Objectives: This study aimed to examine switch from first-line methylphenidate (MPH) to lisdexamfetamine (LDX) in school-aged children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: This is a retrospective observational study based on systematic review of patient records of all children (7-13 years) diagnosed with ADHD and referred to a Danish specialized outpatient clinic. The study included 394 children switching from MPH to LDX as either second-line or third-line treatment (atomoxetine [ATX] as second-line treatment) during the study period from April 1, 2013, to November 5, 2019. Results: One in five children switched from MPH to LDX at some point during the study period. The most frequent reasons for switching to LDX were adverse effects (AEs; 70.0% for MPH, 68.3% for ATX) and lack of efficiency (52.0% for MPH, 72.7% for ATX). Top five AEs of LDX were decreased appetite (62.4%), insomnia (28.7%), irritability/aggression (26.1%), weight decrease (21.1%), and mood swings (13.9%). MPH and LDX had similar AE profiles, yet most AEs were less frequent after switching to LDX. At the end of the study period, the majority were prescribed LDX as second-line rather than third-line treatment (86.1% in 2019). However, the likelihood of LDX as second-line treatment decreased with the number of psychiatric comorbidities, ADHD symptom severity as assessed by parents, and if AEs were a reason for MPH discontinuation. Among children observed for at least 1 year after initiation of LDX, 41.3% continued LDX treatment for a year or longer. LDX continuation was less likely if AEs were a reason for MPH discontinuation. Similarly to MPH and ATX, the most frequent reasons for LDX discontinuation were AEs (74.4%) and lack of efficiency (34.7%). Implications: The findings support LDX as an important option in the personalized treatment of children with ADHD and may support prescribers in the clinical decision-making on switching medication.

Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) is one of the drugs commonly used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, its neurological side effects, particularly on cognition, are not fully understood. The present study focused on memory in rats treated with four weeks of LDX injection. We compared LDX-treated rats with control ones, using several methods to evaluate the behavioral responses and electrophysiological, molecular, and histological properties in the hippocampus. Our findings demonstrated that subchronic administration of LDX impaired behavioral performance in all memory assessment tests (Y maze, Morris Water Maze, and Shuttle box). Although LDX did not alter population spike (PS) amplitude, it increased the field excitatory postsynaptic potential (fEPSP) slope of evoked potentials of LTP components. Also, in addition to an increase in expression of caspase-3 in the hippocampus, which indicates the susceptibility to apoptosis in LDX-treated rats, the number of microglia and astrocytes went up significantly in the LDX group. Moreover, Sholl\'s analysis showed an increase in the soma size and total process length in both hippocampal astrocytes and microglia. Overall, because of these destructive effects of LDX on the hippocampus, which is one of the critical memory-related areas of the brain, the findings of this investigation provide evidence to show the disruption of memory-related variables following the LDX. However, more research is needed to clarify it.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance is common during methamphetamine (MA) use and withdrawal; however, the feasibility of combined subjective-objective measurement of sleep-wake has not been shown in this population. Actigraphy is a well-established, non-invasive measure of sleep-wake cycles with good concordance with polysomnography. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and utility of using actigraphy and sleep diaries to investigate sleep during MA withdrawal.
METHODS: We conducted a feasibility and utility study of actigraphy and sleep diaries during a clinical trial of lisdexamfetamine for MA withdrawal. Participants were inpatients for 7 days, wore an actigraph (Philips Actiwatch 2) and completed a modified Consensus Sleep Diary each morning. Participants were interviewed between days 3-5.
RESULTS: Ten participants (mean age 37 years, 90% male) were enrolled. No participant removed the device prematurely. Participants interviewed (n = 8) reported that the actigraph was not difficult or distracting to wear or completion of daily sleep diary onerous. Actigraphic average daily sleep duration over 7 days was 568 min, sleep onset latency 22.4 min, wake after sleep onset (WASO) 75.2 min, and sleep efficiency 83.6%. Sleep diaries underreported daily sleep compared with actigraphy (sleep duration was 56 min (p = 0.008) and WASO 47 min (p < 0.001) less). Overall sleep quality was 4.4 on a nine-point Likert scale within the diary.
CONCLUSIONS: Continuous actigraphy is feasible to measure sleep-wake in people withdrawing from MA, with low participant burden. We found important differences in self-reported and actigraphic sleep, which need to be explored in more detail.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects 5%-10% of paediatric population and is reportedly more common in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D), exacerbating its clinical course. Proper treatment of ADHD in such patients may thus provide neurological and metabolic benefits. To test this, we designed a non-commercial second phase clinical trial comparing the impact of different pharmacological interventions for ADHD in children with T1D.
This is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical trial in children and adolescents with ADHD and T1D. The trial will be conducted in four reference paediatric diabetes centres in Poland. Over 36 months, eligible patients with both T1D and ADHD (aged 8-16.5 years, T1D duration >1 year) will be offered participation. Patients\' guardians will undergo online once-weekly training sessions behaviour management for 10 weeks. Afterward, children will be randomised to methylphenidate (long-release capsule, doses 18-36-54 mg) versus lisdexamphetamine (LDX, 30-50-70 mg). Pharmacotherapy will continue for 6 months before switching to alternative medication. Throughout the trial, the participants will be evaluated every 3 months by their diabetologist and online psychological assessments. The primary endpoint (ADHD symptom severity, Conners 3.0 questionnaire) will be assessed by a blinded investigator. Secondary endpoints will include HbA1c, continuous glucose monitoring indices and quality-of-life (PedsQL).
The trial is approved by Bioethical Committee at Medical University of Lodz and Polish regulatory agency (RNN/142/22/KE, UR/DBL/D/263/2022). The results will be communicated to the research and clinical community, and Polish agencies responsible for healthcare policy. Patient organisations focused on paediatric T1D will be notified by a consortium member. We hope to use the trial\'s results to promote collaboration between mental health professionals and diabetes teams, evaluate the economic feasibility of using LDX in patients with both diseases and the long run improve ADHD treatment in children with T1D.
EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR, 2022-001906-24) and NCT05957055.

OBJECTIVE: This Phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind study investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of nivasorexant in the treatment of adults with moderate to severe binge-eating disorder (BED).
METHODS: Adults meeting the DSM-5 BED criteria were randomized 1:1 to placebo or nivasorexant (100 mg b.i.d.). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to Week 12 in the number of binge eating (BE) days per week. Exploratory efficacy endpoints included cessation of BE in the last 4 weeks of treatment; and change from baseline to Week 12 in the number of BE episodes/week, the clinician global impression (CGI) of change, the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale modified for BE, and the Hamilton rating scale for depression (HAMD-17). Key safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse events of special interest (i.e., somnolence and fatigue).
RESULTS: Sixty-eight participants were randomized to each treatment arm. The change from baseline to Week 12 in the number of BE days/week was the same for placebo (least squares mean [LSM]: -2.93) and nivasorexant (LSM: -2.93), with no difference between the treatment groups (LSM difference = .000 [95% confidence interval (CI): -.69, .69], p = .9992). Furthermore, no differences between treatment groups were observed in the exploratory efficacy endpoints. Nivasorexant was well tolerated; the overall incidence of TEAEs was balanced between treatment groups, and the frequency of somnolence and fatigue in the nivasorexant group were similar to placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept study, 100 mg b.i.d. nivasorexant did not improve BE in adults with moderate to severe BED.
UNASSIGNED: The results of this Phase II study indicate that nivasorexant was well tolerated in adults with BED, but did not improve binge eating behavior over placebo. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of the role of the orexin-1 receptor in BED.

To evaluate treatment patterns for ADHD in Sweden.
Observational retrospective study of patients with ADHD from the Swedish National Patient Register and Prescribed Drug Register, 2018 to 2021. Cross-sectional analyses included incidence, prevalence, and psychiatric comorbidities. Longitudinal analyses (newly diagnosed patients) included medication, treatment lines, duration, time-to-treatment initiation, and switching.
Of 243,790 patients, 84.5% received an ADHD medication. Psychiatric comorbidities were common, particularly autism among children, and depression in adults. Most frequent first-/second-line treatments were methylphenidate (MPH; 81.6%) and lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX; 46.0%), respectively. In the second-line, LDX was most frequently prescribed (46.0%), followed by MPH (34.9%), then atomoxetine (7.7%). Median treatment duration was longest for LDX (10.4 months), followed by amphetamine (9.1 months).
This nationwide registry study provides real-life insights into the current epidemiology of ADHD and the changing treatment landscape for patients in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: There is emerging evidence that stimulants warrant further investigation as a treatment for bulimia nervosa (BN) including a recent open-label feasibility trial examining the use of lisdexamfetamine dimestylate (LDX) for BN. The current report presents the secondary outcomes and qualitative interview results from that feasibility trial. These outcomes explore several purported mechanisms that may explain how stimulants affect symptoms of BN: appetite, impulsivity, obsessive and compulsive symptoms, eating disorder psychopathology/impairment and reward-based decision-making.
METHODS: Twenty-three participants with BN received LDX for eight weeks. Questionnaires assessing appetite, impulsivity, obsessive and compulsive symptoms, eating disorder psychopathology and impairment were administered at baseline and post-treatment. Participants also completed a two-step reinforcement learning task to assess their decision-making. Semi-structured interviews took place at baseline, week 5, and follow-up.
RESULTS: Reductions in hunger, food-related impulsivity, obsessive and compulsive features, eating disorder psychopathology and impairment were found. However, reward learning, as far as it is assessed by the task, did not seem to contribute to the effect of LDX on BN symptoms. Qualitative analysis suggested four themes: (1) reprieve from the eating disorder, (2) improvement in function and quality of life, (3) renewed hope for recovery, and (4) ability to normalize eating.
CONCLUSIONS: This report suggests several potential mechanisms by which LDX may reduce symptoms of binging and purging in those with BN. Importantly, due to the open-label design, we are unable to attribute findings to the medication. Instead, our results should be interpreted as hypothesis generating to inform future studies such as adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Trial registration NCT03397446.
Recent research suggests that stimulant medications could be a potential treatment for bulimia nervosa (BN). Participants in this study took lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) for 8 weeks while their eating disorder symptoms and medical status were carefully monitored. As part of this study, twenty-three participants with BN completed several interviews, questionnaires and computer tasks at the start and end of treatment which were delivered to help researchers learn more about the how LDX impacts people with BN. Scores on questionnaires measuring different aspects of the eating disorder improved over time. Participants’ performance on the computer task which measures a type of decision making did not change during treatment. Interviews exploring participants’ experience taking LDX found four common themes: reprieve from the eating disorder, improvement in function and quality of life, renewed hope for recovery, and ability to normalize eating. This report suggests several potential ways LDX may reduce symptoms of binging and purging in those with BN. Importantly, due to the size and type of study, we cannot conclude that changes observed were a direct result of the medication. Instead, our results should be used to form new questions that can be explored by larger studies with controlled designs.

BACKGROUND: There is no effective treatment for methamphetamine withdrawal. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and safety of a tapering dose of lisdexamfetamine for the treatment of acute methamphetamine (MA) withdrawal.
METHODS: Open-label, single-arm pilot study, in an inpatient drug and alcohol withdrawal unit assessing a tapering dose of oral lisdexamfetamine dimesylate commencing at 250 mg once daily, reducing by 50 mg per day to 50 mg on Day 5. Measures were assessed daily (days 0-7) with 21-day telephone follow-up. Feasibility was measured by the time taken to enrol the sample. Safety was the number of adverse events (AEs) by system organ class. Retention was the proportion to complete treatment. Other measures included the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), the Amphetamine Withdrawal Questionnaire and craving (Visual Analogue Scale).
RESULTS: Ten adults seeking inpatient treatment for MA withdrawal (9 male, median age 37.1 years [IQR 31.7-41.9]), diagnosed with MA use disorder were recruited. The trial was open for 126 days; enroling one participant every 12.6 days. Eight of ten participants completed treatment (Day 5). Two participants left treatment early. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Forty-seven AEs were recorded, 17 (36%) of which were potentially causally related, all graded as mild severity. Acceptability of the study drug by TSQM was rated at 100% at treatment completion. Withdrawal severity and craving reduced through the admission.
CONCLUSIONS: A tapering dose regimen of lisdexamfetamine was safe and feasible for the treatment of acute methamphetamine withdrawal in an inpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Methamphetamine (MA) use disorder is an important public health concern. MA withdrawal is often the first step in ceasing or reducing use. There are no evidence-based withdrawal treatments, and no medication is approved for the treatment of MA withdrawal. Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) dimesilate, used in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and binge eating disorder has the potential as an agonist therapy to ameliorate withdrawal symptoms, and improve outcomes for patients.
METHODS: A single arm, open-label pilot study to test the safety and feasibility of LDX for the treatment of MA withdrawal. Participants will be inpatients in a drug and alcohol withdrawal unit, and will receive a tapering dose of LDX over five days: 250mg LDX on Day 1, reducing by 50mg per day to 50mg on Day 5. Optional inpatient Days 6 and 7 will allow for participants to transition to ongoing treatment. Participants will be followed-up on Days 14, 21 and 28. All participants will also receive standard inpatient withdrawal care. The primary outcomes are safety (measured by adverse events, changes in vital signs, changes in suicidality and psychosis) and feasibility (the time taken to enrol the sample, proportion of screen / pre-screen failures). Secondary outcomes are acceptability (treatment satisfaction questionnaire, medication adherence, concomitant medications, qualitative interviews), retention to protocol (proportion retained to primary and secondary endpoints), changes in withdrawal symptoms (Amphetamine Withdrawal Questionnaire) and craving for MA (visual analogue scale), and sleep outcomes (continuous actigraphy and daily sleep diary).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess lisdexamfetamine for the treatment of acute MA withdrawal. If safe and feasible results will go to informing the development of multi-centre randomised controlled trials to determine the efficacy of the intervention.

Lisdexamfetamine is an inactive prodrug of dexamfetamine that is used for the second-line treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and moderate to severe binge eating disorder (BED). Once in the blood, the prodrug is hydrolyzed in erythrocyte cytosol, thus releasing the active dexamfetamine. We here present a fully validated HPLC-MS/MS analytical method for simultaneous determination of lisdexamfetamine and dexamfetamine in human plasma and the first published comparative bioavailability study of lisdexamfetamine including a GMP finished product formulated as oral solution. The Test (T)/Reference (R) ratios for the geometric means (%) of the primary pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters and their corresponding two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were contained within the predefined regulatory limits of 80.00-125.00% for both lisdexamfetamine and dexamfetamine. While for the lisdexamfetamine prodrug, PK results for the two formulations were slightly different due to the distinct dissolution state at administration, the PK parameters calculated for dexamfetamine were almost identical. A potential explanation of this phenomenon, already described in literature, is that biotransformation of lisdexamfetamine by red blood cells (rather than its release within the gastrointestinal tract) is the process controlling the rate of dexamfetamine delivery.