The Patient Perspective: Unmet Treatment Needs in Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize impairments in daily life experienced by pharmacologically treated adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) versus adults without ADHD and to identify unmet needs in ADHD treatment from the perspective of adults with ADHD. METHODS: Adults with ADHD taking prescription medication for ≥ 6 months and adults without ADHD agreed to participate in a cross-sectional online survey during December 2016. Participants with ADHD were stratified by their current ADHD medication: long-acting (LA) once daily, short-acting (SA) ≤ 2 times/d, and augmenters (AU; LA > 1 time/d, SA > 2 times/d, or LA plus SA). RESULTS: A total of 616 adults with ADHD (SA: n = 166, LA: n = 201, AU: n = 249) and 200 adults without ADHD completed the survey. Even with treatment, adults with ADHD reported substantial impairments in their everyday life, particularly at home, at school/work, and in their social life and relationships. Participants with ADHD experienced impairments throughout the day, especially in the afternoon and evening. Signs or symptoms were reported when the ADHD medication was wearing off, resulting in negative effects (including school work, homework, work responsibilities, household responsibilities, emotional responses, mood, and relationships) on the daily life of adults with ADHD. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with ADHD, despite receiving medication, experienced impairments and challenges in many aspects of their daily life. Adults with ADHD described various unmet needs, especially those relating to the duration of treatment effect. When optimizing treatment for adults with ADHD, it is important that the treatment regimen is sufficient to meet the needs of the patient throughout the day.

Establishing US norms for the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS-v1.1) and characterising symptom burden among adults with self-reported ADHD.

AIMS: To estimate Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS-v1.1) Symptom Checklist normative total scores among the US adult general population and to evaluate overall attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptom burden among US adults with ADHD. METHODS: Prior 2012 and 2013 US National Health and Wellness Survey respondents were re-contacted. Demographics, comorbidities, and ASRS-v1.1 data were collected. ASRS-v1.1 scores were compared by sex, age, ADHD diagnosis, and ADHD medication use. Group differences were evaluated using chi-square tests and independent samples t-tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Of 22 397 respondents, 465 self-reported being diagnosed with ADHD by a physician; of these, 174 self-reported using ADHD medication. The mean ASRS-v1.1 total score was 2.0 (SD = 3.2); scores differed by age and sex (all, P < 0.001). ADHD (vs no ADHD) was associated with depression (58.1% vs 18.0%), anxiety (53.1% vs 16.0%), and sleep difficulties (37.0% vs 14.0%) (all, P < 0.001). ADHD medication use (vs no use) was associated with depression (68.4% vs 51.9%), anxiety (67.2% vs 44.7%), panic disorder (25.9% vs 17.2%), and insomnia (27.6% vs 19.6%) (all, P < 0.05). ADHD (vs no ADHD) respondents scored higher on all 18 ASRS-v1.1 items (all, P < 0.05). Medication users (vs non-users) scored higher on six items (all, P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Adult ADHD may be undertreated or sub-optimally treated, despite a high symptom burden. Normative data will allow comparisons with individuals' scores to support the assessment of ADHD symptom burden among adults. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the importance of assessing ADHD symptom burden, especially among adults presenting with comorbidities.

Economic outcomes of eszopiclone treatment in insomnia and comorbid major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Eszopiclone is effective for the treatment of insomnia in patients with insomnia and comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD). Both conditions impose significant economic burden, with the US societal cost of depression estimated at USD 50 billion annually. AIMS OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this analysis was to examine the costs and benefits of eszopiclone co-administered with fluoxetine (ESZ+FLX) compared to placebo co-administered with fluoxetine (PBO+FLX) in adults meeting the DSM-IV criteria for insomnia and MDD. METHODS: Data from 434 patients enrolled in an 8-week clinical trial who met the economic-subanalysis criteria were examined. The costs of medical care (in 2007 USUSD ) and lost work time were estimated from the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D17) scores using published algorithms. Cost of lost productivity while at work was based on responses to the Work Limitations Questionnaire. The impact of therapy on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was estimated by transforming HAM-D17 (base case analysis) or Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) (scenario analyses) responses into health utility scores using published algorithms. Drug costs were estimated based on average wholesale price. RESULTS: The mean 8-week increases in QALYs from baseline were 0.0392 and 0.0334 for the ESZ+FLX and PBO+FLX groups, respectively. Mean per-patient costs were USD 1,279 and USD 1,198 for the respective groups. Thus, co-treatment resulted in net increases of 0.0058 QALYs and USD 81, leading to an incremental cost per QALY gained of approximately USD 14,000. DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS: Co-administration of eszopiclone and fluoxetine improved patients' insomnia symptoms and appeared to be a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with insomnia and comorbid MDD. One limitation of this study is that optimal utility estimation techniques were not available. Utilities were instead derived indirectly using the HAM-D17 (disease-specific, not generic) or SF-12 (generic, but potentially insensitive to important changes in some conditions) instruments. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION: Sleep disturbance is predictive of depression relapse, and is the most common residual symptom in patients who have been successfully treated with fluoxetine for depression. Thus, identifying cost-effective strategies for the treatment of insomnia symptoms is important for this patient population. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Treatment guidelines and drug coverage decisions should be based on clinical evidence, effectiveness, and economic criteria (i.e., whether an effective drug therapy produces sufficient benefits given its costs). This information about the overall value of eszopiclone can be measured as the cost per QALY gained with the use of ESZ+FLX compared with FLX alone. In order to make decisions based on value, payers and policy makers must have access to reliable cost-effectiveness information. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: The residual efficacy observed in the clinical trial following the discontinuation of co-therapy should be explored further to determine whether intermittent treatment with ESZ+FLX is a cost-effective strategy.

Meta-analysis of bacterial resistance to macrolides.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding changing resistance patterns is important in determining appropriate antibiotic treatments. This meta-analysis systematically evaluated resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes to macrolide antibiotics among patients with community-acquired respiratory tract infections. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched and experts were consulted to identify published and unpublished literature reporting macrolide resistance rates. Identified studies were evaluated by two independent reviewers; those meeting a priori specified criteria (resistance by patient condition and strain, resistance thresholds, 1997-2003 isolates) were included. Data from included studies were abstracted by two independent reviewers using a standard review form. Discrepancies in abstracted data were resolved by the study investigator. RESULTS: Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for outcomes present in at least four studies overall and for specified subgroups. We identified 3849 studies and performed detailed review on 407; of these 29, published between 1998-2003, met the inclusion criteria. Mean resistance of S. pneumoniae isolates to azithromycin was 27.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 24.6-29.7]; mean resistance to erythromycin was statistically equivalent (30.4%; 95% CI 28.1-32.7). Resistance of S. pyogenes to erythromycin (30.0%; CI 18.6-41.5) was similar to that of S. pneumoniae. Too few studies of clarithromycin were included to allow evaluation of resistance. In subgroup analyses, substantial variation in resistance to erythromycin was seen by geographic area. CONCLUSIONS: Reported macrolide resistance of S. pneumoniae varies substantially and may be a significant issue in certain regions. Use of meta-analysis to aggregate individual studies enabled determination of robust values for macrolide resistance. This information is useful for clinical and policy decision makers in developing appropriate antibiotic strategies.