Summary of Research: Overall Survival with Osimertinib in Resected EGFR-Mutated NSCLC.

This is a summary of the original article ?Overall survival with osimertinib in resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC.Ë® Osimertinib blocks the activity of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) on cancer cells, causing cancer cell death and tumor shrinkage, and is an effective treatment for EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The ADAURA study assessed the effects of osimertinib versus placebo in patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R) early stage (IB-IIIA) NSCLC removed by surgery (resected). Previous results from ADAURA demonstrated that patients treated with osimertinib stayed alive and cancer-free (disease-free survival) significantly longer than patients who received placebo. Recent data showed the overall length of time patients were alive after starting treatment (overall survival). In both the primary stage II-IIIA and overall stage IB-IIIA populations, patients in the osimertinib group had a significant 51% reduction in the risk of death compared with the placebo group. The data demonstrated that osimertinib after surgery significantly improved overall survival in patients with resected, EGFR-mutated, stage IB-IIIA NSCLC.

Overall Survival with Osimertinib in Resected EGFR-Mutated NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with resected, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated, stage IB to IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adjuvant osimertinib therapy, with or without previous adjuvant chemotherapy, resulted in significantly longer disease-free survival than placebo in the ADAURA trial. We report the results of the planned final analysis of overall survival. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned eligible patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or placebo until disease recurrence was observed, the trial regimen was completed (3 years), or a discontinuation criterion was met. The primary end point was investigator-assessed disease-free survival among patients with stage II to IIIA disease. Secondary end points included disease-free survival among patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Of 682 patients who underwent randomization, 339 received osimertinib and 343 received placebo. Among patients with stage II to IIIA disease, the 5-year overall survival was 85% in the osimertinib group and 73% in the placebo group (overall hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95.03% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.73; P<0.001). In the overall population (patients with stage IB to IIIA disease), the 5-year overall survival was 88% in the osimertinib group and 78% in the placebo group (overall hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95.03% CI, 0.34 to 0.70; P<0.001). One new serious adverse event, pneumonia related to coronavirus disease 2019, was reported after the previously published data-cutoff date (the event was not considered by the investigator to be related to the trial regimen, and the patient fully recovered). Adjuvant osimertinib had a safety profile consistent with that in the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant osimertinib provided a significant overall survival benefit among patients with completely resected, EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA NSCLC. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ADAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02511106.).

Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab in Combination With Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III POSEIDON Study.

PURPOSE: The open-label, phase III POSEIDON study evaluated tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy (T + D + CT) and durvalumab plus chemotherapy (D + CT) versus chemotherapy alone (CT) in first-line metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). METHODS: Patients (n = 1,013) with EGFR/ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to tremelimumab 75 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg and platinum-based chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression and one additional tremelimumab dose; durvalumab plus chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression; or chemotherapy for up to six 21-day cycles (with or without maintenance pemetrexed; all arms). Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for D + CT versus CT. Key alpha-controlled secondary end points were PFS and OS for T + D + CT versus CT. RESULTS: PFS was significantly improved with D + CT versus CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P = .0009; median, 5.5 v 4.8 months); a trend for improved OS did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .0758; median, 13.3 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 29.6% v 22.1%). PFS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86; P = .0003; median, 6.2 v 4.8 months) and OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.92; P = .0030; median, 14.0 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 32.9% v 22.1%) were significantly improved with T + D + CT versus CT. Treatment-related adverse events were maximum grade 3/4 in 51.8%, 44.6%, and 44.4% of patients receiving T + D + CT, D + CT, and CT, respectively; 15.5%, 14.1%, and 9.9%, respectively, discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: D + CT significantly improved PFS versus CT. A limited course of tremelimumab added to durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved OS and PFS versus CT, without meaningful additional tolerability burden, representing a potential new option in first-line mNSCLC.

Final overall survival and safety update for durvalumab in third- or later-line advanced NSCLC: The phase II ATLANTIC study.

INTRODUCTION: In the phase II ATLANTIC study, durvalumab provided durable responses with acceptable tolerability in heavily pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC, across three independent patient cohorts defined by EGFR/ALK status and tumour PD-L1 expression. Preliminary overall survival (OS) data were encouraging. We now report final OS and updated safety data. METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC with disease progression following ≥2 previous systemic regimens received durvalumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate among patients with increased PD-L1 expression (defined as ≥25 % or ≥90 % of tumour cells [TCs], cohort-dependent). Secondary endpoints included OS and safety. RESULTS: 444 patients received durvalumab: 111 in Cohort 1 (EGFR+/ALK+), 265 in Cohort 2 (EGFR-/ALK-), and 68 in Cohort 3 (EGFR-/ALK-; TC ≥ 90 %). Median (95 % CI) OS was 13.3 months (6.3-24.5) in patients with EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC with TC ≥ 25 %, 10.9 months (8.6-13.6) in patients with EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC with TC ≥ 25 %, and 13.2 months (5.9-not reached) in patients with EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC with TC ≥ 90 %. Median (95 % CI) OS was slightly shorter in patients with TC < 25 % (9.9 months [4.2-13.3] in patients with EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC and 9.3 months [5.9-10.8] in those with EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC). Treatment-related adverse events of special interest occurred with similar incidences as reported previously. CONCLUSIONS: After additional follow-up, final OS data remain encouraging across all cohorts, further supporting the clinical activity of durvalumab in patients with heavily pretreated advanced NSCLC, including those with EGFR+/ALK+ tumours. There were no new safety signals.

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (PACIFIC): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab improved the primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival compared with that for placebo, with similar safety, in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. In this analysis, we aimed to evaluate one of the secondary endpoints, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: PACIFIC is an ongoing, international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically or cytologically documented stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer, for which they had received at least two cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy, with no disease progression after this treatment. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) using an interactive voice response system and a blocked design (block size=3) stratified by age, sex, and smoking history to receive 10 mg/kg intravenous durvalumab or matching placebo 1-42 days after concurrent chemoradiotherapy, then every 2 weeks up to 12 months. The primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival have been reported previously. PROs were a prespecified secondary outcome. We assessed PRO symptoms, functioning, and global health status or quality of life in the intention-to-treat population with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3 and its lung cancer module, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) at the time of random allocation to groups, at weeks 4 and 8, every 8 weeks until week 48, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Changes from baseline to 12 month in key symptoms were analysed with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time-to-event analyses. A 10-point or greater change from baseline (deterioration or improvement) was deemed clinically relevant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125461, and EudraCT, 2014-000336-42. FINDINGS: Between May 9, 2014, and April 22, 2016, 476 patients were assigned to receive durvalumab, and 237 patients were assigned to receive placebo. As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 14·1-29·5). More than 79% of patients given durvalumab and more than 82% of patients given placebo completed questionnaires up to week 48. Between baseline and 12 months, the prespecified longitudinal PROs of interest, cough (MMRM-adjusted mean change 1·8 [95% CI 0·06 to 3·54] in the durvalumab group vs 0·7 [-1·91 to 3·30] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (3·1 [1·75 to 4·36] vs 1·4 [-0·51 to 3·34]), chest pain (-3·1 [-4·57 to -1·60] vs -3·5 [-5·68 to -1·29]), fatigue (-3·0 [-4·53 to -1·50] vs -5·2 [-7·45 to -2·98]), appetite loss (-5·8 [-7·28 to -4·36] vs -7·0 [-9·17 to -4·87]), physical functioning (0·1 [-1·10 to 1·28] vs 2·0 [0·22 to 3·73]), and global health status or quality of life (2·6 [1·21 to 3·94] vs 1·8 [-0·25 to 3·81]) remained stable with both treatments, with no clinically relevant changes from baseline. The between-group differences in changes from baseline to 12 months in cough (difference in adjusted mean changes 1·1, 95% CI -1·89 to 4·11), dyspnoea (1·6, -0·58 to 3·87), chest pain (0·4, -2·13 to 2·93), fatigue (2·2, -0·38 to 4·78), appetite loss (1·2, -1·27 to 3·67), physical functioning (-1·9, -3·91 to 0·15), or global health status or quality of life (0·8, -1·55 to 3·14) were not clinically relevant. Generally, there were no clinically important between-group differences in time to deterioration of prespecified key PRO endpoints. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that a clinical benefit with durvalumab can be attained without compromising PROs. This result is of note because the previous standard of care was observation alone, with no presumed detriment to PROs. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Analysis of serum phosphate control and phosphate binder utilization in incident hemodialysis patients.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a retrospective analysis of serum phosphate level variability in patients new to hemodialysis (HD) and to identify patient characteristics associated with this variability. The medical records of 47,742 incident HD patients attending US outpatient dialysis centers between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2009 were analyzed. Monthly mean serum phosphate levels determined over a 6-month evaluation period (months 4-9 after HD initiation) were assigned to one of three strata: low (<1.13 mmol/L [<3.5 mg/dL]); target (1.13-1.78 mmol/L [3.5-5.5 mg/dL]); or high (>1.78 mmol/L [>5.5 mg/dL]). Patients were classified into one of six serum phosphate variability groups based on variability among monthly mean phosphate levels over the 6-month evaluation period: consistently target; consistently high; high-to-target; high-to-low; target-to-low; or consistently low. Only 15% of patients (consistently target group) maintained monthly mean serum phosphate levels within the target range throughout the 6-month evaluation period. Age, Charlson comorbidity index, serum phosphate, and intact parathyroid hormone levels prior to HD initiation were strongly associated (P<0.001) with serum phosphate levels after HD initiation. Overall patient-reported phosphate binder usage increased from 35% at baseline to 52% at end of study. The low proportion of patients achieving target phosphate levels and low rates of phosphate binder usage observed during the study suggest that alternative strategies could be developed to control serum phosphate levels. Possible strategies that might be incorporated to help improve the management of hyperphosphatemia in incident HD patients include dietary modification, dialysis optimization, and earlier and sustained use of phosphate binders.

Lanthanum carbonate versus placebo for management of hyperphosphatemia in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis: a subgroup analysis of a phase 2 randomized controlled study of dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: This short-term study assessed the efficacy and safety of lanthanum carbonate in the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in dialysis patients; here, we report a prespecified subgroup analysis of patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. METHODS: Men and women (n=39) who had received continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis for chronic kidney disease for 6 months or more were enrolled in eight renal medicine departments in the United Kingdom. A 2-week washout period was followed by a 4-week dose-titration phase during which patients received lanthanum carbonate titrated up to 2250 mg/day. This was followed by a 4-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase during which patients continued to receive either lanthanum carbonate at the titrated dose, or a matched dose of placebo. The main outcome measure was control of serum phosphate levels (1.3-1.8 mmol/l) at the end of the parallel-group phase. RESULTS: Serum phosphate was controlled in 3/39 (8%) patients at the beginning of the dose-titration phase (after washout) and in 18/31 (58%) patients treated with lanthanum carbonate at its end. After the parallel-group phase, 60% of lanthanum carbonate-treated patients and 10% of those receiving placebo had controlled serum phosphate. There was no difference in mean (95% confidence interval) serum phosphate levels between groups at randomization: lanthanum carbonate, 1.57 (1.34-1.81) mmol/l; placebo, 1.58 (1.40-1.76) mmol/l (p=0.96). However, a difference was seen at the end of the parallel-group phase: lanthanum carbonate, 1.56 (1.33-1.79) mmol/l; placebo, 2.25 (1.81-2.68) mmol/l (p=0.0015). There were no clinically important changes in nutritional parameters and no serious treatment-related adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: At doses up to 2250 mg/day, lanthanum carbonate is well tolerated and controls hyperphosphatemia effectively. Treatment with higher doses of lanthanum carbonate may allow patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis the potential to increase their dietary protein intake without compromising their phosphate control.

Lanthanum carbonate reduces urine phosphorus excretion: evidence of high-capacity phosphate binding.

The effectiveness of phosphate binders can be assessed by evaluating urinary phosphorus excretion in healthy volunteers, which indicates the ability of the phosphate binder to reduce gastrointestinal phosphate absorption. Healthy volunteers were enrolled into one of five separate randomized trials; four were open label and one double blind. Following a screening period of ≤28 days, participants received differing tablets containing lanthanum carbonate [LC, 3000 mg/day of elemental lanthanum (in one study other doses were also used)]. Participants received a standardized phosphate diet and remained in the relevant study center throughout the duration of each treatment period. The end point in all studies was the reduction in urinary phosphorus excretion. Reductions in mean 24-h urinary phosphorus excretion in volunteers receiving a lanthanum dose of 3000 mg/day were between 236 and 468 mg/day over the five separate studies. These data in healthy volunteers can be used to estimate the amount of reduction of dietary phosphate absorption by LC. The reduction in 24-h urinary phosphorus excretion per tablet was compared with published data on other phosphate binders. Although there are limitations, evidence suggests that LC is a very effective phosphate binder in terms of binding per tablet.

Results of a pilot program to improve phosphorus outcomes in hemodialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: End-stage renal disease causes dysregulation of bone and mineral metabolism, including increased serum phosphorus levels. Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative 2003 guidelines recommend maintaining phosphorus levels between 3.5 and 5.5 mg/dL in dialysis patients. We examined the effects of a focused phosphorus management pilot program designed to improve the percentage of hemodialysis patients achieving phosphorus levels <5.5 mg/dL. DESIGN, SETTING, SUBJECTS, AND INTERVENTION: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study at 8 geographically diverse at-risk facilities (n = 702 hemodialysis patients) in a large U.S. dialysis organization. The focused phosphorus management program provided in-service training to staff members, and provided patients with diet and phosphorus management through in-center, 1:1 education and support, direct-to-patient adherence communications, benefit management assistance, and adherence support specific to lanthanum carbonate over a 6-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Facility-level markers of bone and mineral metabolism (phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, corrected calcium) and nutritional status (serum albumin, normalized protein catabolic rate) were assessed before and after program implementation. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in the percentage of patients per facility achieving phosphorus levels <5.5 mg/dL (mean ± SD at baseline = 61.6% ± 5.2%; month 6 = 71.3% ± 9.0%; P < .01) and parathyroid hormone (150 to 300 pg/mL; mean ± SD at baseline = 39.1% ± 2.4%; month 6 = 44.5% ± 7.0%; P = .04). During the course of the evaluation, mean calcium, albumin, and normalized protein catabolic rate levels did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: These results show proof-of-concept that a focused phosphorus management program targeting both staff members and patients can significantly improve patient outcomes without compromising nutritional status.

Comparison of dietary phosphate absorption after single doses of lanthanum carbonate and sevelamer carbonate in healthy volunteers: a balance study.

BACKGROUND: Lanthanum carbonate and sevelamer carbonate are noncalcium phosphate binders used to treat hyperphosphatemia in patients with chronic kidney disease. This is the first study to compare phosphate absorption from a standardized meal ingested with a typical clinical dose of these binders. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized open-label crossover study. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: Healthy volunteers were confined to a clinical research center during 4 study periods. Of 31 volunteers randomly assigned, 19 completed all treatments and 18 were analyzed in the pharmacodynamic set (1 was excluded because of vomiting). INTERVENTION: Participants were assigned in random order to meal alone, meal plus lanthanum carbonate (1 tablet containing 1,000 mg of elemental lanthanum), and meal plus sevelamer carbonate (three 800-mg tablets). The gastrointestinal tract was cleared, the meal was ingested (± treatment), and rectal effluent was collected. In a fourth period, volunteers repeated the study procedures while fasting. OUTCOMES: The primary end point, net phosphate absorption, was analyzed using a mixed-effect linear model. MEASUREMENTS: Phosphorus content of effluent and duplicate meal samples were measured using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy. RESULTS: The standard meal contained ∼375 mg of phosphate, 75% of which was absorbed (net absorption, 281.7 ± 14.1 mg [adjusted mean ± standard error]). Lanthanum carbonate decreased net phosphate absorption by 45% (net absorption, 156.0 ± 14.2 mg) compared with 21% (net absorption, 221.8 ± 14.1 mg) for sevelamer carbonate (P < 0.001). Lanthanum carbonate bound 135.1 ± 12.3 mg of phosphate, whereas sevelamer carbonate bound 63.2 ± 12.3 mg, a 71.9-mg difference (95% CI, 40.0-103.8; P < 0.001). Per tablet, this equates to 135 mg of phosphate bound with lanthanum carbonate versus 21 mg with sevelamer carbonate. LIMITATIONS: A single-dose study. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy volunteers, 1,000 mg of lanthanum carbonate decreased phosphate absorption by 45% compared with a 21% decrease with 2,400 mg of sevelamer carbonate.

The effect of sevelamer carbonate and lanthanum carbonate on the pharmacokinetics of oral calcitriol.

BACKGROUND: Lanthanum carbonate and sevelamer carbonate are non-calcium-based phosphate binders used to manage hyperphosphataemia in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patients with CKD may require intravenous or oral active vitamin D. We investigated the effects of lanthanum carbonate and sevelamer carbonate on the bioavailability of oral calcitriol. METHODS: This was a three-period, crossover study in healthy volunteers. Forty-one individuals were randomized to one of six possible sequences, each consisting of three treatment periods separated by washouts. The treatments were calcitriol (1 µg at lunch), calcitriol with lanthanum carbonate (3000 mg/day) and calcitriol with sevelamer carbonate (7200 mg/day). Serum calcitriol levels were assessed at baseline and throughout the study. RESULTS: Co-administration of lanthanum carbonate with calcitriol had no significant effect on area under the curve over 48 h (AUC(0-48)) for serum exogenous calcitriol [least-squares (LS) mean, calcitriol with lanthanum carbonate vs calcitriol alone: 429 pg h/mL vs 318 pg h/mL, respectively; P = 0.171]. Similarly, there was no significant effect on maximum concentration (C(max)). In contrast, co-administration with sevelamer was associated with a significant reduction in bioavailability parameters for calcitriol (calcitriol with sevelamer carbonate vs calcitriol alone, LS mean AUC(0-48): 137 pg h/mL vs 318 pg h/mL, respectively; P = 0.024; LS mean C(max): 40.1 pg/mL vs 49.7 pg/mL, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sevelamer carbonate significantly reduces serum concentrations of exogenous calcitriol when administered concomitantly with oral calcitriol, whereas lanthanum carbonate has no significant effect. This should be considered when treating CKD patients who require phosphate binders and oral vitamin D.

Atomoxetine hydrochloride in the treatment of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and comorbid oppositional defiant disorder: A placebo-controlled Italian study.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of atomoxetine in improving ADHD and ODD symptoms in paediatric patients with ADHD and comorbid oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), non-responders to previous psychological intervention with parent support. METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted in patients aged 6-15 years, with ADHD and ODD diagnosed according to the DSM-IV criteria by a structured clinical interview (K-SADS-PL). Only subjects who are non-responders to a 6-week standardized parent training were randomised to atomoxetine (up to 1.2 mg/kg/day) or placebo (in a 3:1 ratio) for the following 8-week double blind phase. RESULTS: Only 2 of the 156 patients enrolled for the parent support phase (92.9% of males; mean age: 9.9 years), improved after the parent training program; 139 patients were randomised for entering in the study and 137 were eligible for efficacy analysis. At the end of the randomised double blind phase, the mean changes in the Swanson, Nolan and Pelham Rating Scale-Revised (SNAP-IV) ADHD subscale were -8.1+/-9.2 and -2.0+/-4.7, respectively in the atomoxetine and in the placebo group (p<0.001 between groups); changes in the ODD subscale were -2.7+/-4.1 and -0.3+/-2.6, respectively in the two groups (p=0.001 between groups). The CGI-ADHD-S score decreased in the atomoxetine group (median change at endpoint: -1.0) compared to no changes in the placebo group (p<0.001 between groups). Statistically significant differences between groups, in favour of atomoxetine, were found in the CHIP-CE scores for risk avoidance domain, emotional comfort and individual risk avoidance subdomains. An improvement in all the subscales of Conners Parents (CPRS-R:S) and Teacher (CTRS-R:S) subscales was observed with atomoxetine, except in the cognitive problems subscale in the CTRS-R:S. Only 3 patients treated with atomoxetine discontinued the study due to adverse events. No clinically significant changes of body weight, height and vital signs were observed in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with atomoxetine of children and adolescents with ADHD and ODD, who did not initially respond to parental support, was associated with improvements in symptoms of ADHD and ODD, and general health status. Atomoxetine was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of atomoxetine as add-on to psychoeducation in the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in stimulant-naïve Swedish children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the impact of atomoxetine in combination with psychoeducation, compared with placebo and psychoeducation, on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in Swedish stimulant-naïve pediatric patients with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). HRQL results will be presented elsewhere. Here, psychoeducation as well as efficacy and safety of the treatment are described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 99 pediatric ADHD patients were randomized to a 10-week double-blind treatment with atomoxetine (49 patients) or placebo (50 patients). Parents of all patients received four sessions of psychoeducation. Atomoxetine was dosed up to approximately 1.2 mg/kg day (< or = 70 kg) or 80 mg/day (> 70 kg). Improvement of ADHD symptoms was evaluated using the ADHD rating scale (ADHD-RS) and clinical global impression (CGI) rating scales. Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The study population was predominantly male (80.8%) and diagnosed with the combined ADHD subtype (77.8%). The least square mean (lsmean) change from baseline to endpoint in total ADHD-RS score was -19.0 for atomoxetine patients and -6.3 for placebo patients, resulting in an effect size (ES) of 1.3 at endpoint. Treatment response (reduction in ADHD-RS score of > or = 25 or > or = 40%) was achieved in 71.4 or 63.3% of atomoxetine patients and 28.6 or 14.3% of placebo patients. The lsmean change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-Severity was -1.8 in the atomoxetine group compared with -0.3 in the placebo group. The difference between treatments in CGI-Improvement at endpoint was -1.4 in favor of atomoxetine. No serious AEs occurred. The safety profile of atomoxetine was in line with the current label. CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine combined with psychoeducation was superior to placebo and psychoeducation in ADHD core symptoms improvement. The large ES might be a result of including stimulant-naïve patients only, but also may indicate a positive interaction between atomoxetine treatment and psychoeducation, possibly by increased compliance.

The provision and nature of ADHD services for children/adolescents in the UK: results from a nationwide survey.

The Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Observational Research in Europe (ADORE) project aims to describe the relationship between prescribed treatment regimen and quality of life in ADHD patients across Europe over a 2-year period. As an adjunct to the ADORE study, a survey was conducted to assess the availability and range of ADHD treatment services in the UK. A questionnaire was developed to assess service provision at 20 UK ADORE sites. These data give information regarding the assessment process (i.e. the formal psychological instrumentation used), whether information is requested from schools, and what other medical and allied health care specialities are frequently involved in the diagnosis. Results of the survey provide an important insight into the ADHD-related services provided by ADORE centres, as well as highlighting the availability and limitations of such services.

A multi-centre, randomised, open-label study of atomoxetine compared with standard current therapy in UK children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the broader efficacy (i.e., improvements in quality of life/functional outcomes) of atomoxetine compared with standard current therapy (SCT) in UK paediatric patients with ADHD and to explore clinician/parent/child perceptions of ADHD. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 201 patients with ADHD were randomised into this multi-centre, open-label study to receive atomoxetine (n = 104) or SCT (n = 97) for 10 weeks. Broader efficacy was assessed using the parent-rated Child Health and Illness Profile-Child Edition (CHIP-CE) total (global) t-score. Secondary outcome measures included the five CHIP-CE domains; parent-rated Family Burden of Illness Module (FBIM); investigator-rated ADHD-Rating Scale; investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity/Improvement scales; and child-rated Harter Self-Perception Profile (HSPP). RESULTS: Quality of life of children/adolescents with ADHD was extremely compromised at baseline (CHIP-CE total t-scores: atomoxetine, 23.2 +/- 12.2; SCT, 23.9 +/- 11.0), and improved during the 10-week study for both groups; the CHIP-CE score was statistically significantly higher for patients treated with atomoxetine (38.4 +/- 1.3) compared with SCT (30.8 +/- 1.3) at week 10 (p < 0.001). ADHD-RS, CGI-Severity, and CGI-Improvement scores were significantly different between the groups in favour of atomoxetine (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in the HSPP Social Acceptance domain in favour of atomoxetine, but not in the five other HSPP domains or FBIM total score. Atomoxetine was well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this open-label trial show that atomoxetine is superior to SCT in addressing broader efficacy and functional outcomes in UK children/adolescents with ADHD. This study contributes to the understanding of broader efficacy in children with ADHD, and is timely in light of recent NICE guidance.

Cross-cultural reliability and validity of ADHD assessed by the ADHD Rating Scale in a pan-European study.

OBJECTIVES: To provide psychometric information on the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) in a large population of children with ADHD. METHODS: Patients aged 6-18 years (n=1,478 in baseline analysis) were rated by 244 physicians on the ADHD-RS-IV based on a semi-structured interview with the patient's parent. Physicians additionally rated functional impairment (CGAS) and health status (CGI-S), and parents rated their child's behavioural and emotional problems (SDQ) and quality of life (CHIP-CE). RESULTS: Inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity as dimensions of ADHD were replicated. 3-factor solutions reflecting the ICD-10 definition, with hyperactivity, impulsivity and inattention as separate dimensions were extracted in some national sub-samples and in separate analyses for boys and younger children.Good internal consistencies, strong country effects and small effects of age were found. Based on ADHD-RS-IV, 88.5% of patients met the criteria for any ADHD diagnosis. Correlations between ADHD-RS-IV and measures of functional impairment were low but statistically significant. The correlations with SDQ and CHIP-CE scales confirm the convergent and divergent validity of ADHD-RS-IV. CONCLUSIONS: Impressive evidence for the cross-cultural factorial validity, internal consistency as well as convergent and divergent validity of ADHD-RS-IV was found. ADHD can be assessed reliably and validly in routine care across Europe. The ICD-10 3-factor model seems to be less robust than the DSM-IV 2-factor model, but may be a good description for special populations (boys, younger children).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of stratified versus stepped care strategies for acute treatment of migraine: The Disability in Strategies for Care (DISC) Study.

BACKGROUND: The Disability in Strategies for Care (DISC) study was the first large randomised controlled trial to compare alternative treatment strategies in the acute treatment of migraine. With 835 patients in its intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, DISC compared a stratified care strategy, where initial therapy was based on clinical need as determined by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) and two stepped care strategies (across attacks and within attacks), where first-line therapy with a simple combination analgesic was escalated, if response had been inadequate, to zolmitriptan, a migraine-specific therapy. OBJECTIVE: To report on the cost effectiveness of these three strategies from a societal perspective. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken using data from the DISC study, and including both health service and productivity costs. Data were collected prospectively on drug usage (main therapy and rescue medication); resource use associated with adverse events was estimated by a clinician blinded to treatment strategy. Health service resource use was costed using UK unit costs (1999 to 2000 values). Data were collected using diary cards on the amount of time patients lost from work, and on reduced effectiveness at work, due to a migraine attack. This facilitated an estimate of the productivity costs associated with the treatment strategies. To assess cost effectiveness, the differences in costs between the strategies were related to the two primary outcome measures in the trial: headache response 2 hours after initial therapy and disability-adjusted time during the first 4 hours after initial therapy. RESULTS: Although the mean health service cost was higher in the stratified care group (mean over 6 attacks of pound 28.25 versus pound 11.74 and pound 23.15 in the stepped care across attacks group and within attacks group, respectively), mean productivity costs over 6 attacks were lower in the stratified group (pound 112.22 versus pound 144.70 and pound 127.53). The total mean cost over six attacks was, therefore, lowest in the stratified care group (pound 138.95 compared with pound 157.19 in the stepped care across attacks group and pound 148.53 in the stepped care within attacks group), although these differences did not reach statistical significance. In terms of headache response, stratified care was statistically significantly more effective than both forms of stepped care. Using disability-adjusted time, stratified care was statistically significantly more effective than stepped care across attacks, but not against stepped care within attacks. CONCLUSION: Given its lower mean costs and higher mean effectiveness, a stratified care strategy, which included zolmitriptan, was the dominant strategy and was unequivocally more cost effective from a societal perspective than either stepped care strategy. When the uncertainty around these means was considered, stratified care had the highest probability of being cost effective.