SKAMP scale measured the manifestations of ADHD using an independent observer rating of the participant's impairment in classroom observed behaviors. The SKAMP subscales were obtained by summing the individual items as follows: Attention (items 1-4) and Deportment (items 5-8), where each item was rated on a 7-point scale (0=normal to 6=maximal impairment). SKAMP attention subscale was reported which evaluates concentration in the classroom and comprises of 4 items, with a total possible score for of 0 to 24; higher score indicates worst impairment. SKAMP deportment subscale was reported which assesses behavior in the classroom and comprises of 4 items, with a total possible score for each sub-scale of 0 to 24; higher score indicates worst impairment.

The PERMP score measured the manifestations of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The PERMP is a 10-minute written test, on 80 math problems, performed as seatwork in the classroom. At the end of the 10- minute math test , the PERMP score of the number of math problems attempted plus the number of math problems answered correctly in a 10-minute session was used to measure participant's performance. The total score range from 0-160 with higher scores indicating better performance.

The CGI-I measured the participant's disease improvement relative to baseline as followed: 1= very much improved, 2=much improved, 3=minimally improved, 4=no change, 5=minimally worse, 6= much worse, and 7=very much worse. This outcome measure was analyzed during open label phase in entire study population prior to randomization into two treatment groups.

CPRS was used to measure features associated with ADHD and was used to compare scores during the dose optimization period i.e. 1-6 weeks. The assessment was performed by parent or guardian. CPRS consisted of 27 questions graded on a scale from 0 (not true at all) to 3 (very much true). Raw scores were converted to t-scores and t-scores have a mean of 50 ± 10 where higher scores are indicative of greater problems. The participant received normalized t-scores on the following scales: oppositional, cognitive problems/inattention, hyperactivity, anxious-shy, perfectionism, social problems, psychosomatic, ADHD index, restless-impulse, emotional liability, conner's global index, inattentive, hyperactive-impulsive and diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders IV (DSM-IV). This outcome measure was analyzed during open label phase in entire study population prior to randomization into two treatment groups.

Total of all reporting groups

Onset and duration of clinical effect was determined using SKAMP combined rating scale at each post-dose time point. Onset of effect was defined as first assessment time showing statistical significance (i.e. p was less than or equal to [=<] 0.05) between NWP09 and placebo and duration of effect was defined as the as last consecutive time-point at which difference was statistically significant between NWP09 and placebo. SKAMP scale measured the manifestations of ADHD using an independent observer rating of the participant's impairment in classroom observed behaviors. SKAMP combined score was comprised of 13 items [subscales: attention (1-4 items), deportment (5-8 items), quality of work (9-11 items) and compliance (12-13 items)]. SKAMP combined score was obtained by summing up each item score where each item was rated on a 7-point impairment scale (0=normal to 6=maximal impairment) for total possible combined score of 0 to 78; where higher score signified worst impairment.

ITT population included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of double-blind study medication (either NWP09 or matching placebo) and had at least 1 post-baseline assessment of the primary efficacy variable.

SKAMP scale measured the manifestations of ADHD using an independent observer rating of the participant's impairment in classroom observed behaviors. The SKAMP subscales were obtained by summing the individual items as follows: Attention (items 1-4) and Deportment (items 5-8), where each item was rated on a 7-point scale (0=normal to 6=maximal impairment). SKAMP attention subscale was reported which evaluates concentration in the classroom and comprises of 4 items, with a total possible score for of 0 to 24; higher score indicates worst impairment. SKAMP deportment subscale was reported which assesses behavior in the classroom and comprises of 4 items, with a total possible score for each sub-scale of 0 to 24; higher score indicates worst impairment.

ITT population included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of double-blind study medication (either NWP09 or matching placebo) and had at least 1 post-baseline assessment of the primary efficacy variable.

The PERMP score measured the manifestations of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The PERMP is a 10-minute written test, on 80 math problems, performed as seatwork in the classroom. At the end of the 10- minute math test , the PERMP score of the number of math problems attempted plus the number of math problems answered correctly in a 10-minute session was used to measure participant's performance. The total score range from 0-160 with higher scores indicating better performance.

ITT population included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of double-blind study medication (either NWP09 or matching placebo) and had at least 1 post-baseline assessment of the primary efficacy variable.

CGI-S scale was used to measure features associated with ADHD. The assessment was performed by the investigator of the study research team. The CGI-S classified the participant's current disease status as: 1 = normal, not at all ill, 2 = borderline ill, 3 = mildly ill, 4 = moderately ill, 5 = markedly ill, 6 = severely ill, and 7 = among the most extremely ill participants. This outcome measure was analyzed during open label phase in entire study population prior to randomization into two treatment groups.

ITT population included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of double-blind study medication (either NWP09 or matching placebo) and had at least 1 post-baseline assessment of the primary efficacy variable.

The CGI-I measured the participant's disease improvement relative to baseline as followed: 1= very much improved, 2=much improved, 3=minimally improved, 4=no change, 5=minimally worse, 6= much worse, and 7=very much worse. This outcome measure was analyzed during open label phase in entire study population prior to randomization into two treatment groups.

ITT population included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of double-blind study medication (either NWP09 or matching placebo) and had at least 1 post-baseline assessment of the primary efficacy variable.

CPRS was used to measure features associated with ADHD and was used to compare scores during the dose optimization period i.e. 1-6 weeks. The assessment was performed by parent or guardian. CPRS consisted of 27 questions graded on a scale from 0 (not true at all) to 3 (very much true). Raw scores were converted to t-scores and t-scores have a mean of 50 ± 10 where higher scores are indicative of greater problems. The participant received normalized t-scores on the following scales: oppositional, cognitive problems/inattention, hyperactivity, anxious-shy, perfectionism, social problems, psychosomatic, ADHD index, restless-impulse, emotional liability, conner's global index, inattentive, hyperactive-impulsive and diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders IV (DSM-IV). This outcome measure was analyzed during open label phase in entire study population prior to randomization into two treatment groups.

ITT population included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of double-blind study medication (either NWP09 or matching placebo) and had at least 1 post-baseline assessment of the primary efficacy variable.

NWP09 chewable tablet once daily optimized dose (optimized during the 1 to 6 weeks OL phase at a starting dose of 20 mg and titrated at 10 or 20 mg increments, based on clinical response and tolerability to a maximum daily dose of 60 mg per day) for 1 week.

Hour 2 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 2 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.

Hour 4 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 4 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.

Hour 8 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effect and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 8 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.

Hour 10 post-dose: Nominal p-value -treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 10 post-dose: Adjusted p-value were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values generated from the mixed effects model.

Hour 12 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 12 post-dose: Adjusted p-values are generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.

Hour 13 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 13 post-dose: Adjusted p-value were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values generated from the mixed effects model.

Hour 4 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 8 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 10 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 12 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 13 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 0.75 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 2 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 4 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 8 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 10 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 12 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 13 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 4 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 8 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 10 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 12 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 13 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 0.75 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 2 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 4 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 8 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 10 (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 12 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.

Hour 13 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.