Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Common Sense Strategies For Prescribing ADHD Medication

1,436 views

Published on

This is a 2007 presentation on the topic of how to select medication for patients with ADHD once a diagnosis has been established.

  • Is it possible to improve your memory? How can I improve my memory recall? more info... ▲▲▲ https://tinyurl.com/brainpill101
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Excellent job Stephen! I've always appreciated your insights - details matter.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Common Sense Strategies For Prescribing ADHD Medication

  1. 1. E-mail: drgrcevich@fcbtf.com Web: www.fcbtf.com Phone: 440.543.3400Special Needs Ministry: www.keyministry.org
  2. 2. Objective: To help participants developan evidence-based model to guideprescribing decisions for individualpatients with ADHD To meet this objective, participants will:
  3. 3. Capone NM, McDonnell TP. Presented at the APA Annual Meeting, Toronto, ON (2006)
  4. 4. More Frequent Office Visits May Help ADHD Medication Adherence A B Patients (%) Patients (%) Office Visits ADHD Rxs Filled Data shown are the rate (%) of patients with the indicated number of office visits or prescriptions filled over the 12-month study period.Grcevich S, et al. Presented at: AACAP Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, October 27, 2006.
  5. 5. Monthly Persistence With OROS-MPH (N=2398) % of PatientsCapone N, et al. Presented at the CHADD International Conference (2005) Dallas, TX.
  6. 6. Monthly Persistence With MAS-XR (N=1626) 100% 90% 80% 70% % of Patients 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 MAS-XR CategoryCapone N, et al. Presented at the CHADD International Conference (2005) Dallas, TX.
  7. 7. Monthly Persistence With ATX (N=1292) 100% 90% 80% 70% % of Patients 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 ATX CategoryCapone N et al. Presented at the CHADD International Conference, Dallas, 2005.
  8. 8. Grcevich S, et al. Presented at: AACAP Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, October 27, 2006.Wolraich ML, et al. Pediatrics. 2005;115:1734-1746.
  9. 9. *TMAP=Texas Medication Algorithm ProjectPliszka SR, et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006;45:642-657.Pliszka SR, et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003;42:279-287.
  10. 10. Algorithm for the Pharmacological Treatment of ADHD (with no significant comorbid disorders), Revised 2005 Pliszka SR, et al. J Am Acad Diagnostic Assessment and Family Child Adolesc Psychiatry. Stage 0 Consultation Regarding Treatment 2006;45:642-657. Alternatives Non-MedicationAny stage(s) can be skipped Treatment Alternativesdepending on the clinical picture Stage 1 Methylphenidate or Amphetamine Response Stage 1A Partial (Optional) Response Response (if MAS or Formulation not DEX used used in Stage 1 Continuation Partial Response in Stage 1) or Non-response Partial Response or Non-response Stage 2 Stimulant not used in Stage 1 DEX = Dextroamphetamine MAS = Mixed amphetamine salts
  11. 11. Pliszka SR, et al. J Am AcadStage 2 Stimulant not used in Stage 1 Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006;45:642-657. Response Stage 2A Partial (Optional) Response Response Continuation Formulation not (if MAS or used in Stage 2 DEX used in Stage 2)Stage 3 Partial Response Partial Response or Non-response or Non-response Atomoxetine Response Stage 3A Partial (Optional) Response Response Combine stimulant Continuation to stimulant or atomoxetine and atomoxetine Partial Response or Non-response Partial Response or Non-responseStage 4 Bupropion or TCA TCA = Tricyclic antidepressant
  12. 12. Pliszka SR, et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.Stage 4 Bupropion or TCA 2006;45:642-657. Response Continuation Partial Response or Non-responseStage 5 Agent not used in Stage 4 Response Continuation Partial Response or Non-responseStage 6 Alpha agonist Clinical Consultation Maintenance
  13. 13. Factors in Selecting Medication for Individual ADHD Patients:Grcevich S. Future Neurology 2006; 1(5) 525-534Pliszka SR et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2006;45(6):642-657.
  14. 14. Approved stimulant products for ADHD: Immediate- Long-Acting, Long-Acting, Release Formulated Non- Prodrug Stimulants Stimulants Stimulants Stimulants Lisdexamfetamine Amphetamine Amphetamine SR Atomoxetine dimesylate D- Dexmethylphenidate XR methylphenidate Methylphenidate Methylphenidate CD Mixed Methylphenidate LA amphetamine salts Methylphenidate patch Mixed amphetamine salts XR OROS* methylphenidate*OROS=osmotic release oral system
  15. 15. Faraone 2006 Metanalysis (29 controlled studies, 4465 children, adolescents)Amphetamine 0.92Methylphenidate 0.80Atomoxetine 0.73Modafinil 0.49Buproprion 0.32Faraone SV, Spencer TJ: Presented at APA Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada (2006)
  16. 16. Percent Response to Treatment Michelson, D. Presented at AACAP Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, October 21, 2004
  17. 17. 0.33† ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ * –0.47† –0.74† –0.78† –0.81† –0.86† *P<0.05; †P<0.0001 compared with baseline by 1-sample t test. ‡ P<0.0001 MAS-XR compared with ATX by ANCOVA.Wigal et al. Poster presented at the 157th Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, New York, May 4, 2004.
  18. 18. Meta-Analysis of Within-subject Comparative Trials Evaluating Response to Stimulant Medications Best 41%response(percent) 28% 16%AMP=amphetamineMPH=methylphenidateArnold et al. J Attention Dis 2000;3:200-211.
  19. 19. Implications of Arnold Study:
  20. 20. Arnold LE et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 1976;33(3):292-301James RS et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2001;40(11):1268-76
  21. 21. LDX vs. MAS-XR in Children:SKAMP LS Mean Across Assessment Day – ITT Population 3– – LDX *** p<0.001 compared to placebo – MAS-XR – 2– Placebo Mean Score – – – *** *** 1 – *** *** – – – 0– Deportment (primary endpoint) InattentionBiederman J. et al. Poster presented at Annual APA Meeting, May 24, 2006, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  22. 22. OROS-MPH/MPH Patch Parallel Group Study: * ** P < .0001 vs placebo.Study was not powered for comparison between transdermal and OROS MPH.Findling and Lopez. Poster presented at the AACAP Annual Meeting. Toronto. Oct. 20, 2005. N=270
  23. 23. Selecting the Right Delivery System:Steinhoff K et al. Presented at 53rd Annual Meeting of AACAP, San Diego, CA, October 27, 2006
  24. 24. New Delivery Systems: LDX O! CH!3 O!H 2 N! H 2 N! N! OH! CH! 3 Rate-limited! H! + Hydrolysis ! H 2 N! Site of cleavage!NH!2 NH!2 Lisdexamfetamine l-lysine! d-amphetamine
 (Prodrug) ! (active) !
  25. 25. Maximum Change in Subject Liking Scores after LDX Oral Administration Placebo * Mean Maximum Change LDX 100 mg in DRQ-S Scores d-amphetamine 40mg †   Oral administration of 150 mg of LDX produced increases in positive subjective responses that were statistically indistinguishable from the positive subjective responses produced by 40 mg of oral immediate-release d-amphetamineDRQ-S=Drug Rating Questionnaire-Subject.; *P<.01 vs placebo; †P<.05 vs d-amphetamineJasinski D, Krishnan S. Poster presentation at US Psychiatric & Mental Health Congress Annual Meeting,New Orleans, Nov 18, 2006.
  26. 26. Analog classroom study of d-MPH XR: Impact upon math performance Change From Predose in Number Change From Predose in Number of of Math Test Problems Attempted Math Problems Correctly Solved * * * * * Mean Change From Predose, * * Mean Change From Predose, * * * * * * * * * Improvement * *Improvement * * Math Attempted Math Correct * * * * * * Hours Postdose Hours Postdose All P values, d-MPH XR versus placebo. *P<0.001. Pooled data; Studies US08 and US09. Turnbow JM et al. US Psychiatric and Mental Health Conference; 2005; Las Vegas, NV
  27. 27. Analog classroom study of OROS MPH: Impact upon math performance Change in number of math problems completed 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Placebo 10 OROS MPH (all doses) TID MPH (all doses) 5 0 8:15 9:20 10:30 12:30 14:05 16:00 17:15 18:20 19:10 Class period Pelham WE et al. Pediatrics 2001; 107(6) e105.
  28. 28. Analog Classroom Study of Transdermal MPH: Impact on Math Performance Laboratory Classroom Mean Change from Pre-Dose in Number of Math Problems Correct Transdermal * * * MPH * * * * Improvement * * P < .001 Transdermal MPH vs placebo at all measured post-dose time points. Placebo N=79 Patch applied Patch removedWigal et al. Poster presented at the AACAP Annual Meeting, Toronto, October 21, 2005.
  29. 29. Comparison of Frequently Prescribed Stimulant Preparations:MAS-XR d,l-AMP 5-30 Up to 12 Biphasic Rapid onset, mg/day hours release effective for ODD, adultsLDX d-AMP 30-70 12 hours Prodrug Less appeal to mg/day addicts, more consistent duration?OROS-MPH MPH 18-72 12 hours Osmotic Prolonged effects mg/day release on drivingD-MPH XR MPH 5-20 12 hours Biphasic Rapid onset mg/day (claimed) releaseTransdermal MPH 10-30 Variable, Patch Potentially longestMPH mg/day based on acting, most wear time flexible duration
  30. 30. Bupropion XL in Adults With ADHD: Percent Responders* 60 ** ** 50 † ** Bupropion XL (N = 81) Responders (%) 40 30 20 Placebo (N = 81) 10 0 1 2 4 5 8 Time in Study (wk) *≥30% reduction from baseline; **p≤0.01, †p<0.05Wilens T, et al. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57:793-801.
  31. 31. Guanfacine in the Treatment of Children with Tic Disorders and ADHD Improvement in Outcome Measures Measure Guanfacine Placebo P- 0.5-4.5 (n =17) value mg/d (n =17) ADHD-RS total score 37% 8% <0.001 CGI Global Improvement Scale 47% 0% <0.001 (rated much improved or very much improved) Yale Global Tic Severity Scale total score 31% 0% 0.05   Double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel design, 8-week study in 34 medication-free youths with ADHD plus tics; age 7-14   Guanfacine immediate release given TID; maximum allowable dose: 4mg/kg TID   No serious side effects observed; no clinically meaningful cardiovascular changes   One guanfacine discontinuation owing to sedation in week 4Scahill L, et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:1067–1074.
  32. 32. ADHD-RS: Mean Total Score at Endpoint and Change in LS Mean from Baseline (ITT Population) 40 ADHD-RS Total 30 Baseline Endpoint Score 20 Change in Least Square (LS) 10 0 Mean Change in ADHD-RS Total -10 Score -20 ** ** *** -30 Placebo 2 mg 3 mg 4 mg*8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group safety and efficacy study; **p<..001; *** p<.0001 (adjusted Dunnett test compared to placebo following ANCOVA withbaseline score as covariate)Bear Stearns. Presented at London Healthcare Conference, London, March 2004.
  33. 33. Comorbidity: A Diagnostic Consideration Lifetime Prevalence of Comorbid Conditions in Pediatric Population With ADHD Boys (N = 140) Girls (N = 140) Major Multiple Conduct Bipolar ODD Enuresis Depression Disorder Disorder (>2) AnxietyBiederman J. J Clin Psychiatry. 2004;65(suppl 3):3-7.
  34. 34. Correlates of ADHD Among Childrenin Pediatric and Psychiatric Clinics Referral Site Psychiatric Pediatric (N=139) % (N=141) % CD 14 15 ODD 55 45 MDD 50 42 BPD 13 9 Anxiety disorders 33 29 (≥2) SUD* 13 15 Tics 10 *SUD includes cigarettes and psychoactive substances. 6Busch et al. Psychiatric Services. 2002;53:1103.
  35. 35. TMAP Algorithm: Pharmacologic Management of ADHD and Comorbid Depressive DisorderPliszka SR et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2006: 45(6) 642-657
  36. 36. Pliszka SR et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2006: 45(6) 642-657
  37. 37. Pliszka SR et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2006: 45(6) 642-657
  38. 38. TMAP algorithm for pharmacologic management of ADHD and aggression:Pliszka SR et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2006: 45(6) 642-657

×