD, highlights challenges in ASD treatment and the need for greater investment in its evaluation.

Comparative treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization and costs of atomoxetine and long-acting methylphenidate among children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) imposes a substantial burden on patients and their families. OBJECTIVE: A retrospective, propensity score-matched cohort study compared treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among children/adolescents with ADHD aged 6-17 years at treatment initiation (index) in Germany who received atomoxetine (ATX) or long-acting methylphenidate (LA-MPH) monotherapy. METHODS: Patients received at least one prescription for their index medication (ATX/LA-MPH) during 2006-2010; the first prescription marked the index date. ATX- and LA-MPH-indexed cohorts were matched 1:1 (n = 737); a patient subset was identified that had not received ADHD-indicated medications in 12 months prior to index (novel initiators: ATX, n = 486; LA-MPH, n = 488). Treatment patterns were evaluated among novel initiators, and HRU and costs among the matched cohorts in the 12 months after index. RESULTS: No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found between the novel initiator patient subsets. ATX-indexed novel initiators had significantly longer persistence to index medication [mean (standard deviation; SD) days: 222.0 (133.9) vs 203.2 (135.0), P = 0.029) but higher switching rates (8.8 vs 5.5 %, P = 0.045) than LA-MPH-indexed novel initiators. The total ATX-indexed cohort required more prescriptions [any medication; mean (SD): 20.9 (11.5) vs 15.7 (9.0), P < 0.001] and outpatient visits [mean (SD): 10.1 (6.3) vs 8.3 (5.3), P < 0.001], and incurred significantly higher total median healthcare costs (€1144 vs €541, P < 0.001) versus matched LA-MPH patients. CONCLUSIONS: These real-world data indicate that, among children/adolescents with ADHD in Germany, ATX-indexed patients may require more prescriptions and physician visits, and incur higher total healthcare costs, than matched LA-MPH patients.

Prescribing patterns for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medications among children and adolescents in Korea, 2007-2011.

OBJECTIVES: This study analyzed the prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication use among children and adolescents in Korea between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2011. METHODS: Using the Korea National Health Insurance claims database, we identified patients between one and 17 years of age who had at least one medical claim for the diagnosis of ADHD (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision: F90.0). The annual prevalence of ADHD diagnoses was calculated, using national census data from Statistics Korea on the population aged between one and 17 years as the denominator. The prevalence was age-standardized using the 2010 population as the standard population. The number of patients who were treated with methylphenidate and/or atomoxetine and the prevalence of total patients with ADHD that were treated with either drug were also calculated for each year. All analyses were stratified according to gender and age group (1-5 years, 6-12 years, and 13-17 years). RESULTS: The number of patients diagnosed with ADHD increased from 72,704 persons (0.71%) in 2007 to 85,468 persons (0.93%) in 2011. The annual age-standardized prevalence of ADHD diagnoses increased from 0.67% in 2007 to 0.94% in 2011. The prevalence of methylphenidate use among children and adolescents with ADHD decreased from 73.91% in 2007 to 70.33% in 2011, whereas that of atomoxetine use increased from 5.77% in 2009 to 13.09% in 2011. CONCLUSIONS: While methylphenidate remains the most commonly prescribed ADHD drug, the use of atomoxetine has increased.

Differences in Utilization Patterns among Medications in Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: a 36-Month Retrospective Study Using the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Claims Database.

We evaluated the differences in utilization patterns including persistence and adherence among medications in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The current study was performed using data from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment claims database from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013. Our study sample consisted of 10,343 children and adolescents with ADHD who were not given their newly prescribed medication in 360 days before the initial claim in 2010. Data were followed up from the initiation of treatment with ADHD medications in 2010 to December 31, 2013. Discontinuation rates for 4 ADHD medications in our sample ranged from 97.7% for immediate-release methylphenidate to 99.4% for atomoxetine using refill gap more than 30 days and from 56.7% for immediate-release methylphenidate to 62.3% for extended-release methylphenidate using refill gap more than 60 days. In the number of discontinued, we found significant differences among medications using refill gap more than 30 days. Among 4 ADHD medications, extended-release methylphenidate and atomoxetine had more days than immediate-release methylphenidate and osmotic-controlled oral delivery system methylphenidate. In logistic regression analyses, extended-release methylphenidate, osmotic-controlled oral delivery system methylphenidate, and atomoxetine showed less discontinuation compared to immediate-release methylphenidate group when a refill gap more than 30 days was used. In logistic regression analysis of adherence, we could not find any differences among 4 medication types. We suggest that the utilization patterns should be assessed regularly in order to improve future outcomes in children and adolescents with ADHD.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lisdexamfetamine Versus Atomoxetine in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Inadequate Response to Methylphenidate.

BACKGROUND: An economic analysis from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) evaluated the cost effectiveness of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) compared with atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder who have had an inadequate response to methylphenidate. METHODS: A 1-year decision-analytic model was constructed, with the health outcomes "response", "nonresponse", and "unable to tolerate". Clinical data were taken from a head-to-head, randomized controlled trial in inadequate responders to methylphenidate. Response to treatment was defined as a score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement subscale. Tolerability was assessed by discontinuation rates owing to adverse events. Utility weights were identified via a systematic literature review. Healthcare resource use estimates were obtained via a survey of clinicians. Daily drug costs were derived from British National Formulary 2012 costs and mean doses reported in the trial. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed. RESULTS: The comparison of LDX with atomoxetine resulted in an estimate of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1802 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The result was robust in a wide range of sensitivity analyses; results were most sensitive to changes in drug costs and efficacy. In the PSA, assuming a maximum willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY, LDX versus atomoxetine had an 86 % probability of being cost effective. In 38 % of PSA runs, LDX was more effective and less costly than atomoxetine. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the UK NHS, LDX provides a cost-effective treatment option for children and adolescents who are inadequate responders to methylphenidate.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of off-label atypical antipsychotic treatment in children and adolescents with ADHD who have failed stimulant therapy.

The objectives of this study are: (1) to estimate the expected health outcomes of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) and other non-stimulant attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications and (2) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of AAPs compared to other non-stimulant ADHD medications. We used decision analysis to compare three alternatives for treating children and adolescents with ADHD who failed initial stimulant treatment: (1) AAPs, (2) a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (atomoxetine), and (3) selective α2-adrenergic agonists (clonidine and guanfacine). Probability estimates and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) weights were derived from a literature review. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using the expected health outcomes derived from the decision analysis and expected costs from the literature. The study was conducted from the third-party payer perspective, and the study period was 1 year. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and a Monte Carlo simulation were performed. Over the course of 1 year of ADHD pharmacotherapy, the highest QALY was for clonidine/guanfacine (expected QALY = 0.95) followed by atomoxetine (expected QALY = 0.94). Atypical antipsychotics yielded the lowest health outcome with an expected QALY of 0.84. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the AAP strategy was dominated as it was less effective and more costly than other two strategies. Compared to clonidine/guanfacine, AAPs provided lower QALYs (0.11 QALY lost) at an additional cost of $2186 on average. Compared to atomoxetine, AAPs resulted in 0.10 QALYs lost at an additional cost of $2186. In this decision analysis model, AAPs provide lower expected health outcomes than other ADHD medications in children and adolescents who failed prior stimulant therapy. Furthermore, AAPs were not a cost-effective option.

Impact of negative media publicity on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication in Taiwan.

PURPOSE: This study explores trends in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications in Taiwan from 2000 to 2011 and whether negative media coverage of Ritalin in January 2010 impacted ADHD prescriptions throughout the country. METHOD: Patients throughout Taiwan who had been newly diagnosed with ADHD (n = 145,269) between January 2000 and December 2011 were selected from Taiwan's National Health Insurance database as subjects for this study. We analyzed monthly and yearly data on person-days of treatment with immediate-release methylphenidate (IR-MPH), osmotic controlled-release formulation of methylphenidate (OROS-MPH), and atomoxetine (ATX) using linear models of curve estimation and the time series expert modeler. RESULTS: Of our sample, 57.8%, 28.9%, and 4.3% had been prescribed one or more doses of IR-MPH, OROS-MPH, or ATX, respectively. The annual person-days of IR-MPH use increased regularly from 2000 to 2009, dropped abruptly in 2010, and then increased again the next year. Furthermore, the person-days of OROS-MPH prescriptions did not reach their expected goal in 2010; however, the person-days of ATX prescriptions have increased constantly since entering the market in 2007. Compared with patients newly diagnosed with ADHD in 2009, those newly diagnosed in 2010 were less likely to be treated with medication. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that negative publicity affected the writing of stimulant prescriptions for ADHD patients throughout Taiwan. Media reporting has a vital role in influencing children with ADHD, their parents, and their willingness to accept pharmacotherapy as treatment.