Evidence, interpretation, and qualification from multiple reports of long-term outcomes in the Multimodal Treatment Study of children with ADHD (MTA): Part II: supporting details.

OBJECTIVE: To review and provide details about the primary and secondary findings from the Multimodal Treatment study of ADHD (MTA) published during the past decade as three sets of articles. METHOD: In the second of a two part article, we provide additional background and detail required by the complexity of the MTA to address confusion and controversy about the findings outlined in part I (the Executive Summary). RESULTS: We present details about the gold standard used to produce scientific evidence, the randomized clinical trial (RCT), which we applied to evaluate the long-term effects of two well-established unimodal treatments, Medication Management (MedMGT) and behavior therapy (Beh), the multimodal combination (Comb), and treatment "as usual" in the community (CC). For each of the first three assessment points defined by RCT methods and included in intent-to-treat analyses, we discuss our definition of evidence from the MTA, interpretation of the serial presentations of findings at each assessment point with a different definition of long-term varying from weeks to years, and qualification of the interim conclusions about long-term effects of treatments for ADHD based on many exploratory analyses described in additional published articles. CONCLUSIONS: Using a question and answer format, we discuss the possible clinical relevance of the MTA and present some practical suggestions based on current knowledge and uncertainties facing families, clinicians, and investigators regarding the long-term use of stimulant medication and behavioral therapy in the treatment of children with ADHD.

Evidence, interpretation, and qualification from multiple reports of long-term outcomes in the Multimodal Treatment study of Children With ADHD (MTA): part I: executive summary.

OBJECTIVE: To review the primary and secondary findings from the Multimodal Treatment study of ADHD (MTA) published over the past decade as three sets of articles. METHOD: In a two-part article-Part I: Executive Summary (without distracting details) and Part II: Supporting Details (with additional background and detail required by the complexity of the MTA)-we address confusion and controversy about the findings. RESULTS: We discuss the basic features of the gold standard used to produce scientific evidence, the randomized clinical trial, for which was used to contrast four treatment conditions: medication management alone (MedMgt), behavior therapy alone (Beh), the combination of these two (Comb), and a community comparison of treatment "as usual" (CC). For each of the three assessment points we review three areas that we believe are important for appreciation of the findings: definition of evidence from the MTA, interpretation of the serial presentations of findings at each assessment point with a different definition of long-term, and qualification of the interim conclusions about long-term effects of treatments for ADHD. CONCLUSION: We discuss the possible clinical relevance of the MTA and present some practical suggestions based on current knowledge and uncertainties facing families, clinicians, and investigators regarding the long-term use of stimulant medication and behavioral therapy in the treatment of children with ADHD.

A pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study comparing a single morning dose of adderall to twice-daily dosing in children with ADHD.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of once-daily versus twice-daily doses of Adderall. METHOD: Following a 1-week wash-out, 12 subjects with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) entered a double-blind crossover study comparing two conditions: QD (10 mg of Adderall at 7:30 a.m. and placebo at noon) or BID (10 mg of Adderall at 7:30 a.m. and at noon). At two sites, cohorts of six subjects each were assessed on two different days by a 12-hour laboratory school protocol. Plasma concentrations of d- and l-amphetamine, vital signs, teacher ratings of classroom behavior on the SKAMP, and 10-minute Math Test performance were measured repeatedly over 12 hours. An analysis of variance used center, subject-within-center, condition, and time-after-second-dose as independent variables. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic profiles revealed similar morning concentrations of d- and l-amphetamine. However, concentrations were twice as high in the afternoon for BID as QD. The two conditions showed similar pharmacodynamic profiles in the morning, although improvement in math performance and behavior was maintained into the afternoon only in the BID condition (p <.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that twice-daily dosing of Adderall may be an effective strategy for afternoon control of attention and deportment for children with ADHD.