Kristi R Griffiths1, Barbora G Jurigova1, John E Leikauf2, Donna Palmer3, Simon D Clarke1,4,5, Tracey W Tsang1,6, Erdahl T Teber7, Michael R Kohn1,4,5, Leanne M Williams2. 1. 1 Brain Dynamics Centre, The Westmead Institue for Medical Research, The University of Sydney, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia. 2. 2 Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 3. 3 Brain Resource, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. 4 Adolescent & Young Adult Medicine, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia. 5. 5 Centre for Research into Adolescents Health, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia. 6. 6 Discipline of Child & Adolescent Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. 7 Children's Medical Research Institute, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Atomoxetine has several characteristics that make it an attractive alternative to stimulants for treating ADHD, but there are currently no tests identifying individuals for whom the medication should be a first-line option. METHOD: Within the ADHD Controlled Trial Investigation Of a Non-stimulant (ACTION) study, we examined neuro-cortical activity in 52 youth with ADHD. Baseline event-related potentials (ERP) were compared between those who subsequently responded to 6 weeks of atomoxetine versus those who did not. RESULTS: Responders were distinguished by significantly lower auditory oddball N2 amplitudes than both non-responders and typically developing controls, particularly in the right frontocentral region ( p = .002, Cohen's d = 1.1). Leave-one-out cross validation determined that N2 amplitude in this region was able to accurately predict non-responders with a specificity of 80.8%. There were no P3 differences between responders and non-responders. CONCLUSION: The N2 amplitude is a biomarker that may have utility in predicting response to atomoxetine for youth with ADHD.
OBJECTIVE: Atomoxetine has several characteristics that make it an attractive alternative to stimulants for treating ADHD, but there are currently no tests identifying individuals for whom the medication should be a first-line option. METHOD: Within the ADHD Controlled Trial Investigation Of a Non-stimulant (ACTION) study, we examined neuro-cortical activity in 52 youth with ADHD. Baseline event-related potentials (ERP) were compared between those who subsequently responded to 6 weeks of atomoxetine versus those who did not. RESULTS: Responders were distinguished by significantly lower auditory oddball N2 amplitudes than both non-responders and typically developing controls, particularly in the right frontocentral region ( p = .002, Cohen's d = 1.1). Leave-one-out cross validation determined that N2 amplitude in this region was able to accurately predict non-responders with a specificity of 80.8%. There were no P3 differences between responders and non-responders. CONCLUSION: The N2 amplitude is a biomarker that may have utility in predicting response to atomoxetine for youth with ADHD.
Authors: Sander Nieuwenhuis; Nick Yeung; Wery van den Wildenberg; K Richard Ridderinkhof Journal: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Tracey W Tsang; Michael R Kohn; Daniel F Hermens; Simon D Clarke; C Richard Clark; Daryl Efron; Noel Cranswick; Chris Lamb; Leanne M Williams Journal: Trials Date: 2011-03-13 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jan Buitelaar; Sven Bölte; Daniel Brandeis; Arthur Caye; Nina Christmann; Samuele Cortese; David Coghill; Stephen V Faraone; Barbara Franke; Markus Gleitz; Corina U Greven; Sandra Kooij; Douglas Teixeira Leffa; Nanda Rommelse; Jeffrey H Newcorn; Guilherme V Polanczyk; Luis Augusto Rohde; Emily Simonoff; Mark Stein; Benedetto Vitiello; Yanki Yazgan; Michael Roesler; Manfred Doepfner; Tobias Banaschewski Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 3.617