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.

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.

Fatigue in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Prevalence, Burden and Pharmacological Approaches to Management.

Fatigue is a frequently reported symptom in major depressive disorder, occurring in over 90% of patients. Clinical presentations of fatigue within major depressive disorder encompass overlapping physical, cognitive and emotional aspects. While this review addresses the epidemiology, burden, functional impact and management of fatigue in major depressive disorder, the main focus is on available pharmacotherapy options and their comparative efficacies. Our review of the effects of pharmacological treatments on fatigue in major depressive disorder found that medications with dopaminergic and/or noradrenergic action such as modafinil, flupenthixol and atomoxetine were most effective in improving symptoms of fatigue and low energy. However, significant variation across studies in assessment tools and study inclusion/exclusion criteria may have contributed to inconsistent findings. The efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions is also discussed, including light therapy and exercise.

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 ).

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.

Assessment and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: part 2.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common neurobehavioral disorder of childhood. In part 1 of this article, information regarding primary care assessment of ADHD was presented. Part 2 focuses on best practice guidelines for treatment once the diagnosis has been established. For most children, successful treatment of ADHD requires a multicomponent approach comprised of patient and family psychoeducation, use of medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (eg, stimulants) and/or behavioral interventions, and management of any psychiatric comorbid conditions. Furthermore, as ADHD is a chronic illness, primary care physicians will need to frequently reassess their patients and make treatment adjustments as needed.

Prognostic subgroups for remission and response in the Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management (CALM) trial.

OBJECTIVE: Most patients with anxiety disorders receive treatment in primary care settings. Limited moderator data are available to inform clinicians of likely prognostic outcomes for individual patients. We identify baseline characteristics associated with outcome in adults seeking treatment for anxiety disorders. METHOD: We conducted an exploratory moderator analysis from the Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management (CALM) trial. In the CALM trial, 1,004 adults who met DSM-IV criteria for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were randomized to usual care (UC) or a collaborative care intervention (ITV) of cognitive-behavioral therapy and/or pharmacotherapy between June 2006 and April 2008. Logistic regression was used to examine baseline characteristics associated with remission and response overall and by treatment condition. Receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses identified subgroups associated with similar likelihood of response and remission of global anxiety symptoms. Remission was defined as score < 6 on the 12-item Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-12) anxiety and somatization subscales. Response was defined as at least 50% reduction on BSI-12, or meeting remission criteria. RESULTS: Randomization to ITV over UC was often the strongest predictor of outcome. Several baseline patient characteristics were associated with poor treatment outcome including comorbid depression, increased severity of underlying anxiety disorder(s) (P < .001), low socioeconomic status (perceived [P < .001] and actual [P < .05]), and limited social support (P < .001). Patient characteristics associated with particular benefit from ITV were being female (P < .05), increased depression (P < .01)/GAD severity (P < .05), and low socioeconomic status (P < .05). ROC analysis demonstrated prognostic subgroups with large differences in response likelihood. CONCLUSIONS: Further research should focus on the effectiveness of implementing the ITV intervention of CALM in community treatment centers where patients typically are of low socioeconomic status and may particularly benefit from ITV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00347269.

Pharmacological treatment of depression with and without headache disorders: an appraisal of cost effectiveness and cost utility of antidepressants.

BACKGROUND: Depression and headache are highly prevalent in clinical settings. The co-occurrence of headache may impact choice of antidepressants, healthcare utilisation, and outcomes in patients with depression. The current study aims to examine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of different antidepressants for treating patients with depression and comorbid headache disorders. METHODS: Adult patients prescribed with antidepressants for depression (n=96,501) were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis was conducted comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and by the presence of comorbid headache disorders and other pain conditions. RESULTS: In this study, SSRIs dominated SNRIs in both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. As revealed in the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, TCAs were likely to have a cost-utility advantage compared to SSRIs and SNRIs in improving quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for patients with comorbid headache; SSRIs remained as the most cost-effective option for patients with other pain conditions. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the use of proxy definition of remission as effectiveness measure and the adoption of utility values from previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: Given a pre-determined willingness-to-pay level, TCAs can be considered as a cost-effective option to improve QALYs for depressed patients with headache disorders. Future research is needed to further clarify factors influencing the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of pharmacological treatments in depressed patients with specific pain conditions.

[Cardiovascular risk assessment for the use of ADHD drugs in children]. / Kardiovaskulær risikovurdering ved bruk av AD/HD-medikamenter hos barn.

BACKGROUND: Drug therapy for ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) has generally been regarded as safe. ECG screening of healthy children and adolescents before initiating this type of treatment appears to be usual in Norway, despite recommendations that ECGs should only be undertaken in individuals who are at risk. The purpose of this article is to clarify relevant guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment for the use of ADHD drugs in children and adolescents, as well as to propose practical recommendations. METHOD: The article is based on a literature search in PubMed completed on 1 October 2013, and on the author's own clinical experience and discretionary assessments. RESULTS: The use of CNS stimulants and atomoxetine is associated with a slight rise in blood pressure and pulse rate, as well as small changes in QT interval. A small percentage of patients (5-10%) experience a clinically significant rise in blood pressure and pulse rate. Sudden death does not appear to occur more frequently in children and adolescents taking ADHD drugs in therapeutic doses than in children and adolescents who do not use such drugs. There is little knowledge available on the long-term effects of ADHD drugs on the cardiovascular system of otherwise healthy individuals, or on the risk related to the use of ADHD drugs in children and adolescents with cardiac disease. The drugs are thought to increase the risk of sudden cardiac death in some arrhythmia syndromes. INTERPRETATION: Our assessment is that caution should be exercised in the use of ADHD drugs in children with potentially dangerous cardiac arrhythmias. We recommend clinical examination and a thorough medical history review in order to identify individuals at risk before initiating drug therapy, and also suggest that it is not necessary for healthy children to be given an ECG examination before introducing ADHD drugs. In children with known cardiac disease, arrhythmia or risk factors for cardiac disease, ADHD treatment should be undertaken in consultation with a medical specialist with competence in pediatric cardiology.

Post-traumatic tics and tetrabenazine treatment: a blinded video assessment.

Traumatic head injury is a very rare cause of secondary tic disorders. We add another case by describing, for the first time, the response to tetrabenazine in a blinded video assessment. Our patient had a severe traumatic head injury and subsequently developed tics refractory to various agents including neuroleptics. We assessed tetrabenazine treatment by virtue of patient's impression, the treating neurologist's non-blinded (Yale Global Tic Severity Scale) and a second neurologist's blinded assessment (modified Rush Video Scale). The Yale Global Tic Severity Score improved by 24% on 12.5 mg twice daily and 45% on 12.5 mg thrice daily. Subjective improvement was 50% and 70%, respectively. The modified Rush Video scores improved by 21% and 28.5%, respectively. Post-traumatic tourettism can respond to tetrabenazine. The magnitude of benefit though, may be overestimated with open-label observations, thus there is a need for studies examining objectively the effect of tetrabenazine in tic disorders.

Current Australian pediatric practice in the assessment and treatment of ADHD.

OBJECTIVE: To study the characteristics of children diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Australia, and the assessment and management practices of their pediatricians. METHODS: A 2-week practice audit was conducted in a large representative sample of Australian general/community pediatricians. Pediatricians completed an audit form for all patients seen. Demographic details, diagnoses, treatments, and referrals made were recorded for each consultation. RESULTS: A total of 199 pediatricians completed the audit (response rate 66%). There were 1528 consultations with patients with ADHD. Eighty percent of the subjects were male, and mean age at diagnosis was 9.1 years (range 3-19 years). Most patients (60%) had 1 or more comorbidity identified, although the reported rates of anxiety (8%) and oppositional defiant disorder (15%) were lower than expected. Patients with ADHD were more likely than patients with other diagnoses to be seen in private practice settings (76% vs. 65%; P < .001). Children with ADHD were referred to numerous services at diagnosis, most commonly psychology (32%). Stimulant medication or atomoxetine was prescribed for 40% at initial diagnosis and 80% at continuing consultation. Overall, methylphenidate was the most common medication prescribed (63%), with a minority prescribed dexamphetamine, atomoxetine, or clonidine. Eighteen percent were prescribed 2 or more medications. Medication prescription was predicted by age but not by gender or socioeconomic status. CONCLUSIONS: ADHD is the most frequent diagnosis seen by Australian pediatricians, with some patients being seen into early adult life. Comorbidities appear to be inconsistently identified, with some possibly underdiagnosed. Older children are more likely to be prescribed medication.

[ADHD register: post-marketing evaluation of the benefit-risk profile of drugs and promotion of the appropriateness]. / Il registro dell'ADHD: valutazione post-marketing del profilo beneficio-rischio dei farmaci e promozione dell'appropriatezza.

INTRODUCTION: The Register was aimed at assessing the benefit-risk profile of the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with atomoxetine and methylphenidate. METHODS: Post-marketing observational study, phase IV. Prescription medication to children and adolescents with ADHD aged between 6 and 18 years in the centres of reference for ADHD accredited by the Italian regions. RESULTS: In the period from September 2007 to October 2011, 1098 children and adolescents were treated with methylphenidate and 951 with atomoxetine. 411 (21.5%) patients are released from the register: 274 treated with atomoxetine and 167 with methylphenidate, with a greater risk of discontinuation for atomoxetine: RR 1.4 (1.3-1.6) p<0.001. The length of treatment at the time of removal from the register is 4.1 months for atomoxetine and 2 months for methylphenidate. Patients treated with atomoxetine are more likely to experience an adverse event compared to those treated with methylphenidate (RR 2.8; 1.9-4.2). The total number of serious adverse events observed was 110: 82 (75%) patients treated with atomoxetine and 28 (25%) individuals treated with methylphenidate. For 98 patients with serious adverse events, the adverse event led to the interruption of treatment with exit from the registry. The chance of a serious adverse event among those treated with atomoxetine compared to those with methylphenidate is RR 2.8 (1.8-4.2). There have been 14 cardiovascular events, all grown positively. 69 were found with a ECG alterations, with an increased risk for methylphenidate (RR 2.4; 1.4-4.2). The incidence of suicidal ideation was 4.5/1000 patients treated with atomoxetine. Hepatic alterations occurred with an incidence of 1/1000 subjects treated with methylphenidate and 4/1000 of those who received atomoxetine. DISCUSSION: The survey was carried out on a population which represents appropriately the paediatric population. The observed prevalence of ADHD corresponds to the expectation based on data from previous epidemiological investigations in Italy but considerably lower than what is reported in the international scientific literature. The rate of exposure to pharmacological treatments is similar to that of other European countries.

A comparative cost-analysis of initiating pregabalin or SSRI/SNRI therapy in benzodiazepine-resistant patients with generalized anxiety disorder in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative healthcare costs, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS), of initiating treatment with either pregabalin, or SSRI/SNRI, as add-on therapies, in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), who are resistant to benzodiazepine-based therapy (BR). METHODS: BR out-patients with GAD (DSM-IV) who were included in a 6-month, prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study were selected for this post-hoc economic analysis. BR was defined as insufficient response, with persistence of symptoms of anxiety (HAM-Anxiety scale≥16), after a 6-month course of benzodiazepines. Patients had not been previously exposed to pregabalin or SSRI/SNRI. Healthcare resource utilization (drugs, medical visits, hospitalizations, etc.) associated with GAD was collected at baseline and end-of-trial visits. Related costs were estimated at each visit and adjusted changes were compared using ANCOVA. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients with refractory GAD were treated with pregabalin and 126 SSRI/SNRI. Compared with SSRI/SNRI, pregabalin was associated with significantly lower percentage of benzodiazepines users; 57.0% vs 87.3%, p<0.001, and greater reduction in medical visits; -15.1 vs -13.0, p=0.029. Mean total healthcare resource utilization costs decreased significantly in the pregabalin cohort only; -289 (p=0.003), although six months costs were not significantly different in both groups; 977 vs 822, respectively. CONCLUSION: Initiating treatment with pregabalin was associated with significant reduction in medical visits and total health care resource costs of GAD compared to SSRI/ SNRI in BR patients in the Spanish NHS setting. Compared with SSRI/SNRI, pregabalin therapy was accompanied by significantly less percentage of patients on concomitant benzodiazepines therapy.

A review of the abuse potential assessment of atomoxetine: a nonstimulant medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

RATIONALE: Treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has for many years relied on psychostimulants, particularly various formulations of amphetamines and methylphenidate. These are central nervous system stimulants and are scheduled because of their abuse potential. Atomoxetine (atomoxetine hydrochloride; Strattera®) was approved in 2002 for treatment of ADHD, and was the first nonstimulant medication approved for this disorder. It was classified as an unscheduled medication indicating a low potential for abuse. However, the abuse potential of atomoxetine has not been reviewed. OBJECTIVES: In this article, we review the evidence regarding abuse potential of atomoxetine, a selective inhibitor of the presynaptic norepinephrine transporter, which is unscheduled/unrestricted in all countries where it is approved. METHODS: Results from receptor binding, in vitro electrophysiology, in vivo microdialysis, preclinical behavioral, and human laboratory studies have been reviewed. RESULTS: Atomoxetine has no appreciable affinity for, or action at, central receptors through which drugs of abuse typically act, i.e., dopamine transporters, GABA(A) receptors, and opioid µ receptors. In behavioral experiments in rodents, atomoxetine does not increase locomotor activity, and in drug discrimination studies, its profile is similar to that of drugs without abuse potential. Atomoxetine does not serve as a reinforcer in monkey self-administration studies, and human laboratory studies suggest that atomoxetine does not induce subjective effects indicative of abuse. CONCLUSION: Neurochemical, preclinical, and early clinical studies predicted and supported a lack of abuse potential of atomoxetine, which is consistent with the clinical trial and postmarketing spontaneous event data in the past 10 years.

Atomoxetine treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in young adults with assessment of functional outcomes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with significant impairment in multiple functional domains. This trial evaluated efficacy in ADHD symptoms and functional outcomes in young adults treated with atomoxetine. METHODS: Young adults (18-30 years old) with ADHD were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with atomoxetine (n = 220) or placebo (n = 225). The primary efficacy measure of ADHD symptom change was Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS): Investigator-Rated: Screening Version Total ADHD Symptoms score with adult prompts. Secondary outcomes scales included the Adult ADHD Quality of Life-29, Clinical Global Impression-ADHD-Severity, Patient Global Impression-Improvement, CAARS Self-Report, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version Self-Report, and assessments of depression, anxiety, sleepiness, driving behaviors, social adaptation, and substance use. RESULTS: Atomoxetine was superior to placebo on CAARS: Investigator-Rated: Screening Version (atomoxetine [least-squares mean ± SE, -13.6 ± 0.8] vs placebo [-9.3 ± 0.8], 95% confidence interval [-6.35 to -2.37], P < 0.001), Clinical Global Impression-ADHD-Severity (atomoxetine [-1.1 ± 0.1] vs placebo [-0.7 ± 0.1], 95% confidence interval [-0.63 to -0.24], P < 0.001), and CAARS Self-Report (atomoxetine [-11.9 ± 0.8] vs placebo [-7.8 ± 0.7], 95% confidence interval [-5.94 to -2.15], P < 0.001) but not on Patient Global Impression-Improvement. In addition, atomoxetine was superior to placebo on Adult ADHD Quality of Life-29 and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version Self-Report. Additional assessments failed to detect significant differences (P ≥ 0.05) between atomoxetine and placebo. The adverse event profile was similar to that observed in other atomoxetine studies. Nausea, decreased appetite, insomnia, dry mouth, irritability, dizziness, and dyspepsia were reported significantly more often with atomoxetine than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine reduced ADHD symptoms and improved quality of life and executive functioning deficits in young adults compared with placebo. Atomoxetine was also generally well tolerated.

Cost effectiveness of guanfacine extended-release versus atomoxetine for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: application of a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

BACKGROUND: About 7% of children and adolescents are diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the US. Patients with ADHD who are intolerant of or do not have an optimal response to stimulants often use non-stimulants as alternative therapies. Guanfacine extended-release (GXR) and atomoxetine (ATX) are the only non-stimulants approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for once-daily use in the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD in the US. ATX has been on the market since 2002 while GXR was recently approved in 2009. To date, there is no comparative effectiveness or cost-effectiveness study comparing the two drugs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of GXR versus ATX for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents, using the comparative efficacy results from a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). METHODS: The MAIC method was used to compare the efficacy between GXR (target dose and lower doses) and ATX (target dose) in the absence of head-to-head clinical trials. Individual patients in the GXR trials were weighted such that the summary baseline characteristics and the efficacy of the placebo arm of the GXR trials matched exactly with those from published ATX trials. After weighting, the efficacy (i.e. change in the ADHD rating scale, fourth edition [ADHD-RS-IV] total score from baseline) was compared between each GXR dosing group and the ATX group. The results from the MAIC analyses were used to populate a 1-year Markov model that is used to compare the cost effectiveness of GXR versus ATX from a US third-party payer perspective. Effectiveness outcomes for each treatment group were estimated as the proportion of responders, defined as patients with ≥25% reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline, and average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Utilities associated with response/non-response and disutilities due to adverse events were applied in the model. Costs included drug and medical service costs and were inflated to 2011 US dollars ($US). Incremental cost/QALY and incremental cost/responder were estimated. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying all model parameters, including costs, utilities, and response rate. RESULTS: The target dose of GXR was 0.12 mg/kg/day. In match-adjusted populations with balanced baseline characteristics, patients receiving GXR at the dose of 0.09-0.12(p = 0.0016) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] and 0.075-0.09 mg/kg/day (p = 0.0248) had better efficacy, while those receiving GXR at the dose of 0.046-0.075 mg/kg/day had comparable efficacy (p = 0.0699), compared with patients receiving ATX at the target dose of 1.2 mg/kg/day. In the base case of the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), GXR had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $US10 637/QALY and $US853/responder, compared with ATX (incremental costs: $US74; incremental effectiveness: 0.007 QALYs and 86 responders per 1000 patients treated). Results of all univariate sensitivity analyses showed that the model results were robust to changes in model inputs. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first application of the novel comparative efficacy method of MAIC to a CEA model. The MAIC results indicate that GXR (0.075-0.12 mg/kg/day) was more effective than ATX (1.2 mg/kg/day) in the trial population. The CEA results indicate that GXR is cost effective compared with ATX for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents.

Combination therapy patterns and predictors of ADHD in commercially insured and Medicaid populations.

OBJECTIVES: Several stimulant and nonstimulant medications are used alone or in combination to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Little is known about the current prevalence and predictors of combination therapy. This analysis describes ADHD medication use focusing on combination versus monotherapy. METHODS: Health insurance claims from the Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial Database and Multi-State Medicaid Database were analyzed for patients with an ADHD diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes 314.0x). Patients included were aged ≥ 6 years as of January 2010, continuously enrolled from July 2009 through December 2010, and had a claim for an ADHD medication in 2010. Medication use was measured in treatment months during 2010. Baseline demographic and clinical predictors of combination therapy (> 1 ADHD medication class in the same month) involving atomoxetine, long-acting stimulants, and α2-adrenergic agonists were explored using logistic regression, with generalized estimating equations to account for within-patient correlation between months. RESULTS: Commercially insured patients with ADHD (N = 211 226) were primarily aged 6 to 17 years (58.4%) and male (61.5%). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with hyperactivity was present in 15.8% of these patients. Combination therapy was used in 10.3% of 1 125 119 treatment months. Short-acting stimulants and α2-adrenergic agonists had the highest combination use (45.3% and 54.0%, respectively). Patients with ADHD insured through Medicaid (N = 125 104) were primarily aged 6 to 17 years (94.4%) and male (69.5%). Hyperactivity was present in 39.7% of these patients. Combination therapy was used in 24.0% of 721 986 treatment months. Short-acting stimulants, α2-adrenergic agonists, and intermediate-acting stimulants had the highest combination use (70.0%, 63.8%, and 51.8%, respectively). In multivariate models for both data sources, female patients were less likely to use combination therapy. Patients with hyperactivity were more likely to use combination therapy. Tics/Tourette's syndrome was associated with combination therapy for atomoxetine and long-acting stimulants. CONCLUSION: In commercially insured and Medicaid ADHD populations, combination therapy rates differed by medication class, as did the demographic and clinical characteristics statistically significantly associated with combination therapy. This suggests that these medications may be used differently in clinical practice.

Urinary incontinence: pharmacotherapy options.

The impact of incontinence is felt by millions of people worldwide, with tremendous decrement in quality of life and enormous cost reaching billions of dollars. Urinary incontinence is defined as 'involuntary leakage of urine' and is categorized into two main types: urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Behavioral modifications and pharmacologic therapies, primarily antimuscarinic agents, are the mainstay of treatment for UUI. These drugs are moderately efficacious but have troublesome side-effects, the combination resulting in poor compliance and persistence with therapy. There are several agents on the market today, each with some variation in pharmacologic properties. Whether these translate into meaningful differences in clinical efficacy and tolerability remains a matter of debate. Treatment of SUI has seen little success with pharmacologic therapy. In Europe, duloxetine is approved for treatment of SUI with marginal success rates; this drug, although available in the United States for treatment of depression, is not approved for SUI. The search for newer and better pharmacologic options and novel therapies is on-going, fueled primarily by the high prevalence of bothersome incontinence and the tremendous number of health care dollars spent on current therapy. This review addresses pharmacologic options for treatment of urinary incontinence.