Improvement of sexual functioning during treatment of MDD with adjunctive pimavanserin: A secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction is common among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). In the CLARITY study, the safety and efficacy of adjunctive pimavanserin, an inverse agonist at 5-HT2A receptors, were demonstrated when added to existing treatment for MDD. This analysis provides a detailed assessment of the effects of pimavanserin on sexual function from the CLARITY study. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of MDD in a depressive episode, inadequate response to ongoing antidepressant therapy, and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score >20 were randomized to pimavanserin 34 mg/day or placebo added to ongoing treatment with an immediate revision of all selective serotonin or serotonin-norepinephrine for 5 weeks (Stage 1), and nonresponders (<50% improvement from baseline in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAMD-17]) were re-randomized for an additional 5 week (Stage 2). Effects of pimavanserin on the Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Index (MGH-SFI) and HAMD-17 Item 14 (sexual interest) were examined. RESULTS: Among 203 patients (51 on pimavanserin; 152 on placebo), pimavanserin demonstrated significant improvement from baseline to Week 5 on the MGH-SFI (least square [LS]mean difference -0.634, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.964, -0.304]; p = .0002; effect size [ES], Cohen's d: .614). Across Stages 1 and 2, the weighted LSmean difference was -0.468 (95% CI [-0.720, -0.216]; p = .0003) for pimavanserin versus placebo. Mean changes from baseline to Week 5 for MGH-SFI Items 1, 2, 3, and 5 and HAMD Item 14 were significantly (p < .05) greater with pimavanserin versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive pimavanserin improved sexual function in patients with MDD. Adding pimavanserin to ongoing treatment for MDD may be especially useful for patients experiencing sexual dysfunction.

Long-term safety and efficacy of guanfacine extended release in children and adolescents with ADHD.

Data are reported from SPD503-318, a phase 3, open-label, safety study of guanfacine extended release (GXR) in European children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Participants received dose-optimized GXR (1-7 mg/day) for up to 2 years. Of 215 enrolled participants, 214 were included in the safety population and 133 completed the study. Participants' mean age was 11.7 years and 73.8% were male. Overall, 177 participants (82.7%) experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). TEAEs reported in at least 10% of participants were somnolence (36.0%), headache (28.5%), fatigue (20.1%), and nasopharyngitis (11.7%). Serious TEAEs were reported in 4.7% of participants and TEAEs leading to discontinuation were reported in 3.3% of participants. There were no deaths. Mean z-scores for BMI were stable throughout the study. The incidence of sedative TEAEs (somnolence, sedation, and hypersomnia) peaked during week 3 and decreased thereafter. Small changes from baseline to the final assessment in mean supine pulse [- 5.5 bpm (standard deviation, 12.98)] and blood pressure [systolic, 0.6 mmHg (9.32); diastolic, 0.2 mmHg (9.17)] were reported. ADHD symptoms initially decreased and remained significantly lower than baseline at study endpoint. At the final assessment, the mean change in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline was - 19.8 (standard error of mean, 0.84; nominal p < 0.0001). In conclusion, GXR was well tolerated and more than 60% of participants completed the 2-year study.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with clinically stable schizophrenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ascending multiple doses.

To assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), a d-amphetamine prodrug, this double-blind study enrolled adults with clinically stable schizophrenia who were adherent (≥12 weeks) to antipsychotic pharmacotherapy. The participants received placebo or ascending LDX doses (50, 70, 100, 150, 200, and 250 mg) daily for 5 days at each dose (dose periods, 1-6; days, 1-5). Of the 31 enrolled participants, 27 completed the study (placebo, n = 6; LDX, n = 21). Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported by 4 participants receiving placebo and by 23 participants receiving LDX (all doses) with no serious AEs while on active treatment. For all periods, the mean postdose change on day 5 (up to 12 hours postdose) in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and pulse, respectively, ranged from -4.62 to 8.05 mm Hg, -3.67 to 4.43 mm Hg, and -3.57 to 14.43 beats per minute for placebo and -3.83 to 11.25 mm Hg, -1.55 to 5.80 mm Hg, and -0.36 to 21.26 beats per minute for LDX. With ascending LDX dose, the mean (SD) maximum plasma concentration for LDX-derived d-amphetamine ranged from 51.68 (10.28) to 266.27 (56.55) ng/mL. The area under the plasma concentration-time curve for 24 hours ranged from 801.8 (170.2) to 4397.9 (1085.9) ng[BULLET OPERATOR]h/mL. The d-amphetamine maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve increased linearly with ascending LDX dose. Antipsychotic agents did not markedly affect d-amphetamine pharmacokinetics. Over a wide range of ascending doses, LDX safety profile in adults with schizophrenia was consistent with previous findings with no unexpected treatment-emergent AEs. Pulse tended to increase with LDX dose; overall, blood pressure did not increase with LDX dose. Consistent with previous studies, pharmacokinetic parameters increased linearly with increasing LDX dose.

Self-Reported quality of life in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and executive function impairment treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on quality of life (QOL) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and clinically significant executive function deficits (EFD). METHODS: This report highlights QOL findings from a 10-week randomized placebo-controlled trial of LDX (30-70 mg/d) in adults (18-55 years) with ADHD and EFD (Behavior Rating Inventory of EF-Adult, Global Executive Composite [BRIEF-A GEC] ≥65). The primary efficacy measure was the self-reported BRIEF-A; a key secondary measure was self-reported QOL on the Adult ADHD Impact Module (AIM-A). The clinician-completed ADHD Rating Scale version IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with adult prompts and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) were also employed. The Adult ADHD QoL (AAQoL) was added while the study was in progress. A post hoc analysis examined the subgroup having evaluable results from both AIM-A and AAQoL. RESULTS: Of 161 randomized (placebo, 81; LDX, 80), 159 were included in the safety population. LDX improved AIM-A multi-item domain scores versus placebo; LS mean difference for Performance and Daily Functioning was 21.6 (ES, 0.93, P<.0001); Impact of Symptoms: Daily Interference was 14.9 (ES, 0.62, P<.0001); Impact of Symptoms: Bother/Concern was 13.5 (ES, 0.57, P=.0003); Relationships/Communication was 7.8 (ES, 0.31, P=.0302); Living With ADHD was 9.1 (ES, 0.79, P<.0001); and General Well-Being was 10.8 (ES, 0.70, P<.0001). AAQoL LS mean difference for total score was 21.0; for subscale: Life Productivity was 21.0; Psychological Health was 12.1; Life Outlook was 12.5; and Relationships was 7.3. In a post hoc analysis of participants with both AIM-A and AAQoL scores, AIM-A multi-item subgroup analysis scores numerically improved with LDX, with smaller difference for Impact of Symptoms: Daily Interference. The safety profile of LDX was consistent with amphetamine use in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, adults with ADHD/EFD exhibited self-reported improvement on QOL, using the AIM-A and AAQoL scales in line with medium/large ES; these improvements were paralleled by improvements in EF and ADHD symptoms. The safety profile of LDX was similar to previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01101022.

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

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

Exposure-response Modeling From the CLARITY Trial of Pimavanserin for Adjunctive Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder.

In the 10-week, phase 2 CLARITY study of patients with major depressive disorder, adjunctive therapy to antidepressants with pimavanserin 34 mg once daily statistically significantly improved the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) total score (primary endpoint) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score (secondary endpoint) versus placebo. This analysis characterized the exposure-response (E-R) relationships of pimavanserin in this CLARITY patient population. Exposure measures were estimated for each patient based on population-pharmacokinetic empirical Bayesian estimates. E-R models were developed to describe exposure-efficacy (HAMD-17, SDS, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement [CGI-I] scale) and exposure-safety relationships (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale [KSS], Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Inventory [MGH-SFI], and adverse events [AEs] of headache, sedation, and somnolence) relationships. For the primary efficacy endpoint (HAMD-17 scores), a sigmoid maximum-effect model described the time course of response, and a linear function of pimavanserin exposure was statistically significant. HAMD-17 scores decreased steadily over time following placebo and pimavanserin treatment; separation from placebo increased as peak pimavanserin plasma concentration (Cmax ) increased. At median pimavanserin Cmax (34-mg dose), the reduction from baseline in HAMD-17 scores was -11.1 and -13.5 at weeks 5 and 10, respectively. Relative to placebo, the model predicted comparable reductions in HAMD-17 scores at weeks 5 and 10. Similar improvements in favor of pimavanserin were detected with SDS, CGI-I, MGH-SFI, and KSS scores. No E-R relationship was found for AEs. E-R modeling predicted a relationship between higher pimavanserin exposure and improvement in HAMD-17 score and improvement across multiple secondary efficacy endpoints.

Adjunctive Pimavanserin in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Combined Results from Two Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Studies.

Objective: In a phase 2 study, pimavanserin demonstrated efficacy as adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). Subsequently, two phase 3 studies (NCT03968159 in the US; NCT03999918 in Europe) were initiated to examine the efficacy and safety of adjunctive pimavanserin in subjects with MDD and inadequate response to antidepressant treatment. Studies were combined with a prespecified statistical analysis plan owing to recruitment challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Experimental design: The randomized, double-blind studies enrolled 298 patients with MDD and inadequate response to current antidepressants. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pimavanserin or placebo added to current antidepressant for 6 weeks. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 5 in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, 17-item version (HAM-D-17). Principal observations: There was no effect of pimavanserin in change from baseline to week 5 in the HAM-D-17 (pimavanserin [n = 138]: least-squares mean [LSM] [standard error {SE}], -9.0 [0.58]; placebo [n = 135]: -8.1 [0.58]; mixed-effects model for repeated measures LSM [SE] difference, -0.9 [0.82], P = 0.2956). Nominal improvement with pimavanserin was observed on 2 secondary endpoints: Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scale, Karolinska Sleepiness Scale. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 58.1% of pimavanserin-treated and 54.7% of placebo-treated patients. Conclusions: Adjunctive pimavanserin did not significantly improve depressive symptoms, although pimavanserin was well tolerated.

Effect of pimavanserin on anxious depression in patients with major depression and an inadequate response to previous therapy: secondary analysis of the clarity study.

In a post hoc analysis, the effect of pimavanserin on anxious depression was determined from CLARITY, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with major depression and an inadequate response to previous therapy. Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to placebo or pimavanserin 34 mg daily added to ongoing antidepressant therapy. At 5 weeks, placebo nonresponders were rerandomized to placebo or pimavanserin for an additional 5 weeks. Mean change from baseline to week 5 for the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD) anxiety/somatization (AS) factor was examined for all patients and those with a score ≥7 at baseline. Least squares (LS) mean [standard error (SE)] difference between placebo and pimavanserin for the AS factor score was -1.5 (0.41) [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.4 to -0.7; P = 0.0003; effect size: 0.634]. Among patients with an AS factor score ≥7 at baseline, LS mean (SE) difference was -2.2 (0.66) (95% CI -3.5 to -0.9; P = 0.0013; effect size: 0.781). Response rates (≥50% reduction in HAMD-17 from baseline) were 22.4 and 55.2% (P = 0.0012) and remission rates (HAMD-17 total score <7) were 5.3 and 24.1% (P = 0.0047), respectively, with placebo and pimavanserin among patients with a baseline AS factor score ≥7. Among patients with anxious major depressive disorder at baseline, adjunctive pimavanserin was associated with a significant improvement.

Effect of adjunctive pimavanserin on suicidal ideation in patients with major depression: Analysis of the CLARITY study.

BACKGROUND: Up to 15% of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) attempt suicide and up to 2% complete suicide. This was a post-hoc analysis aimed to evaluate the risk of suicide ideation and behavior associated with adjunctive pimavanserin treatment in adults with MDD. METHODS: CLARITY was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with MDD and an inadequate response to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). For this post-hoc analysis, the primary endpoint was mean change from baseline for HAMD item 3 (suicide). The incidence of suicidal ideation or behavior was also assessed from the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) and reports of adverse events. RESULTS: During Stage 1, LS mean change for HAMD Item 3 was reduced from baseline at each week with pimavanserin with a significant difference between pimavanserin and placebo at Week 3 (p=0.012, effect size: 0.431). At any post-baseline assessment, suicidal ideation on the C-SSRS was reported in 28 (18.1%) of patients with placebo and 9 (17.3%) with pimavanserin during Stage 1 and in 7 (20.7%) with placebo and 4 (13.8%) with pimavanserin during Stage 2. No events of suicidal behavior were observed with either placebo or pimavanserin. LIMITATIONS: The post hoc nature, exclusion of patients with any history of suicide from the primary study, and the small number of patients who demonstrated evidence of suicidal ideation. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive pimavanserin was not associated with an increase in suicidal ideation in patients with MDD. Further study is needed to verify these results.

Effect of Adjunctive Pimavanserin on Sleep/Wakefulness in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: Secondary Analysis From CLARITY.

OBJECTIVE: This was an analysis of the effect of pimavanserin, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-2A antagonist and inverse receptor agonist, on dysregulated sleep in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) by DSM-5 criteria and an inadequate antidepressant response. METHODS: For this analysis of CLARITY, a phase 2 study of adjunctive pimavanserin (N = 207) conducted between December 2016 and October 2018, sleep/wakefulness disturbances were measured with the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS17) insomnia items (sum of items 4, 5, and 6) and the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS). Outcomes included change from baseline in HDRS17 insomnia factor score and KSS score, correlation between the HDRS17 insomnia factor score and KSS score, and change from baseline in the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total score and Unproductive Days subscore in patients with a baseline KSS score ≥ 6. RESULTS: At baseline, HDRS17 insomnia factor score ≥ 3 occurred in 76% of patients receiving placebo and 85% of patients receiving pimavanserin. The overall least squares (LS) mean weighted difference (SE) was -0.5 (0.32) with a 95% CI of -1.2 to 0.1 (P = .088) at week 5. Improvement was observed with pimavanserin versus placebo at weeks 2, 3, and 4, with effect sizes (ESs) of 0.370 to 0.524 (P < .05). For KSS score, the LS mean difference (SE) at week 5 was -1.1 (0.30) (95% CI, -1.7 to -0.5; P = .0003; ES = 0.627) for pimavanserin versus placebo. Among those with a KSS score ≥ 6 at baseline (n = 120 placebo and n = 42 pimavanserin), the LS mean difference (SE) in the mean SDS score at week 5 was -1.1 (0.46) (95% CI, -2.0 to -0.2; P = .019; ES = 0.442) for pimavanserin versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive pimavanserin significantly improved sleep/wakefulness disturbance during treatment of MDD, an improvement that was associated with greater improvement in function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03018340.

Distinguishing the efficacy and sedative effects of guanfacine extended release in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

The present study investigated whether symptom reduction in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treated with guanfacine extended release (GXR) can be explained by sedative effects of the medication. Data from four double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials of GXR monotherapy (1-7 mg/day; morning administration) in children (aged 6-12 years) and adolescents (aged 13-17 years) with ADHD were analyzed post hoc. Two studies used forced-dose titration and two used flexible-dose titration. Efficacy was determined using ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) scores. Sedative treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) included somnolence, sedation and hypersomnia. The proportion of responders (≥ 30% reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score) increased from weeks 1 to 4 and remained stable to study endpoint. Sedative TEAEs generally peaked at the first week in which the target dose was achieved and then declined. In subgroup analyses, significant placebo-adjusted improvements in ADHD-RS-IV total scores were observed in participants without any sedative TEAEs in the forced-dose and flexible-dose studies (nominal p < 0.001). In addition, GXR was associated with significant improvements in both inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms, as assessed by the ADHD-RS-IV subscale scores (nominal p < 0.001) and by the ADHD-RS-IV total score in participants with different ADHD subtypes (nominal p < 0.05). Thus, the efficacy of GXR in children and adolescents with ADHD is not primarily due to sedation, although some contribution to symptom reduction cannot be excluded, especially early in treatment when rates of sedative TEAEs are at their highest.

A Phase 2, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Adjunctive Pimavanserin in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder and an Inadequate Response to Therapy (CLARITY).

OBJECTIVE: Pimavanserin is a 5-hydroxytryptamine-2A antagonist and inverse receptor agonist. This phase 2 study examined the efficacy and safety of pimavanserin as adjunctive therapy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with DSM-5-defined MDD and an inadequate response to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). Using a 2-stage sequential parallel-comparison design, patients were initially randomized in a 3:1 ratio to placebo or pimavanserin added to ongoing SSRI or SNRI therapy; at 5 weeks, placebo nonresponders were re-randomized to placebo or pimavanserin for an additional 5 weeks. Key endpoints were change from baseline to the end of each stage in 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) total score and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score. RESULTS: Between December 2016 and October 2018, 207 patients were randomized. For the prespecified pooled Sequential Parallel Comparison Design analyses of Stages 1 and 2, the least squares (LS) mean (SE) difference for the HDRS-17 total score was -1.7 (0.85) (P = .039) and for the SDS score was -0.8 (0.29) (P = .004). At week 5 of Stage 1, LS mean (SE) difference for pimavanserin versus placebo was significant for changes on the HDRS-17 (-4.0 [1.09], P = .0003) and SDS (-1.2 [0.40], P = .0036) with effect sizes of 0.626 and 0.498, respectively. Early and sustained separation of pimavanserin from placebo (P < .05) occurred at 1 week. The most common adverse events with pimavanserin were dry mouth, nausea, and headache. CONCLUSIONS: Pimavanserin demonstrated robust efficacy in patients with MDD and an inadequate response to an SSRI or SNRI. Tolerability was consistent with previous experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03018340.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of individual items on the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom rating scale in children and adults: the effects of age and sex in pivotal trials of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptom presentation across age and sex has not been fully elucidated. The present post hoc analyses qualitatively explored the baseline levels of ADHD symptomatology across subgroups in two clinical trials of children and adults with ADHD to elucidate differences in participant presentation. The response to treatment was examined to determine patterns of response among items of the ADHD Rating Scale IV. METHODS: Exploratory post hoc analyses of ADHD Rating Scale IV item scores were conducted on data from two 4-week placebo-controlled trials in children (6-12 years) and in adults (18-55 years) with ADHD. Baseline and endpoint mean item scores were determined for subgroups defined by age (6-9, 10-12, 18-39, and 40-55 years) and sex. RESULTS: The baseline mean item scores were generally numerically similar for all age-by-sex subgroups. The inattention (IA) items were numerically higher than hyperactivity/impulsivity (H/I) items among older children and adults. The endpoint mean item scores were numerically lower after lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment for IA and H/I items in all subgroups. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that regardless of age or sex, baseline IA and H/I symptom profiles were comparable; however, IA vs H/I symptoms were more severe in older participants. In all age-by-sex subgroups, IA and H/I symptoms appeared to decrease after active treatment.

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

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

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

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

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

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