Cited by 9Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPharmaceutical studies and practicesPharmacology and Obesity Treatment

Efficacy and Safety of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Recent Methylphenidate Use

Open access
Jain, Rakesh, Babcock, Thomas, Burtea, Teodor, Dirks, Bryan, Adeyi, Ben, Scheckner, Brian, Lasser, Robert, Renna, John +1 more·2013·Advances in Therapy

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is a long-acting prodrug stimulant for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Post hoc subgroup analyses were performed from two studies in children with ADHD to compare the efficacy of LDX in participants who had received prior methylphenidate (MPH) treatment with that of the overall study populations. METHODS: Study 1 (7-week; open-label design) and study 2 (randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, laboratory school design) enrolled children aged 6-12 years with ADHD and baseline ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score ≥28. Both studies excluded children whose prestudy ADHD treatment provided effective control of ADHD symptoms with an acceptable safety profile. Post hoc efficacy analyses were performed in children who had received MPH within 6 months of study enrollment. Efficacy measures included the following scales: ADHD-RS-IV, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I), Expression and Emotion Scale for Children (EESC), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham (SKAMP), and Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP). RESULTS: In studies 1 and 2, 83/318 (26%) and 67/129 (52%) participants, respectively, had received MPH within 6 months and were not adequately controlled on current medication with acceptable tolerability; most of these participants had received long-acting MPH. In prior MPH participants, efficacy assessments demonstrated improvements from baseline (study 1) and versus placebo (study 2) that were comparable with those seen in the respective overall study population. Safety profiles were consistent with long-acting stimulant use. CONCLUSION: In two studies, children who had received prior MPH treatment improved during treatment with LDX and experienced similar improvements in their symptoms as the overall study populations. For children with ADHD who were previously treated with MPH, LDX may, therefore, be an efficacious treatment option.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12325-013-0027-2

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Jain et al post hoc analysis of two large studies in children switched from methylphenidate to lisdexamfetamine, the subgroup with prior methylphenidate treatment showed significant improvement in ADHD-RS-IV scores comparable with overall results from the two open-label trials.

    “The subgroup with prior methylphenidate treatment showed significant improvement in ADHD-RS-IV scores, which were comparable with overall results from the two open-label trials.”

    From Update on optimal use of lisdexamfetamine in the treatment of ADHD (2013) · cites this paper as [32]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jain, R., Babcock, T., Burtea, T., Dirks, B., Adeyi, B., Scheckner, B., Lasser, R., Renna, J., & Duncan, D.
Affiliations
  • Shire (Canada) (CA)
  • Interior Health (CA)
Corresponding author
Jain, Rakesh
Venue
Advances in Therapy
Published
2013-05
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
472-486
ISSN
  • 0741-238X (ISSN-L)
  • 1865-8652
OpenAlex
W2080506224
Cited by
9
References
40
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Advances in Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment
Keywords
lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, children, methylphenidate, long-acting stimulants, treatment efficacy, drug safety, ADHD symptoms, executive function
MeSH terms
Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Dextroamphetamine, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Prodrugs, Treatment Outcome, Cross-Over Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review