Cited by 112Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPharmacology and Obesity TreatmentPharmaceutical studies and practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 38 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

A 13-hour laboratory school study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in school-aged children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Open access
the 311 Study Group, Wigal, Sharon B, Kollins, Scott H, Childress, Ann C, Squires, Liza·2009·Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is indicated for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children 6 to 12 years of age and in adults. In a previous laboratory school study, LDX demonstrated efficacy 2 hours postdose with duration of efficacy through 12 hours. The current study further characterizes the time course of effect of LDX. METHODS: Children aged 6 to 12 years with ADHD were enrolled in a laboratory school study. The multicenter study consisted of open-label, dose-optimization of LDX (30, 50, 70 mg/d, 4 weeks) followed by a randomized, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover phase (1 week each). Efficacy measures included the SKAMP (deportment [primary] and attention [secondary]) and PERMP (attempted/correct) scales (secondary) measured at predose and at 1.5, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12, and 13 hours postdose. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), physical examination, vital signs, and ECGs. RESULTS: A total of 117 subjects were randomized and 111 completed the study. Compared with placebo, LDX demonstrated significantly greater efficacy at each postdose time point (1.5 hours to 13.0 hours), as measured by SKAMP deportment and attention scales and PERMP (P < .005). The most common treatment-emergent AEs during dose optimization were decreased appetite (47%), insomnia (27%), headache (17%), irritability (16%), upper abdominal pain (16%), and affect lability (10%), which were less frequent in the crossover phase (6%, 4%, 5%, 1%, 2%, and 0% respectively). CONCLUSION: In school-aged children (6 to 12 years) with ADHD, efficacy of LDX was maintained from the first time point (1.5 hours) up to the last time point assessed (13.0 hours). LDX was generally well tolerated, resulting in typical stimulant AEs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Official Title: A Phase IIIb, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multi-Center, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Optimization, Cross-Over, Analog Classroom Study to Assess the Time of Onset of Vyvanse (Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate) in Pediatric Subjects Aged 6-12 With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00500149 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00500149.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In school-aged children with ADHD, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate maintained efficacy versus placebo from 1.5 to 13.0 hours postdose in a laboratory school crossover study. It was generally well tolerated, with typical stimulant adverse events.

Key findings

  • Among 117 randomized subjects (111 completed), LDX was significantly better than placebo at every postdose time point from 1.5 to 13.0 hours on SKAMP deportment (primary), SKAMP attention, and PERMP attempted/correct (SKAMP-D P < .005; SKAMP-A P ≤ .001; PERMP P < .0001).
  • SKAMP-D LS mean difference for LDX vs placebo was -0.45 (95% CI -0.62, -0.28; P < .0001) at 1.5 hours and -0.26 (-0.43, -0.08; P < .005) at 13.0 hours; the mean over the treatment day was -0.74 (-0.85, -0.63; P < .0001).
  • During dose optimization, common treatment-emergent AEs were decreased appetite (47%), insomnia (27%), headache (17%), irritability (16%), upper abdominal pain (16%), and affect lability (10%); in the crossover phase these were 6%, 4%, 5%, 1%, 2%, and 0%, respectively.
  • During crossover, 82.3% were rated improved on LDX vs 19.5% on placebo by CGI-I; ADHD-RS-IV total LS mean change was -25.8 for LDX vs -8.7 for placebo.

Methods

  • Randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization, 2-way crossover laboratory school study at 7 US sites; enrolled children aged 6–12 years with DSM-IV-TR ADHD combined or hyperactive-impulsive subtype, baseline ADHD-RS-IV ≥ 28, and IQ ≥ 80.
  • After open-label dose optimization to LDX 30, 50, or 70 mg/d over 4 weeks, subjects received 1 week LDX at optimized dose and 1 week placebo in randomized order; assessments occurred predose and at 1.5, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12, and 13 hours postdose.
  • Primary efficacy was SKAMP-D; secondary measures included SKAMP-A, SKAMP quality of work, SKAMP total, PERMP-A/C, ADHD-RS-IV, and CGI-I; analysis used a linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as random effect (ITT n = 113; safety n = 129).

Limitations

  • Stated: short treatment and assessment phases may underestimate TEAEs; severe comorbid psychiatric conditions were excluded; open-label dose optimization limits interpretation; no measurements beyond 13 hours postdose; high baseline severity, no inattentive-type ADHD group, and under-representation of minority populations limit generalizability.
  • Stated: pharmacokinetic data were not collected, so pharmacologic effects could not be correlated with blood levels.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was predominantly male (76.0%) and Caucasian (70.5%), and the crossover treatment periods were only 1 week each, so long-term safety and durability are not addressed.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1753-2000-3-17

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 Study design. V: visit; LDX: lisdexamfetamine dimesylate.
Figure 1 Study design. V: visit; LDX: lisdexamfetamine dimesylate.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Time course of SKAMP-D (closed symbols) and SKAMP-A (open symbols) assessment over the laboratory school day. LS mean (SE) actual scores (top) and change from predose (bottom) for LDX (squares) and placebo (circles) at predose (-0.5 h) and at 1.5, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12, and 13 h postdose. Scores were compared using a linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Lower scores denote improvement. *Denotes P < .005 LDX compared with placebo for SKAMP-D. †Denotes P ≤ .001 LDX compared with placebo for SKAMP-A.
Figure 2 Time course of SKAMP-D (closed symbols) and SKAMP-A (open symbols) assessment over the laboratory school day. LS mean (SE) actual scores (top) and change from predose (bottom) for LDX (squares) and placebo (circles) at predose (-0.5 h) and at 1.5, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12, and 13 h postdose. Scores were compared using a linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Lower scores denote improvement. *Denotes P < .005 LDX compared with placebo for SKAMP-D. †Denotes P ≤ .001 LDX compared with placebo for SKAMP-A.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Time course of PERMP-A (closed symbols) and PERMP-C (open symbols) assessment over the laboratory school day. LS mean (SE) actual scores (top) and change from predose (bottom) for LDX (squares) and placebo (circles) at predose (-0.5 h) and at 1.5, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12, and 13 h postdose. Scores were compared using a linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Higher scores denote improvement. *Denotes P < .0001 LDX compared with placebo for PERMP-A. †Denotes P < .0001 LDX compared with placebo for PERMP-C.
Figure 3 Time course of PERMP-A (closed symbols) and PERMP-C (open symbols) assessment over the laboratory school day. LS mean (SE) actual scores (top) and change from predose (bottom) for LDX (squares) and placebo (circles) at predose (-0.5 h) and at 1.5, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12, and 13 h postdose. Scores were compared using a linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Higher scores denote improvement. *Denotes P < .0001 LDX compared with placebo for PERMP-A. †Denotes P < .0001 LDX compared with placebo for PERMP-C.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

38 Own result · 16 No full text of the sources · 11 Own method · 8 Own interpretation · 4 Sources not found · 3 Not checked yet · 3 No basis given · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 6 references — free account

Show all 42 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 35
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 12
42 of 42
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is no carryover effect between the 1-week LDX and placebo treatment periods in the crossover design.

    “Subjects were randomized to receive daily LDX treatment (at the optimized dose) for 1 week followed by daily placebo capsules (identical in appearance to LDX capsules) for 1 week, or vice versa.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The dose-optimization phase identifies a stable optimal dose that remains effective and tolerable during the double-blind phase.

    “Optimal dose was defined as the dose that produced a reduction in ADHD-RS-IV score ≥ 30% and CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) score of 1 or 2 and had tolerable side effects.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The laboratory school setting is a valid analog for real-world classroom behavior and ADHD symptom control.

    “This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization, crossover, laboratory school study of LDX was conducted at 7 study sites in the United States.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    ADHD symptoms may extend beyond the school day and continue into afterschool activities and family interactions.

    “The symptoms of ADHD may extend beyond the school day and continue into afterschool activities and family interactions.”
4 of 4

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 112

Metadata

Authors
the 311 Study Group, Wigal, S. B., Kollins, S. H., Childress, A. C., & Squires, L.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Wigal, Sharon B
Venue
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health
Published
2009-06-09
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
17-17
ISSN
1753-2000 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023262882
Cited by
110
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 13
FWCI
8.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
Keywords
lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, school-aged children, time course of drug effects, stimulant efficacy, deportment, attention, dose optimization, adverse events, stimulant side effects, classroom setting, pharmacokinetics, placebo-controlled crossover trial, adults

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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