CNS Healthcare

ObjectivesTo describe the methodology and implications of the patient‐identified most bothersome symptom (PI‐MBS) measure used in the phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, and parallel‐group PROMISE‐2 trial and to evaluate the contribution of this measure to the assessment of the preventive migraine benefits of treatment.BackgroundAlthough freedom from MBS is a coprimary endpoint in acute migraine treatment trials, its evaluation in preventive migraine trials is limited. The PROMISE‐2 study assessed a unique PI‐MBS measure as a secondary endpoint.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of data from the PROMISE‐2 study. Adults with chronic migraine (CM) were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo, administered on day 0 and every 12 weeks. At the screening visit, patients were asked to verbally describe the MBS associated with their CM; the question format was open ended. At subsequent visits, patients were asked to rate the overall change in severity of their MBS from study inception to that time point, using a 7‐point ordinal scale ranging from “very much worse” (−3) to “very much improved” (+3). Patients completed the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) assessment during the same visits, using an identical rating scale and recall period. Endpoints were summarized descriptively; post hoc correlations using the methodologies of Pearson and Spearman were calculated to evaluate relationships between PGIC and PI‐MBS and between PGIC and mean monthly migraine days (MMDs; primary efficacy endpoint in PROMISE‐2).ResultsAltogether, 1072 patients received treatment (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 356; eptinezumab 300 mg, n = 350; placebo, n = 366) and were included in the analysis. There were 23 unique MBS identified; those reported by ≥10 patients included light sensitivity (18.7%), nausea/vomiting (15.1%), pain with activity (13.7%), pain (12.4%), headache (11.2%), sound sensitivity (7.3%), throbbing/pulsating pain (4.7%), cognitive disruption (4.1%), fatigue (2.4%), mood changes (1.5%), and sensitivity to smell (0.9%). Four weeks after the first dose (week 4), the rates of much or very much improvement in PI‐MBS were higher with eptinezumab 100 mg (45%) and 300 mg (57%) than with placebo (29%). Four weeks after the second dose (week 16), the proportions with much or very much improvement in PI‐MBS had increased to 58%, 65%, and 36%, respectively. At each time point, the percentages of patients with PGIC ratings of much or very much improved were similar to those for patient‐reported improvement in PI‐MBS. Patient ratings of changes in PI‐MBS and PGIC correlated strongly across time points (Pearson, r range, 0.83–0.88; Spearman, r range, 0.83–0.89); the absolute value of the correlations was greater than the correlation among changes in MMDs and PGIC (Pearson, r range, −0.49 to −0.52; Spearman, r range, −0.49 to −0.52).ConclusionsAmong patients with CM in the PROMISE‐2 study, a broad range of PI‐MBS was reported at baseline. Throughout the study, patients treated with eptinezumab reported greater improvement in their PI‐MBS severity compared with placebo recipients, and this improvement correlated strongly with PGIC findings. Collectively, these results indicate that PI‐MBS is a promising and novel outcome measure for preventive trials of CM and thus may provide a unique patient‐centered approach for identifying and measuring the burden of migraine symptoms that matter most to each patient, as well as the benefits of treatment.

ObjectiveThe objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts (MAS) in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).MethodsEligible adults [aged 18–55 years; meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ADHD criteria; baseline ADHD Rating Scale with Adult Prompts (ADHD-RS-AP) total scores ≥28] were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or forced-dose SHP465 MAS (12.5 or 37.5 mg/day) for 4 weeks. The ADHD-RS-AP total score change from baseline to week 4 (primary endpoint) and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score at week 4 (key secondary endpoint) were assessed using linear mixed-effects models for repeated measures. Other efficacy endpoints were changes from baseline to week 4 on the ADHD-RS-AP hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattentiveness subscales and the percentage of participants categorized as improved on the dichotomized Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement. Safety and tolerability assessments were treatment-emergent adverse events, vital sign and weight changes, Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale responses, and electrocardiogram results.ResultsOf 369 screened participants, 275 were randomized (placebo, n = 91; 12.5 mg/day of SHP465 MAS, n = 92; 37.5 mg/day of SHP465 MAS, n = 92) and 236 completed the study (placebo, n = 80; 12.5 mg/day of SHP465 MAS, n = 80; 37.5 mg/day of SHP465 MAS, n = 76). Least-squares mean (95% confidence interval) treatment differences at week 4 significantly favored SHP465 MAS over placebo for the ADHD-RS-AP total score change from baseline [12.5 mg/day: −8.1 (−11.7, −4.4), effect size = 0.67; 37.5 mg/day: −13.4 (−17.1, −9.7), effect size = 1.11; both p < 0.001] and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score [12.5 mg/day: −0.8 (−1.1, −0.4), effect size = 0.68; 37.5 mg/day: −1.2 (−1.6, −0.9), effect size = 1.11; both p < 0.001]. Treatment differences for the change from baseline at week 4 favored 12.5 and 37.5 mg/day of SHP465 MAS, respectively, over placebo on the ADHD-RS-AP hyperactivity/impulsivity (both nominal p < 0.001; effect size = 0.56 and 0.91) and inattentiveness (both nominal p < 0.001; effect size = 0.70 and 1.19) subscales. At the final on-treatment assessment, the percentage of participants categorized as improved on Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement was higher with both SHP465 MAS doses than with placebo (both nominal p < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events reported (>5%) with SHP465 MAS were decreased appetite, dry mouth, insomnia, headache, anxiety, initial insomnia, irritability, and bruxism. Severe treatment-emergent adverse events and treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation, respectively, were reported by 8 and 12 participants (placebo, n = 2 and 0; 12.5 mg/day SHP465 MAS, n = 1 and 7; 37.5 mg/day SHP465 MAS, n = 5 and 5). At the final on-treatment assessment, mean ± standard deviation increases from baseline were observed with 12.5 and 37.5 mg/day of SHP465 MAS for pulse (3.3 ± 10.52 and 7.1 ± 11.48 bpm) and blood pressure (systolic 0.2 ± 7.24 and 1.7 ± 9.99 mmHg; diastolic 1.0 ± 7.46 and 2.8 ± 7.90 mmHg) and decreases were observed for weight (−0.97 ± 1.523 and −1.65 ± 2.333 kg), body mass index (−0.33 ± 0.519 and −0.56 ± 0.777 kg/m2), and Fridericia corrected QT interval (−3.0 ± 10.72 and −1.6 ± 13.70 ms). No participant in any treatment group had a positive response for on-study Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale assessments.ConclusionsSHP465 MAS was superior to placebo in reducing ADHD symptoms, with a safety profile consistent with other long-acting stimulants.ClinicalTrials.gov Registry Number: NCT02604407.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40263-017-0455-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is often undiagnosed and undertreated in adults, resulting in wide-ranging problems and functional deficits in patients’ lives. In addition, psychiatric comorbidities unrelated to symptom severity may be present. However, effective treatment that can alleviate symptoms and bring about meaningful improvements in functionality is available. Primary care providers can play a crucial role in recognizing and diagnosing ADHD, initiating and monitoring treatment, and obtaining consultations or arranging referrals when necessary, all with the goal of achieving and maintaining remission. Fulfillment of this role requires a practical understanding of the diverse clinical manifestations of ADHD in patients stratified by age and sex, and familiarity with current treatment guidelines. Although there is no absolute consensus on the criteria by which remission is defined, treatment response may be guided by objective ratings of global symptom severity and patients’ self-reports of changes in their ability to cope with routine daily tasks, academic and vocational responsibilities, and social relationships. Although there has been much research into the genetic and neurophysiologic basis of ADHD, it is more important for primary care providers to appreciate that ADHD is a chronic condition requiring lifelong follow-up and that clinical presentation and response to treatment can vary widely among patients and over time in the same patients. Such variability makes the management of ADHD challenging, but the opportunity to bring about dramatic improvement in patients’ lives makes it imperative for primary care providers to be competent in this area. This review provides primary care clinicians with a practical definition of remission in adults with ADHD, to emphasize that symptom reduction does not necessarily mean intact functionality, and to suggest a multidisciplinary approach aimed at achieving the greatest possible reduction of symptoms and normalization of functionality.

Faced with the task of choosing a heating system for a nursing home, one must identify what will be required of the system. For example, it will need to be user friendly, efficient, cost effective and comply with all the relevant legislation.