Cited by 41Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPharmacology and Obesity TreatmentSchizophrenia research and treatment

Maintenance of Efficacy of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate in Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Randomized Withdrawal Design

Brams, Matthew, Weisler, Richard, Findling, Robert L., Gasior, Maria, Hamdani, Mohamed, Ferreira-Cornwell, M. Celeste, Squires, Liza·2012·The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective To evaluate lisdexamfetamine dimesylate maintenance of efficacy in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Method Adults (aged 18-55 years) who had ADHD meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria, baseline ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) with adult prompts total scores of Results A total of 116 participants were randomized (lisdexamfetamine dimesylate n = 56; placebo n = 60). At the randomized withdrawal phase baseline, mean (SD) ADHD-RS-IV scores for lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and placebo were 10.6 (4.96) and 10.6 (4.82), respectively. At endpoint, 8.9% (5/56) of adults taking lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and 75.0% (45/60) taking placebo (P Conclusions In adults with ADHD on medium- to long-term treatment, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate demonstrated maintenance of efficacy vs placebo upon randomized withdrawal. A majority of patients given placebo showed symptom relapse by 2 weeks. The safety profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was generally consistent with previous lisdexamfetamine dimesylate studies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00877487.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4088/jcp.11m07430

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 the Weisler et al extension study, participants who received LDX previously compared with those who were LDX naïve had mean improvements in ADHD-RS-IV total scores of 61.6% and 55.1%, respectively.

    “Participants, who received LDX previously compared with those who were LDX naïve, had mean improvements in ADHD-RS-IV total scores of 61.6% and 55.1%, respectively.”
  • In the Weisler et al extension study, at end point, 84.1% of patients noted an improvement in overall functioning as measured by CGI-I, with similar responses in prior LDX-treated and LDX-naïve patients (84.8% and 79.6%, respectively).

    “at end point, 84.1% of patients noted an improvement in overall functioning as measured by the CGI-I, with similar responses noted in both the prior LDX-treated patients and LDX-naïve patients (84.8% and 79.6%, respectively).”
  • In the Weisler et al open-label extension study, mean change in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline to end of study period was −24.8, corresponding to a 60.7% mean relative improvement from baseline.

    “The mean change in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline to end of study period was −24.8 (P < .0001), which corresponded to a 60.7% mean relative improvement from baseline (P < .0001).”
  • During the open-label extension study, 87.7% of patients experienced adverse events, and similar percentages were noted between LDX-naïve patients and those who had received LDX previously.

    “During the open-label extension study,28 87.7% of patients experienced adverse events, and similar percentages were noted between LDX-naïve patients and those who had received LDX previously.”
  • Upper respiratory tract infection, insomnia, headache, dry mouth, decreased appetite, and irritability were the most commonly reported adverse events.

    “Upper respiratory tract infection, insomnia, headache, dry mouth, decreased appetite, and irritability were the most commonly reported adverse events reported.”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brams, M., Weisler, R., Findling, R. L., Gasior, M., Hamdani, M., Ferreira-Cornwell, M. C., & Squires, L.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
Corresponding author
Brams, Matthew
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Published
2012-06-12
Volume
73
Issue
07
Pages
977-983
ISSN
0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1999725272
Cited by
41
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5
FWCI
5.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, adult ADHD, treatment withdrawal, symptom recurrence, stimulant medication, ADHD medication, treatment-emergent adverse events, ADHD Rating Scale-IV, open-label extension, dose titration
MeSH terms
Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate, Adolescent, Adult, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Dextroamphetamine, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Long-Term Care, Male, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Treatment Outcome, Secondary Prevention, Young Adult

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