Search

Objective: To determine whether the psychostimulant lisdexamfetamine improves subjective and objective measures of cognitive functioning among women genetically at-risk for cancer who have undergone risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and report new-onset executive functioning difficulties., Methods: 69 participants were assigned to a randomized controlled crossover trial with 6-week trials of active medication (lisdexamfetamine) and placebo, separated by a minimum 2-week washout in an intent-to-treat framework (clinical trial registration number: NCT03187353). At trial baseline, midpoint, and endpoint, participants completed a self-report measure of executive functioning (Brown Attention Deficit Disorder Scale). At study baseline and trial endpoint, participants completed sustained attention, attention/working memory, and verbal learning/memory cognitive tasks. Side effects were assessed at 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks for each trial., Results: From trial baseline to trial endpoint, lisdexamfetamine - relative to placebo - significantly improved total scores on the self-report Brown Attention Deficit Disorder Scale (and scores on four of five subdomains) as well as attention and working memory performance. Significantly more participants endorsed side effects across the lisdexamfetamine trial versus placebo; however, trial completion rates were similar, indicating that lisdexamfetamine was nonetheless well-tolerated., Conclusions: Lisdexamfetamine improved both subjective and objective measures of attention and working memory and could offer women experiencing cognitive difficulties post-risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy an alternative therapeutic option., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: CAM, CEP, BOSS, RLJ, KAD, MDS, and JL report no conflicts of interest. CNE receives research grant support from Sage Therapeutics and HealthRhythms. She is a member of the Executive Board for Parthenon Management Group, for which she receives no consulting fees or equity. She is a member of the Advisory Board for BabyScripts where she has equity, and EmbarkNeuro where she receives consulting fees., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aim: To compare long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), respectively, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Patients & methods: Patient-level data from a centanafadine trial (NCT03605849) and published aggregate data from a lisdexamfetamine trial (NCT00337285), a methylphenidate trial (NCT00326300) and an atomoxetine trial (NCT00190736) were used. Patient characteristics were matched in each comparison using propensity score weighting. Study outcomes were assessed up to 52 weeks and included safety (rates of adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] or ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] score). Results: In all comparisons of matched populations, risks of AEs were statistically significantly lower with centanafadine or non-different between centanafadine and comparator; the largest differences in AE rates included upper respiratory tract infection (risk difference in percentage points: 18.75), insomnia (12.47) and dry mouth (12.33) versus lisdexamfetamine; decreased appetite (20.25), headache (18.53) and insomnia (12.65) versus methylphenidate; and nausea (26.18), dry mouth (25.07) and fatigue (13.95) versus atomoxetine (all p < 0.05). Centanafadine had a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score versus lisdexamfetamine (6.15-point difference; p < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score versus methylphenidate (1.75-point difference; p = 0.13) and versus atomoxetine (1.60-point difference; p = 0.21). Conclusion: At up to 52 weeks, centanafadine showed significantly lower incidence of several AEs than lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine; efficacy was lower than lisdexamfetamine and non-different from methylphenidate and atomoxetine.

Background: Head-to-head trials comparing centanafadine, an investigational therapy for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with other treatment options are lacking., Objective: To compare safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine sustained-release vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), and viloxazine extended-release (viloxazine ER), respectively, using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC)., Methods: This MAIC included patient-level data pooled from 2 centanafadine trials (NCT03605680 and NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from comparable trials of 3 comparators-lisdexamfetamine (NCT00334880), atomoxetine (NCT00190736), and viloxazine ER (NCT04016779)-in adult patients with ADHD. Propensity score weighting was used to match characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials to aggregate baseline characteristics from the respective comparator trials. Safety outcomes were rates of adverse events for which information was available in the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. Efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score (ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] was used as proxy in the comparison with lisdexamfetamine). Anchored indirect comparisons were conducted across matched populations of the centanafadine and respective comparator trials., Results: After matching, baseline characteristics in the centanafadine trials were the same as those in the respective comparator trials. Compared with lisdexamfetamine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of lack of appetite (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: 23.42), dry mouth (19.27), insomnia (15.35), anxiety (5.21), nausea (4.90), feeling jittery (3.70), and diarrhea (3.47) (all P < 0.05) but a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score (6.58-point difference; P < 0.05). Compared with atomoxetine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of nausea (RD in percentage points: 18.64), dry mouth (17.44), fatigue (9.21), erectile dysfunction (6.76), lack of appetite (6.71), and urinary hesitation (5.84) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. Compared with viloxazine ER, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of fatigue (RD in percentage points: 11.07), insomnia (10.67), nausea (7.57), and constipation (4.63) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score., Conclusions: In an anchored MAIC, centanafadine showed a significantly better short-term safety profile than lisdexamfetamine, atomoxetine, and viloxazine ER; efficacy was lower than with lisdexamfetamine and comparable (ie, nondifferent) with atomoxetine and viloxazine ER. This MAIC provides important insights on the relative safety and efficacy of common treatment options to help inform treatment decisions in adults with ADHD. Safety assessment was limited to rates of adverse events reported in both trials of a given comparison., Study Registration Numbers: NCT03605680, NCT03605836, NCT00334880, NCT00190736, and NCT04016779.

Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) is one of the drugs commonly used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, its neurological side effects, particularly on cognition, are not fully understood. The present study focused on memory in rats treated with four weeks of LDX injection. We compared LDX-treated rats with control ones, using several methods to evaluate the behavioral responses and electrophysiological, molecular, and histological properties in the hippocampus. Our findings demonstrated that subchronic administration of LDX impaired behavioral performance in all memory assessment tests (Y maze, Morris Water Maze, and Shuttle box). Although LDX did not alter population spike (PS) amplitude, it increased the field excitatory postsynaptic potential (fEPSP) slope of evoked potentials of LTP components. Also, in addition to an increase in expression of caspase-3 in the hippocampus, which indicates the susceptibility to apoptosis in LDX-treated rats, the number of microglia and astrocytes went up significantly in the LDX group. Moreover, Sholl's analysis showed an increase in the soma size and total process length in both hippocampal astrocytes and microglia. Overall, because of these destructive effects of LDX on the hippocampus, which is one of the critical memory-related areas of the brain, the findings of this investigation provide evidence to show the disruption of memory-related variables following the LDX. However, more research is needed to clarify it., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare PRC-063 (multilayer-release methylphenidate) and lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on the driving performance of young adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study., Method: Following up to 21 days of each treatment in each treatment course (PRC-063/LDX or LDX/PRC-063), subjects completed a 15-hour driving simulator laboratory assessment. The primary outcome measure was the Tactical Driving Quotient (TDQ) and the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale was a secondary outcome measure., Results: Forty-four subjects completed the study. PRC-063 and LDX had equivalent effects on driving performance through a 15-hour time period (least square mean difference -0.3 [standard error 1.08], 95% confidence interval [-2.4, 1.8], p  = .793). Consistent improvement in CGI-I was observed. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for each treatment sequence., Conclusions: PRC-063 and LDX had comparable effects on driving performance, from 1 through 15 hours, the last time point measured., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Vishal Madaan: In his current role, Dr. Madaan is an employee with the American Psychiatric Association and has no current disclosures to make. In his prior role as a University of Virginia Health System employee, he received research support from Supernus, Allergan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Purdue, and the NICHD at the time the original manuscript was prepared. Daniel Cox: Dr Cox has received research support as a University of Virginia Health System employee from the National Institutes of Health, Eli Lilly, Purdue, Johnson & Johnson, Dexcom, and Abbott. Graeme Donnelly is an employee of Purdue Pharma (Canada). Sailaja Bhaskar: Sailaja Bhaskar is currently employed at Imbrium Therapeutics L.P., a subsidiary of Purdue Pharma L.P.

Background: ADHD is often described as a disorder of altered reward sensitivity, yet few studies have examined the extent to which: (i) treatments for ADHD impact reward-related mechanisms; and (ii) changes in the reward system are associated with clinical improvement. This study addresses these issues - examining the extent to which clinical improvement following lisdexamfetamine (LDX) treatment is associated with changes in brain reward system activation., Methods: Twenty adults (M = 11, 55%, F = 9, 45%), ages 19-52 (M = 33.9, SD = 10.0) with ADHD participated in a randomized cross-over study with lisdexamfetamine (LDX) and placebo (PB). Changes in brain activation were assessed during functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) scans: after receiving 3-5 weeks of treatment with LDX and 3-5 weeks of no drug/PB. fMRI contrasts were derived from the passive-avoidance (PA) learning task, which assessed reward-related learning using computational variables. We analyzed the following conditions: the Choice-Phase, modulated by the expected value (EV; i.e., object-choose and object-reject), and the Feedback-Phase, modulated by the prediction error (PE; i.e., reward and punish). Clinical symptom severity was assessed via interview with the ADHD-Rating Scale (ADHD-RS-IV). To address the primary objective, we performed group-level mass-univariate regression analyses between LDX and PB of percent change of the ADHD-RS total scores and the four contrast images under the Choice- and Feedback-conditions. Significance was set at a whole-brain voxel-wise threshold of p < 0.05 with family-wise error (FWE) correction and an extent (cluster) threshold of 50 contiguous voxels., Results: Improvement in ADHD symptoms with LDX was accompanied by significantly increased activation in a series of brain regions previously implicated in reinforcement processing in the choice and feedback conditions (e.g., left caudate and putamen, right orbitofrontal cortex, left middle frontal, superior frontal, and precentral gyri)., Conclusions: These findings, while preliminary, are the first to show that ADHD symptom improvement with stimulant treatment is associated with increased responsiveness of brain systems engaged in reward processing. Results support the hypothesis that LDX treatment may restore balance to dysfunction (e.g., hypoactivation) within the brain reward circuitry in adults with ADHD. Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01924429., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following competing interests: Jeffrey Newcorn – in the last 3 years J.H.N. was a consultant/advisory board member for Adlon Therapeutics, Cingulate Therapeutics, Corium, Hippo T&C, Ironshore, Lumos, Lundbeck, Medice, Mind Tension, Myriad, NLS, OnDosis, Otsuka, Rhodes, Shire/Takeda, and Supernus; he received research support from Adlon, Otsuka, Shire, Supernus; honoraria for disease state lectures from Otsuka and Shire, and served as a consultant for the US National Football League; Iliyan Ivanov – no conflcits, Beth Krone – in the last 3 years was a consultant for Hippo T&C; Xioabo Li – no conflicts; Stephanie Duhoux – no conflict; Stuart White – no conflict; Kurt Schulz – no conflicts; AC Bedard-no conflicts; Juan Pedraza - Lenard Adler – in the last 3 years Dr Adler has received grant/research support from Shire/Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka; has served as a consultant to Bracket/Signant, Shire/Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, SUNY, the National Football League, and Major League Baseball; and has received royalty payments (as inventor) since 2004 from NYU for license of adult ADHD scales and training materials; James Blair – no conflicts., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects 5%-10% of paediatric population and is reportedly more common in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D), exacerbating its clinical course. Proper treatment of ADHD in such patients may thus provide neurological and metabolic benefits. To test this, we designed a non-commercial second phase clinical trial comparing the impact of different pharmacological interventions for ADHD in children with T1D., Methods and Analysis: This is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical trial in children and adolescents with ADHD and T1D. The trial will be conducted in four reference paediatric diabetes centres in Poland. Over 36 months, eligible patients with both T1D and ADHD (aged 8-16.5 years, T1D duration >1 year) will be offered participation. Patients' guardians will undergo online once-weekly training sessions behaviour management for 10 weeks. Afterward, children will be randomised to methylphenidate (long-release capsule, doses 18-36-54 mg) versus lisdexamphetamine (LDX, 30-50-70 mg). Pharmacotherapy will continue for 6 months before switching to alternative medication. Throughout the trial, the participants will be evaluated every 3 months by their diabetologist and online psychological assessments. The primary endpoint (ADHD symptom severity, Conners 3.0 questionnaire) will be assessed by a blinded investigator. Secondary endpoints will include HbA1c, continuous glucose monitoring indices and quality-of-life (PedsQL)., Ethics and Dissemination: The trial is approved by Bioethical Committee at Medical University of Lodz and Polish regulatory agency (RNN/142/22/KE, UR/DBL/D/263/2022). The results will be communicated to the research and clinical community, and Polish agencies responsible for healthcare policy. Patient organisations focused on paediatric T1D will be notified by a consortium member. We hope to use the trial's results to promote collaboration between mental health professionals and diabetes teams, evaluate the economic feasibility of using LDX in patients with both diseases and the long run improve ADHD treatment in children with T1D., Trial Registration Numbers: EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR, 2022-001906-24) and NCT05957055., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: This Phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind study investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of nivasorexant in the treatment of adults with moderate to severe binge-eating disorder (BED)., Methods: Adults meeting the DSM-5 BED criteria were randomized 1:1 to placebo or nivasorexant (100 mg b.i.d.). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to Week 12 in the number of binge eating (BE) days per week. Exploratory efficacy endpoints included cessation of BE in the last 4 weeks of treatment; and change from baseline to Week 12 in the number of BE episodes/week, the clinician global impression (CGI) of change, the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale modified for BE, and the Hamilton rating scale for depression (HAMD-17). Key safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse events of special interest (i.e., somnolence and fatigue)., Results: Sixty-eight participants were randomized to each treatment arm. The change from baseline to Week 12 in the number of BE days/week was the same for placebo (least squares mean [LSM]: -2.93) and nivasorexant (LSM: -2.93), with no difference between the treatment groups (LSM difference = .000 [95% confidence interval (CI): -.69, .69], p = .9992). Furthermore, no differences between treatment groups were observed in the exploratory efficacy endpoints. Nivasorexant was well tolerated; the overall incidence of TEAEs was balanced between treatment groups, and the frequency of somnolence and fatigue in the nivasorexant group were similar to placebo., Discussion: In this proof-of-concept study, 100 mg b.i.d. nivasorexant did not improve BE in adults with moderate to severe BED., Public Significance: The results of this Phase II study indicate that nivasorexant was well tolerated in adults with BED, but did not improve binge eating behavior over placebo. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of the role of the orexin-1 receptor in BED., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Prevailing frameworks propose that a key feature of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is lower motivation. An important component of motivation is the willingness to engage in cognitively or physically effortful behavior. However, the degree to which effort sensitivity is impaired in ADHD has rarely been tested, and the efficacy of stimulant medication in ameliorating any such impairments is unclear. Here, we tested 20 individuals with ADHD (11 males, 9 females) who were managed with amphetamine-based medication (dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine), and 24 controls (8 males, 16 females). Individuals with ADHD were tested over two counterbalanced sessions, ON and OFF their usual amphetamine-based medication. In each session, participants performed an effort-based decision-making task, in which they were required to choose how much cognitive or physical effort they were willing to engage in return for reward. Our results revealed three main findings. First, individuals with ADHD had lower motivation relative to controls to invest effort in both the cognitive and physical domains. Second, amphetamine increased motivation uniformly across both domains. Finally, the net effect of amphetamine treatment was to mostly restore motivation across both domains of effort relative to healthy controls. These data provide clear evidence for a heightened sensitivity to both cognitive and physical effort in ADHD, and reveal the efficacy of amphetamine-based drugs in restoring effort sensitivity to levels similar to controls. These findings confirm the existence of reduced motivational drive in ADHD, and more broadly provide direct causal evidence for a domain-general role of catecholamines in motivating effortful behavior. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT A core feature of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is thought to be a heightened aversion to effort. Surprisingly, however, the degree to which effort sensitivity is impaired in ADHD has rarely been tested. More broadly, the relative efficacy of catecholamines in motivating the investment of cognitive and physical effort is unclear. We tested 20 individuals with ADHD ON and OFF amphetamines, and compared their behavior on an effort-based decision-making task to 24 controls. When tested OFF medication, the ADHD group was less cognitively and physically motivated than controls. However, amphetamines led to a comparable increase in motivation across both domains. This demonstrates the efficacy of catecholamines in facilitating domain-general effort, and highlights the broader potential of such drugs to treat disorders of motivation., (Copyright © 2023 Chong et al.)

Objective: To evaluate treatment patterns for ADHD in Sweden., Method: Observational retrospective study of patients with ADHD from the Swedish National Patient Register and Prescribed Drug Register, 2018 to 2021. Cross-sectional analyses included incidence, prevalence, and psychiatric comorbidities. Longitudinal analyses (newly diagnosed patients) included medication, treatment lines, duration, time-to-treatment initiation, and switching., Results: Of 243,790 patients, 84.5% received an ADHD medication. Psychiatric comorbidities were common, particularly autism among children, and depression in adults. Most frequent first-/second-line treatments were methylphenidate (MPH; 81.6%) and lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX; 46.0%), respectively. In the second-line, LDX was most frequently prescribed (46.0%), followed by MPH (34.9%), then atomoxetine (7.7%). Median treatment duration was longest for LDX (10.4 months), followed by amphetamine (9.1 months)., Conclusion: This nationwide registry study provides real-life insights into the current epidemiology of ADHD and the changing treatment landscape for patients in Sweden.

Purpose/background: The prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adult females is 3% to 4%. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is highly comorbid with other psychiatric disorders such as mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders. For reproductive-aged women, the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with stimulant medications may be considered during pregnancy or breastfeeding, although historically, data are lacking to inform these decisions. The aim of this investigation was to determine the risk of major malformations in infants after first-trimester prescription stimulant exposure in a small but rigorously characterized sample., Methods/procedures: The Massachusetts General Hospital National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications systematically ascertains information from pregnant females including demographic information, medical and psychiatric history, use of prescription medications, and other information relevant to fetal outcomes. Participants provide verbal informed consent and are interviewed twice during gestation and again at approximately 3 months postpartum. The primary outcome of interest is the presence of a major malformation identified within 6 months after birth. Redacted cases of major malformations are reviewed by a dysmorphologist blinded to medication exposure., Findings/results: A total of N = 1988 women were eligible for this analysis, including the following exposures: n = 173 to mixed amphetamine salts; n = 40 to lisdexamfetamine; n = 45 to methylphenidate; n = 3 to dexmethylphenidate; and n = 1755 controls. The odds ratio of a major malformation among infants after first-trimester exposure to any stimulant was 0.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.09-1.61) compared with controls. There were no major malformations observed in infants exposed to lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate, or dexmethylphenidate., Implications/conclusions: Although preliminary, this analysis from an ongoing pregnancy registry provides reassurance that these stimulants do not appear to have major teratogenic effects., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01246765 ., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

We sought to understand the effect of current treatments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on executive functioning deficits, which are often comorbid with ADHD, via a systematic analysis of adult ADHD treatment studies evaluating change in behavioral measures beyond the core symptoms of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ADHD. The standardized mean difference for behavioral measures of executive functioning was determined from controlled trials of adults with ADHD and compared with effects on core ADHD symptoms. Several studies of atomoxetine revealed small to large standardized mean differences. Nonreplicated studies revealed small to medium effects for triple-bead mixed amphetamine salts, lisdexamfetamine, and forms of cognitive behavioral therapy. Proportional effect versus core ADHD symptoms ranged from 0.78 to 1.16 for atomoxetine, and from 0.65 to 1.44 across all the studies. ADHD treatments have effects on executive functioning behavior beyond core ADHD symptoms in adults. Clinicians can measure and treat this morbidity using available clinical tools., (© 2023, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Objective: To evaluate the real-world efficacy, safety, and functional outcomes of PRC-063 (multilayer-release methylphenidate) versus lisdexamfetamine (LDX) in ADHD subjects in a phase IV, open-label study., Method: The primary endpoint was the change in the ADHD-DSM-5 Rating Scale (ADHD-5-RS) total score from baseline to Month 4. Secondary endpoints included a non-inferiority comparison between PRC-063 and LDX and measures of functioning and evening behavior., Results: One hundred forty-three pediatric and 112 adult subjects were enrolled. Mean ADHD-5-RS scores (standard deviation) were reduced in pediatric (-16.6 [10.4]) and adult (-14.8 [10.6]) subjects treated with PRC-063 ( p  < .001). PRC-063 was non-inferior to LDX in the pediatric population but not in the adult population. Significant improvements were demonstrated in quality of life and functionality. Both medications were well-tolerated; more adverse events led to study discontinuation in pediatric subjects treated with LDX versus PRC-063., Conclusion: PRC-063 and LDX significantly improved ADHD symptomatology and functioning and were well-tolerated.

Treatment of narcolepsy is based on the need to regulate life rhythms. Psychostimulants such as modafinil, methylphenidate-immediate release, and pemoline are used to treat hypersomnia. A psychosocial approach is considered the mainstay of treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and medication is used to treat moderate or severe ADHD symptoms. Two of the four drugs approved in Japan for ADHD therapy (osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine dimesylate) are psychostimulants, which are administered via the ADHD proper distribution management system.

Although the study of cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS; previously called sluggish cognitive tempo) first emerged in the 1980s, very little is known about treating CDS or its impact on evidence-based interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with which it frequently co-occurs. The objective of this leading article was to investigate the existing evidence on medication treatment and CDS, including studies that have examined CDS response to medication and CDS as a moderator of ADHD treatment response. A total of seven studies were identified. At present, the limited existing literature suggests that psychostimulants such as methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, as well as atomoxetine, may improve CDS symptoms, although replication and research on related medications is needed. However, there are indications that CDS symptoms may predict a reduced response to methylphenidate in children with ADHD. Although untested, research on the neurobiological, neuropsychological, and behavioral correlates of CDS point to a possible benefit of other ADHD medications (e.g., guanfacine), medications that treat narcolepsy (e.g., modafinil), and medications traditionally used to treat depression and anxiety (e.g., viloxazine, bupropion, fluvoxamine), some of which have also recently been used in ADHD management. The article concludes with recommendations for future research on pharmacologic treatment and CDS., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Purpose: This study aimed to describe recent trends in ADHD medication use in pregnancy in Norway and Sweden, including prevalence, individual characteristics, and patterns of use., Methods: We studied ADHD medication use (amphetamine, dexamphetamine, methylphenidate, atomoxetine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine) by year and age in pregnancies from 2010 to 2019 identified from the medical birth registers (gestational age ≥ 22 weeks) linked to prescribed drug registers (Norway, N = 577,116; Sweden, N = 1,118,988). We compared characteristics of those who used any ADHD medication in pregnancy to no use in pregnancy. Discontinuation was defined as no use after first trimester., Results: ADHD medication use increased from 2010 to 2019 by 3.0 users per 1000 pregnancies in Norway (from 2.5 to 5.5/1000) and by 6.3 per 1000 in Sweden (from 1.6 to 7.9/1000), mainly driven by methylphenidate and since 2015 by lisdexamfetamine. Medication use has increased among pregnant individuals of all age groups, with higher use among the youngest. Pregnant individuals who used ADHD medication were less likely to be married/cohabiting, more likely be nulliparous and to smoke. They had particularly high use of co-medication with antidepressants, anxiolytics/hypnotics, and opioids: 42% in Norway and 65% in Sweden used at least one additional class of psychotropic medication. Most individuals discontinued ADHD medication in pregnancy (85% Norway, 78% Sweden)., Conclusion: ADHD medication use during pregnancy increased in Norway and Sweden in the last decade. However, discontinuation rates during pregnancy were high. Those who used ADHD medication had more risk factors for pregnancy complications including low parity, smoking, and other psychotropic drug use., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: Dysregulated emotional behavior occurs often in adults with ADHD. Analysis of clinical trials may guide clinical intervention and future research., Method: Controlled trials of adult ADHD measuring emotional behavior were included if another study offered a comparable analysis of the same treatment method. Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) of effects were calculated, and the size of effects for emotional and non-emotional ADHD behavior were compared., Results: 13 out of 14 studies of methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and lisdexamfetamine demonstrated significant improvement in emotional behavior measures, with small to high SMDs. The proportional effect on emotional versus non-emotional behavior ranged from 46% to 110% for methylphenidate, 56% to 129% for atomoxetine, and 36% to 96% for lisdexamfetamine., Conclusion: Psychopharmacological treatments for ADHD are likely to improve emotional behavior, and available scales are sensitive to these effects. Studies dedicated to treatment of this domain of function can further refine clinical approaches.

Background: Psychostimulants are frequently used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but side effects are common leading to many patients discontinuing treatment. Identifying neural mechanisms by which psychostimulants attenuate symptoms may guide the development of more refined and tolerable therapeutics., Methods: We conducted a 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) of a long-acting amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine (LDEX), in patients with ADHD, ages 6-25 years old. Of the 58 participants who participated in the RCT, 49 completed pre- and post-RCT magnetic resonance imaging scanning with adequate data quality. Healthy controls (HCs; n = 46) were included for comparison. Treatment effects on striatal and thalamic functional connectivity (FC) were identified using static (time-averaged) and dynamic (time-varying) measures and then correlated with symptom improvement. Analyses were repeated in independent samples from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study (n = 103) and the ADHD-200 Consortium (n = 213)., Results: In 49 participants (25 LDEX; 24 Placebo), LDEX increased static and decreased dynamic FC (DFC). However, only DFC was associated with the therapeutic effects of LDEX. Additionally, at baseline, DFC was elevated in unmedicated-ADHD participants relative to HCs. Independent samples yielded similar findings - ADHD was associated with increased DFC, and psychostimulants with reduced DFC. Static FC findings were inconsistent across samples., Conclusions: Changes in dynamic, but not static, FC were associated with the therapeutic effects of psychostimulants. While prior research has focused on static FC, DFC may offer a more reliable target for new ADHD interventions aimed at stabilizing network dynamics, though this needs confirmation with subsequent investigations., (© 2022 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.)

Background: This is the first controlled pharmacologic study in either adults or children with uncomplicated, treatment-resistant attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study augmented stimulant therapy with the atypical antipsychotic brexpiprazole. The Food and Drug Administration preapproved primary outcome measure (Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale [CAARS]) showed no drug-placebo differences. Often studies showing no efficacy on the prestudy, defined primary outcome variable go unpublished. While this is decried, publishing studies with equivocal results remains rare. This reanalysis highlights trends in secondary measures having implications for treatment and research regarding treatment resistant ADHD., Methods: Initially, 559 stimulant-naive and 174 prior stimulant nonresponders received methylphenidate osmotic-release oral system, dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride, lisdexamfetamine, or mixed amphetamine salts. After 5 weeks, 168 stimulant-naive patients and 68 prior stimulant nonresponders who failed treatment were randomized to brexpiprazole or placebo in a 2:1 ratio while the remaining were on the stimulant. Outcome was measured with the CAARS, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, Clinical Global Impression, and the Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale (WRAADDS). The WRAADDS contains 2 factors: attention and emotional dysregulation., Results: Stimulant-naive patients showed no improvement with adjunctive brexpiprazole. Prior stimulant nonresponders displayed no brexpiprazole effect on the CAARS, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, or Beck Depression Inventory. In contrast, the WRAADDS detected a trend in treatment benefit, primarily through emotional dysregulation symptoms. Adverse effects on brexpiprazole and placebo were equivalent., Conclusions: Brexpiprazole might be effective in ADHD adults who are nonresponders to 2 or more stimulants. Future trials in treatment-resistant ADHD should use a 1:1 randomization and use a measure of ADHD symptoms that includes emotional dysregulation., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Binge-eating disorder (BED) is a common psychiatric condition with adverse psychological and metabolic consequences. Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) is the only approved BED drug treatment. New drugs to treat BED are urgently needed., Methods: A comprehensive review of published psychopathological, pharmacological and clinical findings., Results: The evidence supports the hypothesis that BED is an impulse control disorder with similarities to ADHD, including responsiveness to catecholaminergic drugs, for example LDX and dasotraline. The target product profile (TPP) of the ideal BED drug combines treating the psychopathological drivers of the disorder with an independent weight-loss effect. Drugs with proven efficacy in BED have a common pharmacology; they potentiate central noradrenergic and dopaminergic neurotransmission. Because of the overlap between pharmacotherapy in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and BED, drug-candidates from diverse pharmacological classes, which have already failed in ADHD would also be predicted to fail if tested in BED. The failure in BED trials of drugs with diverse pharmacological mechanisms indicates many possible avenues for drug discovery can probably be discounted., Conclusions: (1) The efficacy of drugs for BED is dependent on reducing its core psychopathologies of impulsivity, compulsivity and perseveration and by increasing cognitive control of eating. (2) The analysis revealed a large number of pharmacological mechanisms are unlikely to be productive in the search for effective new BED drugs. (3) The most promising areas for new treatments for BED are drugs, which augment noradrenergic and dopaminergic neurotransmission and/or those which are effective in ADHD.

Background: Many individuals with eating disorders remain symptomatic after a course of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy; therefore, the development of innovative treatments is essential., Method: To learn more about the current evidence for treating eating disorders with stimulants, we searched for original articles and reviews published up to April 29, 2021 in PubMed and MEDLINE using the following search terms: eating disorders, anorexia, bulimia, binge eating, stimulants, amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate, and phentermine., Results: We propose that stimulant medications represent a novel avenue for future research based on the following: (a) the relationship between eating disorders and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); (b) a neurobiological rationale; and (c) the current (but limited) evidence for stimulants as treatments for some eating disorders. Despite the possible benefits of such medications, there are also risks to consider such as medication misuse, adverse cardiovascular events, and reduction of appetite and pathological weight loss. With those risks in mind, we propose several directions for future research including: (a) randomized controlled trials to study stimulant treatment in those with bulimia nervosa (with guidance on strategies to mitigate risk); (b) examining stimulant treatment in conjunction with psychotherapy; (c) investigating the impact of stimulants on "loss of control" eating in youth with ADHD; and (d) exploring relevant neurobiological mechanisms. We also propose specific directions for exploring mediators and moderators in future clinical trials., Discussion: Although this line of investigation may be viewed as controversial by some in the field, we believe that the topic warrants careful consideration for future research., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Binge-Eating Disorder (BED) is the most common eating disorder in the United States. Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) was approved in 2015 by the FDA for treatment of BED and is the only drug approved for treating the disorder. There has been no systematic evaluation of the published clinical and preclinical evidence for efficacy of LDX in treating BED and the mechanisms responsible for the therapeutic action of the drug. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines. Fourteen clinical and seven preclinical articles were included. There is consistent evidence from clinical studies that LDX is an effective treatment for BED and that the drug reduces the BED symptoms and body weight of patients with the disorder. There is also consistent evidence from preclinical studies that LDX reduces food intake but no consistent evidence for a preferential reduction of palatable food consumption by the drug in rodents. The evidence on mechanism of action is more limited and suggests LDX may reduce binge eating by a combination of effects on appetite/satiety, reward, and cognitive processes, including attention and impulsivity/inhibition, that are mediated by catecholamine and serotonin mechanisms in the brain. There is an urgent need for adequately powered, placebo-controlled, behavioural and neuroimaging studies with LDX (recruiting patients and/or individuals with subclinical BED symptoms) to further investigate the mechanism of action of the drug in treating BED. An improved understanding of the behavioural and neurochemical mechanisms of action of LDX could lead to the development of improved drug therapies to treat BED., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Colin T Dourish is a Director and Co-Owner of P1vital Limited and a Director and Co-Owner of P1vital Products Limited. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Importance: Although there is no pharmacological treatment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) itself, behavioral and pharmacological therapies have been used to address its symptoms and common comorbidities. A better understanding of the medications used to manage comorbid conditions in this growing population is critical; however, most previous efforts have been limited in size, duration, and lack of broad representation., Objective: To use a nationally representative database to uncover trends in the prevalence of co-occurring conditions and medication use in the management of symptoms and comorbidities over time among US individuals with ASD., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based cohort study mined a nationwide, managed health plan claims database containing more than 86 million unique members. Data from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019, were used to analyze prescription frequency and diagnoses of comorbidities. A total of 26 722 individuals with ASD who had been prescribed at least 1 of 24 medications most commonly prescribed to treat ASD symptoms or comorbidities during the 6-year study period were included in the analysis., Exposures: Diagnosis codes for ASD based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision., Main Outcomes and Measures: Quantitative estimates of prescription frequency for the 24 most commonly prescribed medications among the study cohort and the most common comorbidities associated with each medication in this population., Results: Among the 26 722 individuals with ASD included in the analysis (77.7% male; mean [SD] age, 14.45 [9.40] years), polypharmacy was common, ranging from 28.6% to 31.5%. Individuals' prescription regimens changed frequently within medication classes, rather than between classes. The prescription frequency of a specific medication varied considerably, depending on the coexisting diagnosis of a given comorbidity. Of the 24 medications assessed, 15 were associated with at least a 15% prevalence of a mood disorder, and 11 were associated with at least a 15% prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. For patients taking antipsychotics, the 2 most common comorbidities were combined type attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (11.6%-17.8%) and anxiety disorder (13.1%-30.1%)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study demonstrated considerable variability and transiency in the use of prescription medications by US clinicians to manage symptoms and comorbidities associated with ASD. These findings support the importance of early and ongoing surveillance of patients with ASD and co-occurring conditions and offer clinicians insight on the targeted therapies most commonly used to manage co-occurring conditions. Future research and policy efforts are critical to assess the extent to which pharmacological management of comorbidities affects quality of life and functioning in patients with ASD while continuing to optimize clinical guidelines, to ensure effective care for this growing population.

Background: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a valid tool for the optimization of psychopharmacotherapy; however, in child and adolescent psychiatry, uncomfortable intravenous sample collection is the main challenge and restricts the use of TDM. Therefore, it is important to evaluate alternate specimens to facilitate TDM. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using saliva for the TDM of amphetamine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder., Methods: In this study, 28 patient samples (mean age, 11.3 years; boys, 23; and girls, 5) treated with lisdexamfetamine were included. The active compound amphetamine was extracted and derivatized before quantification by high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. Nonparametric Spearman rank correlations were used for correlation analyses; for clinical validation, Bland-Altman analysis was applied., Results: The median amphetamine concentrations in saliva were 2.7 times higher (range 0.7-23.6) than those in serum (257.8 ng/mL versus 77.2 ng/mL; z = -4.51, P < 0.001). A strong positive linear correlation was observed between saliva and serum concentrations (ρ = 0.628, P < 0.001). The ratio of saliva-to-serum concentration was strongly pH dependent (ρ = -0.712, P < 0.001). Therefore, a transformation formula, factoring in salivary pH, to calculate serum concentrations from the measured saliva concentrations was applied. Theoretical and measured serum amphetamine concentrations were subjected to Bland-Altman analysis. Using an acceptance limit of 20%, only 21% (n = 6) of samples fulfilled this criterion., Conclusions: Amphetamine paired saliva-to-serum concentrations were highly variable and strongly affected by salivary pH, indicating that saliva is an inappropriate sampling matrix for TDM of amphetamine. Furthermore, Bland-Altman analysis did not support saliva as a suitable matrix for TDM., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

There has been a lack of research on the third area of impairment noted in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition -"occupational functioning." It is important to understand the impact of common treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in occupational settings. Twenty individuals with ADHD between ages 16 and 25 participated in a double-blind, placebo controlled evaluation of 40 mg lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in a setting designed to approximate a restaurant workplace with associated, simulated food delivery. Outcome measures included ratings of performance, as well as behavioral productivity. Results indicated that participants completed more workplace tasks when on medication, relative to placebo. Ratings of job application quality, job interview performance, and delivery outcomes were not significantly different on medication versus placebo. These results suggest positive effects of medication in a workplace environment, but also a need for study of additional interventions to support workplace-related behavior and functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Background : Cocaine use disorder (CUD) is a substantial public health problem with no FDA-approved medication treatments. Psychostimulants have shown promise as pharmacotherapy for CUD. Lisdexamfetamine, a novel prodrug psychostimulant, is roughly 40-50% as potent as dextroamphetamine. Objectives : To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and optimal dosing of lisdexamfetamine for treating CUD. Methods : Open-label, 8-week trial of 17 CUD adults. Participants were titrated to the maximum tolerated dose of 140 mg over 2-week period and maintained for 4 weeks, followed by a two-week taper period. The primary outcome measures were the maximum daily dose achieved during the study period and tolerability as measured by medication-related study drop-out. Results : Among the 16 participants with post-enrollment data, the mean dose of lisdexamfetamine achieved was 118.1 mg (standard deviation (SD) = 40.4), mean retention was 6.5 weeks (SD = 2.0), and no participants discontinued study medication due to adverse effects. Four participants had dose reductions due to adverse effects and continued in the trial. Six participants (37.5%) were abstinent for the last 3 weeks of their study participation. Mean dollars of cocaine spent per day significantly decreased from $19.72 at baseline to $7.57 during the last 3 weeks of study participation ( t 15  = 3.60, p = .003). The mean percent of using days significantly decreased from 25% at baseline to 12% during the last 3 weeks of study participation ( t 15  = 3.33, p = .005). Conclusion : The use of lisdexamfetamine for CUD in doses ranging to 140 mg daily was safe and generally well tolerated.

Objective: This study examined the feasibility, safety, and potential efficacy of lisdexamfetamine (LDX) as a treatment for adults with bulimia nervosa (BN)., Method: An open-label 8-week feasibility study was conducted in participants with BN. Enrollment rate, dropout rate, safety outcomes, and eating disorder symptom change were examined., Results: Eighteen of 23 participants completed the study per protocol. There was no participant-initiated dropout due to adverse drug reactions and no severe and unexpected adverse drug reactions. An average increase in heart rate of 12.1 beats/min was observed. There was a mean weight reduction of 2.1 kg and one participant was withdrawn for clinically significant weight loss. In the intent-to-treat sample, there were reductions in objective binge episodes and compensatory behaviors from Baseline to Post/End-of-Treatment (mean difference = -29.83, 95% confidence interval: -43.38 to -16.27; and mean difference = -33.78, 95% confidence interval: -48.74 to -18.82, respectively)., Discussion: Results of this study indicate that a randomized controlled trial would be feasible with close monitoring of certain safety parameters (especially over a longer time period as long-term safety is unknown). However, the results should not be used as evidence for clinicians to prescribe LDX to individuals with BN before its efficacy and safety are properly tested., Trial Registration Number: NCT03397446., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

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., Competing Interests: Don Husereau has provided advice and analysis for Eli Lilly Canada and Purdue Canada Inc. He is also an expert advisor for the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Alice Charach has received a limited one-time speaker honorarium from Janssen, Inc. She has no additional biomedical financial interests or potential conflicts of interest to declare. Ms. Skidmore is a paid information consultant/contractor to the Ottawa Hospital Heart Institute. Muhammad Mamdani has served as a member of an advisory board for Hoffman La Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly Canada. None declared for JE, AJ, SK, C.E., SH, ZB, ET, DC, or GW. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Objective: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate is a stimulant prodrug with low abuse and diversion potential that is used in treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, adolescents and adults. This current literature review article aims to examine safety and efficacy of LDX in children and adolescents for the treatment of ADHD based on currently available data., Methods: Relevant English language articles were identified through computerized searches of the MEDLINE database (PubMed and EMBASE) and clinical trials registry up to January 2020 using the following search terms: lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, pro-drug stimulant, attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders, ADHD, safety, efficacy, children, adolescents, Vyvanse. Forty-two articles were reviewed, 34 of which were included into this review, selected by the limit "clinical trials". This article represents the pharmacological profile, efficacy and safety data of LDX for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents., Results: The collection of studies reviewed identified that LDX was both safe and efficacious in the treatment of ADHD. The most commonly exhibited side effects were appetite suppression, weight loss, headache and insomnia. In comparison to placebo, LDX significantly improved ADHD symptoms and overall quality of life in children and adolescents. In comparison to atomoxetine, LDX showed statistically significant improvements in inattention, impulsivity, and activities of daily living. In comparison to OROS-MPH and placebo, LDX and OROS-MPH showed improvements with the CGI-I score, and ADHD-RS-IV, however, LDX was superior., Conclusion: Patients have seen statistically significant improvements in their ADHD symptomatology in the classroom environment, health related quality of life, and their overall behavior in comparison to placebo, atomoxetine, and OROS-MPH. However, clinical judgment should be utilized when prescribing LDX due to patient specific needs and the side effect profile.

Background: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is present in 25%-50% of parents of children with ADHD, compromising parenting and child behavioral treatment. Efforts to treat multiplex ADHD families have not compared behavioral parenting interventions to parent psychopharmacology without confounds of other treatments. This report describes a pilot early intervention study directly comparing parent lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) to behavioral parent training (BPT) in families in which the mother had currently untreated ADHD and the young child displayed ADHD symptoms., Methods: Mothers with ADHD (N = 35) of 4- to 8-year-old stimulant-naive children (N = 35) were randomly assigned to an 8-week trial of LDX (starting at 20 mg/d and titrated to a maximum of 70 mg/d) or BPT. Outcomes included multi-method, multi-informant measures of (1) maternal ADHD symptoms (Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scales) and impairment (Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale [CGI-S] and CGI-Improvement scale [CGI-I]), (2) parenting (Alabama Parenting Questionnaire [APQ] and Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System, Fourth Edition), and (3) child ADHD symptoms (Conners Parent Rating Scale Revised-Short Form and Conners Early Childhood Scale) and impairment (CGI-S, CGI-I, and Child Impairment Rating Scale)., Results: At 8 weeks, both treatments improved mothers' self-reported emotion regulation and mothers' functioning on the CGI, but only LDX improved mothers' self-reported core ADHD symptoms. LDX was associated with improvement in parents' perception of their own ADHD symptoms (Conners Inattention [P < .0001] and ADHD Index scores [P < .0001]) and their child's ADHD symptoms (P = .009). Fifty-six percent of the mothers treated with LDX (n = 10) were "much" or "very much" improved with regard to their adult ADHD based on the CGI-I scores versus 6% of mothers receiving BPT (n = 1; P = .003). BPT improved parenting on self-reported positive parenting (P = .007), inconsistent discipline (P > .0001), and corporal punishment (P = .001), while LDX improved reported inconsistent discipline (P = .001) and corporal punishment (P = .04) on the APQ, consistent with prior research. In contrast to parental LDX, which did not improve observed parenting, BPT was associated with increased positive parenting during child-directed play (P = .0002) and clean-up (P = .04) and less negative parenting (P = .04) during child-directed play. Six percent of children (n = 1) whose mothers were randomized to LDX (n = 18) were "much" or "very much" improved on the CGI-I compared to 35% (n = 16) of those treated with BPT (P = .04)., Conclusions: LDX and BPT each had unique effects on maternal ADHD symptoms and parenting, but modest effects on at-risk children. In general, LDX was more effective at treating mothers' core ADHD symptoms, but both LDX and BPT improved mothers' emotion regulation, and BPT resulted in more consistent effects on parenting measures via both maternal report and direct observation. As most children remained significantly impaired after 8 weeks of unimodal treatment, combination treatment and/or longer treatment duration may be necessary to improve functioning of multiplex ADHD families., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01816074​., (© Copyright 2020 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objectives: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is approved in some European countries for the second-line treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents when response to previous methylphenidate (MPH) treatment is considered clinically inadequate, and as a first-line treatment in adults. Limited evidence exists on the real-world use of LDX across Europe. This retrospective study evaluated LDX drug utilization patterns from eight European countries for up to 5 years. Methods: Data were collected from national registries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), electronic medical records (Germany, Spain, United Kingdom), and prescription databases (Switzerland) in eight European countries. Patients were included if they were prescribed LDX at least once since the LDX launch date in each country. Demographic and clinical characteristics, and LDX prescription data included patient age and gender, a recorded diagnosis of ADHD, the number of prescriptions per participant, previous MPH prescription recorded, average daily dose, treatment persistence, discontinuation, and switching of medications. Results: Overall, information for 59,292 patients (437,272 LDX prescriptions) was analyzed. Most patients were male (58.1%-84.3%) and fewer than 1% were under 6 years of age. Extensive use of LDX in adults was observed in four countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden), including countries where LDX was not approved for this age group. Most patients had a recorded diagnosis of ADHD (61.9%-95.4%). The mean number of prescriptions per patient ranged from 5.4 to 10.0. At least 79.6% of patients with ADHD had a recorded previous MPH prescription. Mean duration of LDX exposure ranged from 233.1 to 410.8 days. The average daily dose of LDX was ≤70 mg/day for most patients (79.4%-99.7%). The 5-year discontinuation rate ranged from 22.8% to 70.6% and was below 40% for most countries. The proportion of patients switching from LDX to other medications was ≤33.8. Conclusions: This study provides the first long-term, real-world information related to LDX use by children, adolescents, and adults in Europe in the 5 years since its first launch in the region. Most LDX prescriptions fulfilled label requirements regarding a recorded diagnosis of ADHD before treatment initiation, previous MPH use, and an average daily dose of ≤70 mg/day. LDX was largely prescribed within the indicated age range, although adult use of LDX was high in some countries where LDX is not approved for this population.

Rationale: Agonist-based pharmacologic intervention is an accepted approach in treatment of opioid and tobacco use disorders., Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate usefulness of an agonist approach as treatment of (psycho)stimulant use disorder (PSUD)., Methods: We reviewed PubMed/Medline, LILACS, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases searching for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design studies evaluating outcomes of individuals treated for cocaine- or amphetamine-type substance use disorder. We combined results of all trials that included the following prescription psychostimulants (PPs): modafinil, methylphenidate, or amphetamines (mixed amphetamine salts, lisdexamphetamine, and dextroamphetamine). The combined sample consisted of 2889 patients. Outcomes of interest included the following: drug abstinence (defined as 2-3 weeks of sustained abstinence and the average maximum days of consecutive abstinence), percentage of drug-negative urine tests across trial, and retention in treatment. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE system., Results: Thirty-eight trials were included. Treatment with PPs increases rates of sustained abstinence [risk ratio (RR) = 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.10, 1.92)] and duration of abstinence [mean difference (MD) = 3.34, 95% CI = (1.06, 5.62)] in patients with PSUD, particularly those with cocaine use disorder (very low-quality evidence). Prescription amphetamines were particularly efficacious in promoting sustained abstinence in patients with cocaine use disorder [RR = 2.44, 95% CI = (1.66, 3.58)], and higher doses of PPs were particularly efficacious for treatment of cocaine use disorder [RR = 1.95, 95% CI = (1.38, 2.77)] (moderate-quality evidence). Treatment with prescription amphetamines also yielded more cocaine-negative urines [MD = 8.37%, 95% CI = (3.75, 12.98)]. There was no effect of PPs on the retention in treatment., Conclusion: Prescription psychostimulants, particularly prescription amphetamines given in robust doses, have a clinically significant beneficial effect to promote abstinence in the treatment of individuals with PSUD, specifically the population with cocaine use disorder.

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of stimulants in patients with depression, by using naturalistic outcome measures, such as psychiatric admissions, psychiatric bed-days and incidents of intentional self-harm or suicide attempts., Methods: Via linkage of the Danish nationwide health registers, we identified all patients with a diagnosis of depression initiating stimulants, including methylphenidate, modafinil, amphetamine, dexamphetamine or lisdexamphetamine, from 1995 to 2012. We used a mirror-image model to test whether redemption of a stimulant prescription was associated with a reduction in psychiatric admissions, inpatient days and incidents of intentional self-harm or suicide attempts. Specifically, the number of these outcomes in the 2 years leading up to redemption of a stimulant prescription was compared to the two subsequent years. Similar outcomes were used in a reverse mirror-image model to investigate the effect of stimulant termination., Results: A total of 3354, 935 and 105 patients diagnosed with depression redeemed prescriptions for methylphenidate, modafinil or amphetamine/dexamphetamine/lisdexamphetamine, respectively. Initiation of methylphenidate was not associated with a significant change in psychiatric admissions (mean: -0.02 admissions, p  = 0.11) or inpatient days (mean: 0.13 days, p  = 0.74). Similar findings were made for modafinil and the amphetamines. In addition, no clinically relevant change in psychiatric admissions or inpatient days was found after termination of a stimulant. After initiation of methylphenidate, the incidents of self-harm or suicide attempts were reduced by 54%, from 68 to 31 events ( p  = 0.004). No significant change in incidents of self-harm or suicide attempts were found for modafinil or the amphetamines., Conclusion: This nationwide study, using naturalistic outcomes, does not support the use of stimulants in patients with depression. However, the use of methylphenidate was associated with a 54% reduction in incidents of self-harm or suicide attempts, indicating that methylphenidate may potentially be useful in patients with depression with suicidal- or self-harming behaviour. However, further studies are needed, before any firm conclusions can be made.

Objective: This study examined the prescribing patterns of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications in Ireland between 2005 and 2015 in children, adolescents and young adults, and concomitant use of psychotropic medication., Design: Repeated cross-sectional study., Setting: Community setting using pharmacy claims data in Ireland., Participants: Children and young adults aged 0-24 years., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: Authorised medications used to treat ADHD during the study period, methylphenidate, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine were extracted from a national pharmacy claims database. Dispensing of concomitant psychotropic medications including antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives and antidepressants were examined., Results: The number on any ADHD medication ranged from 1913 in 2005 to 4853 in 2015, and the prevalence rate per 1000 eligible population aged <25 years increased significantly over time from 5.61 (95% CI 5.36 to 5.86) in 2005 to 8.36 (95% CI 8.13 to 8.60) in 2015 (p<0.0001). Negative binomial regression showed significant changes over time for ADHD prescribing (p<0.001), with significantly higher rates across the different age groups. The rates overall were three to five times higher in males. There was a significant increase in the percentage on concomitant antidepressants from 2% in 2005 to 6% in 2015 (p<0.001)., Conclusions: There were significantly higher rates of ADHD prescribing in children/adolescents and a significant increase in the coprescribing of antidepressants. The reasons for the increase are unclear but may reflect increasing awareness and diagnosis of the condition., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Rely on DSM-5 criteria and an appropriate rating scale to assess how an individual's inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity interfere with functioning in different settings.

Objective: To further define the efficacy and safety profiles of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in Japanese pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of LDX 30, 50, or 70 mg/day for 4 weeks in 76 patients 6-17 years of age with ADHD in Japan. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score from baseline to 4 weeks. Secondary efficacy endpoints were: Conners' Third Edition (Japanese version) Parent Rating Scale (Conners 3), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale, and Parent Global Assessment (PGA) scale. Results: Change in the ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline to 4 weeks was significantly greater ( p  < 0.0001) in all LDX dosage groups versus placebo (30 mg, -16.38; 50 mg, -18.10; 70 mg, -16.47; placebo, -2.78). At all time points, improvements (decreases) in the ADHD-RS-IV total score were significantly greater in all LDX groups versus placebo. At weeks 3 and 4, improvements from baseline in Conners 3 inattention plus hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale scores were significantly greater ( p  ≤ 0.0082) for all LDX dosages versus placebo. At week 4, the proportion of LDX-treated patients "much improved" or "very much improved" was 61%-71% on the CGI-I scale ( p  ≤ 0.0019) and 56%-65% on the PGA scale ( p  ≤ 0.0170). LDX was generally well tolerated. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were decreased appetite, headache, and initial insomnia. No severe/serious AEs occurred, and no AEs specific to Japanese patients were evident. Conclusions: The superiority of LDX 30, 50, and 70 mg/day over placebo was confirmed in Japanese pediatric patients with ADHD, and no major safety or tolerability concerns were identified.

Radiopaque densities can be observed on imaging after the ingestion of either foreign bodies or some medications. Our case report discusses an 11-year-old boy with autism spectrum disorder and attention deficient disorder who presented to the emergency department because of concerns for constipation and dehydration. Incidentally, an abdominal x-ray showed numerous radiopaque densities throughout his intestines in addition to his constipation. He was admitted, and his home regimen was reviewed to attempt to identify a potential source for these radiopaque densities. This case presented an interesting teaching opportunity in the identification of the radiopaque densities and review of pharmacokinetics.

Stimulant drugs are commonly used in pediatric population in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and their side effects are well described, however trichotillomania does not appear as one of them. In the literature we found some published cases of trichotillomania in relation to methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine. We present two cases of new-onset trichotillomania in children followed up in our center by attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and treated with psychostimulant drugs (methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine), as a probable adverse effect of this treatment., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría.)

Objective: To report the successful use of lisdexamfetamine in the management of narcolepsy., Methods: Five narcoleptic patients received lisdexamfetamine, at different dosages and for different periods, for management of excessive daytime sleepiness and weight control., Results: All patients experienced improvement of excessive daytime sleepiness and lost weight without side effects., Conclusion: Lisdexamfetamine appears promising for the treatment of two of the most common symptoms of narcolepsy: excessive daytime sleepiness and weight gain.

Objective: To systematically review the literature on the therapeutic use of amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate in elderly population with and without dementia., Methods: We conducted two researches on the PubMed, Scopus and Embase using the keywords ("elderly") AND ("amphetamine" OR "methylphenidate" OR "lisdexamfetamine") and then ("Alzheimer" OR "dementia") AND ("amphetamine" OR "methylphenidate" OR "lisdexamfetamine")., Results: Twenty-nine papers met all the eligibility criteria. The results are encouraging as 81.5% of the studies showed clinical improvement of the investigated condition., Conclusion: Amphetamines and methylphenidate are probably effective strategies for different conditions in the elderly population. However, further studies are needed to provide more robust evidence on efficacy, dosage and safety for this population., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Purpose: The aim of the study was to help quantify the protective effects of stimulant treatment on important functional outcomes in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using the number needed to treat (NNT) statistic and examine whether these effects are moderated by sex., Methods: Subjects were derived from three independent samples, two similarly designed case-control, 10-year prospective follow-up studies of boys and girls with and without ADHD grown up and a cross-sectional randomized clinical trial of lisdexamfetamine on driving performance and behavior. For all studies, subjects were evaluated with structured diagnostic interviews. To measure psychopharmacologic treatment in the follow-up studies, we collected information about each subject's stimulant medication use, age at onset, and age at termination of treatment. Subjects in the driving study underwent two driving simulation assessments (premedication and after 6 weeks of treatment on lisdexamfetamine or placebo). For each outcome, we ran a logistic regression model that included an interaction between sex and treatment status. Lifetime rates were used to calculate the NNT statistic. We also calculated adjusted NNT statistics that accounted for sex, age, socioeconomic status, and family intactness., Results: The NNTs were very low, ranging from 3 to 10. No interaction effects with sex were detected (all p > .05). The adjusted NNTs mostly remained the same with the exception of any substance use disorder, which increased after controlling for age., Conclusions: Stimulants have strong protective effects on functional outcomes in youth with ADHD that are not moderated by sex. These results support the critical importance of early identification and treatment of children with ADHD of both sexes., (Copyright © 2019 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale modified for Binge Eating (Y-BOCS-BE) assesses the obsessiveness of binge eating thoughts and compulsiveness of binge eating behaviors. The findings of this study extend previously published Y-BOCS-BE psychometric evaluations in adults with binge eating disorder (BED)., Methods: Data from three phase 3 lisdexamfetamine dimesylate studies in adults with BED (two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled short-term efficacy studies; one double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized-withdrawal maintenance-of-efficacy study) were used. Psychometric evaluations included assessment of Y-BOCS-BE dimensionality, internal consistency, convergent validity, test?retest reliability, and determinations of clinically meaningful improvement using distribution- and anchor-based methods., Results: Domain specification analyses determined that the Y-BOCS-BE possessed a bifactor structure composed of a general binge eating severity domain and three subdomains (obsessive/compulsive, restraint, and control). Y-BOCS-BE internal consistency was maximized at week 12 (Cronbach?s ?, 0.95) and test?retest reliability was maximized in the 8-week retest interval from week 4 to week 12 across all no-change anchors (r?=?0.74?0.90). Likewise, convergent validity of the Y-BOCS-BE across all validators was maximized at week 12 (all r???0.66). Meaningful improvement for Y-BOCS-BE total scores was estimated to require score reductions of 12 to 17 points depending on the anchor., Conclusions: The Y-BOCS-BE is a valuable tool for assessing BED symptoms. Maximization of Y-BOCS-BE reliability and validity at later study time points may be related to both treatment effects and improved insight into BED by participants during the study.

Objectives: The purpose of this retrospective chart review was to evaluate lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in the treatment of pediatric binge eating disorder (BED)., Methods: We examined the clinical records of 25 patients, 12 to 19 years of age, who were prescribed LDX and had a diagnosis of BED between 2014 and 2017., Results: Binge eating disorder in adolescents was highly comorbid with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, mood and anxiety disorders, and severe obesity. Fifteen participants reported some level of improvement of their BED symptoms with LDX treatment. Posttreatment body mass index (BMI) percentile was not significantly reduced, and all but 2 participants remained in their same BMI classification. Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment duration was not associated with change in BMI percentile, and the medication was well tolerated., Conclusions: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate may have clinical utility for BED in adolescents, but randomized, placebo-controlled studies of its efficacy, tolerability, and safety in this population are needed.

Eating disorders are serious psychiatric illnesses with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Effective treatments have traditionally included behaviorally focused therapies as well as several medication strategies. Recent years have seen promising developments in these treatments, including additional support for family-based approaches for children and adolescents, new evidence for "third-wave" behavioral therapies, and new support for the use of lisdexamfetamine for binge eating disorder and olanzapine for anorexia nervosa. Case study and pilot data are beginning to show limited support for neuromodulatory interventions targeting brain regions thought to be involved in eating disorders. This review summarizes treatment developments over the last several years and points towards future directions for the field., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Evelyn Attia receives royalty payments from UpToDate and serves as a consultant to Weight Watchers International. Lauren E. Davis declares that she has no competing interests.No competing interests were disclosed.No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2019 Davis LE and Attia E.)

Emerging evidence supports a prevalence overlap between ADHD and bulimia nervosa/binge eating disorder. A high degree of ADHD symptoms may have a negative impact on recovery in eating disorders with loss of control over the eating, bingeing and purging. Screening/diagnostic evaluation of ADHD in all persons with loss of control over the eating/bingeing/purging eating disorders is required. For patients diagnosed with ADHD, treatment with stimulants can be tested and evaluated for both eating disorders and ADHD symptoms. While there is evidence that lisdexamfetamine reduces symptoms of binge eating disorder, rigorous studies evaluating ADHD treatment, including medication, for bulimia nervosa are still missing.