A Randomized Double-Blind Trial of Paroxetine and/or Dextroamphetamine and Problem-Focused Therapy for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of psychotherapy, dextroamphetamine, and/or paroxetine on attention-deficit/hyperactivity-disorder (ADHD) in adults. METHOD: Ninety-eight adults with DSM-IV ADHD were randomly assigned to receive psychotherapy and dextroamphetamine, paroxetine, both, or placebo for 20 weeks. A 2 x 2 factorial design compared patients who received dextroamphetamine versus no dextroamphetamine with patients who received paroxetine versus no paroxetine. Data were collected from August 2000 until May 2002. RESULTS: One half of the 98 enrolled subjects were found to have at least 1 lifetime mood or anxiety disorder on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. Sixty percent of patients who received medication and 80% of those who received placebo completed the 5-month trial. ADHD symptoms were significantly (p = .012) lower in patients in the completer group who received dextroamphetamine. Paroxetine had no effect on ADHD. Hamilton Rating Scales for Anxiety (HAM-A) and Depression (HAM-D) scores were low to start, and no treatment differences were evident at endpoint. Significantly (p < .001) more patients in the completer group were rated by clinicians as ADHD responders if they received dextroamphetamine (85.7%) or combined treatment (66.7%) versus paroxetine (20.0%) or placebo (21.1%). Significantly (p = .003) more patients in the completer group were rated by clinicians as mood/anxiety responders if they received paroxetine (100%) or combined treatment (73.3%) versus those receiving dextroamphetamine (57.15%) or placebo (47.4%). Clinicians rated any patient who received medication and psychological therapy as significantly more improved overall than those who received placebo and psychological therapy (intent to treat: p = .033; completers: p = .001). CONCLUSION: ADHD symptoms improved with dextroamphetamine. Mood and internalizing symptoms were seen as improved with paroxetine by clinicians, despite absence of response on the HAM-A and HAM-D. The presence of a lifetime internalizing disorder attenuated the response to dextroamphetamine. Patients who received both dextroamphetamine and paroxetine had more severe adverse events but did not show greater improvement overall than patients treated with 1 medication. Clinical Trials Registry #GSK707.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".