Aim: To compare long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine versus lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), methylphenidate hydrochloride (methylphenidate) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), respectively, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Patients & methods: Patient-level data from a centanafadine trial (NCT03605849) and published aggregate data from a lisdexamfetamine trial (NCT00337285), a methylphenidate trial (NCT00326300) and an atomoxetine trial (NCT00190736) were used. Patient characteristics were matched in each comparison using propensity score weighting. Study outcomes were assessed up to 52 weeks and included safety (rates of adverse events [AEs]) and efficacy (mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] or ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] score). Results: In all comparisons of matched populations, risks of AEs were statistically significantly lower with centanafadine or non-different between centanafadine and comparator; the largest differences in AE rates included upper respiratory tract infection (risk difference in percentage points: 18.75), insomnia (12.47) and dry mouth (12.33) versus lisdexamfetamine; decreased appetite (20.25), headache (18.53) and insomnia (12.65) versus methylphenidate; and nausea (26.18), dry mouth (25.07) and fatigue (13.95) versus atomoxetine (all p < 0.05). Centanafadine had a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score versus lisdexamfetamine (6.15-point difference; p < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score versus methylphenidate (1.75-point difference; p = 0.13) and versus atomoxetine (1.60-point difference; p = 0.21). Conclusion: At up to 52 weeks, centanafadine showed significantly lower incidence of several AEs than lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate and atomoxetine; efficacy was lower than lisdexamfetamine and non-different from methylphenidate and atomoxetine.

UNASSIGNED: Head-to-head trials comparing centanafadine, an investigational therapy for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with other treatment options are lacking.
UNASSIGNED: To compare safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine sustained-release vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), and viloxazine extended-release (viloxazine ER), respectively, using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).
UNASSIGNED: This MAIC included patient-level data pooled from 2 centanafadine trials (NCT03605680 and NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from comparable trials of 3 comparators-lisdexamfetamine (NCT00334880), atomoxetine (NCT00190736), and viloxazine ER (NCT04016779)-in adult patients with ADHD. Propensity score weighting was used to match characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials to aggregate baseline characteristics from the respective comparator trials. Safety outcomes were rates of adverse events for which information was available in the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. Efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score (ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] was used as proxy in the comparison with lisdexamfetamine). Anchored indirect comparisons were conducted across matched populations of the centanafadine and respective comparator trials.
UNASSIGNED: After matching, baseline characteristics in the centanafadine trials were the same as those in the respective comparator trials. Compared with lisdexamfetamine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of lack of appetite (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: 23.42), dry mouth (19.27), insomnia (15.35), anxiety (5.21), nausea (4.90), feeling jittery (3.70), and diarrhea (3.47) (all P < 0.05) but a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score (6.58-point difference; P < 0.05). Compared with atomoxetine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of nausea (RD in percentage points: 18.64), dry mouth (17.44), fatigue (9.21), erectile dysfunction (6.76), lack of appetite (6.71), and urinary hesitation (5.84) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. Compared with viloxazine ER, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of fatigue (RD in percentage points: 11.07), insomnia (10.67), nausea (7.57), and constipation (4.63) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score.
UNASSIGNED: In an anchored MAIC, centanafadine showed a significantly better short-term safety profile than lisdexamfetamine, atomoxetine, and viloxazine ER; efficacy was lower than with lisdexamfetamine and comparable (ie, nondifferent) with atomoxetine and viloxazine ER. This MAIC provides important insights on the relative safety and efficacy of common treatment options to help inform treatment decisions in adults with ADHD. Safety assessment was limited to rates of adverse events reported in both trials of a given comparison.
UNASSIGNED: NCT03605680, NCT03605836, NCT00334880, NCT00190736, and NCT04016779.

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.

UNASSIGNED: Individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often have comorbid psychiatric conditions. Relatively little is known about how specific ADHD medications are associated with overall treatment outcomes among these patients.
UNASSIGNED: To investigate the association of the use of specific ADHD medications with hospitalization outcomes and work disability among adolescents and adults with ADHD.
UNASSIGNED: This nationwide register-based cohort study identified individuals (aged 16-65 years) with ADHD from Swedish nationwide registers of inpatient health care, specialized outpatient health care, sickness absence, and disability pension during the years 2006 to 2021. Data analysis was performed from November 2022 to August 2023.
UNASSIGNED: Use of specific ADHD medications.
UNASSIGNED: The main outcome measure was psychiatric hospitalization, and secondary outcomes were suicide attempt and/or death by suicide, nonpsychiatric hospitalization, and work disability (ie, sickness absence or disability pension). The risk of outcomes between use vs nonuse periods of ADHD medications was compared in a within-individual design, where a person acts as their own control, and was analyzed with stratified Cox models.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 221 714 persons with ADHD were included in the study cohort (mean [SD] age, 25.0 [11.2] years; 120 968 male individuals [54.6%]). Methylphenidate was the most commonly used ADHD medication (151 837 individuals [68.5%]), followed by lisdexamphetamine (78 106 individuals [35.2%]) during the follow-up (mean [SD], 7.0 [4.7] years). The following medications were associated with a decreased risk of psychiatric hospitalization: amphetamine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.78-0.82), ADHD drug polytherapy (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82-0.88), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.94), and methylphenidate (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92-0.95). No associations were found for modafinil, atomoxetine, clonidine, and guanfacine. Decreased risk of suicidal behavior was associated with the use of dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.89), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84), and methylphenidate (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). None of the medications was associated with increased risk of nonpsychiatric hospitalization; instead, use of amphetamine, lisdexamphetamine, polytherapy, dexamphetamine, methylphenidate, and atomoxetine were associated with decreased risk of nonpsychiatric hospitalization. The results regarding work disability were significant only for the use of atomoxetine (aHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.97), especially among adolescents and young adults aged 16 to 29 years, (aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92).
UNASSIGNED: In this nationwide cohort study of adolescents and adults with ADHD, the use of ADHD medication was associated with fewer hospitalizations for both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric morbidity and lower suicidal behavior.

UNASSIGNED: To compare PRC-063 (multilayer-release methylphenidate) and lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on the driving performance of young adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study.
UNASSIGNED: Following up to 21 days of each treatment in each treatment course (PRC-063/LDX or LDX/PRC-063), subjects completed a 15-hour driving simulator laboratory assessment. The primary outcome measure was the Tactical Driving Quotient (TDQ) and the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale was a secondary outcome measure.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-four subjects completed the study. PRC-063 and LDX had equivalent effects on driving performance through a 15-hour time period (least square mean difference -0.3 [standard error 1.08], 95% confidence interval [-2.4, 1.8], p = .793). Consistent improvement in CGI-I was observed. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for each treatment sequence.
UNASSIGNED: PRC-063 and LDX had comparable effects on driving performance, from 1 through 15 hours, the last time point measured.

This case report describes a 14-year-old male with signs and symptoms of drug-induced hepatotoxicity after receiving azithromycin and lisdexamfetamine dimesylate. The patient was admitted to the hospital and a liver biopsy revealed findings suggestive of drug-induced hepatitis. In this patient, it is unclear whether 1 agent individually or a combination of azithromycin and lisdexamfetamine was the cause of hepatitis. Although hepatotoxicity has been reported with azithromycin and other macrolide antibiotics in adults, such a condition has yet to be reported in pediatrics. In light of this report, providers should be aware of a potentially rare reaction of acute hepatitis when combining azithromycin and lisdexamfetamine in pediatric patients.

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.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a fairly common psychiatric disorder among children. It has substantial consequences in terms of quality of life for those experiencing it and their families. In managing ADHD symptoms medication plays an essential role, including stimulants such as methylphenidate being a key component. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised about possible adverse reactions connected to these drugs. Thus, in this systematic review, an extensive analysis was conducted aiming at understanding any negative repercussions specifically from prolonged exposure to these medications among patients diagnosed with ADHD. The methodology entailed adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. While capturing relevant data through a meticulous search in various databases, filtered according to preset inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 studies were considered for analysis. Conclusions indicate that the administration of stimulant medications can potentially translate into a small rise in blood pressure along with increased heart rate particularly when amphetamines are taken. However, no reports of notable serious cardiovascular events have emerged. In the domain of neuropsychiatry, it appears that long-term usage of methylphenidate generally bears no serious consequences, even though a hike in risk levels related to the occurrence of psychotic episodes was detected among those treated with amphetamines. Several gastrointestinal side effects including decreased appetite and stomach pain were reported, however, findings regarding ocular abnormalities or growth-related effects stood inconclusive. Therefore, based on this data the consensus is that stimulant medications do generate manageable and mild negative outcomes within the ADHD population. It is vital however to highlight the need for careful observation and further scientific inquiry to achieve a better grasp on both immediate as well as long-term implications involved.

BACKGROUND: Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) and Methylphenidate (MPH) are stimulant agents that have been shown to provide significant benefits in the management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in patients.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness and the budget impact of LDX compared to MPH as the first-line treatment for ADHD.
METHODS: A one-year cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted to compare the effects of LDX and MPH in reducing disease symptoms and patient costs and improving quality of life (QoL) from a social perspective. Clinical data were obtained using the EQ-5D questionnaire. In contrast, economic data were sourced from the official website of the Iranian Food and Drug Association (FDA), the national book of tariffs, and specific questionnaires designed to evaluate patients\' direct and indirect costs. 197 patients were included in the study, including individuals who sought psychiatric evaluation at a hospital in Mashhad and those who obtained ADHD medications from governmental pharmacies. The cost-effectiveness of the study medicine was assessed using the decision tree method, and the results were presented as the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis (DSA) and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the findings. Additionally, a Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) was conducted over five years, considering three different scenarios, to evaluate the financial implications of incorporating LDX into the national pharmaceutical system.
RESULTS: The ICER for LDX therapy compared to MPH was estimated at USD 264.28 (with an incremental cost of USD 54.9, incremental effectiveness of 0.208, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) gained of 0.765). The PSA indicated a 0.994% probability of LDX being cost-effective, considering a threshold of USD 2450 per QALY. Furthermore, the DSA revealed that the acquisition cost of LDX influenced the model\'s sensitivity. The BIA demonstrated that incorporating LDX into Iran\'s healthcare system would result in a financial burden of approximately $368,566 in the first year, representing an additional cost of $11,154 compared to the non-availability of this medicine and the use of previous medications. It is projected that by 2027, the financial burden of treating ADHD with LDX will reach approximately USD 443,879 over five years, amounting to an increase of $71,154 compared to the absence of this medicine.
CONCLUSIONS: From a social perspective, the inclusion of LDX in the treatment regimen for ADHD is associated with higher costs and an increased financial burden. However, based on our analysis, LDX appears to be a cost-effective choice for managing ADHD in Iran when compared to MPH.

Prevailing frameworks propose that a key feature of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is lower motivation. An important component of motivation is the willingness to engage in cognitively or physically effortful behavior. However, the degree to which effort sensitivity is impaired in ADHD has rarely been tested, and the efficacy of stimulant medication in ameliorating any such impairments is unclear. Here, we tested 20 individuals with ADHD (11 males, 9 females) who were managed with amphetamine-based medication (dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine), and 24 controls (8 males, 16 females). Individuals with ADHD were tested over two counterbalanced sessions, ON and OFF their usual amphetamine-based medication. In each session, participants performed an effort-based decision-making task, in which they were required to choose how much cognitive or physical effort they were willing to engage in return for reward. Our results revealed three main findings. First, individuals with ADHD had lower motivation relative to controls to invest effort in both the cognitive and physical domains. Second, amphetamine increased motivation uniformly across both domains. Finally, the net effect of amphetamine treatment was to mostly restore motivation across both domains of effort relative to healthy controls. These data provide clear evidence for a heightened sensitivity to both cognitive and physical effort in ADHD, and reveal the efficacy of amphetamine-based drugs in restoring effort sensitivity to levels similar to controls. These findings confirm the existence of reduced motivational drive in ADHD, and more broadly provide direct causal evidence for a domain-general role of catecholamines in motivating effortful behavior.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT A core feature of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is thought to be a heightened aversion to effort. Surprisingly, however, the degree to which effort sensitivity is impaired in ADHD has rarely been tested. More broadly, the relative efficacy of catecholamines in motivating the investment of cognitive and physical effort is unclear. We tested 20 individuals with ADHD ON and OFF amphetamines, and compared their behavior on an effort-based decision-making task to 24 controls. When tested OFF medication, the ADHD group was less cognitively and physically motivated than controls. However, amphetamines led to a comparable increase in motivation across both domains. This demonstrates the efficacy of catecholamines in facilitating domain-general effort, and highlights the broader potential of such drugs to treat disorders of motivation.