-
Current Neuropharmacology 2022Despite increasing worldwide incidence of Parkinson's disease, the therapy is still suboptimal due to the diversified clinical manifestations, lack of sufficient...
BACKGROUND
Despite increasing worldwide incidence of Parkinson's disease, the therapy is still suboptimal due to the diversified clinical manifestations, lack of sufficient treatment, the poor adherence in advanced patients, and varied response. Proper intake of medications regarding food and managing drug-food interactions may optimize Parkinson's disease treatment.
OBJECTIVES
We investigated potential effects that food, beverages, and dietary supplements may have on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs used by parkinsonian patients; identified the most probable interactions; and shaped recommendations for the optimal intake of drugs regarding food.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review in adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and included a total of 81 studies in the qualitative synthesis.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
We found evidence for levodopa positive interaction with coffee, fiber and vitamin C, as well as for the potential beneficial impact of low-fat and protein redistribution diet. Contrastingly, high-protein diet and ferrous sulfate supplements can negatively affect levodopa pharmacokinetics and effectiveness. For other drugs, the data of food impact are scarce. Based on the available limited evidence, all dopamine agonists (bromocriptine, cabergoline, ropinirole), tolcapone, rasagiline, selegiline in tablets, safinamide, amantadine and pimavanserin can be taken with or without a meal. Opicapone and orally disintegrating selegiline tablets should be administered on an empty stomach. Of monoamine oxidase B inhibitors, safinamide is the least susceptible for interaction with the tyramine-rich food, whereas selegiline and rasagiline may lose selectivity to monoamine oxidase B when administered in supratherapeutic doses. The level of presented evidence is low due to the poor studies design, their insufficient actuality, and missing data.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Levodopa; Monoamine Oxidase; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Parkinson Disease; Selegiline
PubMed: 34784871
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X19666211116142806 -
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Jul 2020We conducted an updated systematic review on the safety and efficacy of amantadine in cognitive recovery after traumatic brain injury (TBI), in order to determine if the...
We conducted an updated systematic review on the safety and efficacy of amantadine in cognitive recovery after traumatic brain injury (TBI), in order to determine if the current literature justifies its use in this clinical condition. A comprehensive search strategy was applied to three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane). Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of amantadine and placebo in adults within 3 months of TBI were included in the review. Study characteristics, outcomes, and methodological quality were synthesized. This systematic review was conducted and presented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) was not feasible due to the large heterogeneity of studies identified. Three parallel RCTs and one cross-over RCT, with a total of 325 patients were included. All of the studies evaluated only severe TBI in adults. Amantadine was found to be well tolerated across the studies. Two RCTs reported improvement in the intermediate-term cognitive recovery (four to six weeks after end of treatment), using DRS (in both studies) and MMSE, GOS, and FIM-Cog (in one study). The effect of amantadine on the short-term (seven days to discharge) and long-term (six months from the injury) cognitive outcome was found not superior to placebo in two RCTs. The rate of severe adverse events was found to be consistently very low across the studies (the incidence of seizures, elevation in liver enzymes and cardiac death was 0.7 %, 1.9 %, and 0.3 %, respectively). In conclusion, amantadine seems to be well tolerated and might hasten the rate of cognitive recovery in the intermediate-term outcome. However, the long-term effect of amantadine in cognitive recovery is not well defined and further large randomized clinical trials in refined subgroups of patients are needed to better define its application.
Topics: Amantadine; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Cognition Disorders; Humans; Nootropic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 32244036
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105815 -
BMJ Open Apr 2022To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer's dementia (AD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer's dementia (AD).
DESIGN
Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) based on our previously published systematic review and aggregate data NMA.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, AgeLine and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2016.
PARTICIPANTS
80 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including 21 138 adults with AD, and 12 RCTs with IPD including 6906 patients.
INTERVENTIONS
Cognitive enhancers (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine) alone or in any combination against other cognitive enhancers or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We requested IPD from authors, sponsors and data sharing platforms. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We appraised study quality with the Cochrane risk-of-bias. We conducted a two-stage random-effects IPD-NMA, and assessed their findings using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis).
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES
We included trials assessing cognition with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and adverse events.
RESULTS
Our IPD-NMA compared nine treatments (including placebo). Donepezil (mean difference (MD)=1.41, 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.32) and donepezil +memantine (MD=2.57, 95% CI: 0.07 to 5.07) improved MMSE score (56 RCTs, 11 619 participants; CINeMA score: moderate) compared with placebo. According to P-score, oral rivastigmine (OR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.94, P-score=16%) and donepezil (OR=1.08, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.35, P-score=30%) had the least favourable safety profile, but none of the estimated treatment effects were sufficiently precise when compared with placebo (45 RCTs, 15 649 patients; CINeMA score: moderate to high). For moderate-to-severe impairment, donepezil, memantine and their combination performed best, but for mild-to-moderate impairment donepezil and transdermal rivastigmine ranked best. Adjusting for MMSE baseline differences, oral rivastigmine and galantamine improved MMSE score, whereas when adjusting for comorbidities only oral rivastigmine was effective.
CONCLUSIONS
The choice among the different cognitive enhancers may depend on patient's characteristics. The MDs of all cognitive enhancer regimens except for single-agent oral rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine, against placebo were clinically important for cognition (MD larger than 1.40 MMSE points), but results were quite imprecise. However, two-thirds of the published RCTs were associated with high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, and IPD were only available for 15% of the included RCTs.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42015023507.
Topics: Adult; Alzheimer Disease; Donepezil; Galantamine; Humans; Memantine; Network Meta-Analysis; Nootropic Agents; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 35473731
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053012 -
BMJ Open Jul 2019The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the management of agitated behaviours following traumatic brain...
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the management of agitated behaviours following traumatic brain injury (TBI).
METHODS
We performed a search strategy in PubMed, OvidMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Directory of Open Access Journals, LILACS, Web of Science and Prospero (up to 10 December 2018) for published and unpublished evidence on the risks and benefits of 9 prespecified medications classes used to control agitated behaviours following TBI. We included all randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies examining the effects of medications administered to control agitated behaviours in TBI patients. Included studies were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: (1) agitated behaviour was the presenting symptom; (2) agitated behaviour was not the presenting symptom, but was measured as an outcome variable; and (3) safety of pharmacological interventions administered to control agitated behaviours was measured.
RESULTS
Among the 181 articles assessed for eligibility, 21 studies were included. Of the studies suggesting possible benefits, propranolol reduced maximum intensities of agitation per week and physical restraint use, methylphenidate improved anger measures following 6 weeks of treatment, valproic acid reduced weekly agitated behaviour scale ratings and olanzapine reduced irritability, aggressiveness and insomnia between weeks 1 and 3 of treatment. Amantadine showed variable effects and may increase the risk of agitation in the critically ill. In three studies evaluating safety outcomes, antipsychotics were associated with an increased duration of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) in unadjusted analyses. Small sample sizes, heterogeneity and an unclear risk of bias were limits.
CONCLUSIONS
Propranolol, methylphenidate, valproic acid and olanzapine may offer some benefit; however, they need to be further studied. Antipsychotics may increase the length of PTA. More studies on tailored interventions and continuous evaluation of safety and efficacy throughout acute, rehabilitation and outpatient settings are needed.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42016033140.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychoses, Substance-Induced; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31289093
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029604 -
Asian Journal of Psychiatry Jan 2023To integrate all evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation interventions for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation treatments for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis with normalized entropy assessment.
OBJECTIVE
To integrate all evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation interventions for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS).
METHODS
Six major electronic databases were systematically searched for RCTs published until July 10, 2021. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms, and the secondary outcomes were positive and negative symptoms and acceptability. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis. Normalized entropy was calculated to examine the uncertainty of treatment ranking.
RESULTS
We identified 35 RCTs (1472 patients with 23 active augmentation treatments) with a mean daily clozapine dose of 440.80 (91.27) mg for 1168.22 (710.28) days. Network meta-analysis of overall symptoms (reported as standardized mean difference; 95 % confidence interval) with consistent results indicated that mirtazapine (-4.41; -5.61, -3.21), electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) (-4.32; -5.43, -3.21), and memantine (-2.02; -3.14, -0.91) were ranked as the best three treatments. For positive symptoms, ECT (-5.18; -5.86, -4.49) was ranked the best with less uncertainty. For negative symptoms, memantine (-3.38; -4.50, -2.26), duloxetine (-3.27; -4.25, -2.29), and mirtazapine (-1.73; -2.71, -0.74) were ranked the best three treatments with less uncertainty. All antipsychotics, N-methyl d-aspartate receptor agonists, and antiepileptics were not associated with more efficacy than placebo. Compared to placebo, only amisulpride had statistically significant lower discontinuation rate (risk ratio: 0.21; 95 % CI: 0.05, 0.93).
CONCLUSION
Add-on mirtazapine, ECT, and memantine were the most efficacious augmentation options for CRS. Data on other important outcomes such as cognitive functioning or quality of life were rarely reported, making further large-scale, well-designed RCTs necessary. (PROSPERO number, CRD42021262197.).
Topics: Humans; Clozapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Entropy; Memantine; Mirtazapine; Antipsychotic Agents; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 36470132
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajp.2022.103375 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Influenza is an acute respiratory illness caused by influenza A and B viruses. Complications may occur, especially among children and the elderly. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Influenza is an acute respiratory illness caused by influenza A and B viruses. Complications may occur, especially among children and the elderly.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of amantadine and rimantadine in preventing, treating and shortening the duration of influenza A in children and the elderly.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to September week 4, 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to October 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with no intervention, placebo, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of amantadine or rimantadine in children and the elderly with influenza A.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the search results. We extracted and analysed data using the standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 12 studies (2494 participants: 1586 children and 908 elderly) comparing amantadine and rimantadine with placebo, paracetamol (one trial: 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials: 545 elderly) to treat influenza A.Amantadine was effective in preventing influenza A in children (773 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza A in the control group was 10 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). Nevertheless, the quality of the evidence was low and the safety of the drug was not well established.For treatment, rimantadine was beneficial in abating fever on day three of treatment in children: one selected study with low risk of bias, moderate evidence quality and 69 participants (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was 14 per 100 (95% CI 5 to 34).Rimantadine did not show any prophylactic effect in the elderly. The quality of evidence was very low: 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41). The assumed risk was 17 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was 7 per 100 (95% CI 2 to 23).There was no evidence of adverse effects caused by treatment with amantadine or rimantadine.We found no studies assessing amantadine in the elderly.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of the evidence combined with a lack of knowledge about the safety of amantadine and the limited benefits of rimantadine, do not indicate that amantadine and rimantadine compared to control (placebo or paracetamol) could be useful in preventing, treating and shortening the duration of influenza A in children and the elderly.
Topics: Adolescent; Aged; Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Child; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rimantadine; Sex Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 25415374
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002745.pub4 -
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : JAD 2017We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether memantine was beneficial for the treatment of depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder (MDD) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether memantine was beneficial for the treatment of depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD). The analysis included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of memantine in MDD and BD. The primary outcome measures for efficacy and safety were response rate and all-cause discontinuation, respectively. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. We identified six trials including 451 patients: MDD, four trials (n = 189), three of which studied memantine augmentation for antidepressants; BD, two trials (n = 262), both on memantine augmentation for mood stabilizers. The mean study duration was 8.33 weeks, and the mean age of patients was 39.9 years. Memantine was not superior to placebo with regard to response rate (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.70-1.20, I2 = 72%), remission rate, improvement of depressive symptoms scale score, all-cause discontinuation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.60-1.18, I2 = 0%), discontinuation due to inefficacy and adverse events, or incidence of individual adverse events including decreased appetite, dizziness, nausea, and sedation. Although we conducted sensitivity analyses of the response rate to determine the reasons for the heterogeneity (diagnosis, age of patients, memantine dose, memantine augmentation, geographical region, and statistical population), we did not seek confounding factors. Memantine did not improve the treatment efficacy for depressive symptoms in MDD and BD patients. Long-term study of memantine for depression is required.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Memantine
PubMed: 28222534
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-161251 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Autism spectrum disorder (ASD; also known as autism) is a developmental disability that begins in childhood and is typically seen in around 1% to 2% of children. It is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD; also known as autism) is a developmental disability that begins in childhood and is typically seen in around 1% to 2% of children. It is characterised by social communication difficulties and repetitive and restricted behaviours and routines that can have a negative impact on a child's quality of life, achievement at school, and social interactions with others. It has been hypothesised that memantine, which is traditionally used to treat dementia, may be effective in reducing the core symptoms of autism as well as some co-occurring symptoms such as hyperactivity and language difficulties. If memantine is being used to treat the core symptoms of autism, it is important to review the evidence of its effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of memantine on the core symptoms of autism, including, but not limited to, social communication and stereotypical behaviours.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and three trials registers up to February 2022. We also checked reference lists of key studies and checked with experts in the field for any additional papers. We searched for retractions of the included studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Retraction Watch Database. No retractions or corrections were found.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any dose of memantine compared with placebo in autistic people. We also included RCTs in which only one group received memantine, but both groups received the same additional therapy (e.g. a behaviour intervention).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were core autism symptoms and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were language, intelligence, memory, adaptive behaviour, hyperactivity, and irritability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs (two double-blind and one single-blind) with 204 participants that examined the short-term effect (immediately postintervention) of memantine in autistic people. Two studies took place in the USA and the other in Iran. All three studies focused on children and adolescents, with a mean age of 9.40 (standard deviation (SD) 2.26) years. Most participants were male (range across studies 73% to 87%). The diagnosis of ASD was based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition; 4th edition, text revision; or 5th edition). To confirm the diagnosis, one study used the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R); one used ADOS, ADI-R or the Autism Diagnostic Interview Screener; and one used the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale. Dosage of memantine was based on the child's weight and ranged from 3 mg to 15 mg per day. Comparisons Two studies examined memantine compared with placebo; in the other study, both groups had a behavioural intervention while only one group was given memantine. Risk of bias All studies were rated at high risk of bias overall, as they were at high or unclear risk of bias across all but four domains in one study, and all but two domains in the other two studies. One study was funded by Forest Laboratories, LLC, (Jersey City, New Jersey), Allergan. The study sponsor was involved in the study design, data collection (via contracted clinical investigator sites), analysis and interpretation of data, and the decision to present these results. The other two studies reported no financial support or sponsorship; though in one of the two, the study medication was an in-kind contribution from Forest Pharmaceuticals. Primary outcomes There was no clear evidence of a difference between memantine and placebo with respect to severity of core symptoms of autism, although we are very uncertain about the evidence. The standardised mean difference in autism symptoms score in the intervention group versus the control group was -0.74 standard deviations (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.07 to 0.58; 2 studies, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence; medium effect size); lower scores indicate less severe autistic symptoms. Two studies (144 participants) recorded adverse effects that the authors deemed related to the study and found there may be no difference between memantine and placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.39; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes There may be no difference between memantine and placebo on language (2 studies, 144 participants; low-certainty evidence); memory or adaptive behaviour (1 study, 23 participants; both low-certainty evidence); or hyperactivity or irritability (1 study, 121 participants; both low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is unclear whether memantine is an effective treatment for autistic children. None of the three included trials reported on the effectiveness of memantine in adults. Further studies using rigorous designs, larger samples, longer follow-up and clinically meaningful outcome measures that are important to autistic people and their families will strengthen our knowledge of the effects of memantine in autism.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Memantine; Odds Ratio; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36006807
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013845.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Postpolio syndrome (PPS) may affect survivors of paralytic poliomyelitis and is characterised by a complex of neuromuscular symptoms leading to a decline in physical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postpolio syndrome (PPS) may affect survivors of paralytic poliomyelitis and is characterised by a complex of neuromuscular symptoms leading to a decline in physical functioning. The effectiveness of pharmacological treatment and rehabilitation management in PPS is not yet established. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials for the effect of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment for PPS compared to placebo, usual care or no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 21 July 2014: Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus. We also checked reference lists of all relevant articles, searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database and trial registers and contacted investigators known to be involved in research in this area.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of any form of pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment for people with PPS. The primary outcome was self perceived activity limitations and secondary outcomes were muscle strength, muscle endurance, fatigue, pain and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 pharmacological (modafinil, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), pyridostigmine, lamotrigine, amantadine, prednisone) and three non-pharmacological (muscle strengthening, rehabilitation in a warm climate (that is temperature ± 25°C, dry and sunny) and a cold climate (that is temperature ± 0°C, rainy or snowy), static magnetic fields) studies with a total of 675 participants with PPS in this review. None of the included studies were completely free from any risk of bias, the most prevalent risk of bias being lack of blinding.There was moderate- and low-quality evidence that IVIg has no beneficial effect on activity limitations in the short term and long term, respectively, and inconsistency in the evidence for effectiveness on muscle strength. IVIg caused minor adverse events in a substantial proportion of the participants. Results of one trial provided very low-quality evidence that lamotrigine might be effective in reducing pain and fatigue, resulting in fewer activity limitations without generating adverse events. Data from two single trials suggested that muscle strengthening of thumb muscles (very low-quality evidence) and static magnetic fields (moderate-quality evidence) are safe and beneficial for improving muscle strength and pain, respectively, with unknown effects on activity limitations. Finally, there was evidence varying from very low quality to high quality that modafinil, pyridostigmine, amantadine, prednisone and rehabilitation in a warm or cold climate are not beneficial in PPS.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to insufficient good-quality data and lack of randomised studies, it was impossible to draw definite conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions for PPS. Results indicated that IVIg, lamotrigine, muscle strengthening exercises and static magnetic fields may be beneficial but need further investigation to clarify whether any real and meaningful effect exists.
Topics: Cold Temperature; Exercise Therapy; Hot Temperature; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Lamotrigine; Muscle Fatigue; Muscle Strength; Postpoliomyelitis Syndrome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triazines
PubMed: 25984923
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007818.pub3 -
Clinical NeuropharmacologyAcute traumatic brain injury is one of the most common causes of death and disability. Reduction in the level of consciousness is a significant complication that can...
OBJECTIVES
Acute traumatic brain injury is one of the most common causes of death and disability. Reduction in the level of consciousness is a significant complication that can impact morbidity. Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the most widely used method of assessing the level of consciousness. Neurostimulants such as amantadine and modafinil are common pharmacologic agents that increase GCS in patients with brain trauma. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these 2 drugs.
METHODS
This systematic review obtained articles from Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and MEDLINE databases. Extensive searches were conducted separately by 4 individuals in 3 stages. Ultimately, 16 clinical trials, cohort studies, case reports, and case series articles were obtained after reading the title, abstract, and full text and considering the exclusion criteria. The data of the final article were entered into the analysis table. This study was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022334409) and conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
RESULTS
Amantadine seems to be associated with a higher overall response rate. In contrast, modafinil is associated with the most remarkable change in GCS score during treatment. However, the number of clinical trials with high quality and sample size has not been satisfactory to compare the effectiveness of these 2 drugs and their potential side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
The authors recommend additional double-blind clinical trials are needed to be conducted with a larger sample size, comparing amantadine with modafinil to delineate the efficacy and adverse effects, both short and long term.
Topics: Humans; Modafinil; Consciousness; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Amantadine; Brain Injuries; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37962310
DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000577