Faculty Bibliography

Introduction: Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often presents as an impairing lifelong condition in adults, yet it is currently under-diagnosed and under-treated in many European countries. Objectives: To establish the characteristics of the European (EU) adult ADHD patient relative to adult patients outside the EU (OEU). Aims: To compare the baseline characteristics of patients with ADHD in regions where adult ADHD is relatively well established (e.g., USA), with EU adult ADHD patients. Methods: Baseline data was used from the open-label acute treatment period of a multicenter, randomized, withdrawal trial of atomoxetine in adult patients with ADHD (N=2017; EU, n=1217; OEU, n=800). All enrolled patients were included in the baseline analyses. Results: The demographics for patients in the EU region and regions OEU were comparable. Patients in the EU region had a somewhat lower percentage of prior exposure to psychostimulants compared to the region OEU (32.7% versus 38.9%, p=.005). Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Investigator Rated: Screening Version with adult ADHD prompts (18 item total, inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive subscales, and index) were comparable. The adult ADHD Quality of Life life outlook and life productivity domain scores were different between groups (p? .0004). The EuroQol-5 Dimension UK and US population-based Index score, and health state score were comparable between groups. Conclusions: There were some subtle differences between study groups; however, overall, the adult ADHD patients were not substantially different between the EU region and regions OEU, suggesting that baseline features of ADHD in adult EU patients manifest comparable to those in patients OEU

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of atomoxetine combined with buspirone versus atomoxetine monotherapy and placebo in adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: In this randomized, 8-week, 3-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from November 2004 through December 2005, 241 adults with ADHD were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive up to twice-daily atomoxetine and thrice-daily buspirone (n = 97), twice-daily atomoxetine (n = 97), or placebo (n = 47). Participants met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria for ADHD. The primary efficacy measure was the adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS). RESULTS: Decrease in the AISRS total score was significantly greater for atomoxetine-buspirone than placebo at all time points from weeks 1 to 7, with an estimated mean difference of -4.80 (P = .001). Reduction in the mean AISRS total score was numerically greater for atomoxetine-buspirone than for atomoxetine at all time points, but statistically significant at week 4 only (estimated difference = -2.04, P < .10). The effect size for atomoxetine plus buspirone was 0.51, and for atomoxetine alone, it was 0.40. Insomnia, nausea, dry mouth, headache, and asthenia were frequently reported adverse events for both active treatment groups, and dizziness was also frequently reported for the atomoxetine-buspirone group. Discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse effects were 15.5% for atomoxetine-buspirone, 11.3% for atomoxetine, and 14.9% for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: There was little indication of improvement for atomoxetine plus buspirone versus atomoxetine monotherapy, as most efficacy measures showed only slightly greater quantitative improvement for the combination, generally without statistical significance. It is of note, however, that the quantitative differences between these 2 groups were virtually all in the direction of greater efficacy for the atomoxetine plus buspirone group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00174226.

Abstract Objective: To validate the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) Self-Report Scale (ASRS) v1.1 Symptom Checklist versus the clinician-administered ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) in adolescents with ADHD. Method: A total of 88 adolescents with ADHD aged 13-17 years participated in the study. The study was completed in one or two visits, 1-9 weeks apart. At each visit, participants completed the ASRS v1.1 Symptom Checklist, after which raters administered the ADHD-RS. Internal consistency of the ASRS v1.1 Symptom Checklist was assessed by Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach's alpha). Concurrent validity between the scales was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficients. Item-by-item reliability between the scales was assessed by the Kappa coefficient of agreement. Results: The mean age of participants was 14.9+/-1.5 SD years. 76.1% (n=67) were male. 73.9% (n=65) were currently receiving medication for ADHD. Internal consistency of ASRS v1.1 Symptom Checklist items was high, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.93 at Visit 1 and 0.94 at Visit 2. Pearson's correlation coefficients between the ASRS v1.1 Symptom Checklist and ADHD-RS were highly significant at Visit 1 (r=0.72, p<0.0001) and Visit 2 (r=0.73, p<0.0001). There was moderate item-by-item agreement between individual items on the scales (% agreement: 35.2%-63.4%) with statistically significant kappa coefficients for 17 of the 18 items. Conclusion: The ASRS v1.1 Symptoms Checklist showed high internal consistency and high concurrent validity with the clinician-administered ADHD-RS in adolescents with ADHD. Results of this study suggest that the ASRS v1.1 Symptom Checklist is an internally consistent self-report scale for the assessment of adolescent ADHD and is moderately associated with a concurrently administered clinician measure of ADHD symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Many children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) continue to experience this disorder as adults, which may, in part, be due to the discontinuity of health care that often occurs during the transition period between late adolescence and young adulthood. Although atomoxetine is reported to be efficacious in both adolescents and young adults, no longitudinal studies have been designed to assess directly the effects of atomoxetine treatment during this transition period. As a first step, we present the results of a post hoc, pooled analysis that compared the efficacy and safety profile of atomoxetine in these 2 patient populations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety profile of atomoxetine treatment in adolescents and young adults with ADHD. METHODS: A post hoc, pooled analysis was conducted by combining data from 6 double-blind trials (6-9 weeks in duration) that studied adolescents (12-17 years of age; atomoxetine, n = 154; placebo, n = 88; mean final dose = 1.38 mg/kg) and 3 trials (10 weeks in duration) that studied young adults (18-30 years of age; atomoxetine, n = 117; placebo, n = 125; mean final dose = 1.21 mg/kg). Efficacy measures used in these analyses were ADHD Rating Scale (ADHDRS) for adolescents, Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) for young adults, and Clinical Global Impressions-ADHD-Severity (CGI-ADHD-S) for both age groups. Treatment response was defined as >/=30% reduction from baseline in total ADHD symptom score. RESULTS: In adolescents (mean age, 13.4 years), atomoxetine improved ADHD significantly compared with placebo (ADHDRS total score change, -12.9 vs -7.5; P < 0.001). In young adults (mean age, 24.7 years), atomoxetine improved ADHD significantly (CAARS total score change, -13.6 vs -7.7; P < 0.001; CGI-ADHD-S change, -1.1 vs -0.6; P < 0.001). No significant treatment-by-age subgroup interaction was observed. Tolerability was similar for both age subgroups, except for treatment-emergent nausea, which occurred significantly more frequently with atomoxetine than with placebo in young adults (13.7% vs 4.8%, respectively; P = 0.024); in adolescents no statistically significant differences were observed in frequency of nausea between atomoxetine and placebo treatment (4.5% vs 10.2%, respectively; P = 0.108). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this post hoc, pooled analysis suggest that acute treatment with atomoxetine was efficacious in both adolescent and young adult patients with ADHD. The safety profile findings from this study were consistent with the previously reported atomoxetine safety and tolerability profiles, suggesting that it may be continued during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood.

Objective: Preclinical models, receptor localization, and genetic linkage data support the role of D4 receptors in the etiology of ADHD. This proof-of-concept study was designed to evaluate MK-0929, a selective D4 receptor antagonist as treatment for adult ADHD. Method: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study was conducted in adults with primary ADHD. The primary end point was changed from baseline in total score on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale following a 4-week treatment regimen. Additional measures included Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Brown Attention Deficit Disorder Scale and D4 genotype analysis. Results: No statistically significant treatment differences were found between MK-0929 and placebo in any of the primary or secondary assessments. Conclusion: Results from this study suggest that blockade of the D4 receptor alone is not efficacious in the treatment of adult ADHD. (J. of Att. Dis. 2011; XX(X) 1-XX)

RATIONALE: alpha(4)beta(2) Neuronal nicotinic receptors (NNRs) are implicated in the pathophysiology of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). OBJECTIVES: This study examined the efficacy and safety of the alpha(4)beta(2) NNR partial agonist ABT-089 versus placebo in adults with ADHD. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study, subjects received placebo followed by ABT-089 (2 mg once daily [QD], 5 mg QD, 15 mg QD, 40 mg QD, or 40 mg twice daily [BID]), or vice versa, in a 2 x 2 crossover design. Each treatment period was 4 weeks, separated by a 2-week washout period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Investigator Rated (CAARS:Inv) total score at the end of each treatment period. Secondary outcomes based on clinician- and self-rated efficacy scales were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 221 subjects enrolled, 171 met criteria for inclusion in the completers dataset for efficacy analyses. ABT-089 was superior to placebo on the CAARS:Inv total score at 40 mg QD and 40 mg BID (model-based least square mean difference from placebo: -4.33, P = 0.02; -3.02, P = 0.03, respectively). ABT-089 also demonstrated significant improvements on several secondary measures of efficacy. ABT-089 was generally safe and well tolerated. The most commonly reported adverse events (>/=5%) for total ABT-089-treated subjects at rates higher than placebo were headache, upper respiratory tract infection, irritability, insomnia, and nasopharyngitis. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2 crossover study, the NNR partial agonist ABT-089, at doses of 40 mg QD and 40 mg BID, was efficacious and generally well tolerated in treatment of adults with ADHD

Objectives: The study objectives were to 1) evaluate medication adherence for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treated with 3 times daily (TID) mixed amphetamine salts immediate release (MAS IR) versus once-daily (qAM) MAS extended release (MAS XR) in a randomized, crossover study; and 2) to examine the associations between adherence and efficacy for MAS IR and MAS XR. Methods: Sixty-two adults with ADHD were enrolled and 49 completed the study. The treatment condition order (TID-qAM or qAM-TID) was counterbalanced across participants, with an intervening washout period of >/= 7 days. Adherence was assessed via 3 measures: 1) self-report, 2) pill count, and 3) the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS((R))). The primary efficacy measure was the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS); secondary measures included the Time-Sensitive ADHD Symptom Scale (TASS) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scale. Results: Adherence to treatment as measured by self-report and pill count was not significantly different between MAS XR and MAS IR. Adherence was significantly better for MAS XR than MAS IR for all of the MEMS((R)) measures. The mean change in ADHD-RS, TASS, and CGI-S scores at endpoint was significantly improved for both MAS IR and MAS XR and did not differ significantly between groups. There was not a significant adherence by efficacy interaction. Conclusion: Adults with ADHD adhered equally well with MAS IR as with MAS XR when assessed by pill count and self-report, but not by the MEMS((R)) measures. Both treatments significantly reduced ADHD symptoms, and efficacy was not significantly different between groups. Adherence was not associated with treatment outcome

Patients with nonpsychotic mental health and emotional problems are commonly seen by primary care physicians. The objective of this study was to expand the Provisional Diagnostic Instrument-4 (PDI-4) to include a short self-report screen for 5 common anxiety-related diagnoses: panic attack (PA), social phobia (SP), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), hypochondriasis, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Primary care patients (N = 343) were originally evaluated with a self-report screen comprised of 85 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition symptom-based candidate questions, then interviewed by a trained rater for Structured Clinical Interview Research Version (SCID)/Adult ADHD Clinician Diagnostic Scale version 1.2 (ACDS) assessment and diagnosis. Responses to screening questions were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity for an SCID diagnosis, and to select the optimal cutoffs in symptom frequency for 1 or 2 questions for each additional anxiety-related diagnosis. The PDI-4 Anxiety (PDI-4A) contains 6 items for provisional differential diagnosis of PA, SP, OCD, hypochondriasis, and PTSD in addition to items for the PDI-4. Sensitivities/specificities were: PA, 88%/68%; SP, 57%/70%; OCD, 88%/61%; hypochondriasis, 67%/85%; and PTSD, 71%/72%. Screening for multiple common anxiety diagnoses may be desirable, although limitations may include reduced sensitivity and specificity for selected diagnoses. The PDI-4A may additionally help primary care physicians identify patients with PA, SP, OCD, hypochondriasis, and PTSD

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most prevalent psychiatric disorders and is now understood to be a lifelong condition for most individuals. Unfortunately, many adults with ADHD are not being diagnosed, possibly due to insufficient diagnostic criteria, the complex presentation of the disorder, and a reluctance by physicians to diagnose the disorder in adults. Additionally, many of those who have been diagnosed with ADHD do not receive adequate treatment despite the availability of established and effective agents. Performance Improvement CME (PI CME) is an educational activity in which clinicians retrospectively assess their current clinical practice, choose areas for improvement and implement interventions based on treatment guidelines and health care standards, and then re-evaluate their clinical practice to assess the improvements made. This PI CME activity focuses on improving the diagnosis and treatment of adult ADHD

Abstract Objective: To examine the impact of baseline severity on lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) efficacy in a long-term study of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Research design and methods: Adults from a 4-week, placebo-controlled, forced dose-escalation study with LDX (30-70 mg/day) or placebo were enrolled in a long-term, open-label dose-optimization study for an additional 12 months. In post hoc analyses, participants were stratified by baseline severity (from the prior short-term study) with Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) scores of 4 (moderately), 5 (markedly), or >/=6 (severely/extremely ill). ADHD-Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with adult prompts (primary) and CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) were used to assess effectiveness. Clinical response was defined as a >/=30% decrease in ADHD-RS-IV from baseline and a CGI-I of 1 or 2; symptomatic remission was defined as ADHD-RS-IV </=18. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were monitored. Results: Participants had baseline CGI-S scores of 4 (n = 114), 5 (n = 188), or >/=6 (n = 43). At endpoint, mean (SD) change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV was greater (p < 0.0001) for participants with CGI-S = 5 (-26.4 [11.77]) and >/=6 (-32.3 [9.81]) than for participants with CGI-S = 4 (-19.5 [9.97]). At endpoint, 81.6%, 84.6%, and 88.4% of participants were very much/much improved (CGI-I of 1 or 2) in CGI-S categories of 4, 5, and >/=6, respectively. Clinical response criteria were met by 78.9%, 83.5%, and 88.4% and symptomatic remission criteria by 64.0%, 65.4%, and 72.1% of participants with CGI-S = 4, 5, and >/=6, respectively. The most frequently reported TEAEs with participant incidence >/=10% for any LDX dose were upper respiratory tract infection (21.8%), insomnia (19.5%), headache (17.2%), dry mouth (16.6%), decreased appetite (14.3%), and irritability (11.2%). Conclusions: Some aspects of these analyses (e.g., open-label design without placebo control, inclusion and exclusion criteria of the demographic profile of participants, and the post hoc nature of the statistical analysis) limit interpretation. However, long-term LDX treatment demonstrated increased degree of symptom improvement with greater baseline symptom severity. Rates of clinical response and symptomatic remission tended to be greater for those with greater baseline severity. LDX demonstrated a safety profile consistent with long-acting stimulant use