On the CGI-I scale , the analysis revealed that MPH was more effective than ATX and GXR .
For any adverse events , RBX ( 89 % ) was the safest alternative .
Network meta- analysis offered a broader overview on the available treatments for ADHD , especially for safety issues , and contributes towards evidence gathering and clinical practice decisions .
The aim of this study is to gather evidence of head-to-head double-blind r and omized-controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of available treatments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) in children and adolescents .
Functional outcomes from a head-to-head, randomized, double-blind trial of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and an inadequate response to methylphenidate
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) is associated with functional impairments in multiple domains of patients ’ lives . A secondary objective of this r and omized , active-controlled , head-to-head , double-blind , dose-optimized clinical trial was to compare the effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate ( LDX ) and atomoxetine ( ATX ) on functional impairment in children and adolescents with ADHD . Patients aged 6–17 years with an ADHD Rating Scale IV total score ≥28 and an inadequate response to methylpheni date treatment ( judged by investigators ) were r and omized ( 1:1 ) to once-daily LDX or ATX for 9 weeks . Parents/guardians completed the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Report ( WFIRS-P ) at baseline and at week 9 or early termination . p values were nominal and not corrected for multiple comparisons . Of 267 r and omized patients , 200 completed the study ( LDX 99 , ATX 101 ) . At baseline , mean WFIRS-P total score in the LDX group was 0.95 [ st and ard deviation ( SD ) 0.474 ; 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) 0.87 , 1.03 ] and in the ATX group was 0.91 ( 0.513 ; 0.82 , 1.00 ) . Scores in all WFIRS-P domains improved from baseline to endpoint in both groups , with least-squares mean changes in total score of −0.35 ( 95 % CI −0.42 , −0.29 ) for LDX and −0.27 ( −0.33 , −0.20 ) for ATX . The difference between LDX and ATX was statistically significant ( p < 0.05 ) for the Learning and School ( effect size of LDX vs ATX , 0.43 ) and Social Activities ( 0.34 ) domains and for total score ( 0.27 ) . Both treatments reduced functional impairment in children and adolescents with ADHD ; LDX was statistically significantly more effective than ATX in two of six domains and in total score
On the CGI-I scale , the analysis revealed that MPH was more effective than ATX and GXR .
For any adverse events , RBX ( 89 % ) was the safest alternative .
Network meta- analysis offered a broader overview on the available treatments for ADHD , especially for safety issues , and contributes towards evidence gathering and clinical practice decisions .
The aim of this study is to gather evidence of head-to-head double-blind r and omized-controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of available treatments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) in children and adolescents .