Treatment outcomes after methylphenidate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate or atomoxetine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare treatment adherence, discontinuation, add-on, and daily average consumption (DACON) among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder receiving second-line lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) or atomoxetine (ATX), following methylphenidate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using US commercial claims databases (Q2/2009-Q3/2013). RESULTS: At month 12, the LDX cohort (N=2,718) had a higher adherence level (proportion of days covered: 0.48 versus 0.30, P<0.001) and was less likely to discontinue (Kaplan-Meier estimate: 63% versus 85%, P<0.001) than the ATX cohort (N=674). There were no statistical differences in treatment add-on rates between cohorts (Kaplan-Meier estimate: 26% versus 25%, P=0.297). The LDX cohort had a lower DACON (1.10 versus 1.31, P<0.001) and was less likely to have a DACON >1 (adjusted odds ratio: 0.20, 95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.25, P<0.001) than the ATX cohort. CONCLUSION: Adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder treated with LDX following methylphenidate had a higher treatment adherence and lower discontinuation and DACON relative to those treated with ATX following methylphenidate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".