Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale Research Articles

Assessment of centanafadine in adults with ADHD: a matching adjusted indirect comparison versus methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release (Concerta)

Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of centanafadine versus methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release (ER; Concerta) in adults with ADHD. Methods: In the absence of head-to-head trials, anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were used to compare rates of adverse events reported across trials and mean change from baseline in Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER. Pooled patient-level data from two centanafadine trials (NCT03605680, NCT03605836) and aggregate data from one published methylphenidate hydrochloride ER trial (NCT00937040) were used. Characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials were matched to aggregate baseline characteristics from the methylphenidate hydrochloride ER trial using propensity score weighting. A sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the results to the capping of extreme weights (i.e., above the 99th percentile). Results: Compared with methylphenidate hydrochloride ER, centanafadine was associated with significantly lower risk of dry mouth (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: -11.95), initial insomnia (-11.10), decreased appetite (-8.05), anxiety (-5.39), palpitations (-5.25), and feeling jittery (-4.73) though a significantly smaller reduction in AISRS score (4.16-point). In the sensitivity analysis, the safety results were consistent with the primary analysis but there was no significant difference in efficacy between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER. Conclusion: In this anchored MAIC, centanafadine had a better safety profile and possibly lower efficacy than methylphenidate hydrochloride ER. While the safety results were robust across analyses, there was no difference in efficacy between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER in the sensitivity analysis. Considering its favorable safety profile, centanafadine may be preferred among patients for whom treatment-related adverse events are a concern.

Assessment of centanafadine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, atomoxetine hydrochloride, and viloxazine extended-release.

Head-to-head trials comparing centanafadine, an investigational therapy for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with other treatment options are lacking. To compare safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine sustained-release vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), and viloxazine extended-release (viloxazine ER), respectively, using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). This MAIC included patient-level data pooled from 2 centanafadine trials (NCT03605680 and NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from comparable trials of 3 comparators-lisdexamfetamine (NCT00334880), atomoxetine (NCT00190736), and viloxazine ER (NCT04016779)-in adult patients with ADHD. Propensity score weighting was used to match characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials to aggregate baseline characteristics from the respective comparator trials. Safety outcomes were rates of adverse events for which information was available in the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. Efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score (ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] was used as proxy in the comparison with lisdexamfetamine). Anchored indirect comparisons were conducted across matched populations of the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. After matching, baseline characteristics in the centanafadine trials were the same as those in the respective comparator trials. Compared with lisdexamfetamine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of lack of appetite (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: 23.42), dry mouth (19.27), insomnia (15.35), anxiety (5.21), nausea (4.90), feeling jittery (3.70), and diarrhea (3.47) (all P < 0.05) but a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score (6.58-point difference; P < 0.05). Compared with atomoxetine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of nausea (RD in percentage points: 18.64), dry mouth (17.44), fatigue (9.21), erectile dysfunction (6.76), lack of appetite (6.71), and urinary hesitation (5.84) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. Compared with viloxazine ER, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of fatigue (RD in percentage points: 11.07), insomnia (10.67), nausea (7.57), and constipation (4.63) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. In an anchored MAIC, centanafadine showed a significantly better short-term safety profile than lisdexamfetamine, atomoxetine, and viloxazine ER; efficacy was lower than with lisdexamfetamine and comparable (ie, nondifferent) with atomoxetine and viloxazine ER. This MAIC provides important insights on the relative safety and efficacy of common treatment options to help inform treatment decisions in adults with ADHD. Safety assessment was limited to rates of adverse events reported in both trials of a given comparison. NCT03605680, NCT03605836, NCT00334880, NCT00190736, and NCT04016779.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of AR19, a Manipulation-Resistant Formulation of Amphetamine Sulfate, in Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of AR19 in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosed by DSM-5 criteria in adults from 18 through 55 years of age. AR19 is a pellets-in-capsule, immediate-release amphetamine sulfate investigational formulation with physical and chemical barriers designed to resist manipulation to deter snorting, smoking, and intravenous injection.Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose, forced titration, multicenter trial investigated the safety and efficacy of AR19 from September 2018 to April 2019. Study participants were randomized and titrated to 20 mg or 40 mg AR19 daily or placebo. Study medication was dosed once in the morning and again 4 to 6 hours later for a period of 5 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the total score on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS).Results: Participants (N = 320) were randomized and received at least 1 dose of study medication. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups. The least squares mean treatment differences versus placebo (97.5% CI) were -7.2 (-11.3 to -3.1) for the AR19 20-mg group and -7.3 (-11.4 to -3.2) for the AR19 40-mg group (each P < .001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in participants in the AR19 treatment groups were insomnia, dry mouth, decreased appetite, palpitations, headache, and tachycardia and are consistent with the known safety profile of amphetamine sulfate.Conclusions: AR19 demonstrated efficacy on all endpoints and was generally well tolerated, supporting the efficacy and safety of AR19 20 mg and 40 mg in adults with ADHD.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03659929.

The Characteristics and Unique Impairments of Comorbid Adult ADHD and Sluggish Cognitive Tempo: An Interim Analysis

The objective of this study was to identify the relationship between sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) symptoms and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), executive function (EF), and emotional dyscontrol. A referred sample of adults (N = 87, age 18–57 years) was assessed for symptoms of ADHD using the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS), Barkley SCT scale, and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Adult version (BRIEF-A), and for symptoms of impairment using the Clinical Global Impressions scale and Barkley Functional Impairment Scale. Adults with SCT and ADHD had greater inattention and impairment than adults with ADHD only. Also, the group with both SCT and ADHD had higher self-reported ratings of EF on the BRIEF-A, which was not evident on the clinician ratings of EF on the AISRS. The results show that adults with comorbid SCT and ADHD have greater symptoms of inattention and higher levels of impairment in this preliminary analysis. [ Psychiatr Ann. 2019;49(10)457–465.]

A-33 Visuospatial Working Memory Performance and Adult ADHD Symptom Severity

Abstract Objective Working memory performance among adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) demonstrates variable results across literature. This investigation evaluated performance on a visuospatial working memory task relative to scores on measures of ADHD subtype and severity. Method A community sample aged 18 to 77 (n = 31; n men = 15) completed neuropsychological testing and measures of ADHD. The sample was predominantly White (64%; n = 20) and highly educated (Myears = 15.6). Participants were eligible if they were 18 or older, regardless of ADHD symptoms/diagnosis, and excluded if they had neuromedical/neuropsychiatric disorders. Spatial Addition (SA) from the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-IV) assessed working memory; the Adult ADHD Clinical Diagnostic Scale (ACDS) and Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) assessed ADHD subtype and burden. Results AISRS scores did not explain any variance in SA scores, R2 = 00, p = .970 (β = -.020, p = .970). A one-way between subjects ANOVA demonstrated no significant differences on SA scores between groupings based on ACDS: ADHD (n = 9, M = 13, SD = 4.12), and non-ADHD (n = 20, M = 13.95, SD = 5.27), (F(3,25) = .592, p = .626); ADHD (Inattentive (n = 2, M = 14.4, SD = .707); Hyperactive (n = 1, M = 18.00); Combined (n = 6, M = 11.7, SD = 4.8)). Adjustment for age and education did not change these findings. Conclusions Results failed to indicate any association between visuospatial working memory scores and ADHD symptoms but a larger, diversified sample is necessary to corroborate this null finding.

Vortioxetine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study.

Stimulants remain the mainstay of treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) but are often associated with insufficient response or poor tolerability, leading to many patients not wishing to be treated with controlled substances. This randomized, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study (NCT02327013) evaluated the efficacy of a multimodal antidepressant, vortioxetine, in the treatment of ADHD, using a two-stage sequential parallel comparison design. Patients aged 18-55 years with a diagnosis of ADHD (DSM-5) and a total score ⩾24 on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) were randomized in study stage I with a 1:1:3 ratio to six weeks of treatment with vortioxetine 10 or 20 mg/day, or placebo ( n = 227). In study stage II, placebo non-responders (AISRS total score reduction <30% from stage I baseline) were re-randomized with a 1:1:1 ratio to six weeks of vortioxetine 10 or 20 mg/day, or placebo ( n = 59). Across the two study stages combined, ADHD symptoms improved by approximately eight AISRS points in all treatment groups, showing no difference from placebo for either dose of vortioxetine, the study thus failing to meet its primary endpoint. However, both doses of vortioxetine separated from placebo in improving overall patient functioning, as measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale. Studies are warranted to further investigate this suggested benefit of a multimodal antidepressant for patient functioning in ADHD while addressing issues of non-adherence and placebo response. The study confirmed vortioxetine 10 mg and 20 mg as generally well-tolerated.

The Relationship Between Executive Function Deficits and DSM-5-Defined ADHD Symptoms

Objectives: To identify the relationship between the core Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) ADHD symptoms and executive function deficits (EFDs), to evaluate ADHD characteristics of those with executive dysfunction (ED), and to examine the predictive utility of the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) in identifying those with adult ADHD and ED. Method: Two samples (referred and primary care practice) were pooled together for present analysis. Results: Final analysis included 297 respondents, 171 with adult ADHD. Spearman correlation coefficients and binary logistic regressions demonstrated that ADHD inattentive (IA) and hyperactive-impulsive (H-I) symptoms were moderately to strongly correlated with and highly predictive of EFDs. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that an AISRS DSM 18-item score of ⩾ 28 was most predictive of clinical ED. Conclusion: ADHD symptoms were strongly correlated with and predictive of EFDs, clinicians should screen adults with ADHD for EFDs and ADHD treatment providers should track EFD improvement in addition to DSM-5 ADHD symptoms.

Validation of the Expanded Versions of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale v1.1 Symptom Checklist and the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale

Objective: The aim of this study is to validate the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) and Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) expanded versions, including executive function deficits (EFDs) and emotional dyscontrol (EC) items, and to present ASRS and AISRS pilot normative data. Method: Two patient samples (referred and primary care physician [PCP] controls) were pooled together for these analyses. Results: Final analysis included 297 respondents, 171 with adult ADHD. Cronbach’s alphas were high for all sections of the scales. Examining histograms of ASRS 31-item and AISRS 18-item total scores for ADHD controls, 95% cutoff scores were 70 and 23, respectively; histograms for pilot normative sample suggest cutoffs of 82 and 26, respectively. Conclusion: (a) ASRS- and AISRS-expanded versions have high validity in assessment of core 18 adult ADHD Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) symptoms and EFD and EC symptoms. (b) ASRS (31-item) scores 70 to 82 and AISRS (18-item) scores from 23 to 26 suggest a high likelihood of adult ADHD.

How Informative Are Self-Reported Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms? An Examination of the Agreement Between the Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Self-Report Scale V1.1 and Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Investigator Symptom Rating Scale

Assess agreement between self-ratings via the adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) Self-Report Scale (ASRS)-v1.1 Symptom Checklist and clinician ratings via the adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) expanded version using DSM-5 adult ADHD patients (referred sample) and ADHD controls (recruited from a primary care physician practice). The ASRS v1.1 Symptom Checklist was administered to measure self-reported ADHD symptoms and impairment, the Adult ADHD Clinical Diagnostic Scale v1.2 was used to establish an adult ADHD diagnosis and the childhood and adult/current sections of the scale were used to provide scores to measure symptoms of childhood ADHD and recent symptoms of adult ADHD, the AISRS to measure ADHD current symptom severity. Participants (n = 299; range 18-58), of which 171 were ADHD+ and 128 ADHD-. ASRS and AISRS total scores and individual subsections examining inattention, hyperactivity, emotional dysfunction (EF), and emotional dyscontrol (EC) were all significantly correlated (Spearman's ρ's = 0.78-0.89, ps < 0.01). Correlations remained significant when controlling for demographic factors and psychiatric conditions. The ASRS (self) and AISRS (clinician rated) scales have high agreement. This agreement extended not only the to the core 18 DSM symptoms, but also to the additional 13 symptoms that examine EC and EF.

5.62 Validation of the Expanded Versions of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) v1.1 Symptom Checklist and the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS)

5.62 Validation of the Expanded Versions of the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) v1.1 Symptom Checklist and the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS)

Atomoxetine Increased Effect over Time in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treated for up to 6 Months: Pooled Analysis of Two Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trials.

SummaryIntroductionChanges in the magnitude of efficacy throughout 26 weeks of atomoxetine treatment, along with impact of dosing, were evaluated in adults with ADHD from two randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled studies.AimsPooled placebo (n = 485) and atomoxetine (n = 518) patients, dosed 25, 40, 60, 80 (target dose), or 100 mg daily, were assessed. Change from baseline in Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scale–Investigator Rated Scale: Screening Version (CAARS) total ADHD symptoms score and Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) total score were analyzed using mixed‐model repeated measures, with least squares mean change, effect size, and response rate calculated at 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 22, and 26 weeks.ResultsDecreases on CAARS for atomoxetine‐ versus placebo‐treated patients were consistently statistically significantly greater at every time point beginning at one week (P ≤ 0.006, 0.28 effect size). By 4 weeks, comparison was −13.19 compared with −8.84 (P < 0.0001, 0.45 effect size). By 26 weeks, mean change was −15.42 versus −9.71 (0.52 effect size); increase in effect size over time was most pronounced in the 80 mg group (0.82 effect size). AISRS demonstrated similar results. Atomoxetine response rate (CAARS 50% decrease) continued to increase throughout 26 weeks.ConclusionsAtomoxetine treatment in adults with ADHD was associated with small effect sizes after 4 weeks and moderate effect sizes by 6 months of treatment. The data support increased effect size and response rate over time during longer‐term treatment at target dose.

Evidence of A Pharmacological Dissociation Between The Robust Effects of Methylphenidate on Adhd Symptoms and Weaker Effects on Working Memory

Working memory (WM) deficits often co-occur with, but do not define, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Preclinical and neuroimaging studies show that ADHD and WM deficits are dissociated at the level of individual dopamine receptor function. We hypothesized that there would also be a pharmacological dissociation of the effects of stimulants on ADHD and WM. ADHD subjects were derived from three prospective clinical trials involving treatment with OROS methylphenidate for at least 6 weeks. Subjects were adolescents and adults with DSM-IV ADHD with systematic assessments of WM and ADHD symptoms. Cohen’s d was used to evaluate effect size between baseline and week 6 for all assessments, and Pearson correlations were used to evaluate the relationship between assessments at baseline and between change scores for assessments from baseline to week 6. Cohen's d estimates for the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery spatial working memory measures differed significantly by 1.8 standard deviations (t= -10.8, df= 70, p < 0.001) and 1.9 standard deviations (t= -11.1, df= 70, p < 0.001) for the strategy and total between errors subcategories respectively. Confidence intervals did not overlap with those of the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS). A similar effect was observed for changes in AISRS and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function working memory scale where the Cohen's d estimates differed significantly by 1.1 standard

Randomized Controlled Study of the Histamine H3 Inverse Agonist MK-0249 in Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

It has been suggested that the histamine subtype 3 receptor inverse agonists such as MK-0249 might be effective in treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We evaluated the effects of MK-0249 in adults with ADHD. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, incomplete block, 2-period crossover study of MK-0249 5-10 mg/d and osmotic-release oral system (OROS) methylphenidate 54-72 mg/d (active comparator) was performed in 72 men and women aged ≥ 18 to ≤ 55 years who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD of either inattentive or combined subtype and who had a chronic course of behavior disorder. The study was conducted from August 2007 through April 2008 at 6 US sites. Primary efficacy was assessed by the mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) total score after 4 weeks of treatment. Change from baseline in AISRS at week 4 for MK-0249 was not different from placebo (P = .341), whereas a significant benefit was seen for OROS methylphenidate versus placebo (P < .001). Analysis of secondary end points, including the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales, showed results consistent with the AISRS. A similar percentage of patients reported adverse events for MK-0249 compared with placebo (73% versus 69%, respectively). However, a greater percentage of patients reported insomnia as an adverse event with MK-0249 treatment compared with placebo (32% versus 11%, respectively). MK-0249 10 mg/d is not effective for the treatment of adult ADHD. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00475735.

A 9-Week, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group, Dose-Finding Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Modafinil as Treatment for Adults With ADHD

Objective: This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of modafinil at a range of doses, versus placebo, in alleviating symptoms of ADHD in adults. Method: Adult patients with ADHD were randomized in 1:1:1:1:1 fashion to double-blind treatment with modafinil 255, 340, 425, or 510 mg daily or placebo for 9 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was the change from baseline at final visit in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) total score. Results: A total of 338 patients were enrolled, of whom 330 received at least 1 dose of study medication (modafinil or placebo). No statistically significant difference in the AISRS total score was observed at final visit between any modafinil group and placebo; however, some observations among patients who completed the trial may warrant further investigation. Conclusion: Modafinil was reasonably tolerated but did not demonstrate a benefit on ADHD symptoms in adults.

An 8-Week, Randomized Controlled Trial of Atomoxetine, Atomoxetine Plus Buspirone, or Placebo in Adults With ADHD

To examine the efficacy and safety of atomoxetine combined with buspirone versus atomoxetine monotherapy and placebo in adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In this randomized, 8-week, 3-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from November 2004 through December 2005, 241 adults with ADHD were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive up to twice-daily atomoxetine and thrice-daily buspirone (n = 97), twice-daily atomoxetine (n = 97), or placebo (n = 47). Participants met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria for ADHD. The primary efficacy measure was the adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS). Decrease in the AISRS total score was significantly greater for atomoxetine-buspirone than placebo at all time points from weeks 1 to 7, with an estimated mean difference of -4.80 (P = .001). Reduction in the mean AISRS total score was numerically greater for atomoxetine-buspirone than for atomoxetine at all time points, but statistically significant at week 4 only (estimated difference = -2.04, P < .10). The effect size for atomoxetine plus buspirone was 0.51, and for atomoxetine alone, it was 0.40. Insomnia, nausea, dry mouth, headache, and asthenia were frequently reported adverse events for both active treatment groups, and dizziness was also frequently reported for the atomoxetine-buspirone group. Discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse effects were 15.5% for atomoxetine-buspirone, 11.3% for atomoxetine, and 14.9% for placebo. There was little indication of improvement for atomoxetine plus buspirone versus atomoxetine monotherapy, as most efficacy measures showed only slightly greater quantitative improvement for the combination, generally without statistical significance. It is of note, however, that the quantitative differences between these 2 groups were virtually all in the direction of greater efficacy for the atomoxetine plus buspirone group. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00174226.

Open Label Pilot Study of Atomoxetine in Adults With ADHD and Substance Use Disorder

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this 10-week, open-label trial was to evaluate the potential utility of atomoxetine for improving attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance craving in abstinent adults with ADHD who were being treated at a residential treatment facility. METHODS: Eighteen adults were treated with atomoxetine (25–120 mg/day) for up to 10 weeks. Researchers assessed ADHD symptoms with the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) and substance cravings with the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS). Paired t-tests were used to assess changes in symptoms and craving. RESULTS: Among the 12 participants who completed at least 2 weeks of treatment, mean total AISRS scores improved (43.2 ± SD 7.4 to 25.8 ± SD 14.4, t = 5.0, p < .001). Participants also reported improvement in some measures of cravings. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide preliminarily support for the utility of atomoxetine in abstinent adults with co-occurring ADHD and substance use disorder. (Journal of Dual Diagnosis, 6:196–207, 2010)

성인기 주의력결핍 과잉행동장애의 평가척도

This review aimed to assist clinicians in the identification and assessment of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with an emphasis on diagnostic and rating instruments. Pubmed and RISS were utilized to identify relevant studies and critical reviews on the diagnosis and assessment of adult ADHD, published between 1988 and 2010. The Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale-v1.1, the ADHD Rating Scale-IV, the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale, and the Current Symptoms Scale have been utilized for self-reporting of current ADHD symptoms. The Brown ADD Rating Scale, the ADHD Rating Scale-IV, the Current Symptoms Scale, and the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale have also been evaluated by an observer. The Childhood Symptom Scale and the Wender-Utah Rating Scale have been used for retrospective assessment of childhood ADHD symptoms and the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale, the Adult Interview, the Brown ADD Diagnostic Form, the Conners adult ADHD diagnostic interview for DSM-IV, and the Wender-Reimherr Interview have been available as comprehensive diagnostic interviews. There is a wide variety of instruments available with respect to adult ADHD. The choice of appropriate instruments is essential for achieving accurate diagnosis and assessment of this disorder.

Validation of the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS)

Objective: Validation of the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) that measures aspects of ADHD in adults. Method: Psychometric properties of the AISRS total and AISRS subscales are analyzed and compared to the Conners’ Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-Investigator Rated: Screening Version (CAARS-Inv:SV) and the Clinical Global Impression-ADHD-Severity Scale using data from a placebo-controlled 6-month clinical trial of once-daily atomoxetine. Results: The AISRS has high internal consistency, good convergent, and discriminant validities; modest divergent validity; and small ceiling and floor effects (≤1%). It correlates highly with the CAARS-Inv:SV. Factor analysis confirms 2 AISRS subscales, hyperactivity-impulsive scale and inattention. The AISRS total and AISRS subscales perform stably. All scales demonstrate responsiveness to change with medication. Conclusion: The AISRS and its subscales are robust, valid efficacy measures of ADHD symptoms in adult patients. Its anchored items and semistructured interview are advancements over existing scales. (J. of Att. Dis. 2010; 14(1) 57-68)

Once-Daily Atomoxetine for Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-month trial examined the efficacy and safety of once-daily morning-dosed atomoxetine in adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the efficacy of atomoxetine in ameliorating symptoms through the evening hours. Patients received once-daily atomoxetine (n = 250) or placebo (n = 251) in the morning for approximately 6 months. The efficacy measures included the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS), Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Investigator Rated: Screening Version, Clinical Global Impressions-ADHD-Severity of Illness, and Adult ADHD Quality of Life Scale. Overall, 94 patients randomized to atomoxetine and 112 patients randomized to placebo completed the study. On the AISRS total score, Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Investigator Rated: Screening Version evening index total score, Clinical Global Impressions-ADHD-Severity of Illness score, and Adult ADHD Quality of Life Scale total score, atomoxetine was statistically superior to placebo at the 10-week and 6-month time points. From the visitwise analysis, the mean (SD) AISRS total scores for atomoxetine decreased from 38.2 (7.5) at baseline to 21.4 (12.3) at the 6-month end point compared with 38.6 (7.0) to 25.8 (13.2) for placebo (P = 0.035). Nausea, dry mouth, fatigue, decreased appetite, urinary hesitation, and erectile dysfunction were the treatment-emergent adverse events reported significantly more often with atomoxetine. Discontinuations due to adverse events were 17.2% and 5.6% for atomoxetine and placebo, respectively (P < 0.001). Once-daily morning-dosed atomoxetine is efficacious for treating ADHD in adults when measured 10 weeks and 6 months after initiating treatment. Atomoxetine demonstrated significant efficacy that continued into the evening. Adverse events were similar to previous trials.