Functional outcomes from a head-to-head, randomized, double-blind trial of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and an inadequate response to methylphenidate.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with functional impairments in multiple domains of patients' lives. A secondary objective of this randomized, active-controlled, head-to-head, double-blind, dose-optimized clinical trial was to compare the effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and atomoxetine (ATX) on functional impairment in children and adolescents with ADHD. Patients aged 6-17 years with an ADHD Rating Scale IV total score ≥ 28 and an inadequate response to methylphenidate treatment (judged by investigators) were randomized (1:1) to once-daily LDX or ATX for 9 weeks. Parents/guardians completed the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report (WFIRS-P) at baseline and at week 9 or early termination. p values were nominal and not corrected for multiple comparisons. Of 267 randomized patients, 200 completed the study (LDX 99, ATX 101). At baseline, mean WFIRS-P total score in the LDX group was 0.95 [standard deviation (SD) 0.474; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87, 1.03] and in the ATX group was 0.91 (0.513; 0.82, 1.00). Scores in all WFIRS-P domains improved from baseline to endpoint in both groups, with least-squares mean changes in total score of -0.35 (95% CI -0.42, -0.29) for LDX and -0.27 (-0.33, -0.20) for ATX. The difference between LDX and ATX was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for the Learning and School (effect size of LDX vs ATX, 0.43) and Social Activities (0.34) domains and for total score (0.27). Both treatments reduced functional impairment in children and adolescents with ADHD; LDX was statistically significantly more effective than ATX in two of six domains and in total score.

Treatment response and remission in a double-blind, randomized, head-to-head study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVES: A secondary objective of this head-to-head study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and atomoxetine (ATX) was to assess treatment response rates in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and an inadequate response to methylphenidate (MPH). The primary efficacy and safety outcomes of the study, SPD489-317 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01106430), have been published previously. METHODS: In this 9-week, double-blind, active-controlled study, patients aged 6-17 years with a previous inadequate response to MPH were randomized (1:1) to dose-optimized LDX (30, 50 or 70 mg/day) or ATX (patients <70 kg: 0.5-1.2 mg/kg/day, not to exceed 1.4 mg/kg/day; patients ≥70 kg: 40, 80 or 100 mg/day). Treatment response was a secondary efficacy outcome and was predefined as a reduction from baseline in ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score of at least 25, 30 or 50 %. Sustained response was predefined as a reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score (≥25, ≥30 or ≥50 %) or a Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-Improvement (CGI-I) score of 1 or 2 throughout weeks 4-9. CGI-Severity (CGI-S) scores were also assessed, as an indicator of remission. RESULTS: A total of 267 patients were enrolled (LDX, n = 133; ATX, n = 134) and 200 completed the study (LDX, n = 99; ATX, n = 101). By week 9, significantly (p < 0.01) greater proportions of patients receiving LDX than ATX met the response criteria of a reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score of at least 25 % (90.5 vs. 76.7 %), 30 % (88.1 vs. 73.7 %) or 50 % (73.0 vs. 50.4 %). Sustained response rates were also significantly (p < 0.05) higher among LDX-treated patients (ADHD-RS-IV ≥25, 66.1 %; ADHD-RS-IV ≥30, 61.4 %; ADHD-RS-IV ≥50, 41.7 %; CGI-I, 52.0 %) than among ATX-treated individuals (ADHD-RS-IV ≥25, 51.1 %; ADHD-RS-IV ≥30, 47.4 %; ADHD-RS-IV ≥50, 23.7 %; CGI-I, 39.3 %). Finally, by week 9, 60.7 % of patients receiving LDX and 46.3 % of those receiving ATX had a CGI-S score of 1 (normal, not at all ill) or 2 (borderline mentally ill), and greater proportions of patients in the LDX group than the ATX group experienced a reduction from baseline of at least one CGI-S category. CONCLUSIONS: Both LDX and ATX treatment were associated with high levels of treatment response in children and adolescents with ADHD and a previous inadequate response to MPH. However, within the parameters of the study, LDX was associated with significantly higher treatment response rates than ATX across all response criteria examined. In addition, higher proportions of patients in the LDX group than the ATX group had a CGI-S score of 1 or 2 by week 9, indicating remission of symptoms. Both treatments were generally well tolerated, with safety profiles consistent with those observed in previous studies.

Maintenance of efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: randomized-withdrawal study design.

OBJECTIVE: In this phase 3 extension study, the long-term maintenance of efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was evaluated using a randomized-withdrawal study design. METHOD: European and US patients (6-17 years; N = 276) with ADHD were entered into a 26-week open-label trial of LDX treatment. Those who completed the open-label period (n = 157) were randomized 1:1 to their optimized dose of LDX (30, 50, or 70 mg per day) or placebo for a 6-week randomized-withdrawal period (RWP). The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients meeting treatment failure criteria (≥50% increase in ADHD Rating Scale IV total score and ≥2-point increase in Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness [CGI-S] score, compared with RWP start point). Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: During the RWP (LDX, n = 78; placebo, n = 79), significantly fewer patients receiving LDX met treatment failure criteria (15.8%) compared with those receiving placebo (67.5%; difference = -51.7%; 95% confidence interval = -65.0, -38.5; p < .001 ). Most treatment failures occurred at or before the week 2 visit after randomization. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 39.7% and 25.3% of patients receiving LDX and placebo, respectively, during the RWP. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate the maintenance of efficacy of LDX during long-term treatment in children and adolescents with ADHD. The rapid return of symptoms on LDX withdrawal demonstrates the need for continuing treatment. The safety profile of LDX was consistent with that of other stimulants. Clinical trial registration information-Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Withdrawal, Extension, Safety and Efficacy Study of LDX in Children and Adolescents Aged 6-17; http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00784654.

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate augmentation in adults with persistent executive dysfunction after partial or full remission of major depressive disorder.

Evaluate lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) augmentation of antidepressant monotherapy for executive dysfunction in partially or fully remitted major depressive disorder (MDD). This randomized, placebo-controlled study (NCT00985725) enrolled 143 adults (18-55 years) with mild MDD (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score ≤ 18) and executive dysfunction (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A) Self-Report Global Executive Composite (GEC) T score ≥ 60) on stable antidepressant monotherapy for ≥ 8 weeks. After 2 weeks of screening, participants were randomized to 9 weeks of double-blind LDX (20-70 mg/day) or placebo augmentation, followed by 2 weeks of single-blind placebo. The primary end point was change from baseline to week 9/end of study (EOS) in BRIEF-A Self-Report GEC T score; secondary assessments included the BRIEF-A Informant Report, MADRS, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Of 143 randomized participants, 119 completed double-blind treatment (placebo, n=59; LDX, n=60). Mean ± standard deviation (SD) BRIEF-A GEC T scores decreased from baseline (placebo, 74.2 ± 8.88; LDX, 76.8 ± 9.66) to week 9/EOS (placebo, 61.4 ± 14.61; LDX, 55.2 ± 16.15); the LS mean (95% CI) treatment difference significantly favored LDX (-8.0 (-12.7, -3.3); P=0.0009). The LS mean (95% CI) treatment difference for MADRS total score also significantly favored LDX (-1.9 (-3.7, 0.0); P=0.0465). TEAE rates were 73.6% with placebo and 78.9% with LDX; serious TEAE rates were 4.2 and 2.8%. In this trial, LDX augmentation significantly improved executive dysfunction and depressive symptoms in participants with mild MDD. The safety profile of LDX was consistent with prior studies in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a head-to-head, randomized, double-blind, phase IIIb study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the prodrug psychostimulant lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and the non-stimulant noradrenergic compound atomoxetine (ATX) in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who had previously responded inadequately to methylphenidate (MPH). METHODS: This 9-week, head-to-head, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study (SPD489-317; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01106430) enrolled patients (aged 6-17 years) with at least moderately symptomatic ADHD and an inadequate response to previous MPH therapy. Patients were randomized (1:1) to an optimized daily dose of LDX (30, 50 or 70 mg) or ATX (patients <70 kg, 0.5-1.2 mg/kg with total daily dose not to exceed 1.4 mg/kg; patients ≥70 kg, 40, 80 or 100 mg). The primary efficacy outcome was time (days) to first clinical response. Clinical response was defined as a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved). Secondary efficacy outcomes included the proportion of responders at each study visit and the change from baseline in ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS-IV) and CGI-Severity scores. Tolerability and safety were assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), height and weight, vital signs and electrocardiogram parameters. Endpoint was defined as the last post-baseline, on-treatment visit with a valid assessment. RESULTS: Of 267 patients randomized (LDX, n = 133; ATX, n = 134), 200 (74.9%) completed the study. The median time to first clinical response [95% confidence interval (CI)] was significantly shorter for patients receiving LDX [12.0 days (8.0-16.0)] than for those receiving ATX [21.0 days (15.0-23.0)] (p = 0.001). By week 9, 81.7% (95% CI 75.0-88.5) of patients receiving LDX had responded to treatment compared with 63.6% (95% CI 55.4-71.8) of those receiving ATX (p = 0.001). Also by week 9, the difference between LDX and ATX in least-squares mean change from baseline (95% CI) was significant in favour of LDX for the ADHD-RS-IV total score [-6.5 (-9.3 to -3.6); p < 0.001; effect size 0.56], inattentiveness subscale score [-3.4 (-4.9 to -1.8); p < 0.001; effect size 0.53] and the hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale score [-3.2 (-4.6 to -1.7); p < 0.001; effect size 0.53]. TEAEs were reported by 71.9 and 70.9% of patients receiving LDX and ATX, respectively. At endpoint, both treatments were associated with mean (standard deviation) increases in systolic blood pressure [LDX, +0.7 mmHg (9.08); ATX, +0.6 mmHg (7.96)], diastolic blood pressure [LDX, +0.1 mmHg (8.33); ATX, +1.3 mmHg (8.24)] and pulse rate [LDX, +3.6 bpm (10.49); ATX, +3.7 bpm (10.75)], and decreases in weight [LDX, -1.30 kg (1.806); ATX, -0.15 kg (1.434)]. CONCLUSIONS: LDX was associated with a faster and more robust treatment response than ATX in children and adolescents with at least moderately symptomatic ADHD who had previously responded inadequately to MPH. Both treatments displayed safety profiles consistent with findings from previous clinical trials.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder-specific quality of life with triple-bead mixed amphetamine salts (SPD465) in adults: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of life (QOL) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) given triple-bead mixed amphetamine salts (MAS), a long-acting amphetamine formulation designed for a duration of action of up to 16 hours. METHOD: 274 adults with ADHD (DSM-IV-TR criteria) were randomly assigned to 7 weeks of double-blind treatment with an optimal dose of triple-bead MAS (12.5 mg to 75 mg) (N = 137) or placebo (N = 137). As a secondary objective of this study, QOL was assessed on the basis of self-reported Adult ADHD Impact Module (AIM-A) scores, describing ADHD-specific QOL in 6 domains and global QOL (questions 1-4). To assess safety, data were collected on adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiograms, laboratory tests, and sleep quality. The trial was conducted from January 2005 to June 2005. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvement between triple-bead MAS and placebo was observed in all 6 ADHD-specific AIM-A subscales. In addition, statistically significant improvement in global QOL between triple-bead MAS and placebo was seen, based on AIM-A question 1 (p = .0006) and question 4 (p = .0001). Patients' age, gender, race, and prior use of stimulant medication were not found to significantly affect AIM-A subscale scores. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with triple-bead MAS (insomnia, dry mouth, decreased appetite, headache, and weight decreased) were consistent with amphetamine treatment, and their incidence generally decreased with time. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with ADHD showed significantly improved QOL for both ADHD-specific and global measures with triple-bead MAS in comparison to placebo, based on AIM-A scores. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly mild to moderate in intensity and were consistent with amphetamine treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00150579.

Bioavailability of triple-bead mixed amphetamine salts compared with a dose-augmentation strategy of mixed amphetamine salts extended release plus mixed amphetamine salts immediate release.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the single-dose pharmacokinetics of triple-bead mixed amphetamine salts (MAS), an oral, once-daily, enhanced extended-release amphetamine formulation, with MAS extended release (MAS XR) (Adderall XR) + MAS immediate release (MAS IR) administered 8 h later. METHODS: This was a phase I, randomized, open-label, single-dose, single-center, two-period, crossover study in healthy adult volunteers designed to evaluate the bioavailability of triple-bead MAS over the course of a full day. Subjects were randomized to triple-bead MAS 37.5 mg or MAS XR 25 mg + MAS IR 12.5 mg administered 8 h later (MAS XR + MAS IR). The reference treatment was designed to mimic the clinical practice of providing extended coverage by supplementing a morning dose of MAS XR with a dose of MAS IR 8 h later in order to increase the duration of action. Plasma was assayed for d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and laboratory data were also collected for safety evaluation. RESULTS: Exposure to d- and l-amphetamine was equivalent between triple-bead MAS and MAS XR + MAS IR based on maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC(0-infinity)). For Cmax, least-squares mean ratios comparing triple-bead MAS with MAS XR + MAS IR were 101.0% and 90.9% for d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine, respectively, and for AUC(0-infinity) were 104.4% and 95.3% for d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine, respectively. Median time to maximum observed plasma concentration (Tmax) values for d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine were 8.0 h for triple-bead MAS and 10.0 h for MAS XR + MAS IR. There were no clinically meaningful differences between the study formulations for TEAEs or laboratory values. One subject experienced an ECG abnormality (asymptomatic premature ventricular contractions) leading to early termination from the study. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy adults, the exposure observed with triple-bead MAS 37.5 mg was bioequivalent to MAS XR 25 mg supplemented by MAS IR 12.5 mg administered 8 h later. These data demonstrate that a single morning dose of triple-bead MAS provides equivalent plasma concentrations to those observed with a dose-augmentation strategy of MAS XR in the morning followed by MAS IR in the afternoon, while minimizing peak-to-trough fluctuations. Triple-bead MAS was also generally well-tolerated in this study.