Analysis of Growth Velocity in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treated for up to 12 Months with Serdexmethylphenidate/Dexmethylphenidate.

Objective: Serdexmethylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate (SDX/d-MPH) is approved for the treatment of patients aged ≥6 years with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A 12-month, open-label safety study with SDX/d-MPH in children with ADHD showed that SDX/d-MPH was well tolerated and comparable with other methylphenidate products. In this post hoc analysis of the 12-month study, the objective was to characterize the effect of SDX/d-MPH on growth in children with ADHD over 12 months. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of a dose-optimized, open-label, phase 3 safety study of SDX/d-MPH in children aged 6-12 years with ADHD (NCT03460652). Weight and height Z-score analyses were conducted. Z-score change from baseline was calculated based on the baseline values for the subjects remaining in the study at the observation time point. Results: Subjects (N = 238) from the treatment-phase safety population included all enrolled subjects who received ≥1 dose of study drug and had ≥1 postdose safety assessment. During treatment, the mean weight and height Z-scores decreased over time from their respective baselines. At the 12-month time point, mean (standard deviation [SD]) Z-score changes from baseline for weight and height for the subjects remaining in the study were -0.20 (0.50) and -0.21 (0.39), respectively; however, these mean changes in Z-scores were not clinically significant (change <0.5 SD). Long-term treatment with SDX/d-MPH was associated with modest reductions in expected weight and lower-than-expected increases in height: effects that plateaued or diminished later in treatment. Conclusion: The overall effects of SDX/d-MPH on growth velocity (the change in weight and height from one time point to the next) were minimal, and the range of changes was not considered clinically significant. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03460652.

Dose Proportionality and Steady-State Pharmacokinetics of Serdexmethylphenidate/Dexmethylphenidate, a Novel Prodrug Combination to Treat Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Objective: The study was designed to determine (1) the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH) after oral administration of three dosage strengths of a new treatment containing d-MPH and a novel prodrug, serdexmethylphenidate (SDX); (2) the dose proportionality of the different SDX/d-MPH dosages; and (3) the steady-state PK profile of d-MPH and SDX after multiple dosing of SDX/d-MPH. Methods: Twenty-three healthy volunteers (aged 18-55 years) under fasted conditions received in a crossover design SDX/d-MPH 26.1/5.2 mg (Treatment A), 39.2/7.8 mg (Treatment B), and 52.3/10.4 mg (Treatment C) for a total d-MPH hydrochloride equivalent dose of 20, 30, and 40 mg, respectively. After a 96-hour washout period, all participants received four consecutive daily doses of SDX/d-MPH 52.3/10.4 mg. Blood samples were collected for measurement of plasma d-MPH and SDX and for PK analysis. Results: Administration of all three doses of SDX/d-MPH resulted in a rapid rise and slow decline in the plasma concentration of d-MPH. For Treatments A, B, and C, mean (± standard deviation) maximum concentrations (Cmax) were 7.1 ± 2.1, 9.8 ± 2.8, and 13.8 ± 3.8 ng/mL, and overall exposures (AUC0-last) were 97.2 ± 28.8, 142.5 ± 41.2, and 199.8 ± 57.2 h*ng/mL, respectively. Dose-normalized Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf for d-MPH were similar when comparing the high and low doses versus the middle dose. Power model regression analysis revealed that Cmax and AUC0-inf proportionally increased with an increase in SDX/d-MPH dose. In the multiple-dose study, d-MPH reached steady state before the third dose, and SDX after the first dose. Conclusion: The PK profile of SDX/d-MPH is characterized by a rapid rise and a gradual decline in d-MPH concentration, with proportional Cmax and AUC0-inf across doses. The PK attributes of SDX/d-MPH may optimize symptom control from early morning to early evening, while the demonstrated dose proportionality may facilitate initial dose titration and ongoing dose adjustment.

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.

Update on methylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate formulations for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

PURPOSE: Current literature on the safety and efficacy of intermediate- and long-acting formulations of methylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is evaluated. SUMMARY: Methylphenidate has been an established treatment for ADHD, but due to its relatively short half-life, numerous intermediate- and long-acting products have been developed. While these extended-release products provide efficacy similar to that of immediate-acting products, the pharmacokinetics and adverse effects can vary. Intermediate-acting methylphenidate products have effects that can last as long as 8 hours, but clinically patients have still required twice-daily dosing. Long-acting products have helped to address these challenges, with recently developed products including controlled-release and bimodal-delivery systems and a patch formulation. Many of these products can be opened and sprinkled on applesauce for ease of administration. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of the various formulations of methylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate is crucial for appropriate medication selection for control of ADHD symptoms. Knowledge of differences between release mechanisms and the pharmacokinetic properties are essential for appropriate use of these products.

Effects of Dexmethylphenidate on Targeted and Non-Targeted Behaviours during Functional Analyses: A Brief Report.

Objective: This study evaluated the effects of dexmethylphenidate on problem behavior during functional analyses conducted across dexmethylphenidate and placebo conditions for a child with multiple disabilities. Methods: We conducted functional analyses in a multielement format embedded in a withdrawal design and collected data on the frequency of disruptive behavior and duration of crying. Results: Results suggest disruptive behaviour was maintained by attention when DMPH was absent, but not when it was present. Results also suggest DMPH may have had collateral effects on the probability of non-targeted behaviour (crying). Consistent with previous research, functional analyses exhibited a change in disruptive behaviour's function between medication and placebo conditions. Conclusion: These findings provide further support that stimulant medication may change the function of disruptive behavior and highlight the need to investigate the effects of stimulants on non-targeted behaviors.

Drug Regimen Individualization for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Guidance for Methylphenidate and Dexmethylphenidate Formulations.

In 2000, the first biphasic modified-release (MR) formulation of methylphenidate (MPH) was approved for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). An immediate-release (IR) MPH pulse (22% of the dose) facilitates rapid onset of stimulant action, while the remaining MR portion of the dose provides for day-long duration of efficacy. A wide array of oral MR-MPH products has subsequently been approved that also allows for once-daily dosing, though each product is characterized by distinctive exposure time courses. This review compares each member of the current MPH armamentarium to assist in the rational selection of a specific MPH regimen for the individualized treatment of patients with ADHD. The IR portion of biphasic MPH formulations now ranges from 15%, 20%, 22%, 25%, 30%, and 37% IR-MPH, as well as a 50% IR-MPH product whose distinctly pulsatile time course closely resembles that of the pre-century "gold standard" twice-daily IR-MPH regimen. Further, transdermal, suspension, and orally disintegrating tablet products are now available to overcome any solid dosage form swallowing difficulties. Most of these formulations are racemic, though in 2001, a chiral switch drug IR-dexmethylphenidate (dexMPH) was approved, followed by biphasic MR-dexMPH (50% IR) in 2005. New U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) partial area under the curve (pAUC) bioavailability metrics have improved discrimination between specific generic MR-MPH products. This has resulted in two Orange Book MR-MPH products being recoded from "AB" (i.e., meets necessary bioequivalence requirements) to "BX" (i.e., insufficient data to confirm bioequivalence). The metabolic drug interaction between MPH and alcohol, which increases MPH bioavailability, potentiates euphoric effects, and heightens abuse liability, is discussed. This review concludes with brief considerations of pharmacogenomic predictors of ADHD first-line drug selection, carboxylesterase allelic variants influencing interindividual MPH metabolism, and novel MPH formulations in the regulatory pipeline.

Comparison of Pharmaceutical, Psychological, and Exercise Treatments for Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) remains one of the most prevalent and troublesome adverse events experienced by patients with cancer during and after therapy. OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to establish and compare the mean weighted effect sizes (WESs) of the 4 most commonly recommended treatments for CRF-exercise, psychological, combined exercise and psychological, and pharmaceutical-and to identify independent variables associated with treatment effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of each database to May 31, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials in adults with cancer were selected. Inclusion criteria consisted of CRF severity as an outcome and testing of exercise, psychological, exercise plus psychological, or pharmaceutical interventions. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Studies were independently reviewed by 12 raters in 3 groups using a systematic and blinded process for reconciling disagreement. Effect sizes (Cohen d) were calculated and inversely weighted by SE. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Severity of CRF was the primary outcome. Study quality was assessed using a modified 12-item version of the Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database scale (range, 0-12, with 12 indicating best quality). RESULTS: From 17 033 references, 113 unique studies articles (11 525 unique participants; 78% female; mean age, 54 [range, 35-72] years) published from January 1, 1999, through May 31, 2016, had sufficient data. Studies were of good quality (mean Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database scale score, 8.2; range, 5-12) with no evidence of publication bias. Exercise (WES, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.25-0.36; P < .001), psychological (WES, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.21-0.33; P < .001), and exercise plus psychological interventions (WES, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.38; P < .001) improved CRF during and after primary treatment, whereas pharmaceutical interventions did not (WES, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.00-0.19; P = .05). Results also suggest that CRF treatment effectiveness was associated with cancer stage, baseline treatment status, experimental treatment format, experimental treatment delivery mode, psychological mode, type of control condition, use of intention-to-treat analysis, and fatigue measures (WES range, -0.91 to 0.99). Results suggest that the effectiveness of behavioral interventions, specifically exercise and psychological interventions, is not attributable to time, attention, and education, and specific intervention modes may be more effective for treating CRF at different points in the cancer treatment trajectory (WES range, 0.09-0.22). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Exercise and psychological interventions are effective for reducing CRF during and after cancer treatment, and they are significantly better than the available pharmaceutical options. Clinicians should prescribe exercise or psychological interventions as first-line treatments for CRF.

Acute and Long-Term Cardiovascular Effects of Stimulant, Guanfacine, and Combination Therapy for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines cardiovascular (CV) effects of guanfacine immediate-release (GUAN-IR), dexmethylphenidate extended-release (DMPH), and their combination (COMB) during acute and long-term treatment of youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. METHODS: Two hundred seven participants aged 7-14 years enrolled in an 8-week double-blind randomized trial of GUAN-IR (1-3 milligrams (mg)/day), DMPH (5-20 mg/day), or COMB with fixed-flexible dosing and titrated to optimal behavioral response. Heart rate, systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, and electrocardiograms were assessed at baseline, end of blinded optimization, and over a 1-year open-label maintenance phase. RESULTS: During acute titration, GUAN-IR decreased heart rate, systolic BP, and diastolic BP; DMPH increased heart rate, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and corrected QT (QTc) interval; COMB increased diastolic BP, but had no effects on heart rate, systolic BP, or QTc. During maintenance, GUAN-IR-associated decreases in heart rate and DMPH-associated increases in systolic BP returned to baseline values. Other variables across the three groups remained unchanged from the end of blinded titration. There were no discontinuations due to CV adverse events. CONCLUSION: GUAN-IR, DMPH, and COMB were well tolerated and safe. Expected changes in CV parameters during acute titration were seen in GUAN-IR and DMPH groups, with COMB values falling intermediately between the two other treatment groups. No serious CV events occurred in any participant. GUAN-IR- and DMPH-associated CV changes generally returned to baseline with sustained therapy. These data suggest that COMB treatment might attenuate long-term CV effects of GUAN-IR and stimulant monotherapy, possibly reducing risk of the small but statistically significant changes associated with either single treatment. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00429273.

Methylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate formulations for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

PURPOSE: Current literature on the safety and efficacy of various intermediate- and long-acting preparations of methylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate for pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is reviewed. SUMMARY: The efficacy of methylphenidate in controlling ADHD symptoms is firmly established. Given the drug's relatively short half-life in pediatric patients (about 2.5 hours), a number of intermediate- and long-acting products have been developed; these extended-release methylphenidate products provide the same efficacy as immediate-release (IR) formulations, with the convenience of less frequent dosing. Intermediate-acting methylphenidate preparations have effects lasting as long as 8 hours, but peak concentrations are not attained for up to 5 hours, and many patients may require twice-daily dosing. Long-acting methylphenidate products developed to address these challenges include a controlled-release tablet and bimodal-delivery capsules containing mixtures of IR and extended-release beads (durations of effect, 8-12 hours). Options for patients with difficulty swallowing tablets or capsules include a once-daily transdermal delivery system and a once-daily liquid formulation. Dexmethylphenidate (the more pharmacologically active d-isomer of racemic methylphenidate) can provide efficacy comparable to that of IR methylphenidate at half the dose; an extended-release form of dexmethylphenidate can provide less fluctuation in peak and trough concentrations than the IR form. Methylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate products in capsule form can be opened and sprinkled on applesauce. CONCLUSION: The various formulations of IR and intermediate- and extended-release methylphenidate and dexmethylphenidate can be useful options in satisfying patients' individual needs in the management of ADHD. All are equally efficacious in controlling ADHD symptoms.

Dopamine transporter genotype and stimulant dose-response in youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVES: This study seeks to determine if variation in the dopamine transporter gene (SLC6A3/DAT1) moderates the dose-response effects of long-acting dexmethylphenidate (D-MPH) and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Fifty-six children and adolescents (mean age=11.7±2.2) participated in a double-blind, two period crossover, dose-response study with a randomized placebo week in each 4 week drug period. Each period consisted of sequential week-long exposures to three dose levels (10, 20, 25-30 mg, depending upon weight) of D-MPH or MAS. RESULTS: Doses of 10-20 mg of either D-MPH or MAS had little to no effect on hyperactivity-impulsivity and total ADHD symptom scores in subjects with the 9/9 genotype; this was in contrast to the dose-response curves of subjects with either the 10/10 or 10/9 genotype. CONCLUSIONS: ADHD youth with the 9/9 genotype may require higher stimulant doses to achieve adequate symptom control.

Extended-release dexmethylphenidate 30 mg/d versus 20 mg/d: duration of attention, behavior, and performance benefits in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of dexmethylphenidate (D-MPH) extended-release (ER) 30 mg and D-MPH-ER 20 mg on attention, behavior, and performance in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, 3-period-by-3-treatment, crossover study, children aged 6 to 12 years with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder stabilized on methylphenidate (40-60 mg/d) or D-MPH (20-30 mg/d) received D-MPH-ER 20 mg/d, 30 mg/d, and placebo for 7 days each (final dose of each treatment period administered in a laboratory classroom). Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham (SKAMP) Combined (Attention and Deportment) rating scale and Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP) math test assessments were conducted at baseline and 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 hours postdose. RESULTS: A total of 165 children (94 boys; mean age, 9.6 years) were randomized (162 included in intent-to-treat analyses). Significant improvements were noted for D-MPH-ER 30 mg over D-MPH-ER 20 mg at various late time points on the SKAMP scales (Combined scores at 9, 10, 11, and 12 hours postdose; Attention scores at 10, 11, and 12 hours postdose; deportment scores at 9 and 12 hours postdose). The PERMP math test-attempted and -correct scores (change from predose) were significantly higher with D-MPH-ER 30 mg than with D-MPH-ER 20 mg at 10, 11, and 12 hours postdose. Both D-MPH-ER doses were superior to placebo at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: D-MPH-ER 30 mg was superior to D-MPH-ER 20 mg at later time points in the day, suggesting that higher doses of D-MPH-ER may be more effective later in the day.