Dataset Information

A retrospective medical chart review of clinical outcomes in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder treated with guanfacine extended-release in routine Canadian clinical practice.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study evaluated clinical outcomes in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treated with the α₂-adrenoceptor agonist guanfacine extended-release (GXR) in routine Canadian clinical practice.

Methods

This retrospective chart review focused on patients with ADHD aged 6-17 years initiating treatment with GXR as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. Patients were followed for up to 12 months after GXR initiation and, if they had received prior ADHD pharmacotherapy, for 12 months before GXR initiation. The primary outcome was change in ADHD symptoms and functionality based on physician assessments, classified as improvement, no change, or worsening relative to the time of GXR initiation. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were also analyzed post hoc according to whether GXR treatment was received as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, and by select psychiatric comorbidities. Exploratory analyses were conducted in patients who had received prior ADHD pharmacotherapy to evaluate clinical outcomes after initiating GXR.

Results

Improvements in ADHD symptoms were reported for 232/330 (70.3%) patients. Functional improvements in school performance and home life were reported for 213/330 (64.5%) and 209/330 (63.3%) patients, respectively. The most frequent TEAEs (≥ 5%) were somnolence, headache, insomnia, presyncope, and decreased appetite. Improvements in ADHD symptoms were observed when GXR was received as either monotherapy (35/60 [58.3%]) or adjunctive therapy (197/270 [73.0%]). Improvements in ADHD symptoms and functionality were observed in the majority of patients with select psychiatric comorbidities. Among patients who had experienced worsening of symptoms with prior ADHD pharmacotherapy, 44/54 (81.5%) experienced symptom improvement, 33/44 (75.0%) who had previously experienced worsening of school performance improved, and 34/48 (70.8%) who had previously experienced worsening of home life improved.

Conclusion

In Canadian routine clinical practice, most children and adolescents with ADHD treated with GXR experienced improvements in ADHD symptoms and in functionality both at school and at home.

SUBMITTER: van Stralen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8491395 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Guanfacine extended release (GXR) and atomoxetine (ATX) are nonstimulant treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). As nonstimulant treatments are often used after stimulants in ADHD, GXR was assessed relative to prior stimulant treatment in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), in which ATX was included as a reference arm, and in the open-label phase of a randomized-withdrawal study (RWS). Participants were 6-17 years old with ADHD Rating Scale version IV (ADHD-RS-IV) scores ≥32 and Clinical Global Impressions - Severity scores ≥4. RCT participants received dose-optimized GXR (1-7 mg/day), ATX (10-100 mg/day), or placebo for 10-13 weeks. RWS participants received dose-optimized GXR (1-7 mg/day) for 13 weeks. Participants' last stimulant medication prior to enrolment, and reasons for stopping this medication, were collected at baseline. Change from baseline ADHD-RS-IV score and the proportion of responders were assessed by prior stimulant exposure. Of 163 RCT and 296 RWS participants who had previously received stimulant treatment, 142 and 224, respectively, had received methylphenidate (MPH); due to the low number of participants and the heterogeneity of non-MPH treatments, we only report data for prior MPH treatment. The most frequent reasons for stopping MPH were lack of effectiveness or side effects. Placebo-adjusted ADHD-RS-IV changes from baseline were significant in participants receiving GXR (prior MPH, -9.8, P<0.001, effect size [ES] 0.85; stimulant-naïve, -7.6, P<0.001, ES 0.65). In ATX-treated participants, significant placebo-adjusted differences were seen in stimulant-naïve (-5.0, P=0.022, ES 0.43) but not prior MPH-treated (-1.8, P>0.05, ES 0.15) participants. More participants met responder criteria with GXR versus placebo, regardless of prior treatment. GXR response was unaffected by prior stimulant treatment; ATX produced improvement only in stimulant-naïve participants relative to placebo. These findings may be relevant to clinical decision-making regarding sequencing of ADHD treatments.

Project description:No head-to-head clinical trials have been published comparing guanfacine extended release (GXR) and atomoxetine (ATX): two nonstimulants approved for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, other study designs or methods could be used to indirectly compare these two medications. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) is a recent methodology that utilizes individual patient data (IPD) from clinical trials for one treatment and published aggregate data from another treatment to estimate the relative efficacy of both, providing rapid, reliable comparative efficacy results.The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of GXR and ATX for the treatment of ADHD using MAIC.A systematic literature search was conducted to identify ATX and GXR trials published through December 2012. Studies were selected for MAIC analyses on the basis of having comparable trial characteristics and study designs. Summary data from selected ATX trials and IPD from selected GXR trials were used. MAIC methodology ensured comparable populations: target doses for the 'base case' comparison were selected on the basis of maximum effective dosage ranges from the US FDA-approved product labels (GXR 0.09-0.12 mg/kg/day, ATX 1.2 mg/kg/day for children and adolescents weighing ?70 kg). Individuals from GXR trials were selected if they matched inclusion/exclusion criteria from selected ATX trials; selected GXR IPD were then re-weighted to match the published ATX trial mean baseline characteristics and placebo outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were conducted, examining different dosage ranges and repeating the analysis in a larger number of trials, allowing for larger and more heterogeneous trial populations.The primary outcome measure was change in ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score.Using MAIC in the base case comparison, significantly greater reductions in mean (standard error; SE) ADHD-RS-IV total scores from baseline to end of study were observed in patients treated with GXR relative to ATX [-7.0 (2.2); p < 0.01]. Significantly greater reductions for GXR over ATX were also demonstrated for hyperactivity/impulsivity [-3.8 (1.2); p < 0.01] and inattention [-3.2 (1.3); p < 0.05] subscales of the ADHD-RS-IV. Similar results were observed in MAIC sensitivity analyses evaluating other dosage ranges and using more heterogeneous trial populations (e.g., larger randomized sample, broader subject weight range, additional trials). Mean (SE) decreases in ADHD-RS-IV total scores were greater for GXR relative to ATX when including IPD for those administered GXR at lower than target dosage (0.075-0.090 mg/kg/day) compared with ATX at target dosage (1.2 mg/kg/day), with a relative improvement of -6.0 (2.7) (p < 0.05). Reductions in ADHD-RS-IV total scores were also greater for GXR in another MAIC examining GXR at target dosage (0.09-0.12 mg/kg/day) and a broader range of ATX dosages (including three additional trials evaluating ATX ?1.2 mg/kg/day); relative improvement for GXR versus ATX administered at target dosage or higher was -7.6 (1.4) (p < 0.01).After adjusting for difference in baseline trial characteristics using MAIC, GXR appears to be more efficacious than ATX for the treatment of ADHD. Results were consistent in a variety of dosage range comparisons and within increasingly heterogeneous trial populations.

Project description:ObjectiveThe combination of d-methylphenidate and guanfacine (an α-2A agonist) has emerged as a potential alternative to either monotherapy in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but it is unclear what predicts response to these treatments. This study is the first to investigate pretreatment clinical and electroencephalography (EEG) profiles as predictors of treatment outcome in children randomized to these different medications.MethodA total of 181 children with ADHD (aged 7-14 years; 123 boys) completed an 8-week randomized, double-blind, comparative study with d-methylphenidate, guanfacine, or combined treatments. Pretreatment assessments included ratings on ADHD, anxiety, and oppositional behavior. EEG activity from cortical sources localized within midfrontal and midoccipital regions was measured during a spatial working memory task with encoding, maintenance, and retrieval phases. Analyses tested whether pretreatment clinical and EEG measures predicted treatment-related change in ADHD severity.ResultsHigher pretreatment hyperactivity-impulsivity and oppositional symptoms and lower anxiety predicted greater ADHD improvements across all medication groups. Pretreatment event-related midfrontal beta power predicted treatment outcome with combined and monotherapy treatments, albeit in different directions. Weaker beta modulations predicted improvements with combined treatment, whereas stronger modulation during encoding and retrieval predicted improvements with d-methylphenidate and guanfacine, respectively. A multivariate model including EEG and clinical measures explained twice as much variance in ADHD improvement with guanfacine and combined treatment (R2= 0.34-0.41) as clinical measures alone (R2 = 0.14-.21).ConclusionWe identified treatment-specific and shared predictors of response to different pharmacotherapies in children with ADHD. If replicated, these findings would suggest that aggregating information from clinical and brain measures may aid personalized treatment decisions in ADHD.Clinical trial registration informationSingle Versus Combination Medication Treatment for Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; https://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00429273.

Project description:ObjectiveBecause models of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) therapeutics emphasize benefits of both enhanced dopaminergic and noradrenergic signaling, strategies to enhance D1 and α2A agonism may yield enhanced clinical and cognitive responses. This study tested the hypothesis that combined effects of a dopamine and noradrenergic agonist, d-methylphenidate extended-release (DMPH) with guanfacine (GUAN), an α2A receptor agonist, would be clinically superior to either monotherapy and would have equal tolerability.MethodAn 8-week, double-blind, 3-arm, comparative trial randomized 7- to 14-year-olds with DSM-IV ADHD to GUAN (1-3 mg/day), DMPH (5-20 mg/day), or a combination (COMB) with fixed-flexible dosing. Outcome measures were the ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale. Data on adverse events and safety measures were obtained.ResultsA total of 207 participants were randomized and received drug. Analyses showed significant treatment group main effects for ADHD-RS-IV ADHD total (p = .0001) and inattentive symptoms (p = .0001). COMB demonstrated small but consistently greater reductions in ADHD-RS-IV Inattentive subscale scores versus monotherapies (DMPH: p = .05; f(2) = .02; and GUAN: p = .02; f(2) = .02), and was associated with a greater positive response rate by CGI-I (p = .01). No serious cardiovascular events occurred. Sedation, somnolence, lethargy, and fatigue were greater in both guanfacine groups. All treatments were well tolerated.ConclusionCOMB showed consistent evidence of clinical benefits over monotherapies, possibly reflecting advantages of greater combined dopaminergic and α2A agonism. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate, and COMB treatment showed no differences in safety or tolerability.Clinical trial registration informationSingle Versus Combination Medication Treatment for Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Project1); http://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT00429273.

Project description:Evening-dosed HLD200 is a delayed-release and extended-release methylphenidate (DR/ER-MPH) formulation consisting of uniform, dual-layered microbeads with an inner drug-loaded core. DR/ER-MPH is designed to delay the initial release of drug by 8-10 hours, and thereafter, provide a controlled, extended drug release to target onset of effect upon awakening that lasts into the evening. This phase 3 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of DR/ER-MPH on symptoms and temporal at-home functional impairment in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).This 3-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, forced-dose titration trial evaluated DR/ER-MPH (40-80?mg/day) in children aged 6-12 years with ADHD. Primary efficacy endpoint was the ADHD rating scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV), and the key secondary endpoints were the Before-School Functioning Questionnaire (BSFQ), and Parent Rating of Evening and Morning Behavior-Revised, morning (PREMB-R AM) and evening (PREMB-R PM). Safety measures included spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and two TEAEs of special interest, appetite suppression and insomnia (with direct questioning on sleep disturbance).One hundred sixty-one participants were included in the intent-to-treat population (DR/ER-MPH, n?=?81; placebo, n?=?80). After 3 weeks, DR/ER-MPH achieved significant improvements versus placebo in ADHD symptoms (least-squares [LS] mean ADHD-RS-IV: 24.1 vs. 31.2; p?=?0.002), and at-home early morning (LS mean BSFQ: 18.7 vs. 28.4; p?<?0.001; LS mean PREMB-R AM: 2.1 vs. 3.6; p?<?0.001) and late afternoon/evening (LS mean PREMB-R PM: 9.4 vs. 12.2; p?=?0.002) functional impairment. Commonly reported TEAEs (?10%) were insomnia and decreased appetite.DR/ER-MPH was generally well tolerated and demonstrated significant improvements versus placebo in ADHD symptoms and at-home functional impairments in the early morning, late afternoon, and evening in children with ADHD.