Data_Sheet_1_Limited usefulness of neurocognitive functioning indices as predictive markers for treatment response to methylphenidate or neurofeedback.docx (761.72 kB)

Data_Sheet_1_Limited usefulness of neurocognitive functioning indices as predictive markers for treatment response to methylphenidate or neurofeedback@home in children and adolescents with ADHD.docx

dataset

posted on 2024-01-19, 14:15 authored by Anna Kaiser, Pascal M. Aggensteiner, Hilario Blasco Fontecilla, Tomas Ros, Eric Acquaviva, Yohan Attal, Tobias Banaschewski, Sarah Baumeister, Elisa Bousquet, Aurore Bussalb, Marie Delhaye, Richard Delorme, Renate Drechsler, Allison Goujon, Alexander Häge, Louis Mayaud, Konstantin Mechler, Caroline Menache, Olivier Revol, Friederike Tagwerker, Susanne Walitza, Anna Maria Werling, Stéphanie Bioulac, Diane Purper-Ouakil, Daniel Brandeis

Introduction

Earlier studies exploring the value of executive functioning (EF) indices for assessing treatment effectiveness and predicting treatment response in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) mainly focused on pharmacological treatment options and revealed rather heterogeneous results. Envisioning the long-term goal of personalized treatment selection and intervention planning, this study comparing methylphenidate treatment (MPH) and a home-based neurofeedback intervention (NF@Home) aimed to expand previous findings by assessing objective as well as subjectively reported EF indices and by analyzing their value as treatment and predictive markers.

Methods

Children and adolescents (n = 146 in the per protocol sample) aged 7–13 years with a formal diagnosis of an inattentive or combined presentation of ADHD were examined. We explored the EF performance profile using the Conners Continuous Performance Task (CPT) and the BRIEF self-report questionnaire within our prospective, multicenter, randomized, reference drug-controlled NEWROFEED study with sites in five European countries (France, Spain, Switzerland, Germany, and Belgium). As primary outcome for treatment response, the clinician-rated ADHD Rating Scale-IV was used. Patients participating in this non-inferiority trial were randomized to either NF@home (34–40 sessions of TBR or SMR NF depending on the pre-assessed individual alpha peak frequency) or MPH treatment (ratio: 3:2). Within a mixed-effects model framework, analyses of change were calculated to explore the predictive value of neurocognitive indices for ADHD symptom-related treatment response.

Results

For a variety of neurocognitive indices, we found a significant pre-post change during treatment, mainly in the MPH group. However, the results of the current study reveal a rather limited prognostic value of neurocognitive indices for treatment response to either NF@Home or MPH treatment. Some significant effects emerged for parent-ratings only.

Discussion

Current findings indicate a potential value of self-report (BRIEF global score) and some objectively measured neurocognitive indices (CPT commission errors and hit reaction time variability) as treatment markers (of change) for MPH. However, we found a rather limited prognostic value with regard to predicting treatment response not (yet) allowing recommendation for clinical use. Baseline symptom severity was revealed as the most relevant predictor, replicating robust findings from previous studies.