Association between Early Guanfacine Discontinuation and Somnolence for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Guanfacine, used as a medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), leads to a high incidence of somnolence, in contrast to methylphenidate, which leads to a high incidence of insomnia. The impact of somnolence on continuing guanfacine treatment is unclear. Therefore, we investigated the reasons for discontinuing guanfacine and analyzed the factors associated with discontinuation caused by somnolence. We surveyed 96 patients under guanfacine from July 2017 to December 2021 at the Saga University Hospital. Patients who discontinued guanfacine by the end date of our study were divided into a median early and late group. We compared the reasons for discontinuation in both groups. Of all patients, 47 continued and 49 discontinued guanfacine. A higher percentage of patients discontinued guanfacine caused by somnolence for ≤70 d than for >70 d of treatment (44.0 vs. 8.3%; p = 0.008). When stratified by the concomitant use of other ADHD drugs, somnolence resulted in a higher discontinuation rate for ≤70 d than for >70 d of treatment without concomitant use (55.0 vs. 7.1%; p = 0.009). Nonetheless, concomitant use resulted in no difference. In conclusion, somnolence affects the early discontinuation of guanfacine as an ADHD drug. The combination of methylphenidate or atomoxetine may decrease withdrawal caused by somnolence.

Guanfacine for the Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents with Down Syndrome: A Retrospective Chart Review.

Study Design: Retrospective case series. Objectives: The objective of this study was to provide naturalistic data on the use of guanfacine for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a clinically referred sample of youth with Down syndrome (DS). Methods: The medical records of children and adolescents with DS who received guanfacine for the treatment of ADHD from a multidisciplinary neurodevelopmental disorder clinic between September 1, 2011, and September 10, 2021, were reviewed. Demographic and clinical characteristics, guanfacine dose and treatment duration, and adverse effects were recorded. Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) scores for ADHD symptom severity (S) and improvement (I) were retrospectively assigned by a child and adolescent psychiatrist based on review of the clinic notes. Response to guanfacine was defined as completion of at least 12 weeks of treatment and a Clinical Global Impression Improvement subscale rating ≤2 (1 = "very much improved" or 2 = "much improved"). Results: Twenty-one patients were eligible for inclusion, of whom 17 (81%) completed at least 12 weeks of guanfacine. Ten of the 21 patients (48%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 28%-68%) responded to treatment. The median time on guanfacine treatment covered by the clinic notes was 50.4 weeks, with a range of 0.3 weeks to 7.5 years. Thirteen patients (62%) remained on guanfacine at the time of their most recent clinic note. Nine patients had adverse events documented in their clinic notes (43%; 95% CI: 24%-63%), most commonly sleepiness (n = 7) and constipation (n = 2). Conclusion: About half of patients with DS responded to guanfacine for the treatment of ADHD and many tolerated long-term use. Study limitations primarily relate to the retrospective nature of the study and small sample size.

Nonstimulant Medications for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: For some adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), nonstimulants need to be considered either as a monotherapy or as an adjunct to stimulants. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to assess the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of nonstimulants in adults with ADHD. METHODS: Data sources, searches, and study selection were based on a previously published network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by Cortese at al. (Lancet Psychiatry 5(9):727-738, 2018), which we updated in March 2022. Specifically, we searched PubMed, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, OpenGrey, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UK and Ireland), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (abstracts and international), and the WHO International Trials Registry Platform, including ClinicalTrials.gov for double-blind RCTs with a placebo arm, lasting at least one week, including adults with a diagnosis of ADHD based on DSM-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV(TR), DSM-5 or ICD-9- or 10, and reporting data on efficacy, tolerability (drop-out due to side effects) and acceptability (drop-out due to any cause) of guanfacine, clonidine, or atomoxetine. Additionally, we searched for RCTs of viloxazine extended release (ER), approved for ADHD in 2021. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, and the risk of bias for individual RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: We included 18 studies in the meta-analyses (4308 participants) plus one additional study in the narrative synthesis (374 participants). The meta-analysis showed that atomoxetine (15 RCTs) (Hedge's g = - 0.48, 95% CI [- 0.64; - 0.33]), guanfacine (two RCTs) (Hedge's g = - 0.66, 95% CI [- 0.94; - 0.38]) and viloxazine ER (one RCT) were significantly more efficacious than placebo. Atomoxetine was less well tolerated than placebo, while tolerability of guanfacine and viloxazine ER could not be meta-analysed, since only one study, for each medication, reported on it. CONCLUSIONS: All investigated nonstimulants were more efficacious in the treatment of ADHD in adults, than placebo, while the placebo had better acceptability and tolerability. PROTOCOL: https://osf.io/5vnmt/?view_only=2bf87ed12ba94645babedceeee4c0120 .

Guanfacine for the Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Non-stimulant guanfacine is a common second-line medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have explored the efficacy of guanfacine in ADHD treatment. This meta-analysis combined data from selected RCTs to analyze the efficacy and safety of guanfacine in treating ADHD. Methods: RCTs were identified from published sources through searches in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase (up to February 2022), defining the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) treatment response score of ≤2 as the primary outcome. Subgroup analysis was performed with a bound treatment duration of 10 weeks. Safety was defined by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: Twelve out of 332 studies with 2653 participants were included. All studies compared guanfacine with placebos. Guanfacine was significantly more effective in treating ADHD (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.78, 95% CI: 1.59-2.01). In the <10 weeks subgroup, the efficacy in the guanfacine group compared with the placebo group was 58.5% versus 29.4%, respectively (RR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.71-2.26). In the >10 weeks subgroup, the efficacy in the guanfacine group compared with the placebo group was 63.6% versus 39.7%, respectively (RR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.37-1.79). Both subgroups lacked heterogeneity (I2 = 0), and a funnel plot showed a low publication bias risk. Around 80% of participants in the guanfacine group experienced at least one TEAE, compared with 66.5% in the placebo group (RR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.14-1.32), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 46, p = 0.05). The most common TEAEs in the guanfacine group were somnolence (38.6%), headaches (20.5%), and fatigue (15.2%). Conclusions: Guanfacine is safe and effective for treating ADHD, with no serious adverse events. Guanfacine should be considered as an effective treatment option where effectiveness or tolerability of the central nervous system stimulant is of concern. There is stronger evidence of efficacy for children; more clinical studies are needed for adults.

Noradrenergic Add-on Therapy with Extended-Release Guanfacine in Alzheimer's Disease (NorAD): study protocol for a randomised clinical trial and COVID-19 amendments.

BACKGROUND: Guanfacine is a α2A adrenergic receptor agonist approved for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It is thought to act via postsynaptic receptors in the prefrontal cortex, modulating executive functions including the regulation of attention. Attention is affected early in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and this may relate to pathological changes within the locus coeruleus, the main source of noradrenergic pathways within the brain. Given that cholinergic pathways, also involved in attention, are disrupted in AD, the combination of noradrenergic and cholinergic treatments may have a synergistic effect on symptomatic AD. The primary objective of the NorAD trial is to evaluate the change in cognition with 12 weeks of treatment of extended-release guanfacine (GXR) against a placebo as a combination therapy with cholinesterase inhibitors in participants with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. METHODS/DESIGN: NorAD is a 3-month, single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of extended-release guanfacine (GXR) in participants with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. A total of 160 participants will be randomised to receive either daily guanfacine or placebo in combination with approved cholinesterase treatment for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is the change in cognition, as measured by the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog), from baseline to follow-up in the treatment group compared to the placebo group. Secondary outcomes include the change in additional cognitive measures of attention (Tests of Attention: Trails A and B, digit-symbol substitution, Test of Everyday Attention and CANTAB-RVP), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), caregiver burden (Zarit Burden Interview) and activities of daily living (Alzheimer's Disease Co-operative Study - Activities of Daily Living Inventory). From July 2020, observation of change following cessation of treatment is also being assessed. DISCUSSION: There is strong evidence for early noradrenergic dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease. The NorAD trial aims to determine whether guanfacine, a noradrenergic alpha-2 agonist, improves attention and cognition when used in addition to standard cholinergic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03116126 . Registered on 14 April 2017 EudraCT: 2016-002598-36.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting and Prescribing Trends of Drugs for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Primary Care England, 2010-2019.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the prescription trends and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of ADHD drugs in primary care, England between 2010 and 2019. METHODS: The Prescription Cost Analysis database presenting the primary care prescriptions data and the Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles presenting all suspected ADRs reported for each drug were screened. The data were analyzed using linear regression analysis to examine the annual average change per year. RESULTS: The prescription items dispensed for ADHD showed an average 11.07% (95% CI 10.54-11.60, p = .001) increase per year and there was a mean 11.54% (95% CI 11.03-12.06, p = .001) increase per year in the costs. The overall reporting of serious and fatal ADR was reduced by 1.79% per year for ADHD drugs. Guanfacine showed a 40% mean increase per year. CONCLUSION: The increasing use of ADHD drugs within primary care in England could be a result of multiple factors such as growing ADHD prevalence.

Determination of Guanfacine in Oral Fluid and Serum of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Short Communication.

BACKGROUND: Guanfacine, a selective α2A-adrenoreceptor agonist, is a second-line medication for treating children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperkinetic disorder. The dosage administered as milligram per body weight to balance the potential benefits and risks of treatment. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is useful for identifying a patient's therapeutic window to optimize individual drug dosing and reduce the risk of adverse drug reactions. However, in children and adolescents, intravenous sample collection is especially stressful and thus remains a primary challenge, restricting the use of TDM. Therefore, evaluating alternative specimens to facilitate TDM is a worthwhile task. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of using oral fluid for TDM of guanfacine in children and adolescents. METHODS: In this article, 9 patients (median age 8.1 years; 6 boys and 3 girls) undergoing treatment with guanfacine were included. Simultaneously collected oral fluid and serum samples were deproteinized using methanol containing a stable isotope-labeled internal standard before the determination of guanfacine by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Pearson correlation and paired t test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The mean serum guanfacine concentration was 3 times higher than that detected in oral fluid (7.47 ng/mL versus 2.36 ng/mL; t (8) = 5.94; P < 0.001). A strong positive linear correlation (r = 0.758, P = 0.018) was identified between oral fluid and serum concentrations. A strong but nonsignificant negative correlation (r = -0.574, P = 0.106) was detected between the oral fluid pH and oral fluid-to-serum concentration ratio. CONCLUSIONS: The strong correlation between oral fluid and serum concentration and the probable small effect of oral fluid pH on oral fluid-to-serum concentration ratio supports guanfacine as a suitable candidate for TDM in oral fluid.

Headache in ADHD as comorbidity and a side effect of medications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is mixed evidence on the association between headache and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as headache and ADHD medications. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the co-occurrence of headache in children with ADHD, and the effects of ADHD medications on headache. Embase, Medline and PsycInfo were searched for population-based and clinical studies comparing the prevalence of headache in ADHD and controls through January 26, 2021. In addition, we updated the search of a previous systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ADHD medications on June 16, 2020. Trials of amphetamines, atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with a placebo arm and reporting data on headache as an adverse event, were included. Thirteen epidemiological studies and 58 clinical trials were eligible for inclusion. In epidemiological studies, a significant association between headache and ADHD was found [odds ratio (OR) = 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.63-2.46], which remained significant when limited to studies reporting ORs adjusted for possible confounders. The pooled prevalence of headaches in children with ADHD was 26.6%. In RCTs, three ADHD medications were associated with increased headache during treatment periods, compared to placebo: atomoxetine (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.06-1.56), guanfacine (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.12-1.82), and methylphenidate (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.09-1.63). The summarized evidence suggests that headache is common in children with ADHD, both as part of the clinical presentation as such and as a side effect of some standard medications. Monitoring and clinical management strategies of headache in ADHD, in general, and during pharmacological treatment are recommended.

α2-Adrenergic Agonists or Stimulants for Preschool-Age Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Importance: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is diagnosed in approximately 2.4% of preschool-age children. Stimulants are recommended as first-line medication treatment. However, up to 25% of preschool-age children with ADHD are treated with α2-adrenergic agonist medications, despite minimal evidence about their efficacy or adverse effects in this age range. Objective: To determine the frequency of reported improvement in ADHD symptoms and adverse effects associated with α2-adrenergic agonists and stimulant medication for initial ADHD medication treatment in preschool-age children. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective electronic health record review. Data were obtained from health records of children seen at 7 outpatient developmental-behavioral pediatric practices in the Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics Research Network in the US. Data were abstracted for 497 consecutive children who were younger than 72 months when treatment with an α2-adrenergic agonist or stimulant medication was initiated by a developmental-behavioral pediatrician for ADHD and were treated between January 1, 2013, and July 1, 2017. Follow-up was complete on February 27, 2019. Exposures: α2-Adrenergic agonist vs stimulant medication as initial ADHD medication treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reported improvement in ADHD symptoms and adverse effects. Results: Data were abstracted from electronic health records of 497 preschool-age children with ADHD receiving α2-adrenergic agonists or stimulants. Median child age was 62 months at ADHD medication initiation, and 409 children (82%) were males. For initial ADHD medication treatment, α2-adrenergic agonists were prescribed to 175 children (35%; median length of α2-adrenergic agonist use, 136 days) and stimulants were prescribed to 322 children (65%; median length of stimulant use, 133 days). Improvement was reported in 66% (95% CI, 57.5%-73.9%) of children who initiated α2-adrenergic agonists and 78% (95% CI, 72.4%-83.4%) of children who initiated stimulants. Only daytime sleepiness was more common for those receiving α2-adrenergic agonists vs stimulants (38% vs 3%); several adverse effects were reported more commonly for those receiving stimulants vs α2-adrenergic agonists, including moodiness/irritability (50% vs 29%), appetite suppression (38% vs 7%), and difficulty sleeping (21% vs 11%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective review of health records of preschool-age children with ADHD treated in developmental-behavioral pediatric practices, improvement was noted in the majority of children who received α2-adrenergic agonists or stimulants, with differing adverse effect profiles between medication classes. Further research, including from randomized clinical trials, is needed to assess comparative effectiveness of α2-adrenergic agonists vs stimulants.

Evaluating Guanfacine Hydrochloride in the Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adult Patients: Design, Development and Place in Therapy.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by age-inappropriate and impairing levels of inattention, hyperactivity, or impulsivity, or a combination of these characteristics. It is estimated to affect around 4% of adults worldwide. In the past few decades, prescriptions for ADHD drugs (psychostimulants and non-psychostimulants) have increased significantly. However, the efficacy and safety of adult ADHD medications remains controversial. Guanfacine extended-release (GXR) is a non-psychostimulant ADHD drug that is a selective α2A-adrenergic receptor agonist, first approved for treatment of adult ADHD in Japan in June 2019. Our aim was to provide an overview of GXR pharmacology and review the studies on efficacy and safety that have been conducted in adults with ADHD. The beneficial actions of guanfacine are thought to be attributed to the strengthening of prefrontal cortical network connections, which regulate attention, emotion, and behavior via the activity at post-synaptic α2A receptors. Current evidence of GXR efficacy and safety suggests that GXR is an effective monotherapy treatment option for adults with ADHD.

Pharmacotherapy of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature.

AIM: To assess the empirical evidence for the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in populations with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). METHODS: A systemic PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase, and Medline database search of peer-reviewed literature was conducted. Included in the review were controlled trials published in English with sample sizes ⩾10 participants examining the safety and efficacy of anti-ADHD medication in ASD populations. Data was extracted on relevant variables of study design, demographics, associated psychopathology, medication dose, efficacy, and tolerability. RESULTS: Nine controlled trials met the inclusion and exclusion criteria: five with methylphenidate, three with atomoxetine, and one with guanfacine. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 128 with 430 children participating across all the trials. In all the trials, treatment response was significantly superior to placebo. However, almost all trials assessed only hyperactivity, and most included only participants with intellectual disability with high levels of irritability. None of the trials distinguished agitation from hyperactivity. The response on hyperactivity for methylphenidate and atomoxetine was less than that observed in the neurotypical population; however, the response for guanfacine surpassed results observed in neurotypical populations. Treatment-emergent mood lability (i.e. mood dysregulation and mood-related adverse events) was frequently associated with methylphenidate and guanfacine treatments. Worse treatment outcomes were associated with individuals with lower intellectual capability compared with those with higher IQs. CONCLUSIONS: here is a scarcity of controlled trials examining ADHD treatments in ASD populations, particularly in intellectually capable individuals with ASD and in adults. Response to ADHD medications in ASD were adversely moderated by the presence of intellectual disability and mood lability.

Efficacy and safety of guanfacine extended-release in Japanese adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Exploratory post hoc subgroup analyses of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

AIM: Previously, we reported on the efficacy and safety of guanfacine extended-release (GXR) in Japanese adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) from a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, we assessed the efficacy and/or safety of GXR in the following subgroups: ADHD-combined (ADHD-C) and ADHD-predominantly inattentive (ADHD-I) subtypes, age (≥31, <31 years), sex (male, female), and body weight (≥50, <50 kg). METHODS: The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in the Japanese version of the investigator-rated ADHD-Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with adult prompts (total scores) at week 10. RESULTS: The efficacy analysis population included 200 patients (GXR, 100; placebo, 100). ADHD-RS-IV total score effect sizes (GXR vs placebo) were similar across all subgroups (total population: 0.52, ADHD-C: 0.51, ADHD-I: 0.52, ≥31 years: 0.61, <31 years: 0.47, male: 0.50, female: 0.57). There were no major differences in the incidence/types of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) across the subgroups. The incidence of significant TEAEs (34.3%, 10.6%) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (34.3%, 12.1%) were approximately three times higher in females than males, respectively. The incidence of TEAEs in patients weighing <50 kg and ≥50 kg was 100% and 73.6% during dose optimization and 40% and 24.4% during the maintenance period, respectively. CONCLUSION: Findings from this post hoc analysis in adults with ADHD support the efficacy and safety of GXR regardless of ADHD subtype, age, or sex and suggest that careful monitoring for TEAEs and GXR dose optimization is considered for all patients, as needed.

Safety and efficacy of guanfacine extended-release in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: an open-label, long-term, phase 3 extension study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the safety and efficacy of long-term administration of guanfacine extended-release (GXR) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: In this open-label, long-term, phase 3 extension study in Japan, 150 patients transitioned from a double-blind trial, and 41 newly enrolled patients received once daily GXR (starting dose 2 mg/day, maintenance dose 4-6 mg/day) for 50 weeks. Primary outcome measures were the frequency and nature of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); secondary outcome measures included the change from week 0 in ADHD Rating Scale IV with Adult Prompts (ADHD-RS-IV; Japanese version) total and subscale scores, Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) and Patient Global Impression-Improvement (PGI-I) scales, and quality of life (QoL) and executive functioning measures. RESULTS: Of all patients, 94.2% (180/191) reported ≥1 TEAE and 19.9% (38/191) discontinued because of a TEAE. Most TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity; there were two serious TEAEs and no deaths. Commonly reported TEAEs (≥10% of patients) were somnolence, thirst, nasopharyngitis, decreased blood pressure, postural dizziness, bradycardia, malaise, constipation, and dizziness. Mean changes from week 0 in ADHD-RS-IV total and subscale scores and CAARS subscale scores were significantly improved in former placebo or GXR patients and new patients at last observation (p < .0001), and the percentage of patients with very much or much improved CGI-I and PGI-I scores increased. CONCLUSIONS: There were no major safety concerns during long-term GXR administration in adults with ADHD. After long-term treatment, patients had significant improvements from baseline in ADHD symptoms, QoL, and executive functioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Primary Registries Network ( https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/en/ ): JapicCTI-163232, registered 04/21/2016.

Pharmacologic treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD. METHODS: We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049.

Evaluation of the current data on guanfacine extended release for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents.

Introduction: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) commonly occurs in children, adolescents, and adults. Although symptoms of ADHD often respond robustly to treatment with stimulants (amphetamine or methylphenidate), not all patients are appropriate candidates for treatment with these drugs. Guanfacine extended-release (GXR) is a non-stimulant alternative drug approved for the treatment of ADHD in the United States (U.S.), Canada, and Europe.Areas covered: The chemistry, pharmacokinetics, mechanism of action and dosage of GXR are presented. Efficacy and safety data obtained in clinical trials with subjects aged 6-17 years for both GXR monotherapy and use in combination with stimulants are described. Meta-analyses comparing GXR to other drugs are presented. MedWatch surveillance data collected for GXR since approval in the U.S. are also discussed.Expert opinion: Although GXR is effective for the treatment of ADHD and has a different side effect profile than stimulants, it is not as impressive in reducing symptoms. Despite the availability of multiple pharmacological treatments for ADHD, there remains an unmet need for formulations as potent as stimulants but with fewer adverse effects. Several pharmacological agents for ADHD treatment are in development. It is not clear that any of these compounds will replace currently available formulations as first-line alternatives.

Weight and Height in Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Longitudinal Database Study Assessing the Impact of Guanfacine, Stimulants, and No Pharmacotherapy.

Objectives: To assess the impact of long-term pharmacotherapy with guanfacine immediate- or extended-release (GXR), administered alone or as an adjunctive to a stimulant, on weight and height in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: Data were extracted from U.S. Department of Defense medical records for patients 4-17 years of age at index date (initiation of any study medication following a year without ADHD medications, or diagnosis if unmedicated) with weight/height measurements for the analysis period (January 2009-June 2013) and the previous year (baseline). Longitudinal weight and height z-scores were analyzed using multivariable regression in three cohorts: guanfacine (initial period of guanfacine exposure), first-line stimulant monotherapy (initial period of exposure), and unmedicated. Guanfacine cohort subgroups were based on previous/concurrent stimulant exposure. Results: The weight analyses included 47,910 patients (66.8% male) and the height analyses 41,248 (67.2% male). Mean initial exposure in the weight analyses was 237 days (standard deviation [SD] = 258, median = 142) for guanfacine and 257 days (SD = 284, median = 151) for first-line stimulant monotherapy, and was similar in the height analyses. Modeling indicated that guanfacine monotherapy was not associated with clinically meaningful deviations from normal z-score trajectories for weight (first-line, n = 943; nonfirst-line, n = 796) or height (first-line, n = 741; nonfirst-line, n = 644). In patients receiving guanfacine adjunctive to a stimulant, modeled weight (n = 1657) and height (n = 1343) z-scores followed declining trajectories. In this subgroup, mean standardized weight/height had decreased during previous stimulant monotherapy. For first-line stimulant monotherapy, modeled weight (n = 32,999) and height (n = 28,470) z-scores followed declining trajectories during year 1. In the unmedicated cohort, modeled weight (n = 11,515) and height (n = 10,050) z-scores were stable. Conclusions: Guanfacine monotherapy (first-line or nonfirst-line) was not associated with marked deviations from normal growth in this modeling study of children and adolescents with ADHD. In contrast, growth trajectories followed an initially declining course with stimulants, whether given alone or with adjunctive guanfacine.

Guanfacine Extended Release for the Reduction of Aggression, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms, and Self-Injurious Behavior in Prader-Willi Syndrome-A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objective: To examine the role of Guanfacine Extended Release (GXR) in the management of behavioral disturbances in patients with Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS). Methods: Twenty from a total of 27 individuals with genetically confirmed PWS, 6-26 years of age, with the following symptoms were identified: significant aggression/agitation, skin picking, and/or symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Response to GXR for the above noted symptoms was categorized as improved, worsened, or unchanged, while assessing for side effects and tolerability. Results: Eleven of the 20 individuals reported skin-picking, 17 reported aggression/agitation, and 16 reported symptoms of ADHD. Nine (81.8%), 14 (82.3%), and 15 (93.7%) individuals showed an improvement in skin-picking, aggression/agitation, and ADHD, respectively, while on GXR treatment. Two patients with prior complaints of psychotic symptoms did not respond to GXR. Of note, no abnormal weight gain or significant adverse reaction was observed in this group, while on GXR. Conclusions: In this study, GXR demonstrated improvement in symptoms of skin picking, aggression/agitation, and ADHD in patients with PWS. GXR was not effective in reducing psychosis or agitation related to psychotic symptoms. Future studies are warranted to further establish the utility of GXR in PWS patients.