Back to what changed for ADHD

Reported trial results for ADHD

Every ADHD trial Voxsanity tracks that has reported results to a public registry, newest first. These trials have finished, so they are not recruiting. Not medical advice.

30 trials have reported results.

AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI

  • NCT06301516 · results posted 17 June 2026

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT06301516) looked at a virtual reality (VR) programme called "Impact VR" and involved 220 people in total — 55 young people in the VR group, 55 caregivers in the VR group, 55 young people in a comparison (control) group, and 55 caregivers in a comparison group. All 220 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring three things: a set of personality traits sometimes called "callous-unemotional" traits (things like limited empathy or uncaring behaviour), behaviour problems as reported by caregivers, and the ability of young people to recognise emotions on faces. These were assessed at multiple points over the course of the study using standard questionnaires and a computer-based task. The reported data shows the following numbers across what appear to be three time points (earliest to latest). For callous-unemotional traits (scored 0–72, where lower means fewer of these traits): young people in the VR group started at around 25.96, then 24.23, then 18.52; caregivers in the VR group went from 28.06 to 20.30 to 20.98; young people in the control group went from 25.01 to 24.85 to 25.07; and control caregivers went from 27.22 to 26.90 to 28.28. For caregiver-reported behaviour problems (scored on a scale where 50 is the average for the general population): VR caregivers reported scores of 58.89, then 58.93, then 47.93; control caregivers reported 54.85, then 55.67, then 55.66. For emotion recognition in young people (percentage of face photos correctly identified): VR youth scored 29.74%, then 34.06%, then 34.81%; control youth scored 29.75%, then 29.41%, then 28.57%. The reported data shows changes in scores across these groups over time, as described above. No additional detail about whether these differences were considered meaningful by the researchers was included in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so that information cannot be reported here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

  • NCT04723719 · results posted 13 February 2026

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 92 children or young people with ADHD. Participants were split into two groups: 47 received a sleep training program called SIESTA on top of their usual ADHD treatment, while 45 continued with their usual ADHD treatment only. The trial was measuring sleep patterns — both through a wrist-worn movement tracker (called actigraphy) and through sleep diaries filled in by participants or their families — at the start of the study, after the program ended, and at a follow-up point. The reported data shows the following average figures before and after the program. For total sleep time measured by the tracker, the SIESTA group went from about 8.11 hours to 8.03 hours, while the usual-care group went from 7.94 hours to 8.07 hours. For how long it took to fall asleep (measured by tracker), the SIESTA group went from about 0.56 hours to 0.54 hours, and the usual-care group went from 0.74 hours to 0.51 hours. Sleep efficiency — meaning the proportion of time in bed actually spent asleep — was reported as 92% for the SIESTA group at both time points, and rose from 90% to 92% in the usual-care group. The average number of times participants woke during the night went from about 40.8 to 40.0 in the SIESTA group, and from 37.8 to 39.2 in the usual-care group. Using sleep diaries, total sleep time went from about 7.57 hours to 7.62 hours in the SIESTA group, and from 7.47 hours to 7.68 hours in the usual-care group. Time to fall asleep recorded in the diaries went from about 1.06 hours to 0.77 hours in the SIESTA group, and from 1.16 hours to 0.90 hours in the usual-care group. No secondary outcome data was included in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT06454604 · results posted 2 January 2026

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 60 people across three groups: a "VR Passthrough" group (22 started, 16 completed), a "Virtual Reality" group (18 started, 16 completed), and a "Virtual Reality + Feedback" group (20 started, 17 completed). The trial was measuring whether wearing a virtual reality headset while doing homework affected how focused, concentrated, motivated, and effortful participants were. Participants completed 12 sessions over three weeks — the first two sessions were done without a headset (used as a starting point, or "baseline"), and sessions 3 through 12 were done while wearing one of the VR headsets. The reported data shows two main things were measured. First, an algorithm tracked the percentage of time participants were "on-task" using their mouse and keyboard. At baseline (sessions 1–2), the three groups recorded average on-task percentages of 86%, 62%, and 83% respectively. By sessions 3–12, those figures were reported as 83%, 85%, and 95%. Second, a concentration questionnaire (scored 7–28, where higher scores mean *worse* concentration) showed starting scores of roughly 15.9, 16.2, and 17.9 for the three groups, which shifted to approximately 11.8, 12.8, and 13.0 during the headset sessions. For the secondary measures, a homework effort scale (7–28, higher = more effort) showed scores moving from around 19.3, 17.7, and 17.4 at baseline to roughly 20.0, 19.6, and 19.9. A homework motivation scale (7–28, higher = more motivation) showed scores shifting from approximately 20.7, 19.9, and 19.4 at baseline to around 21.1, 20.5, and 20.9. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

  • NCT05102344 · results posted 12 September 2025

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05102344) involved 39 children in total — 19 who received standard psychosocial treatment (the usual care group) and 20 who took part in an Animal Assisted Intervention program. All 39 participants completed the study with no drop-outs reported. The trial measured three things across two time points (8 weeks and 16 weeks): ADHD symptom levels as rated by parents and teachers, children's own sense of how they felt about themselves across areas like schoolwork, friendships, and appearance, and parent-rated social behaviours sometimes associated with autism. The reported data shows the following numbers. For ADHD symptoms (scored 0–54, where lower means fewer reported symptoms), the usual care group scored 29.0 at 8 weeks and 28.29 at 16 weeks, while the animal-assisted group scored 23.9 at 8 weeks and 24.26 at 16 weeks. For children's self-perception (scored 1–4, where higher means a more positive sense of ability or worth), the usual care group scored 2.98 at 8 weeks and 2.96 at 16 weeks, while the animal-assisted group scored 3.14 at 8 weeks and 3.24 at 16 weeks. For social behaviour (a standardised score where 59 and below is considered within the typical range), the usual care group scored 57.89 at 8 weeks and 57.16 at 16 weeks, while the animal-assisted group scored 60.80 at 8 weeks and 58.90 at 16 weeks. The reported data shows these numbers as they were recorded at those two points in time for each group. No further breakdown or statistical analysis figures were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no additional detail can be reported here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT04999982 · results posted 2 September 2025

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04999982) involved 45 young children showing signs of ADHD, along with their parents or caregivers. Twenty-two families were placed in the intervention group (called PRE-CARE), and 23 were in a "care as usual" comparison group. Of those who started, 16 in the PRE-CARE group and 17 in the comparison group completed the study. The trial was measuring several things over time: children's ADHD-related behaviours (rated by parents on a 0–54 scale), the number of community support services families were enrolled in, children's broader behavioural and emotional symptoms, and parents' own mental health — including depression, stress, and ADHD symptoms. The reported data shows the following numbers across the measurement points. For children's ADHD symptoms, both groups started at similar scores (around 27–28 out of 54). By the final time point, the PRE-CARE group's average score was reported as 21.0, while the comparison group's was 23.8. For community resources enrolled, the PRE-CARE group started at an average of 3.4 resources and was reported at 4.3 by the end; the comparison group stayed around 4.1 throughout. For children's broader psychiatric symptoms (reported as a standardised score where 50 is the population average), both groups' scores moved closer to 50 over the course of the study. For parental depression (0–27 scale), scores for both groups remained in a broadly similar range across time points, sitting between roughly 5.8 and 8.8. Parental stress scores (0–40 scale) were reported as slightly lower in the PRE-CARE group at each time point compared to the comparison group. Parental ADHD symptom scores (0–18 scale) were low in both groups throughout and were reported as 1 in both groups by the final time point. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

  • NCT03638466 · results posted 2 May 2025

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this was a small pilot trial (NCT03638466) that enrolled just 7 participants in total — 4 in the placebo group and 3 in the high-dose SPN-810 (36 mg) group. One person in the SPN-810 group did not complete the study. The trial was primarily measuring changes in brain activity using a type of brain scan called fMRI (which tracks blood flow as a marker of brain activity) while participants took part in a computer task designed to simulate aggressive and provocative situations. It also looked at a behavioural "aggression score" from that computer task, and measured levels of two brain chemicals (GABA and glutamate) using a different type of brain scan. The reported data shows that, for the brain scan measures, clusters of brain activity (measured in "voxels," which are tiny 3D units of brain scan data) were observed in the SPN-810-then-placebo group during aggressive responses and provocation events, while no such clusters were detected in the placebo-then-SPN-810 sequence for most of those same measures. For the behavioural aggression score (which can range from 1 to 143, with higher numbers meaning more aggressive responses), the reported data shows the placebo group started at 8.43 and moved to 9.26, while the SPN-810 group started at 10.23 and moved to 4.02. For the brain chemical measurements, changes in GABA and glutamate concentrations were small in both groups. The additional clinician-rated scales showed score changes in both groups across the study period, but the reported data was not broken down further than what was submitted. It is important to note that with only 7 participants, this was an exploratory pilot study — meaning it was designed to gather early information rather than draw firm conclusions. The reported data shows measurements from a very small number of people, and no broader conclusions about the treatment can be drawn from numbers this small. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT05778526 · results posted 28 March 2025

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 90 participants split evenly across three groups of 30: one group took part in social skills training using virtual reality (VR), one group received traditional face-to-face social skills training, and one group was placed on a waitlist (meaning they did not receive any active training during the study period). The trial was measuring things like how well participants attended their sessions, their social skills, their ability to manage behaviour and emotions, and their satisfaction with the training they received. All 30 participants in the VR group completed the study, 29 of 30 completed the traditional training group, and 19 of 30 completed the waitlist group. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome of session attendance, the VR group attended 100% of sessions on average, the traditional training group attended about 96.6%, and the waitlist group attended 63.3%. For social skills as measured by the Riggio Social Skills Inventory (scored from 10 to 40, where higher means better), the reported scores at the end of the study were 38.20 for the VR group, 30.63 for the traditional training group, and 24.50 for the waitlist group. On a parent-rated social skills questionnaire (scored 31 to 93, higher being better), scores were 33.33, 31.93, and 31.50 respectively. For a measure of behaviour and emotional control (scored 26 to 78, where *higher scores indicate poorer functioning*), the reported figures were 16.83 for the VR group, 17.98 for the traditional group, and 19.63 for the waitlist group. Satisfaction scores (on a scale of 1 to 7) were 6.8 for the VR group and 6.7 for the traditional training group — the waitlist group was not assessed on this measure. The reported data shows that zero participants across all groups reported motion sickness or physical discomfort during the study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT05777785 · results posted 25 March 2025

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05777785) enrolled 106 adults and followed them over approximately two months. There was only one group — everyone received the active treatment — so there was no comparison group. The trial was measuring ADHD-related symptoms and attention using several questionnaires and tests, including a self-report ADHD symptom scale (the ASRS), a clinician's overall impression of change (the CGI-I), a computer-based attention test (the CPT-3), and a questionnaire about everyday thinking and planning skills (the BRIEF-A). Six participants did not complete the study, leaving 100 who finished. The reported data shows that on the main ADHD symptom questionnaire (ASRS, scored 0–72 where higher means more symptoms), the average score across participants was 39.76 at the start and 38.27 at the two-month follow-up. For the inattention portion of that questionnaire (scored 0–36), the average went from 21.20 to 20.22. On the clinician's impression scale, the reported data shows that at two months, 77 participants were rated as improved to some degree, while 11 were rated as showing no change or worsening — though the data as submitted did not separately list every rating category. On the computer attention test (CPT-3, where scores above 60 suggest difficulty distinguishing targets), the average score moved from 50.03 to 47.95. On the everyday thinking and planning questionnaire (BRIEF-A Metacognition Index, scored 40–120 where higher means greater difficulty), the average went from 79.85 to 77.76. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT04987762 · results posted 22 August 2023

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04987762) enrolled 103 participants who were given a medication called Adhansia XR. The trial was set up to track adverse events — that is, any unwanted or unexpected health occurrences — that participants experienced while taking the medication, from the time they first agreed to take part until up to seven days after their last dose. The reported data shows three separate adverse event figures for the single group of 103 participants, though the data as submitted does not clearly label what each individual number refers to (for example, which figure represents serious versus non-serious events). The three numbers recorded were 0 participants, 2 participants, and 39 participants across the different adverse event categories. It is also worth noting that the trial records show none of the 103 participants were listed as having "completed" the study, with all 103 recorded under "not completed" — however, no further explanation for this was included in the reported data. Because the category labels for each of those three figures were not fully reported in the submitted data, a precise breakdown of what each number represents cannot be provided here. If you would like more detail about what these numbers mean in context, the full trial record may contain additional information. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

  • NCT03730194 · results posted 4 April 2023

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at two approaches to managing sleep in young people: taking melatonin (a supplement), and a behavioural strategy called a "Bedtime Bank" (a structured approach to managing bedtime). The trial used a two-stage design. In the first stage, 20 participants were assigned to melatonin only and 20 to the Bedtime Bank only; of these, 16 in each group completed that stage. In the second stage, participants were redistributed across six groups (ranging from 5 to 7 people each), some continuing their original treatment and some moving to a combined approach. The trial measured total nightly sleep time using a wrist-worn movement tracker, how acceptable parents found the treatments, and several questionnaire scores about sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and sleep-related impairment. The reported data shows that for total nightly sleep time, both the melatonin group and the Bedtime Bank group recorded similar figures across the measurement points — values reported ranged from roughly 7 hours to 7 hours 29 minutes across both groups. For treatment acceptability (rated by parents on a scale of 8 to 48, where higher means more acceptable), the melatonin group scored around 38.84 and the Bedtime Bank group scored between 34.00 and 37.89 at the time points reported. On the sleep disturbance questionnaire (where higher scores mean more disturbance, compared to a general population average of 50), both groups started with scores in the low-to-mid 60s and the reported figures moved into the mid-to-high 50s at later time points. The daytime sleepiness questionnaire (scored 16–80, higher meaning sleepier) showed reported values ranging from the mid-30s to low 40s across both groups and time points. A urine melatonin level was also measured, with the melatonin group reporting 81.90 and the Bedtime Bank group 78.58 (in the units reported). It should be noted that the data as submitted does not clearly label which measurement corresponds to which specific time point, so a precise before-and-after comparison cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT01269463 · results posted 13 December 2022

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 26 children in total (13 in each group), all of whom had ADHD. The trial used a design where every participant first went through an open-label phase (where everyone received the active medication, a slow-release form of methylphenidate), followed by a two-week phase where they received either the active capsule or a dummy capsule (placebo) in a random order, then swapped. This type of design, sometimes called a "crossover", meant the trial could compare how the same children responded to each treatment. The trial was measuring classroom behaviour and attention using two tools: a teacher-rated behaviour scale called the SKAMP, and a timed maths test called the PERMP. The reported data shows that on the SKAMP scale — where scores range from 0 to 78 and lower numbers indicate less impairment — children scored an average of 1.46 during the active medication phase, compared with 2.03 during the placebo phase. For the maths test (PERMP), where higher numbers are better, children answered an average of 92.85 problems correctly during the active medication phase compared with 80.30 during the placebo phase. The number of problems attempted was also reported: 86.85 during the active medication phase and 74.80 during the placebo phase. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT02824627 · results posted 30 August 2022

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02824627) enrolled 58 young people in total — 28 in the oxytocin group and 30 in the placebo group. By the end of the study, 25 and 27 participants respectively had completed it, with 3 in each group not finishing. The trial was measuring irritability and emotional reactivity in children and adolescents, using self-reported questionnaires, a clinician's rating scale, and brain imaging scans. The reported data shows the following numbers for the two main (primary) outcome measures. On the Affective Reactivity Index — a self-report questionnaire where higher scores mean more irritability (scored 0–12) — the oxytocin group's average score changed by −2.9 points from the start to the end of the study, while the placebo group's average score changed by −0.8 points (both groups showing a reduction). On the Clinical Global Impression: Severity scale — where a clinician rated irritability on a 1-to-7 scale, with higher numbers meaning greater illness — the oxytocin group had an average end-of-study score of 2.72 and the placebo group had an average score of 3.33. The reported data also shows a secondary outcome involving brain scans (functional MRI), which measured changes in brain activity. The oxytocin group showed a mean change of −0.045% in brain signal response, while the placebo group showed a mean change of +0.045%. No other secondary outcome figures were reported in the submitted data beyond these numbers. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT03597789 · results posted 16 August 2021

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a programme called "Helping the Non-Compliant Child Treatment." A total of 45 people started the study, though only 10 completed it — meaning 35 participants did not finish. The trial used parent-reported questionnaires to measure changes in children's difficult behaviours and in how parents manage their own emotions and respond to their children's distress. The reported data shows the following changes from the start of the study to the end. For the main outcome measures, parents' ratings of how intensely their child showed problem behaviours (measured on a scale of 36 to 252) dropped by an average of 45.46 points, and their ratings of how many behaviours they considered a problem (on a scale of 0 to 36) dropped by an average of 9.37 points — in both cases, a lower score means fewer or less intense concerns reported by parents. For the secondary measures, a score tracking how much difficulty parents had managing their own emotions (on a scale of 36 to 180) decreased by an average of 1.11 points. A score measuring parents' supportive responses to their child's distress increased by an average of 0.45 points (where a higher score reflects more supportive responses), while a score measuring less helpful, non-supportive responses decreased by an average of 1.06 points. It is worth noting that because only 10 of the 45 participants completed the trial, these figures are based on a very small group, and the trial's own reporting acknowledges this small sample size. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT03247556 · results posted 2 July 2021

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03247556) looked at a medication called SPN-812 in children and adolescents with ADHD. A total of 296 young people took part — 97 were given a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient), 100 received a 400 mg daily dose of SPN-812, and 99 received a 600 mg daily dose. The trial ran for seven weeks and used several questionnaires to track changes in ADHD symptoms, everyday functioning, and parental stress, as rated by parents and clinicians. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was change in ADHD symptom scores using a standard 18-question rating scale (scored 0–54, where a lower score means fewer symptoms). At the end of the seven weeks, the placebo group's scores had dropped by an average of 13.2 points from where they started, the 400 mg group's scores dropped by 18.3 points, and the 600 mg group's scores dropped by 16.7 points. On a clinician's overall impression scale (rated 1–7, where lower is more improved), the placebo group averaged 2.9, the 400 mg group averaged 2.4, and the 600 mg group averaged 2.6. Looking at who showed a large response (a 50% or greater drop in their symptom score), the reported figures were approximately 33% of the placebo group, 48% of the 400 mg group, and 46% of the 600 mg group. The reported data also shows results from three further questionnaires. A parent-rated behaviour scale showed score changes of −5.6 (placebo), −7.5 (400 mg), and −6.9 (600 mg). A parent-rated everyday functioning scale showed changes of −0.23 (placebo), −0.32 (400 mg), and −0.23 (600 mg). Finally, a parental stress questionnaire showed changes of −16.1 (placebo), −23.3 (400 mg), and −14.5 (600 mg). In all of these scales, a negative number indicates a reduction from the starting point, which the scales define as a better outcome. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT03446885 · results posted 24 June 2021

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03446885) involved 22 adults in total — 12 were assigned to receive Vyvanse first and 10 were assigned to receive a placebo first. This was a crossover design, meaning participants took each treatment for a period and then switched, so both groups were eventually compared on the same measures. The trial was measuring how people performed on three work-related tasks — writing a job application, completing a simulated job interview, and doing a workplace productivity exercise — as well as how inattentive or overactive they appeared during the interview. Two participants in the Vyvanse-first group did not complete the trial; the data was not reported on the reason for this. The reported data shows the following scores across the four main measures. For job application quality (rated 1–5 by independent reviewers), the average score was 3.40 during the placebo period and 3.56 during the Vyvanse period. For the simulated job interview (rated 1–4 by independent reviewers), the average score was 3.17 during the placebo period and 3.33 during the Vyvanse period. For workplace productivity (the percentage of 225 assigned tasks completed correctly), the reported figures were 65.60% during the placebo period and 68.45% during the Vyvanse period. Finally, for the inattentive/overactive behaviour rating during the interview (scored 0–3 per item, averaged across five items), the scores were 2.13 during the placebo period and 2.01 during the Vyvanse period — where a lower score indicates less inattentive or overactive behaviour observed. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT02287038 · results posted 3 April 2019

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02287038) involved 44 adults in total — 23 in one group and 21 in another. It used a "crossover" design, meaning participants took atomoxetine (a medication used for ADHD) for one period and a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) for another period, in different orders. By the end of the trial, 18 people in each group had completed the study. The trial was measuring ADHD symptom levels and quality of life, using two questionnaires filled in by participants themselves. The reported data shows the following for ADHD symptoms, measured using a 26-item questionnaire scored from 0 (no symptoms) to 78 (most severe symptoms), where scores above 65 suggest moderate to severe symptoms. At the start of their respective treatment periods, the atomoxetine group scored an average of 75.12 and the placebo group scored 68.56. After their treatment periods, the atomoxetine group's average score was 67.79, while the placebo group's average score was 72.80. For quality of life, measured on a scale of 0 to 100 where higher numbers mean better quality of life, the reported data shows the atomoxetine group scored an average of 33.61 at baseline and 43.51 after treatment, while the placebo group scored 36.51 at baseline and 37.23 after treatment. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT01733680 · results posted 20 July 2018

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01733680) enrolled just three participants in total — two in the amiloride group and one in the placebo group. It was investigating whether amiloride (a medication more commonly used for fluid retention) might reduce symptoms in adults with ADHD. The trial measured three things: a clinician's overall impression of change (the CGI Improvement scale), an 18-question ADHD symptom rating completed by a clinician (the AISRS), and a 75-question self-report questionnaire about everyday thinking and planning skills (the BRIEF-A). One participant in the placebo group did not complete the study. The reported data shows the following numbers across multiple time points during the study. On the CGI Improvement scale (where 1 means "very much improved" and 7 means "very much worse," with 4 meaning "no change"), the amiloride group consistently scored around 3.5–4 and the placebo group scored around 3–5. On the ADHD symptom questionnaire (scored 0–54, where lower scores suggest fewer symptoms and 24 or above suggests ongoing ADHD), the amiloride group's scores moved from 39 down to around 31–34 across the study period, while the placebo group's scores stayed around 50–54 throughout. On the thinking and planning questionnaire (where scores above 65 suggest difficulties), the amiloride group's scores ranged from roughly 62.5 to 70.5, and the placebo group's scores remained around 92–96. It is important to note that with only three participants, this trial was extremely small, and the reported data on ClinicalTrials.gov does not allow any broad conclusions to be drawn about how amiloride performs in people with ADHD generally. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

  • NCT01986062 · results posted 19 April 2016

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 97 children or young people in total — 47 in one group and 50 in another. It was a crossover study, meaning everyone took both the active treatment (a medication called AR11, an amphetamine sulfate) and a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) for one week each, in a randomised order. The trial was measuring ADHD-related behaviour and attention during structured classroom-style days, using two rating tools: the SKAMP scale (where trained observers rated behaviour and attention) and a maths task (the PERMP) that counted how many problems participants attempted and got right. The reported data shows that on the main measurement — the SKAMP combined score, which runs from 0 (no impairment) to 78 (maximum impairment) — participants scored an average of 10.0 while taking AR11 and 17.8 while taking the placebo. The secondary SKAMP scores, recorded at several different time points across the classroom day, ranged from about 11.6 to 16.5 for the AR11 group and from about 17.3 to 22.0 for the placebo group. On the attention and behaviour subscales (each out of 24), scores were also numerically lower during the AR11 period compared to the placebo period across all time points measured. For the maths task, the reported data shows participants attempted roughly 95–113 problems during the AR11 period compared to roughly 75–91 during the placebo period, and got correct roughly 90–107 versus 71–84 respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT00610441 · results posted 29 August 2014

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at an investigational medicine called MK-8777 in adults with ADHD. A total of 67 people were enrolled across four groups, and the trial used a "crossover" design — meaning participants took either MK-8777 or a dummy pill (placebo) for three weeks, had a two-week break, and then swapped to the other treatment for another three weeks. Two dosing approaches were tested: a fixed dose of 100 mg and a rising dose of 100–300 mg. The main thing being measured was change in ADHD symptom severity, using a clinician-rated checklist called the AISRS, where a score of 0 means no symptoms and 54 means very severe symptoms. The reported data shows that participants on placebo in the fixed-dose arm saw virtually no change in their AISRS score (0.0 points), while those on the 100 mg dose saw an average reduction of about 3.7 to 7.5 points depending on the time point measured. In the rising-dose arm, placebo was associated with an average reduction of around 3.4 to 6.8 points, and the active dose with a reduction of around 3.3 to 4.6 points. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows that 41% of participants on the fixed 100 mg dose had their AISRS score drop by at least 30% from their starting level, compared with 12% on placebo in that arm. Regarding unintended events (adverse events — unexpected or unwanted experiences during the study), 56.4% of placebo participants, 71.4% on the fixed dose, and 85.3% on the rising dose were reported to have experienced at least one. The percentage who stopped taking the study drug because of an adverse event was reported as 3.6% for placebo, 3.6% for the fixed dose, and 20.6% for the rising dose. It is worth noting that not everyone who started the trial completed all stages — for example, in the rising-dose groups, a notable number of participants did not complete the first treatment period. Some secondary outcome figures, including full breakdowns of the global severity scale results, were only partially reported in the submitted data, so a complete picture across all measures is not available here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

  • NCT00758160 · results posted 8 April 2014

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 296 children and young people with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), all of whom received a medication called OROS methylphenidate (a slow-release form of a commonly used ADHD medicine). Of those who started, 230 completed the trial and 66 did not finish. The trial was measuring changes in ADHD-related behaviours as rated by parents using a questionnaire called the SNAP-IV — which scores things like inattentiveness, hyperactivity, and oppositional behaviour — as well as changes in parents' own psychological wellbeing using a questionnaire called the CHQ, and family functioning using a questionnaire called the Family APGAR. The reported data shows that on the SNAP-IV parent questionnaire (where lower scores suggest fewer reported concerns), the average scores across the different parts of the questionnaire changed by small amounts at weeks 2, 4, and 8 — with most of the reported changes being in the range of −0.3 to −0.5 points on subscales scored out of 27, and around +1.3 to +1.7 points noted at week 2 for some subscales (the data as submitted lists multiple measurements per time point but does not clearly label which number corresponds to which subscale). For the CHQ — which measures parents' own psychological wellbeing on a 0–12 scale — the reported average change from the starting point was very small, around −0.1 to 0 points at weeks 4 and 8. For the Family APGAR questionnaire — measuring perceived family support on a 0–10 scale — the reported average scores across the different time points ranged from 6.4 to 6.7, indicating relatively small changes over the course of the trial. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

  • NCT01060150 · results posted 31 July 2013

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 115 young people (adolescents) diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), all of whom received a medication called OROS Methylphenidate HCl. Of these, 113 actually received the medication and 92 completed the study, while 23 did not finish. The trial was measuring ADHD symptom severity, a clinician's overall impression of how unwell participants appeared, learning skills, and attention-related performance — all assessed using standard rating scales and tests. The reported data shows that, at the end of the study, participants scored an average of 11.78 out of 54 on the Korean ADHD Rating Scale (where 0 means no symptoms and 54 means the most severe). On the Clinical Global Impression – Severity scale (rated 1 to 7, where 1 is "not at all ill"), the average reported score was 2.81. On the Clinical Global Impression – Improvement scale (rated 1 to 7, where 1 means "very much improved" and 4 means "no change"), the average score reported was 2.14. For the Learning Skills Test, participants scored an average of 49.61 on a normalised scale where 50 represents the average — this figure was not reported broken down by school level. The reported data also shows results from a computerised attention test (the ADS). Scores on this test range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater attention difficulties; a score above 65 on any factor was considered to suggest attention problems. The reported average scores across the different attention measures ranged from approximately 49.73 to 85.77, though the trial record does not clearly separate which specific scores belong to which time points for all measures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT00700427 · results posted 29 May 2013

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved adults with ADHD and was conducted in several stages. In the first open-label stage, 2,017 people started taking atomoxetine, and around 1,006 completed that phase. Those who responded well moved into a blinded maintenance phase (1,005 participants), and those who continued responding were then randomly assigned to either stay on atomoxetine (266 people) or switch to a placebo — a dummy tablet with no active ingredient (258 people) — without knowing which they were receiving. A final open-label extension involved 180 participants. The main thing the trial was measuring was how many people in that randomised stage continued to meet a pre-set standard for symptom control across two rating scales — one completed by a clinician and one measuring overall illness severity. The reported data shows that in the randomised withdrawal phase, 64.3% of people who continued on atomoxetine maintained a satisfactory response, compared with 50.0% of those who were switched to placebo. For the secondary measures, the data was not reported in a way that allows a clear summary of the "days until relapse" figure — both values were listed as not available. On a quality-of-life scale (scored 0–100, where higher means better), the atomoxetine group showed a small average change of +0.4 points from their starting score, while the placebo group showed a change of −4.0 points. On observer-rated and self-rated symptom scales (where lower scores indicate fewer symptoms), the atomoxetine group generally showed small reductions from their starting scores across measurement points, while the placebo group showed little change or slight increases. On a scale measuring everyday thinking and self-regulation skills, the atomoxetine group showed an average change of −5.7 points (lower meaning less perceived difficulty), compared with +0.9 points in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT00573859 · results posted 7 November 2011

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 27 adult participants who had both ADHD and were smokers. The study used a crossover design, meaning the same participants took part in two phases: one where they took ADHD medication and one where they took a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient). Within each phase, participants were also asked to either smoke as usual or go without smoking overnight before testing. Of the 27 who started, 15 completed both phases and 12 did not finish. The trial was measuring how ADHD medication compared to placebo in relation to smoking levels, attention performance, and nicotine withdrawal symptoms. The reported data shows that saliva cotinine levels — a marker used to estimate how much nicotine a person has taken in — were recorded as 180.7 ng/ml on ADHD medication days and 274.0 ng/ml on placebo days. For the attention test (called a Continuous Performance Task), which measured how often participants missed a target they were supposed to respond to, the reported error counts were 0.40 and 1.08 under one condition, and 1.00 and 2.8 under another, across the different combinations of medication/placebo and smoking/abstinence. For nicotine withdrawal symptoms, measured using a questionnaire where higher scores (out of 200) indicate stronger withdrawal, the reported scores across the four conditions were 92.7, 91.3, 97.0, and 102.0. The data as submitted does not separately label which specific combination of smoking and medication each of these individual numbers corresponds to. It is worth noting that with only 15 people completing the trial, this was a small study, and the reported data represents a limited group of participants. No breakdown by individual subgroup labels was provided in the submitted results for the secondary outcomes. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT00760747 · results posted 1 September 2011

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at two different ways of switching children with ADHD from one medication to another — a "slow switching" approach and a "fast switching" approach. A total of 57 children were in the slow switching group and 55 in the fast switching group at the start of the main study period. The trial measured changes in ADHD symptom scores, as well as ratings of day-to-day difficulties and overall quality of life, over a 10-week period. The reported data shows that the main outcome — a standard ADHD symptom rating scale scored from 0 to 54, where higher numbers mean more severe symptoms — changed by an average of minus 14.3 points in the slow switching group and minus 15.0 points in the fast switching group from the start to week 10. These are adjusted average figures (called "least squares means"), meaning they account for differences between participants. For the secondary measures, the reported data shows small reductions in difficulty ratings given by patients, parents, and investigators on a 1–7 scale, with both groups showing similar changes of roughly 0.4 to 1.3 points. A clinician-rated severity scale also showed a change of minus 1.7 points in both groups. A quality-of-life measure showed varied changes across different areas of life in both groups, with some scores moving in different directions; the full breakdown across all quality-of-life sub-areas was not straightforward to summarise from the reported figures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

  • NCT00586157 · results posted 25 January 2011

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 30 participants in total — 15 in each group. It was a "crossover" study, meaning each participant tried both the active treatment (called MTS, or Drug A) and a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) at different points during the trial, so that results from the same people could be compared across both conditions. The trial was measuring changes in ADHD-related behaviours using rating scales completed by investigators and parents/guardians, where lower scores indicate less severe symptoms. The reported data shows the following numbers for the main (primary) outcome — an investigator-rated ADHD scale scored from 0 (least severe) to 54 (most severe). When participants were in the MTS group, the reported average score across the course of the day was 14.76, compared to 28.33 for the placebo group. For morning ratings specifically, the reported average score was 10.03 for the MTS group and 23.22 for the placebo group. For the secondary outcome — a combined questionnaire completed by the clinician and the child together with their parent or guardian, scored on a scale up to 88 — the reported average score was 12.76 for the MTS group and 31.37 for the placebo group. The reported data does not include details about what "change from baseline" figures these scores represent beyond the values listed above. It is worth noting that the trial was small, with around 29–30 participants completing at least one phase, and these numbers alone do not tell us how meaningful the differences are in a broader sense. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT00190684 · results posted 17 January 2011

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,553 people (with 1,551 receiving at least one dose of the study drug, atomoxetine, a medication used for ADHD). The trial tracked participants over up to five years, and its main focus was on monitoring physical measurements — specifically blood pressure, pulse rate, body weight, height, and temperature — to see how these changed over time. Notably, only 64 participants completed the full study period, while 1,489 did not complete it; the reasons for not completing were not detailed in the data provided here. The reported data shows that, looking at notable changes in physical measurements during the study, 228 participants were recorded as having a high blood pressure reading at some point, 92 had a high pulse rate, 19 had a low pulse rate, 39 had a high temperature reading, 7 had a low temperature reading, 9 had a low pulse reading (as a separate category), and 61 had a decrease in weight of at least 3.5%. For average changes measured from the start of the study to the five-year point, the reported data shows systolic blood pressure increased by 4.7 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure) and diastolic by 1.3 mmHg, while pulse rate decreased by 1.5 beats per minute on average. Average body weight increased by 11.0 kilograms and height by 10.9 centimetres over the same period, which is consistent with normal childhood growth. The reported data also tracked where participants sat on standard growth charts (called percentiles) for weight, height, and BMI (a measure combining height and weight). Changes in these percentile rankings varied depending on where a participant started — those who began in higher percentile groups tended to show decreases in their percentile ranking over time, while those who started in lower percentile groups tended to show increases. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT00406354 · results posted 12 February 2010

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 181 children across three groups: 60 received atomoxetine with a faster dose increase ("fast titration"), 61 received atomoxetine with a slower dose increase ("slow titration"), and 60 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was measuring symptoms of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) — a pattern of challenging, defiant behaviour — as its main focus, and also tracked broader ADHD-related symptoms such as inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. By the end of the treatment period, fewer participants completed the study than started it: 44, 48, and 37 in the fast titration, slow titration, and placebo groups respectively. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — an ODD symptom score rated on a scale of 0 to 24 (where higher numbers mean more severe symptoms) — came out at 8.6 for the fast titration group, 9.0 for the slow titration group, and 12.0 for the placebo group at the end of the study. For the secondary outcomes, the overall ADHD combined symptom score (scale of 0–54) was reported as 22.9, 21.3, and 29.6 for the fast titration, slow titration, and placebo groups respectively. Scores for inattention alone (0–27) were 11.1, 10.0, and 14.1, while hyperactivity/impulsivity scores (0–27) were 11.5, 11.1, and 15.2 across the same three groups. Two parent-rated German-language scales were also used: an ADHD severity scale (0–3) returned scores of 1.2, 1.1, and 1.5, and an oppositional/conduct behaviour scale (0–3) returned scores of 0.8, 0.8, and 1.0 for the fast titration, slow titration, and placebo groups respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT00501293 · results posted 15 January 2010

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved children and adolescents with ADHD and was made up of two back-to-back periods. In the first period (the "optimisation" phase), 110 participants had previously used a methylphenidate skin patch (a type of ADHD medication worn on the skin) and 53 had previously used a placebo (an inactive patch). Almost all participants moved into the second period (the "maintenance" phase), but by the end of that phase, roughly half in each group had not completed the study — 46 out of 109 in the patch group and 28 out of 53 in the placebo group did not finish. The trial was measuring blood pressure as its main outcome, alongside several questionnaire-based scores related to ADHD symptoms, behaviour, and quality of life. The reported data shows that for the primary (main) outcome — systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) — both groups started at around 113 mmHg and ended at around 115–116 mmHg after the maintenance period, with very similar figures between the two groups. For the secondary (additional) outcomes, ADHD symptom scores measured by two different rating tools (one completed by a clinician, one by parents) both showed changes over time in each group, with the reported data suggesting larger score reductions in the antecedent placebo group compared to the antecedent patch group at six months — though what drove this pattern is not explained in the submitted data. On a clinician's global impression scale, 81 participants in the patch group and 39 in the placebo group were recorded as showing improvement; on the parent's global assessment, those figures were 69 and 31 respectively. Quality-of-life scores were similar between groups at both time points, with small increases reported in both. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT00151996 · results posted 26 November 2009

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 75 children in total — 42 who had previously been taking methylphenidate (a common ADHD medication) and 33 who had previously been taking amphetamine-based medication. Both groups then switched to a medication called SPD503 (also known as guanfacine extended-release). The trial ran for 6 weeks and was mainly measuring changes in ADHD symptom scores on a standardised rating scale completed by clinicians, known as the ADHD-RS-IV. By the end of the trial, 37 participants in the methylphenidate group and 26 in the amphetamine group had completed the study. The reported data shows that, on the primary measure — the ADHD-RS-IV symptom score (which runs from 0 to 54, where lower scores mean fewer symptoms) — both groups showed a reduction in scores from their starting point after 6 weeks. The methylphenidate-switcher group showed an average reduction of 17.8 points, and the amphetamine-switcher group showed an average reduction of 13.8 points. On a separate clinician-rated improvement scale, 28 out of 42 participants in the methylphenidate group and 18 out of 33 in the amphetamine group were rated as "very much improved" or "much improved." Parents also rated improvement on a similar 7-point scale, with 32 out of 42 and 21 out of 33 participants respectively rated as improved. A parent-completed behaviour questionnaire (scored 0–81, higher meaning more ADHD-like behaviour) also showed reductions in both groups — 22.18 points and 16.28 points respectively. A child wellbeing questionnaire showed small score changes, though the data as reported contains multiple figures and could not be fully separated for each group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

  • NCT00337285 · results posted 17 July 2009

    According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 349 people who received Vyvanse (lisdexamfetamine) and were followed for up to one year. The trial was measuring changes in ADHD symptoms over time, using established rating scales to track things like attention and behaviour, sleep quality, and an overall clinical impression of how participants were doing. The reported data shows that, on the main measurement — a standard ADHD symptom rating scale scored from 0 (no symptoms) to 54 (most severe) — the average score across participants dropped by 24.8 points from where it started at the beginning of the trial. For one of the secondary measurements, a doctor-rated scale of overall improvement (scored 1 to 7, where 1 means "very much improved"), 290 out of the 349 participants were rated as showing improvement. On the sleep quality measure (scored 0 to 21, where higher means worse sleep), the average score dropped by 1.3 points from the start of the trial. It is worth noting that 158 of the 349 people who started the trial did not complete it, and the reasons for this were not detailed in the reported data. It is important to understand that these numbers describe what was measured and recorded during this particular trial — they do not tell us on their own whether the treatment is suitable, beneficial, or appropriate for any individual person. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

    View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

See the full ADHD page · What changed recently

Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.