BackgroundHere we review the safety and tolerability profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), the first long-acting prodrug stimulant for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).MethodsA PubMed search was conducted for English-language articles published up to 16 September 2013 using the following search terms: (lisdexamfetamine OR lisdexamphetamine OR SPD489 OR Vyvanse OR Venvanse OR NRP104 NOT review [publication type]).ResultsIn short-term, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase III trials, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in children, adolescents, and adults receiving LDX were typical for those reported for stimulants in general. Decreased appetite was reported by 25–39 % of patients and insomnia by 11–19 %. The most frequently reported TEAEs in long-term studies were similar to those reported in the short-term trials. Most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Literature relating to four specific safety concerns associated with stimulant medications was evaluated in detail in patients receiving LDX. Gains in weight, height, and body mass index were smaller in children and adolescents receiving LDX than in placebo controls or untreated norms. Insomnia was a frequently reported TEAE in patients with ADHD of all ages receiving LDX, although the available data indicated no overall worsening of sleep quality in adults. Post-marketing survey data suggest that the rate of non-medical use of LDX was lower than that for short-acting stimulants and lower than or equivalent to long-acting stimulant formulations. Small mean increases were seen in blood pressure and pulse rate in patients receiving LDX.ConclusionsThe safety and tolerability profile of LDX in individuals with ADHD is similar to that of other stimulants.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a highly complex disorder with multiple treatment options. Impairments associated with ADHD, rather than symptoms defining the disorder, are the primary reason for referral of individuals to clinical services; consequently, they should also be key targets for intervention. Impairments are moderated by factors such as comorbidities, family environment and intelligence quotient, and particular challenges may vary between patients. The understanding of patient and family treatment preferences, as well as identification of treatment needs and goals, should drive future clinical practice. This review addresses the assessment of ADHD treatment goals and outcomes in clinical practice, and discusses changes in future clinical research studies necessary to progress the utilization of an individualized medicine approach in ADHD.

BackgroundFollowing the approval of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in several European countries for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents with an inadequate response to methylphenidate (MPH) treatment, the aim of the present analysis was to establish the response to LDX in subgroups of patients with different ADHD medication histories.MethodsThis was a post hoc subgroup analysis of data from a 7-week, European, double-blind, dose-optimized, Phase III study. Patients aged 6–17 years were randomized 1:1:1 to LDX, placebo, or osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH). OROS-MPH was included as a reference arm rather than as a direct comparator. Efficacy was assessed in patients categorized according to their ADHD medication history using the ADHD Rating Scale IV and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scores.ResultsThe difference between active drug and placebo in least-squares mean change from baseline to endpoint in ADHD Rating Scale IV total score (95% confidence interval) was similar between the overall study population (n=317; LDX, −18.6 [−21.5, −15.7]; OROS-MPH, −13.0 [−15.9, −10.2]) and treatment-naïve individuals (n=147; LDX, −15.1 [−19.4, −10.9]; OROS-MPH, −12.7 [−16.8, −8.5]) or patients previously treated with any ADHD medication (n=170; LDX, −21.5 [−25.5, −17.6]; OROS-MPH, −14.2 [−18.1, −10.3]). In addition, similar proportions of patients receiving active treatment were categorized as improved based on CGI-I score (CGI-I of 1 or 2) in the overall study population and among treatment-naïve individuals or patients previously treated with any ADHD medication.ConclusionIn these post hoc analyses, the response to LDX treatment, and to the reference treatment OROS-MPH, was similar to that observed for the overall study population in subgroups of patients categorized according to whether or not they had previously received ADHD medication.

No abstract

No abstract