ObjectivesThis study compared the sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, healthcare resource utilization, and work productivity among Japanese adults who reported being diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to those of a non-ADHD control population.MethodsData for this study were captured from an online survey of adults in Japan conducted by Kantar Health using consumer panels. A total of 84 survey participants reported they had received a diagnosis of ADHD from a physician. Survey responses pertaining to functional status and resource utilization from this ADHD group were compared to those from a non-ADHD control group of 100 participants. Comparisons between the ADHD and non-ADHD groups were made using chi-square tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables.ResultsParticipants in the ADHD group were on average slightly younger with a higher proportion of males. ADHD respondents reported significantly more comorbid depression, sleep difficulties, headaches, and anxiety than non-ADHD controls. Over the previous 6 months, the ADHD group made more visits to healthcare providers and the emergency room, and had more hospitalizations than non-ADHD controls. The ADHD group also rated their overall health status lower than the non-ADHD control group. Respondents with ADHD reported a significantly higher degree of health-related work impairment compared to non-ADHD, with greater absenteeism and decreased work productivity. The ADHD group indicated their symptoms negatively impacted relationships, self-esteem, and regular daily activities.ConclusionsJapanese adults with ADHD face a substantial burden of illness, including lower overall health status, increased number of comorbidities, greater healthcare utilization, and significant health-related occupational impairment compared to those without ADHD. Additional research is needed to develop a better understanding of both the consequences and treatment approaches for Japanese adults with ADHD.

ObjectiveTo describe the characteristics and medication treatment patterns of adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) prescribed atomoxetine in Japan.Materials and methodsA retrospective analysis of insurance claims data was conducted using the Japan Medical Data Center database. Adults (≥18 years) with ADHD who had ≥1 atomoxetine claim from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014, and ≥180 to ≤900 days of follow-up were included. First atomoxetine claim defined the index date. Patient characteristics included age, gender, and comorbid conditions. Treatment patterns assessed included rates of atomoxetine discontinuation, switching, persistence, adherence (assessed via the medication possession ratio), and use of concomitant medications.ResultsA total of 457 adults met all the inclusion criteria. Mean (SD) age was 32.7 (10.4) years, and 61.0% of patients were male. Nearly 72.0% of the patients had at least one comorbid mental health condition in the baseline period; depression (43.8%) and insomnia (40.7%) were the most common mental health comorbidities. Most common physical comorbidities were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (14.4%) and diabetes (12.9%). Non-ADHD-specific psychotropics were prescribed to 59.7% of patients during the baseline period and to 65.9% during the follow-up period; 6.6% were prescribed non-ADHD-specific psychotropics concomitantly with atomoxetine. Overall, 40.0% of adults discontinued atomoxetine during the entire follow-up period and 65.9% were persistent with atomoxetine therapy at 3 months post-index date. Mean (SD) atomoxetine medication possession ratio was 0.57 (0.25), and 25.4% switched to an alternative ADHD therapy; methylphenidate (22.4%) and non-ADHD-specific psychotropics (77.6%) were the most common medication alternatives. Nearly 8% augmented atomoxetine with methylphenidates, non-stimulants, or non-ADHD-specific psychotropics.ConclusionIn this observational study, a majority of adults with ADHD treated with atomoxetine were still persistent with therapy at 3 months post-index date, with one quarter switching to alternative ADHD therapy. High proportions of mental health comorbidities, along with high use of non-ADHD-specific psychotropic medications in both the baseline and follow-up periods, were observed among patients with ADHD prescribed atomoxetine.

Objective To investigate the relationship between Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score and psychiatrists’ judgment of working ability in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and painful physical symptoms. Methods This was a prospective, observational, 12-week study in patients who received duloxetine or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Patients were ≥20 years old, resided in Japan, and had at least moderate depression (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology ≥16) and at least moderate painful physical symptoms (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form average pain ≥3). The main outcome in this post-hoc analysis was the HAM-D17 cutoff best corresponding with patients’ working ability according to the investigator’s judgment. Area under the receiver-operator curve was used to determine the time point with the strongest relationship between HAM-D17 and working ability. The optimal HAM-D17 cutoff was determined based on the maximum of sensitivity (true positive rate) minus ([1 minus specificity] [true negative rate]). For the evaluation of binary data, a mixed effects model with repeated measures analysis was used. Results For the estimation of the HAM-D17 cutoff, the area under the receiver-operator curve was maximal at 12 weeks, when a HAM-D17 score of 6 resulted in the best correspondence with working ability in the combined study population. At 12 weeks, a HAM-D17 score of 6 also resulted in the maximum predictive ability in each of the two treatment groups separately. For predicted working ability at 12 weeks, 52.7% of duloxetine-treated patients achieved the HAM-D17 cutoff of ≤6, whereas 48.5% of SSRIs-treated patients achieved HAM-D17 ≤6 ( P =0.477). Conclusion In this study of patients with major depressive disorder and painful physical symptoms, a HAM-D17 score ≤6 corresponded best with patients’ working ability. This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that a HAM-D17 cutoff of ≤7 may overestimate functional recovery from MDD.

Purpose The objective of this post hoc analysis was to explore the relationship, including changes over time, between baseline clinical symptom characteristics and working ability, judged by investigators, after 12 weeks of antidepressant monotherapy in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and painful physical symptoms (PPS) in a real-world clinical setting. Patients and Methods This prospective, observational study in patients treated with duloxetine or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors was conducted from 2014 to 2016. Both treatment groups were pooled and divided into 2 groups, “working ability recovered” or “working ability not recovered,” based on working ability at the end of the study. Patients were also divided into 4 subgroups by the presence or absence of previous depressive episodes and working ability. Main outcome measures included baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, and the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17). Results Comparison between “working ability recovered” (n=122) and “working ability not recovered” (n=91) showed that the percentage of patients with complications and psychotherapy at baseline, and baseline HAM-D17 total, insomnia, somatic, and anxiety scores, were significantly different. The results of subgroup analyses were mostly the same as the results analyzed by working ability alone. Although statistical differences were observed for some outcome measures, the differences at baseline, except use of psychotherapy, may not be applicable clinically, and there were no specific trends observed that could predict working ability. Conclusion This post hoc analysis suggested that most baseline clinical characteristics, including the presence or absence of previous depressive episodes, were not predictive of working ability recovery. However, the use of psychotherapy in parallel with antidepressant monotherapy may be positively associated with working ability recovery. All outcome measures improved over time, reinforcing the importance of continuous treatment and observation to improve and accurately judge working ability in patients with MDD and PPS.