APPENDICES. A systematic review and economic model of the ...

Study Intervention Participants Outcomes
Core symptoms
CTRS: hyperactivity
Conners’ Parent Questionnaire (CPQ):
hyperactivity
Reference
Elia et al., 1991; 51
Castellanos et al.,
1996 302
Co-existent problems
Not reported
Arm 1
MPH plus non-drug intervention
Mean dose 0.9 mg/kg/day (week 1),
1.5 mg/kg/day (week 2), 2.5
mg/kg/day (week 3) administered in
two doses (9 a.m., 1 p.m.);
complemented by multidisciplinary
behaviour modification programme
and low monoamine diet
(Individual administering medication
not reported)
Source
AHRQ Report
Educational performance
Not reported
Inclusion criteria
1. Fulfils DSM-III criteria for attention deficit disorder with
hyperactivity in at least two settings
2. Score = 2 SDs above age norms on CTRS: Factor IV
(hyperactivity)
3. Full-scale IQ score = 80 on WISC-R
4. No evidence of medical or neurological diseases
5. No other Axis I psychiatric disorder except conduct,
oppostitional, mild overanxious or specific developmental
disorders
Setting
USA
(day hospital)
Psychological function
Visual Continuous Performance Test
Palwin Paired Associate Learning Task
Diagnostic criteria
DSM-III
Design
Crossover trial
Depression or anxiety
Not reported
Number
Total randomised = 48 (male = 48)
No withdrawals reported
Quality of life
CGI (physician)
C-GAS
Adverse events
STESS (physician, parents)
Children’s Psychiatric Rating Scale: nervous
mannerism
Arm 2
DEX plus non-drug intervention
Mean dose 0.4 mg/kg/day (week 1),
0.9 mg/kg/day (week 2),
1.3 mg/kg/day (week 3)
administered in two doses (9 a.m.,
1 p.m.); complemented by
multidisciplinary behaviour
modification programme and lowmonoamine
diet
(Individual administering medication
not reported)
Duration
Hospital programme:
11 weeks; treatment
period: 9 weeks
(3 weeks per
treatment); baseline
assessment period:
1 week
Purpose
To compare the clinical
effects of DEX and
MPH in a sample of
children with ADHD
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2006. All rights reserved.
Health Technology Assessment 2006; Vol. 10: No. 23
Additional outcomes
Truncal motor activity
Blood and urine samples
Age
8.6 years (mean); 1.7 years (SD); 6–12 years (range)
IQ
105.6 (mean)
Co-morbid disorders
CD: n = 10/48; ODD: n = 12/48; specific developmental
disorders: n = 11; dysthymic disorder: n = 1
Diagnostic subtypes
Not reported
Additional information
Previous medication: 18/48 had received no previous stimulant
treatment. 5/48 had previously taken stimulant treatment. 24/48
were on stimulants at time of screening: 20/24 MPH; 2/24 PEM;
2/24 DEX. 1/48 was receiving imipramine at time of screening.
(The authors attempted to recruit children who were stimulant
drug non-responders, but this was not successful)
Arm 3
Placebo plus non-drug intervention
Administered twice daily (9 a.m.,
1 p.m.); complemented by
multidisciplinary behaviour
modification programme and lowmonoamine
diet
(Individual administering medication
not reported)
Additional information
Where side-effects were severe,
dosages were held at current level,
partially increased or decreased; this
occurred for 19/48 participants
(7 on MPH, 7 on DEX, 5 during
both drug phases)
245