The trial design is a parallel arm, randomised placebo-controlled trial, of an extended
release formulation of MPH (OROS-MPH, Concerta XL) on ADHD symptoms, behaviour and
functional outcomes in young male prisoners aged 16-25, meeting DSM-5 criteria for
ADHD. Participants will be randomised to 8-weeks treatment with either OROS-MPH or
placebo, titrated over 5 weeks to balance ADHD symptom improvement against side effects.
200 participants will be recruited with 1:1 ratio of drug to placebo. The duration
of each participant’s follow-up is 8 weeks from the start date of the trial medication.
Figure 1 illustrates the prisoner’s journey through the trial as the CONSORT diagram,
which will be completed following database lock for the trial. Figure 2 is a summary
of all trial procedures and assessments.
The primary objective is to establish the efficacy of OROS-MPH in reducing ADHD symptoms
(inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity) in young male offenders aged 16-25 who
meet diagnostic criteria for DSM-5 ADHD.
Secondary objectives include evaluating: reductions in emotional dysregulation; the
number of adjudications for antisocial behaviour and rule breaking in the previous
8-weeks; ratings of aggressive and/or disruptive behaviour by prison officers and
education staff; attitudes towards violence; and self-report of well-being.
Additionally, we intend to investigate the hypothesis that improvements in secondary
behavioural outcomes are mediated by improvements in ADHD symptoms or emotional dysregulation.
Participants are recruited from two prisons. First HMYOI Isis in London (England,
UK), a prison for sentenced young adults and category C offenders, defined as those
that cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape. Secondly,
HMYOI Polmont in Falkirk (Scotland, UK), a holding facility for young offenders aged
16-21, with sentences ranging from 6-months to life. All participants were sentenced
prisoners when screened for entry into the trial.
Inclusion Criteria: Male, aged between 16 and 25 years (at consent for screening); English speaking (defined
as sufficient to complete study assessments); able to provide informed consent (understand
the information sheet and make an informed decision taking into account pros and cons
of study participation); and meeting clinical diagnostic criteria for DSM-5 ADHD.
The diagnostic criteria are defined as 5 or more symptoms of ADHD in either the inattentive
or hyperactive-impulsive symptom domains, and 6 or more symptoms of ADHD in either
the inattentive or hyperactive-impulsive symptom domains before the age of 12 years.
Where it is not possible to gain enough clinical information to score childhood symptoms
of ADHD, the operational criteria applied have been adapted to include evidence of
several ADHD symptoms with impairment starting before the age of 12 years, and 5 or
more symptoms currently with moderate to severe impairment. In addition, persistent
trait like (non-episodic) course of symptoms; impairments in two or more clinical
or psychosocial domains and two or more settings from symptoms of ADHD; and onset
of symptoms before the age of 12 years.
Exclusion Criteria: Lack capacity to give informed consent; moderate or severe learning disability, defined
as IQ<60; serious risk of violence to the researcher; current major depression, psychosis,
mania or hypomania; and past history of bipolar disorder or schizophrenia (exclude
those with clear history of episodic mania/hypomania or psychosis unrelated to acute
drug intoxication, but do not exclude on the basis of chronic emotional dysregulation
i.e. irritability, frustration, anger or emotional-mood instability). Subjects are
also excluded if they have medical contraindications to the use of stimulants (e.g.
glaucoma, hypertension, cardiovascular disease or a structural heart problem); are
taking contraindicated medications during the 4 weeks prior to randomisation, show
drug seeking behaviour or craving (defined as drug seeking behaviour that is unusually
severe and likely to affect the titration protocol due to unusual and excessive demands
for drugs; or where there is a current withdrawal syndrome from an addiction disorder
with drug dependency); receiving any ADHD medication between consent for screening
and randomisation.
OROS-MPH (Concert XL) is supplied as 18 mg capsules and placebo to match. Capsules
are over-encapsulated and packaged in bottles of 46. Each bottle is assigned a unique
randomisation number and the randomisation system allocates the right bottle to each
patient. Over-encapsulation has been successfully adopted in previous studies to generate
matched placebo to OROS-MPH. Piramal Healthcare UK Ltd. supply the investigational
medicinal Product (IMP), placebo to match manufacture, clinical trials packaging,
QP Certification and distribution for 200 patients. The Sponsor arranged the supply
of Concerta 18mg tablets from the Marketing Authorisation holder, Janssen. Janssen
provide the summary of product characteristics (SmPC), updated throughout the duration
of the study.
The over-encapsulated active tablets are re-packed in HDPE bottles and take over the
remaining shelf life of the study without the need for a stability program, as Concerta
18mg has a marketing authorisation for both HDPE and blister packaging. Placebo tablets
are manufactured once. Trial medication over-encapsulation and packaging is undertaken
in 2 campaigns in order to accommodate a trial duration of up to 3.5 years. Concerta
18mg tablets typically has a maximum shelf-life of 3 years from the date of manufacture,
however, by the time the product is repacked for the clinical trial, the remaining
shelf life is likely to be under 2.5 years.
Over-encapsulation uses ‘DBcaps’ capsules which are designed specifically for the
blinding of clinical trial medications. We have to over-encapsulate Concerta and placebo
capsules with lactose capsules, rather than make a matching placebo capsule, because
Concerta capsules have printing on them and are of a distinct shape that would be
difficult to manufacture and might infringe copyright. We sought advice on this from
previous investigators using OROS-MPH and from companies who provide drug and placebo
supplies for studies. Studies on the use of DBcaps have shown that over-encapsulation
of capsules results in a lag time of 2–3 min in disintegration compared with the unencapsulated
capsules. The pharmacokinetic properties of Concerta XL 18mg prolonged release capsules
indicate release over several hours: following oral administration of Concerta XL
to adults the drug overcoat dissolves, providing an initial maximum drug concentration
at about 1 to 2 hours. The methylphenidate contained in the two internal drug layers
is gradually released over the next several hours. Peak plasma concentrations are
achieved at about 6 to 8 hours, after which plasma levels of methylphenidate gradually
decrease.” (Section 5.2 of the SPC: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/8382).
Prescribing and titration procedures
Trial medication is delivered as prescribed daily, with participants observed to ensure
they swallow the capsules. There is a daily record of compliance with the trial prescription.
Both active medication and placebo are titrated in the same way. Treatment starts
at an initial dose of 18 mg (1 tablet) for 1 week; and is then increased weekly over
the following 4 weeks, in increments of 18 mg, to a maximum of 72 mg (4 tablets).
Medication is reduced by 18 mg (1 tablet) if there is a limiting adverse event, in
which case there will be no further increase in medication for the duration of the
trial. Medication may be provided either once or twice daily up to the maximum daily
dose. Titration upwards will be stopped if all 18 ADHD symptoms are scored as negligible
(score of 0 or 1 on the CAARS) or absent. Unacceptable levels of adverse effects on
the lowest dose of 18mg might lead to a cessation of treatment in a few cases.
A maximum dose of 72 mg was included for this trial because previous clinical trials
indicated that a proportion of adults respond better at higher doses without unacceptable
levels of adverse events; and because current licensing for Concerta XL up to 54 mg
is based on dose levels for children and adolescents, rather than adults. NICE recommend
a daily dose of MPH in adults to a maximum of 100 mg per day [7] and for Concerta
XL the British National Formulary (No 62, September 2011) recommends doses up to a
maximum of 108 mg in adults.
Strategies to improve adherence
We envisaged that adherence with allocated medication will present a challenge for
around 20% of participants. Some offenders may not feel motivated to take the trial
medication if they experience adverse effects or do not feel they are improving. They
may also take medication intermittently because of the strict prison regime that allows
for only a short time-window for leaving their cells to obtain medication from the
medicine hatch on the prison wings. These cases are not expected to contribute to
missing data. In our pilot study we accrued considerable experience in managing the
expectations of offenders and providing the support needed to help participants adhere
to the trial protocol. The following steps will be adopted to maximise adherence to
medication:
In the pilot, minor adverse effects (13%) were the most common reason for non-adherence
to medication. This was linked to the observation that this population may be more
sensitive to minor adverse effects, particularly changes in appetite, than community
samples; perhaps reflecting the importance of meal times to prisoners. To maximise
adherence to the protocol and minimise this as a potential source of missing data,
we will take care to identify the early signs of minor adverse effects such as appetite
loss and adjust the medication dose accordingly.
Seven percent of the pilot sample did not wish to take medication in the mornings
(08:00), which was the initial protocol followed in the pilot study. We then adjusted
the protocol to allow for 12:00 medication for those that got up later in the day,
worked mainly in the afternoons or had a strong preference for a 12:00 dosing, which
resolved the problem. This flexibility in dosing time more accurately reflects dosing
decisions in the community and provides a better match to patient’s daily routines.
During the pilot study, prison staff did not always let patients out of their cells
to receive medication or remind participants to get up on time. To resolve this problem,
we initiated the use of research staff whenever possible, to assist in the delivery
of medication by checking that prisoners were always out of their cells on time to
receive trial medication.
In the pilot study, treatment was disrupted for the Ramadan festival for several participants.
We will take care to check that participants are not started on trial medication where
religious customs might interfere with adherence to the trial protocol.
In the pilot study, daily adherence to the trial medication reduced when participants
were not reviewed weekly. One of the findings in the pilot study was the importance
that prisoners gave to the weekly follow-up meetings when they can discuss their ADHD
and response to the treatment process, in addition to completing study assessments.
We will therefore offer weekly meetings with offenders throughout the 8-week trial.
Nurse support in addition to a research assistant and medical staff will ensure that
offenders are given the support they need to adhere to the protocol.
Concomitant treatments are allowed with medications that are not contraindicated with
MPH. All concomitant medications are recorded in the study database. Use of the following
medications in the
4-weeks prior to the start of treatment with Concerta XL will lead to exclusion from
the clinical trial, based on potential adverse drug interactions: clonidine, coumarins,
monoamine oxidase inhibitors, moclobemide, and rasagline.
Baseline and outcome measures
The schedule of baseline and outcome measures, as well as the procedures for the trial,
are listed in Figure 2. Baseline only measures are collected on all participants prior
to randomisation and include descriptors of the study population and baseline moderators
for further analysis as predictors of the treatment response. Primary and secondary
outcome measures are collected at baseline prior to randomisation, and 8 weeks after
the initial trial prescription. The primary outcome is the investigator rated Connors
Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS-O) at the 8-week outcome. The other 5-week and 8-week
measures are secondary outcomes or mediator variables. All outcome measures are listed in Table 1 along with their definitions.
Investigator rated measures
DIVA v2: Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV ADHD [23]. DIVA 2.0. is semi-structured interview
assessment used to capture the diagnostic symptoms and criteria for DSM-IV ADHD. The
diagnostic algorithm applied to these data was modified for DSM-5 criteria.
MINI 7.0.1: Diagnostic interview for comorbid mental health disorders [24]. MINI 7.0.1
is a semi-structured interview assessment used to capture DSM-IV diagnostic criteria
for common mental health disorders. Sections completed included major depressive episode,
suicidality, manic episode, hypomanic episode, panic disorder, agoraphobia, social
anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychotic
disorder and mood disorder with psychotic features, generalised anxiety disorder,
and antisocial personality disorder. In addition to diagnostic categories evaluated
at baseline only, we collected cross-disorder symptom checklist scores at baseline
and the 8-week assessments.
ZAN-BD: ZAN Borderline personality disorder [25]. A validated scale for the assessment
of borderline personality disorder, used as a baseline moderator variable.
CAARS-O: Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale for ADHD symptoms [26]. The 8-week CAARS-O
assessment is the is the primary outcome measure for this study. CAARS-O was also
used as a secondary outcome at week 5, and to assist the psychiatrist in titrating
participants onto the optimal trial medication dose. CAARS-O consists of the 18 DSM-IV
ADHD symptoms, rated on a 4-point likert scale (0: not at all, never; 1: just a little,
once in a while; 2: pretty much often; 3: very much, frequently). This scale and other
closely similar scales have been extensively validated as outcome measures in previous
clinical trials of adult ADHD.
WRAADS: Emotional Dysregulation from the Wender-Reimherr Adult ADHD Diagnostic Scale
[27]. We applied the emotional dysregulation items from an interview assessment of
the WRAADS-ED, following previous publications on the treatment response of emotional
symptoms in ADHD [20, 28].
AES: Adverse events scale [29]. Scale of common adverse effects associated with stimulant
medications for ADHD used with permission from the CADDRA website.
CGI: Clinical Global Impression scale [30]. Scale used by the research psychiatrist
to give an overall rating of clinical severity, and clinical impression of the clinical
response and adverse effects of the trial medication.
Participant self-rating scales
Self-rating scales given to the participants for self-completion. The scale questions
were usually read out to participants who gave their response accordingly.
RPAQ: The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire [31]. This scale is included
as a baseline moderator capturing proactive and reactive forms of aggression.
Weiss-CD: Weiss conduct disorder scale. This scale was included to capture conduct
disorder symptoms as a baseline moderator.
AUDIT-C and NIDA: Alcohol and substance abuse checklist using the AUDIT-C and NIDA
quick screen to capture drug and alcohol use in year prior to the current prison sentence.
The NIDA quick screen was adapted from the single-question screen for drug use in
primary care by Saitz and colleagues [32]. Audit-C is validated as a quick screen
for alcohol use [33].
CTQ: Childhood trauma questionnaire [34], included as a potential moderator of the
clinical response to MPH.
B-ADHD: Barkley ADHD self-rating scale for DSM-IV ADHD symptoms [35] used as an initial
screening instrument. Participants were considered to screen positive for ADHD if
they had 4 or more symptoms scoring 2 or more in either the inattentive or hyperactive/impulsive
symptom domain.
ARI-S: The Affective Reactivity Index. [36]. A self-rating scale for irritability.
MEWS: Mind Excessively Wandering Scale [37]. A self-rating scale that capture excessive
spontaneous mind wandering, an aspect of psychopathology that is closely associated
with ADHD and a strong predictor of ADHD associated impairment in daily life.
BSI: Brief symptom inventory [38] is a self-rating scale that captures comorbid symptoms.
Subscales include 9 symptom dimensions: somatisation, obsession‐compulsion, interpersonal
sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and
psychoticism.
MVQ: Maudsley Violence Questionnaire [39]. This scale was designed to capture beliefs
associated with violence. The Machismo subscale relates to embarrassment over backing
down and justification of violence in response to threat and attack; the Acceptance
subscale includes the overt enjoyment and acceptance of violence in everyday life.
In previous research the Machismo subscale showed the greater relationship to actual
violence [39], and the greater reduction in our pilot study for this trial [14].
CORE-M: CORE Outcome Measure [40]. This scale captures subjective well-being, problems
and symptoms, life functioning, and risk and harm; designed to measure psychological
distress before and after treatment.
Data from prison records and prison staff
Data will be collected from prison records and prison nursing and educational staff,
relating to behaviour in the 8-weeks before the collection of the baseline measures.
For cases of individuals new to custody presenting with significant behavioural problems,
the retrospective baseline reporting period will be for a period of one month or more,
to allow for initial behavioural problems that may arise when people first enter prison.
Number of adjudications for antisocial behaviour and rule breaking (HMP Isis and HMP/YOI
Polmont); and negative Incentive and Earned Privileges (IEPs) (HMP ISIS only)
MOASP: Ratings of aggressive behaviour by prison staff using the Modified Overt Aggression
Scale [41].
BRCP: Ratings of behaviour by prison staff using behaviour report cards [42] by prison
officers.
MOASE: Ratings of aggressive behaviour by education staff using the MOAS. This item
is optional, depending on whether prisoners are attending education sessions or not.
BRCE: Classroom behaviour report card scored by education staff (HMP ISIS and HMP/YOI
ISIS). This item is optional, depending on whether prisoners are attending education
sessions or not.
IEPs: Number of positive Incentives and Earned Privileges for positive engagement
in education, occupational and rehabilitation programs (HMP ISIS only)
Baseline measures: The following measures are recorded at baseline. CAARS-O; WRAADS (3 subscores: temper,
affective lability, emotional over-reactivity), weight, pulse, blood pressure, Weiss-CD,
IQ (WASI), DIVA score and ADHD diagnosis, ZAN-BPD score, drug use in lifetime and
alcohol use in the past year, RPAQ (2 subscales: reactive, proactive), MEWS, CTQ,
MVQ, CORE-M, CGI, ARI-S, concomitant medications, BSI, MINI v7.0.1, and Adverse Events
Scale.
Primary outcome measure: The primary endpoint is the level of ADHD symptoms measured on the investigator rated
CAARS-O at 8 weeks post treatment initiation to address the question of efficacy of
OROS-MPH on ADHD symptoms in young offenders meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for
ADHD. Investigator rated CAARS-O scores is a common outcome measure used in previous
treatment trials of ADHD in the community; and measures the same list of 18 symptoms
used as the primary outcome in nearly all other studies of Adult ADHD.
Secondary outcome measures: Secondary outcomes address important questions about the effects on comorbid symptoms
and behavioural impairments that are commonly seen in offenders with ADHD. These are:
critical incidents (adjudications) from prison records for the 8-week period (in two
4-week periods) from initiation of the trial medication to the 8- week assessments;
ratings of aggressive behaviour by prison staff using the MOASP at 8 weeks; BRCP behaviour
report cards from prison staff at 8 weeks; engagement with educational activities (including number of scheduled educational
sessions, proportion of scheduled educational sessions attended, and reports of disruptive behaviour in education session reported at 8 weeks using
the BRCE and MOASE completed by education staff only for those people involved in
education); attitudes towards violence using the MVQ at 8 weeks, CORE-M at 8 weeks;
general psychopathology using the BSI at 8 weeks; excessive mind wandering measured
using the MEWS at 8 weeks; symptoms of emotional dysregulation measured using the
WRAADS at 8 weeks; symptoms of emotional dysregulation measured using ARI at 8 weeks;
overall health measured using CGI at 8 weeks.
Mediator measures: To address the secondary mediation hypotheses the following putative mediators are
recorded at 5 weeks and at baseline: CAARS-O hyperactive/impulsivity and inattention
sub-scores; WRAADS for emotional dysregulation. These measures are hypothesized to
mediate treatment response in terms of secondary behavioural outcomes (critical incidents
and prison staff classroom report cards). Critical incidents are taken from the prison
records at 8 weeks and are recorded over the previous 4 weeks. The prison staff classroom
report cards are recorded at 8 weeks and records behaviour over the preceding week.
A flow chart of participant visits is illustrated in Figure 3.
Consent: There are two stages of consent. Initial consent 1 (screening and diagnostic step)
allows for the use of screening questionnaires for ADHD, followed by a diagnostic
assessment using the Diagnostic Interview for Adult ADHD (DIVA) interview for adult
ADHD and review by a trained psychiatrist. During these pre-trial steps, patients
who fail eligibility criteria will not be invited to continue and will not be asked
to provide consent 2, to participate further in the trial (clinical trial step). The
eligibility criterion which they are identified as failing will be noted. Individuals
that do meet the diagnostic and eligibility criteria are invited to take part in the
clinical trial, at which stage informed consent is requested to take part in the randomised
controlled trial. Consent 2 is taken by the trial psychiatrists.
Patients complete baseline measures after informed consent to take part in the trial
is agreed (consent 2). Once baseline assessments are complete, and eligibility checks
completed and documented, the individuals will be randomised to one of the treatment
arms.
Research visits: Following consent 1 for screening, and confirmation of the diagnosis of ADHD and eligibility
by a psychiatrist trained in the assessment of ADHD, information sheets and consent
forms for the controlled trial (consent 2) will be provided and discussed with potential
participants (visit 1). Information sheets will be reviewed, and informed consent
obtained for the clinical trial (visit 2). There is no limit on the time taken between
visits 1 and 2 within the timeframe of the project. Potential participants will be
encouraged to take as much time as they need to reach a fully informed decision about
participation in the trial. Baseline data will be collected from participants, prison
records and members of staff (visit 3). Once baseline data has been collected, and
eligibility confirmed following medical review by a psychiatrist, participants will
be randomised to treatment with placebo or OROS-MPH (visit 4). Trial prescriptions
will be completed and given to the pharmacy. Medication should start within 1-week
of Visit 4 (i.e. randomisation).
One week after the start of trial medication, the participants are reviewed, and trial
medication titrated according to their clinical response and adverse effect profile
(visit 5, week 1 titration). Symptoms of ADHD are measured using the CAARS-O, adverse
events checked using the Adverse Events Scale, and blood pressure and pulse checked.
This titration procedure is repeated at weeks 2 to 4 (visits 6-8). Five weeks after
the start of medication (visit 9, week 5 assessment) the prescription (the titrated
dose) is confirmed and maintained for the rest of the trial. At the week-5 assessment,
outcome measures are completed by a research investigator for the CAARS-O, WRAADS
and MEWS; and pulse, blood pressure, weight and adverse events scale. The final visit
10 is completed three weeks later after 8 weeks from the first prescription of the
trial medication. At this visit all outcome measures are completed. As far as possible
the information on clinical response derived during the titration visits (weeks 1-4)
are not shared with other members of the research team; particularly with the investigator
completing the week 5 and 8 outcome measures. Thus, potential unblindings based on
the observed clinical response and adverse events will be minimised.
The total sample size to be randomised is 200.
The primary outcome is ADHD symptoms, measured using CAARS-O. The results of a single
arm open label pilot study of young prisoners with ADHD who were given MPH showed
a mean decrease of 25.0 points with a standard deviation of 9.1 [14]. This suggested
a standardised effect size of SMD=2.75. It could reasonably be assumed that at least
20% of this effect might be attributed to the effects of MPH. On this basis, this
study is powered to detect a standardised effect size of d=0.55. Assuming a standard
deviation of 9.1, this would translate into a treatment difference of 5.0 points.
This effect size is consistent with the results of a recent meta-regression analysis
(29), which estimated the effect of treatment to be SMD=0.49 (95% CI 0.08, 0.64).
The sample size calculation used G*Power version 3 and was based on the use of a t-test
to compare the means of the treatment groups. In order to have 90% power at the 5%
significance level to detect a standardised effect of SMD=0.55, this study would need
to collect outcome data on 142 participants. Inflating for the expectation that loss
to follow-up may be as high as 25%, a minimum of 190 participants should be recruited,
with the target for the study set at 200.
25% loss is expected to be easily achievable since in the pilot 10% left the prison
due to unexpected transfers from the prison and problems with adherence to trial medication
was rarely followed by problems completing trial assessments.
Participants will be recruited from HMYOI Isis (London) and HMYOI Polmont (Falkirk).
Following consent to be screened for ADHD (consent 1), screening questionnaire data
will be collected by the prison mental health teams using a DSM-IV ADHD symptom rating
scale (25). Patients who screen positive will be invited to complete the Diagnostic
Interview for Adult ADHD (DIVA) [27]. This will be followed by a clinical review by
a psychiatrist trained in the diagnostic assessment of ADHD, including collateral
information obtained from an informant whenever feasible. Following clinical review
patients who meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD and meet the other eligibility criteria
for the trial, will be invited to take part in the clinical trial.
Eligibility for the study will be further checked and recorded once the consent form
(consent 2) has been signed and baseline assessments have been completed, prior to
randomisation. Using an algorithm that applies the DSM-5 criteria to the DIVA interview
data, cases will be checked to ensure they meet diagnostic criteria for DSM-5 ADHD.
A clinical review by a psychiatrist trained in the diagnostic assessment of ADHD,
will review all inclusion and exclusion criteria. The exclusion criteria of IQ less
than 60 will be based on the 95% confidence interval for the IQ estimate from the
WASI-II including IQ of 60, in combination with a clinical assessment by the psychiatrist
to confirm that the participant has the ability to understand the rating scale and
interview assessment questions, understand the information sheet and the study procedures
and risks, and the ability to provide sufficiently detailed accounts of ADHD symptoms
and behaviours, consistent with an IQ score greater than 60. Since there are no validated
IQ tests for the visually impaired, including WASI-II, this criterion will be based
on clinical judgement alone for participants with this impairment. This will also
be the procedure for anyone unable to complete the WASI-II assessment due to severity
of their ADHD symptoms or other mental health problems.
Participants have the right to withdraw from the study at any time for any reason,
and healthcare staff have the right to withdraw patients from the trial if they consider
the trial is having an adverse effect on the participants. However, where participants
discontinue taking trial medication, we will invite them to remain in the study to
complete trial assessments, thereby minimising loss of data. Should a participant
decide to withdraw from the study, all efforts will be made to report the reason for
withdrawal as thoroughly as possible.
Due to potential concerns about the interaction of trial medication with unknown psychoactive
substances, if a participant discloses to any member of the research team that they
have used “spice” i.e. synthetic cannabis or other unknown psychoactive substance,
while participating in the study, a clinical evaluation will be made. If it is current
use (defined as within the last two days) the study medication will be stopped. If
it happened earlier in the study and this is considered an isolated incident the trial
medication can continue. If the trial medication is stopped, the participant will
remain in the study and will be asked to complete trial assessments. A clinical assessment
will be made on a case by case basis as to the safety of restarting the trial medication
after 48 hours from the time of stopping the trial medication.
Randomisation and allocation concealment
Randomisation to OROS-MPH or placebo will be at a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation is at
the participant level and is performed using the King's Clinical Trials Unit’s (CTU)
independent Randomisation Service, ensuring reliability and credibility in the randomisation
process, with blinding of both investigators and participants. Randomisation is stratified
by prison with variable block sizes to ensure that equal numbers of patients are allocated
to the two arms within each prison stratum. Patient characteristics will not be considered
in the randomisation process. However, we expect the drug treatment and placebo trial
arms to be balanced in terms of cognitive ability, ADHD symptom severity and co-occurring
psychosocial and mental health problems.
Prescriptions are completed by the trial psychiatrist. Each patient is allocated a
kit (labelled carton) containing four labelled bottles, each containing 46 active
or placebo tablets. Each kit and its bottles will be labelled according to Annex 13
guidelines and have its own randomisation/treatment pack number. The centralised randomisation
system will allocate the correct treatment pack/kit to each patient during the trial.
Blinding is maintained for all study investigators including the on-site researchers,
pharmacy, statistical and data management teams. Investigators will be unblinded after
the primary analysis is complete. The primary analysis dataset will not include any
trial medication dosage data to ensure that the statistician remains blinded. We do
however propose a sensitivity analysis to assess efficacy for those complying with
tablets offered. This analysis will exclude those participants who took no trial medication
on less than 75% of the days on which it was prescribed. Additionally, persons who
withdraw from treatment or the trial or are released, transferred or deported will
be excluded. We will not consider what proportion of the prescribed medication was
taken on any given day.
We intend to use linear mixed modelling, which assumes that only variables included
in the model predict missingness. We will assess empirically whether this particular
missing at random (MAR) assumption is reasonable, using an independent statistician
to maintain blinding if necessary. If the assumption is not reasonable, multiple imputation
will be used instead to accommodate the missing data generating process and the statistician
might need to become unblinded at this point, but investigators will remain blind
until the primary analysis is complete. The Investigator must report all code breaks
(with reason) as they occur on the case report form.
Emergency unblinding will follow the standard operating procedures for the Kings Health
Partners Clinical Trials Office. In circumstances where unblinding is deemed necessary,
the first port of call will always be the local investigating team. Whenever possible
the decision to unblind will be made the chief investigator, the principal investigator
or clinically qualified staff working on the project. Out of hours, if clinically
qualified members of the research team are not available, then the 24-hour emergency
system will be used (ESMS). The ESMS system consists of a call centre which is manned
around the clock by Information Scientists who have a minimum qualification of a life
science degree to include toxicology or pharmacology. These Information Scientists
are always available and are the direct line of communication to the number on the
patient card. The Information Scientists will be trained in the specific details of
this study and have direct access to one of the ESMS Consultant Physicians should
clinical advice be required. Our Consultant Physicians practice general and internal
medicine and specialise in clinical pharmacology and toxicology, ensuring clinical
advice is available night and day. To maintain the overall quality and legitimacy
of the clinical trial, code breaks will occur only in exceptional circumstances when
knowledge of the actual treatment is absolutely essential for further management of
the patient. The Investigator will always maintain the blind as far as possible.
A detailed statistical analysis plan has been developed by the trial statisticians
in collaboration with the chief investigator and approved by the Trial Steering Committee.
Analyses will be carried out by the trial statistician (RH) and checked by the senior
statistician co-investigator (SL).
In the first instance data will be analysed under intention-to-treat assumptions,
that is, participants will be analysed in the groups to which they were randomised
irrespective of treatment received. Efficacy will be assessed by comparing primary
and secondary outcomes between OROS-MPH and Placebo arms.
The repeatedly measured continuous primary outcome (see Table 1) will be analysed
using linear mixed models. For the primary outcome, where the primary outcome of interest
is at 8 weeks, the model will contain outcomes from the last three (4, 5 and 8 weeks)
post-randomisation time points as the dependent variables. Similar models evaluating
the primary outcome of interest at 8 weeks for the secondary continuous outcome measures
will be run, including all available outcome data (either week 5 and 8 data, or week
8 data alone).
The trial arm, time dummy variables and interaction terms will be included as explanatory
variables. Models will condition on baseline values of the outcome and the randomisation
stratifier (prison). Random effects that vary at the participant level will be used
to model the covariance structure between the repeated measures.
The secondary count outcomes at 8 weeks (e.g. number of critical incidents) will be
compared between treatment arms using Poisson regressions to estimate incidence rate
ratios (after conditioning on baseline counts and randomisation stratifiers). Logistic
regression will be carried out for scheduled educational sessions attended. Parameters
will be estimated using maximum likelihood.
Inferences will remain valid in the presence of missing data provided that the missing
data generating mechanism is missing at random (MAR). More specifically this particularMAR
assumptions stipulates that only variables included in the analysis model drive missingness.
While we model several timepoints simultaneously, inferences will be made only at
the timepoint of interest (8 weeks). Using linear mixed models means that we can allow
variables measured and included in the model (e.g. previously observed values of the
outcome including baseline values, trial arm, stratifier and post-treatment time point)
to predict attrition and allows us to make use of all available data. We will also
check empirically whether withdrawal from allocated treatments is predictive of missingness
at 8 weeks. And if we found that such post-randomisation variables drive missingness
we will consider using multiple imputation to accommodate such a MAR process. Mediation
analysis using structural equation modelling will be used to partition the total treatment
effect into mediated and non-mediated components.