The Revised Korean Practice Parameter for the Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (III) - Pharmacological Treatment -

Combined Medication with Stimulants and Non-stimulants for Attention-deficit/hyperactivity Disorder

Objective

To study the efficiency and indication of combined medication with a stimulant and non-stimulant for attention-deficiency/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), herein, the authors examined children and adult patients with ADHD.

Methods

Subjects included patients diagnosed with ADHD who paid two or more visits to the outpatient clinic of the Kyung Hee University hospital from January 2009 to December 2019. The authors examined the age, sex, drugs, treatment adherence, and reason for combined medication. The subjects were classified into four groups treatment with a non-stimulant (atomoxetine) only (Group ATX), treatment with a stimulant (methylphenidate immediate-release, extended-release, or osmotic-release oral system) only (Group MPH), exposed to both but separately used (Group SEP), and exposed to both with combined use (Group COM). The patient was considered adherent to treatment (1) on visiting the hospital ten or more times or consecutively for six months, and (2) medication possession ratio ≥ 0.8.

Results

Of 929 patients, 229 (24.7%) were female. Group ATX comprised 146 (15.7%) patients, Group MPH comprised 627 (67.5%) patients, Group SEP comprised 106 (11.4%) patients, and Group COM comprised 50 (5.4%) patients. Longer-term adherence was seen with combined medication and in females than with monopharmacy and in males. The main indication for combination was dose-limiting untoward effects.

Conclusion

These results suggest that combined medication would facilitate treatment adherence for ADHD. Further research is essential for the replication of these results in a large sample and the investigation of the indications for administering combined medication in children and adults with ADHD.

A Brief Replication Study Comparing Stimulants and Non-Stimulants for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treatment with a Focus on the Compliance, Efficacy, and Satisfaction

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the compliance, efficacy, and satisfaction associated with methylphenidate and atomoxetine for treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Methods

The subjects were 44 patients who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder-5 diagnostic criteria for ADHD and were treated with methylphenidate or atomoxetine. The methylphenidate formulations included immediate release (IR), extended release (ER), and osmotic-controlled release oral delivery system (OROS). Patients and parents reported the average number of days per week the medication was taken. Efficacy was assessed using the ADHD Rating Scale. Satisfaction with medication scale (SAMS)–parent report form and SAMS–self-report form were used to evaluate parents’ and patients’ satisfaction, respectively.

Results

Patients and parents were more satisfied with methylphenidate than with atomoxetine. There were no significant differences in the compliance with and efficacy of methylphenidate and atomoxetine. Compliance with methylphenidate IR and ER was markedly lower than that with OROS methylphenidate or atomoxetine.

Conclusion

Methylphenidate OROS formulation can be considered a suitable option given its high rates of compliance, satisfaction, and efficacy.

Clinical Utility and Cut-Off Scores of the Korean Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to re-validate the clinical efficacy of the Korean Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Rating Scale (K-AARS), which is a self-report scale for ADHD in adults, and to determine the clinical utility and cut-off scores of K-AARS.

METHODS

The participants were 135 drug naïve adults with ADHD and 144 healthy controls. To diagnose ADHD based on the diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, two board-certified pediatric psychiatrists interviewed the participants and completed the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. K-AARS was applied to all participants. K-AARS comprises six clinical subscales, one impairment subscale, and one driving behavior subscale. The receiver operating characteristic analysis was conducted to calculate the cut-off scores of K-AARS.

RESULTS

All subscale scores, including six clinical subscale, impairment subscale, and driving behavior subscale scores, were found to be significant in distinguishing adults with ADHD from healthy controls. The sensitivity and specificity of the six clinical subscales were 63.0-77.0% and 66.7-79.9%, respectively. The combined total score of the six clinical subscales, had a sensitivity of 80.0% and specificity of 79.9%.

CONCLUSION

The discriminative power of K-AARS for the diagnosis of ADHD in adults was excellent, and K-AARS and the empirical diagnosis of adults can be useful in diagnosing ADHD in adulthood.