title: Comparative efficacy of guanfacine extended release versus atomoxetine for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: applying matching-adjusted indirect comparison methodology.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  No head-to-head clinical trials have been published comparing guanfacine extended release (GXR) and atomoxetine (ATX): two nonstimulants approved for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, other study designs or methods could be used to indirectly compare these two medications. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) is a recent methodology that utilizes individual patient data (IPD) from clinical trials for one treatment and published aggregate data from another treatment to estimate the relative efficacy of both, providing rapid, reliable comparative efficacy results.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of GXR and ATX for the treatment of ADHD using MAIC.
  
  
  METHODS
  A systematic literature search was conducted to identify ATX and GXR trials published through December 2012. Studies were selected for MAIC analyses on the basis of having comparable trial characteristics and study designs. Summary data from selected ATX trials and IPD from selected GXR trials were used. MAIC methodology ensured comparable populations: target doses for the 'base case' comparison were selected on the basis of maximum effective dosage ranges from the US FDA-approved product labels (GXR 0.09-0.12 mg/kg/day, ATX 1.2 mg/kg/day for children and adolescents weighing ≤70 kg). Individuals from GXR trials were selected if they matched inclusion/exclusion criteria from selected ATX trials; selected GXR IPD were then re-weighted to match the published ATX trial mean baseline characteristics and placebo outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were conducted, examining different dosage ranges and repeating the analysis in a larger number of trials, allowing for larger and more heterogeneous trial populations.
  
  
  METHODS
  The primary outcome measure was change in ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Using MAIC in the base case comparison, significantly greater reductions in mean (standard error; SE) ADHD-RS-IV total scores from baseline to end of study were observed in patients treated with GXR relative to ATX [-7.0 (2.2); p < 0.01]. Significantly greater reductions for GXR over ATX were also demonstrated for hyperactivity/impulsivity [-3.8 (1.2); p < 0.01] and inattention [-3.2 (1.3); p < 0.05] subscales of the ADHD-RS-IV. Similar results were observed in MAIC sensitivity analyses evaluating other dosage ranges and using more heterogeneous trial populations (e.g., larger randomized sample, broader subject weight range, additional trials). Mean (SE) decreases in ADHD-RS-IV total scores were greater for GXR relative to ATX when including IPD for those administered GXR at lower than target dosage (0.075-0.090 mg/kg/day) compared with ATX at target dosage (1.2 mg/kg/day), with a relative improvement of -6.0 (2.7) (p < 0.05). Reductions in ADHD-RS-IV total scores were also greater for GXR in another MAIC examining GXR at target dosage (0.09-0.12 mg/kg/day) and a broader range of ATX dosages (including three additional trials evaluating ATX ≥1.2 mg/kg/day); relative improvement for GXR versus ATX administered at target dosage or higher was -7.6 (1.4) (p < 0.01).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  After adjusting for difference in baseline trial characteristics using MAIC, GXR appears to be more efficacious than ATX for the treatment of ADHD. Results were consistent in a variety of dosage range comparisons and within increasingly heterogeneous trial populations.
authors: Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Shire Development LLC, 725 Chesterbrook Boulevard, Wayne, PA, 19087, USA, vsikirica@shire.com.
authors: Vanja
authors: V
authors: Sikirica
authors: Robert L
authors: RL
authors: Findling
authors: James
authors: J
authors: Signorovitch
authors: M Haim
authors: MH
authors: Erder
authors: Ryan
authors: R
authors: Dammerman
authors: Paul
authors: P
authors: Hodgkins
authors: Mei
authors: M
authors: Lu
authors: Jipan
authors: J
authors: Xie
authors: Eric Q
authors: EQ
authors: Wu
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000069445:Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; D001289:Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000523:psychology; D002648:Child; D057186:Comparative Effectiveness Research; D003692:Delayed-Action Preparations; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D016316:Guanfacine / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006801:Humans; D011437:Propylamines / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D011569:Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D003692:Delayed-Action Preparations; D011437:Propylamines; D016316:Guanfacine; D000069445:Atomoxetine Hydrochloride
references: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009 Feb;48(2):155-65
references: 19106767
references: Value Health. 2012 Sep-Oct;15(6):940-7
references: 22999145
references: Am J Epidemiol. 1988 May;127(5):893-904
references: 3282433
references: Pediatrics. 2008 Jan;121(1):e73-84
references: 18166547
references: Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2009 Sep;48(7):723-33
references: 19420182
references: Sci Transl Med. 2010 Jun 23;2(37):37cm18
references: 20574065
references: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2005;14(4):186-201
references: 16395872
references: J Clin Psychiatry. 2002 Dec;63(12):1140-7
references: 12523874
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):935-45
references: 20831302
references: Pediatrics. 2004 Jul;114(1):e1-8
references: 15231966
references: Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):417-28
references: 21669366
references: Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2000 Jul;9(3):573-603, viii
references: 10944658
references: Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Nov;159(11):1896-901
references: 12411225
references: Am Health Drug Benefits. 2011 Mar;4(2):68-72
references: 25126339
references: Pediatrics. 2001 Nov;108(5):E83
references: 11694667