↓ Skip to main content

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate in Children and Adolescents with ADHD: A Phase IV, 2-Year, Open-Label Study in Europe

Overview of attention for article published in CNS Drugs, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
216 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate in Children and Adolescents with ADHD: A Phase IV, 2-Year, Open-Label Study in Europe
Published in
CNS Drugs, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40263-017-0443-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R. Coghill, Tobias Banaschewski, Peter Nagy, Isabel Hernández Otero, César Soutullo, Brian Yan, Beatriz Caballero, Alessandro Zuddas

Abstract

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is increasingly recognized as a persistent disorder requiring long-term management. Our objective was to evaluate the 2-year safety and efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in children and adolescents with ADHD. Participants (aged 6-17 years) with ADHD received open-label, dose-optimized LDX 30, 50, or 70 mg/day for 104 weeks. Safety monitoring included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, electrocardiography, and growth. The TEAEs decreased appetite, weight decrease, insomnia events (including insomnia, initial insomnia, middle insomnia, and terminal insomnia), headache, and psychiatric TEAEs were pre-defined as being of special interest. Efficacy was assessed as a secondary objective using the ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV), the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale, and the CGI-Severity (CGI-S) scale. Of 314 participants enrolled, 191 completed the study. TEAEs were reported in 89.8% of participants, led to discontinuation in 12.4%, and were reported as serious in 8.9%. TEAEs that were reported by ≥5% of participants and considered by investigators as related to LDX were decreased appetite (49.4%), weight decrease (18.2%), insomnia (13.1%), initial insomnia (8.9%), irritability (8.6%), nausea (6.7%), headache (5.7%), and tic (5.1%). The median time to first onset and duration, respectively, of TEAEs of special interest were as follows: decreased appetite, 13.5 and 169.0 days; weight decrease, 29.0 and 225.0 days; insomnia, 17.0 and 42.8 days; and headache, 22.0 and 2.0 days. Reports of decreased appetite, weight decrease, insomnia, and headache were highest in the first 4-12 weeks. Psychiatric TEAEs were infrequent: psychosis and mania (n = 1), suicidal events (suicidal ideation, n = 2; suicide attempt, n = 1), and aggression events (aggression, n = 14; anger, n = 2; hostility, n = 1). At the last on-treatment assessment (LOTA), mean increases from baseline in vital signs were as follows: pulse rate, 7.0 bpm (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.7-8.2); systolic blood pressure (SBP), 3.4 mmHg (95% CI 2.2-4.5); and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), 3.2 mmHg (95% CI 2.2-4.2). Pre-defined thresholds for a potentially clinically important (PCI) high pulse rate were met at one or more visits by 22 participants (7.0%), for PCI high SBP were met by 45 children (22.4%) and 17 adolescents (15.2%), and for PCI high DBP were met by 78 children (38.8%) and 24 adolescents (21.4%). The mean QT interval corrected using Fridericia's formula (QTcF) decreased from baseline to LOTA (-0.6 ms [95% CI -2.3 to 1.2]; range -50 to +53). Mean changes in growth from baseline to LOTA were weight, 2.1 kg (95% CI 1.5-2.8); height, 6.1 cm (95% CI 5.6-6.7); and body mass index (BMI), -0.5 kg/m(2) (95% CI -0.7 to -0.3). There was a general shift to lower z score categories for height, weight, and BMI from baseline to LOTA. The mean change in ADHD-RS-IV from baseline to LOTA was -25.8 (95% CI -27.0 to -24.5) for total score, -12.6 (95% CI -13.4 to -11.9) for the hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale score, and -13.1 (95% CI -13.8 to -12.4) for the inattention subscale score. At LOTA, 77.9% of participants had a CGI-I score of 1 or 2. In addition, 77.3 and 69.2% of participants were classified as treatment responders, based on a CGI-I score of 1 or 2 and a ≥30% or ≥50% reduction from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score, respectively. The safety profile of LDX in this longer-term study was similar to that reported in previous studies. The efficacy of LDX was maintained throughout the 2-year study period. CLINICALTRIALS. NCT01328756.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 216 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Researcher 19 9%
Other 16 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 38 18%
Unknown 76 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 21%
Psychology 36 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 5%
Neuroscience 9 4%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Other 16 7%
Unknown 90 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,565,641
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from CNS Drugs
#1,180
of 1,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,646
of 314,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CNS Drugs
#20
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,522 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.