-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Lidocaine, mexiletine, tocainide, and flecainide are local anesthetics which give an analgesic effect when administered orally or parenterally. Early reports described... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lidocaine, mexiletine, tocainide, and flecainide are local anesthetics which give an analgesic effect when administered orally or parenterally. Early reports described the use of intravenous lidocaine or procaine to relieve cancer and postoperative pain. Interest reappeared decades later when patient series and clinical trials reported that parenteral lidocaine and its oral analogs tocainide, mexiletine, and flecainide relieved neuropathic pain in some patients. With the recent publication of clinical trials with high quality standards, we have reviewed the use of systemic lidocaine and its oral analogs in neuropathic pain to update our knowledge, to measure their benefit and harm, and to better define their role in therapy.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate pain relief and adverse effect rates between systemic local anesthetic-type drugs and other control interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (1966 through 15 May 2004), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2002), Cancer Lit (through 15 December 2002), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2nd Quarter, 2004), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE), and LILACS, from January 1966 through March 2001. We also hand searched conference proceedings, textbooks, original articles and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials with random allocation, that were double blinded, with a parallel or crossover design. The control intervention was a placebo or an analgesic drug for neuropathic pain from any cause.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We collected efficacy and safety data from all published and unpublished trials. We calculated combined effect sizes using continuous and binary data for pain relief and adverse effects as primary and secondary outcome measurements, respectively.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-two controlled clinical trials met the selection criteria; two were duplicate articles. The treatment drugs were intravenous lidocaine (16 trials), mexiletine (12 trials), lidocaine plus mexiletine sequentially (one trial), and tocainide (one trial). Twenty-one trials were crossover studies, and nine were parallel. Lidocaine and mexiletine were superior to placebo [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -11; 95% CI: -15 to -7; P < 0.00001], and limited data showed no difference in efficacy (WMD = -0.6; 95% CI: -7 to 6), or adverse effects versus carbamazepine, amantadine, gabapentin or morphine. In these trials, systemic local anesthetics were safe, with no deaths or life-threatening toxicities. Sensitivity analysis identified data distribution in three trials as a probable source of heterogeneity. There was no publication bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Lidocaine and oral analogs were safe drugs in controlled clinical trials for neuropathic pain, were better than placebo, and were as effective as other analgesics. Future trials should enroll specific diseases and test novel lidocaine analogs with better toxicity profiles. More emphasis is necessary on outcomes measuring patient satisfaction to assess if statistically significant pain relief is clinically meaningful.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Neuralgia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31684682
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003345.pub2 -
International Journal of Geriatric... Mar 2018To evaluate the clinical evidence for traditional medicines (TMs) used in East Asia on measures of cognition in Alzheimer disease, determine the effect sizes at... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical evidence for traditional medicines (TMs) used in East Asia on measures of cognition in Alzheimer disease, determine the effect sizes at different time points for the TMs and pharmacotherapies, and assess the tolerability of the TMs.
METHODS
We searched 12 databases in English, Chinese, and Japanese for eligible randomised controlled trials that compared orally administered TMs with pharmacotherapy and reported cognitive outcomes. Meta-analyses were conducted for Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale and/or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate treatment effects.
RESULTS
Thirty randomised controlled trials met inclusion criteria. Twenty-nine compared TMs with donepezil. Single studies provided comparisons with galantamine, rivastigmine, or memantine. There were no significant differences between the TM and donepezil groups at 12 or 24 weeks for Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale or MMSE. Improvements over baseline were significant for MMSE at 12 and 24 weeks within the TM and donepezil groups and remained significant at 1 year. Effect sizes were reduced in the 3 double-blind studies. At 24 weeks, donepezil 10 mg/d generally produced greater improvements in MMSE than 5 mg/d. Tolerability reporting was incomplete and inconsistent between studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggested that the clinical benefits of the TMs were not less than donepezil at comparable time points, with both groups showing improvements. However, lack of blinding in most studies and other design and measurement issues are likely to have resulted in overestimation of effect sizes in both groups. Further well-designed studies are needed.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Donepezil; Asia, Eastern; Galantamine; Humans; Indans; Medicine, Traditional; Memantine; Nootropic Agents; Piperidines; Plant Extracts; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 29239495
DOI: 10.1002/gps.4830 -
Brain Injury 2019: To systematically review literature on efficacy of amantadine on behavior (irritability/aggression/agitation, emotional lability, apathy, impairment of executive...
: To systematically review literature on efficacy of amantadine on behavior (irritability/aggression/agitation, emotional lability, apathy, impairment of executive functioning), participation, quality-of-life (QoL), and safety, in patients with acquired brain injury (ABI). Amantadine is widely used clinically, so comprehensive information on efficacy, participation, QoL and safety is relevant. : We used PRISMA Guidelines. We searched PubMed/EMBASE/CINAHL (last search 28-8-2018) Two independent reviewers performed selection and data-extraction. Quality of studies was assessed, using CONSORT and Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (QATFQS). : Eleven out of 500 studies were included. Of five RCTs, two reported significant effects on irritability/aggression, and one no effect. One RCT on cognition no effect. One prospective cohort study showed a significant effect on executive functioning. One retrospective study was inconclusive. One single-case experimental design (SCED) study reported significant effect on apathy and three case-reports indicated effects on behavior. QoL and societal participation were not measured. No safety issues emerged. : Amantadine may be efficacious on irritability and aggression after ABI. Amantadine is a safe drug in the presence of adequate creatinine clearance. Future studies should use designs, suitable for the heterogeneous ABI population, like randomized SCEDs, and should include the effect on societal participation and QoL.
Topics: Aggression; Amantadine; Apathy; Brain Injuries; Cognitive Dysfunction; Dopamine Agents; Executive Function; Humans; Irritable Mood; Problem Behavior; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31250669
DOI: 10.1080/02699052.2019.1631482 -
Acta Neuropsychiatrica Dec 2015Traumatic brain injury and stroke are among the leading causes of neurological disability worldwide. Although dopaminergic agents have long been associated with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Traumatic brain injury and stroke are among the leading causes of neurological disability worldwide. Although dopaminergic agents have long been associated with improvement of neuropsychiatric outcomes, to date much of the evidence to date has been in case reports and case series or open label trials.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review of double-blinded randomised controlled trials (RCT) to determine the effect of dopaminergic agents on pre-defined outcomes of (a) apathy; (b) psychomotor retardation; (c) behavioural management and (d) cognitive function. Databases searched were: Medline, EMBASE, and PsychInfo for human studies. The Cochrane Clinical Trials Database and the TRIP Medical database were also searched. All identified studies, were further hand-searched.
RESULTS
We identified six studies providing data on 227 participants, 150 of whom received dopaminergic therapy. Trials were compromised by cross-over design, inadequate wash out period, small numbers and heterogeneous outcome measures. However one good quality RCT demonstrates the efficacy of amantadine in behavioural management. One further RCT shows methylphenidate-levodopa is efficacious for mood post-stroke. One study shows rotigotine to improve hemi-inattention caused by prefrontal damage.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review demonstrates an evolving evidence base to suggest some benefits in agitation and aggression, mood and attentional deficits. However, there are key limitations of the studies undertaken to date involving small numbers of participants, heterogeneous outcome measures, and variable study designs. There is a need for on-going large prospective double-blind RCTs in these medications using standardised criteria and outcomes to fully understand their effectiveness in this patient group.
Topics: Brain Injuries; Dopamine Agonists; Humans; Mental Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 25850757
DOI: 10.1017/neu.2015.17 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015There is emerging evidence that glutamatergic system dysfunction might play an important role in the pathophysiology of bipolar depression. This review focuses on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is emerging evidence that glutamatergic system dysfunction might play an important role in the pathophysiology of bipolar depression. This review focuses on the use of glutamate receptor modulators for depression in bipolar disorder.
OBJECTIVES
1. To assess the effects of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in alleviating the acute symptoms of depression in people with bipolar disorder.2. To review the acceptability of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in people with bipolar disorder who are experiencing acute depression symptoms.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR, to 9 January 2015). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from: the Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We cross-checked reference lists of relevant papers and systematic reviews. We did not apply any restrictions to date, language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ketamine, memantine, or other glutamate receptor modulators with other active psychotropic drugs or saline placebo in adults with bipolar depression.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Primary outcomes for this review were response rate and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included remission rate, depression severity change scores, suicidality, cognition, quality of life, and dropout rate. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
Five studies (329 participants) were included in this review. All included studies were placebo-controlled and two-armed, and the glutamate receptor modulators - ketamine (two trials), memantine (two trials), and cytidine (one trial) - were used as add-on drugs to mood stabilisers. The treatment period ranged from a single intravenous administration (all ketamine studies), to repeated administration for memantine and cytidine (8 to 12 weeks, and 12 weeks, respectively). Three of the studies took place in the USA, one in Taiwan, and in one, the location was unclear. The majority (70.5%) of participants were from Taiwan. All participants had a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder, according to the DSM-IV or DSM-IV-TR, and were in a current depressive phase. The severity of depression was at least moderate in all but one study.Among all glutamate receptor modulators included in this review, only ketamine appeared to be more efficacious than placebo 24 hours after the infusion for the primary outcome, response rate (odds ratio (OR) 11.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 107.74; P = 0.03; I² = 0%, 2 studies, 33 participants). This evidence was rated as low quality. The statistically significant difference disappeared at three days, but the mean estimate still favoured ketamine (OR 8.24, 95% CI 0.84 to 80.61; 2 studies, 33 participants; very low quality evidence). We found no difference in response between ketamine and placebo at one week (OR 4.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 48.66; P = 0.28, 1 study; 18 participants; very low quality evidence).There was no significant difference between memantine and placebo in response rate one week after treatment (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.06 to 19.05; P = 0.96, 1 study, 29 participants), two weeks (OR 4.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 30.29; P = 0.09, 1 study, 29 participants), four weeks (OR 5.33, 95% CI 1.02 to 27.76; P = 0.05, 1 study, 29 participants), or at three months (OR, 1.66, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.03; P = 0.26, I² = 36%, 2 studies, 261 participants). These findings were based on very low quality evidence.There was no significant difference between cytidine and placebo in response rate at three months (OR, 1.13, 95% CI 0.30 to 4.24; P = 0.86, 1 study, 35 participants; very low quality evidence).For the secondary outcome of remission, no significant differences were found between ketamine and placebo, nor between memantine and placebo. For the secondary outcome of change scores from baseline on depression scales, ketamine was more effective than placebo at 24 hours (MD -11.81, 95% CI -20.01 to -3.61; P = 0.005, 2 studies, 32 participants) but not at one or two weeks after treatment. There was no difference between memantine and placebo for this outcome.We found no significant differences in terms of adverse events between placebo and ketamine, memantine, or cytidine. There were no differences between ketamine and placebo, memantine and placebo, or cytidine and placebo in total dropouts. No data were available on dropouts due to adverse effects for ketamine or cytidine; but no difference was found between memantine and placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Reliable conclusions from this review are severely limited by the small amount of data usable for analysis. The body of evidence about glutamate receptor modulators in bipolar disorder is even smaller than that which is available for unipolar depression. Overall, we found limited evidence in favour of a single intravenous dose of ketamine (as add-on therapy to mood stabilisers) over placebo in terms of response rate up to 24 hours; ketamine did not show any better efficacy in terms of remission in bipolar depression. Even though ketamine has the potential to have a rapid and transient antidepressant effect, the efficacy of a single intravenous dose may be limited. Ketamine's psychotomimetic effects could compromise study blinding; this is a particular issue for this review as no included study used an active comparator, and so we cannot rule out the potential bias introduced by inadequate blinding procedures.We did not find conclusive evidence on adverse events with ketamine. To draw more robust conclusions, further RCTs (with adequate blinding) are needed to explore different modes of administration of ketamine and to study different methods of sustaining antidepressant response, such as repeated administrations. There was not enough evidence to draw meaningful conclusions for the remaining two glutamate receptor modulators (memantine and cytidine). This review is limited not only by completeness of evidence, but also by the low to very low quality of the available evidence.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Cytidine; Depression; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Ketamine; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26415966
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011611.pub2 -
Psychiatry Research Dec 2019A considerable proportion of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients receiving first-line pharmacological therapy, fail to fully respond to treatment and continue... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A considerable proportion of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients receiving first-line pharmacological therapy, fail to fully respond to treatment and continue to exhibit significant symptoms. In this systematic review, we evaluate the efficacy of memantine, as a glutamate-modulating agent, in moderate to severe OCD. Single and double blinded as well as open-label trials of memantine augmentation in adults with OCD were considered. Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores were the primary outcome measure. The electronic databases of PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar were searched for relevant trials using keywords 'obsessive-compulsive disorder OR OCD' AND 'memantine'. The meta-analysis of eight studies involving 125 OCD subjects receiving memantine augmentation exhibited a significant overall mean reduction of 11.73 points in Y-BOCS scores. The categorical analysis of treatment response (a minimum of 35% reduction in Y-BOCS) in four double-blind placebo-controlled studies indicated that OCD patients receiving memantine augmentation were 3.61 times more likely to respond to treatment than those receiving placebo. We found that 20 mg/day memantine augmentation to first-line pharmacological treatment for a period of at least 8 weeks is a safe and effective intervention for moderate to severe OCD.
Topics: Adult; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Female; Humans; Male; Memantine; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Single-Blind Method; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31630042
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112602 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) May 2022Down Syndrome (DS) is considered the most frequent form of Intellectual Disability, with important expressions of cognitive decline and early dementia. Studies on... (Review)
Review
Down Syndrome (DS) is considered the most frequent form of Intellectual Disability, with important expressions of cognitive decline and early dementia. Studies on potential treatments for dementia in this population are still scarce. Thus, the current review aims to synthesize the different pharmacological approaches that already exist in the literature, which focus on improving the set of symptoms related to dementia in people with DS. A total of six studies were included, evaluating the application of supplemental antioxidant therapies, such as alpha-tocopherol; the use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor drugs, such as donepezil; N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, such as memantine; and the use of vitamin E and a fast-acting intranasal insulin. Two studies observed important positive changes related to some general functions in people with DS (referring to donepezil). In the majority of studies, the use of pharmacological therapies did not lead to improvement in the set of symptoms related to dementia, such as memory and general functionality, in the population with DS.
Topics: Acetylcholinesterase; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Dementia; Donepezil; Down Syndrome; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 35630721
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27103244 -
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and... Jul 2022Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder and the most prevalent cause of dementia. In spite of the urgent need for more effective AD drug therapy...
IMPORTANCE
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder and the most prevalent cause of dementia. In spite of the urgent need for more effective AD drug therapy strategies, evidence of the efficacy of combination therapy with existing drugs remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of combined drug therapy on cognition and progress in patients with AD in comparison to single agent drug therapy.
METHODS
The electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify relevant publications. Only randomized controlled clinical trials were included, but no limits were applied to language or time published. Data were extracted from May 27th until December 29th, 2020.
RESULTS
Three trials found that a combination of ChEI with additional memantine provides a slight benefit for patients with moderate to severe AD over ChEI monotherapy and placebo. However, a further 4 trials could not replicate this effect. One trial reported benefits of add-on in donepezil-treated patients with moderate AD (using a formula containing Gingko and other antioxidants) compared to donepezil with placebo. A further trial found no significant effect of combining EGb 761® and donepezil in patients with probable AD over donepezil with placebo. Approaches with idalopirdine, atorvastatin or vitamin supplementation in combination with ChEI have not proven effective and have not been retried since. Fluoxetine and ST101 have shown partial benefits in combination with ChEI over ChEI monotherapy and placebo. However, these effects must be replicated by further research.
CONCLUSION
Additional memantine in combination with ChEI might be of slight benefit in patients with moderate to severe AD, but evidence is ambiguous. Longer trials are needed. No major cognitive benefit is missed, if solely appropriate ChEI monotherapy is initiated.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Donepezil; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Piperidines
PubMed: 34476990
DOI: 10.1177/08919887211044746 -
Clinical NeuropharmacologyThe efficacy of memantine for migraine remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of memantine versus placebo on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The efficacy of memantine for migraine remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of memantine versus placebo on treatment in migraine patients.
METHODS
We search PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through February 2020 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of memantine versus placebo on treatment efficacy in migraine patients. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Three randomized controlled trials are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group in migraine patients, memantine treatment is associated with substantially reduced monthly attack frequency (mean difference [MD], -2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.83 to -1.46; P < 0.00001), number of migraine days (MD, -4.17; 95% CI, -6.40 to -1.93; P = 0.0003) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MD, -5.63; 95% CI, -6.46 to -4.79; P < 0.00001), but demonstrates no obvious influence on acute pain medications (MD, -1.23; 95% CI, -4.63 to 2.17; P = 0.48).
CONCLUSIONS
Memantine treatment may benefit to the control of migraine.
Topics: Disability Evaluation; Humans; Memantine; Migraine Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33961371
DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000425 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2019Aggression is a commonly reported problem following traumatic brain injury (TBI). It may present as verbal insults or outbursts, physical assaults, and/or property...
Aggression is a commonly reported problem following traumatic brain injury (TBI). It may present as verbal insults or outbursts, physical assaults, and/or property destruction. Aggressive behavior can fracture relationships and impede participation in treatment as well as a broad range of vocational and social activities, thereby reducing the individual's quality of life. Pharmacological intervention is frequently used to control aggression following TBI. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy of pharmacological interventions for aggression following TBI in adults. We reviewed studies in English, available before December 2018. MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL databases were searched, with additional searching of key journals, clinical trials registries, and international drug regulators. The primary outcomes of interest were reduction in the severity of aggression and occurrence of harms. The secondary outcomes of interest were changes in quality of life, participation, psychological health (e.g., depression, anxiety), and cognitive function. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instruments. Ten studies were identified, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five case series. There were positive, albeit mixed, findings for the RCTs examining the use of amantadine in reducing irritability ( = 2) and aggression ( = 2). There were some positive findings favoring methylphenidate in reducing anger ( = 1). The evidence for propranolol was weak ( = 1). Individual analysis revealed differential drug response across individuals for both methylphenidate and propranolol. The less rigorous studies administered carbamazepine ( = 2), valproic acid ( = 1), quetiapine ( = 1), and sertraline ( = 1), and all reported reductions in aggression. However, given the lack of a control group, it is difficult to discern treatment effects from natural change over time. This review concludes that a recommendation for use of amantadine to treat aggression and irritability in adults following TBI is appropriate. However, there is a need for further well-designed, adequately powered and controlled studies of pharmacological interventions for aggression following TBI.
PubMed: 31849802
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.01169