-
Brain Sciences Nov 2022cocaine craving is a core feature of cocaine use disorder and remains a critical challenge for abstinence and relapse prevention. This review summarizes the anti-craving... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
cocaine craving is a core feature of cocaine use disorder and remains a critical challenge for abstinence and relapse prevention. This review summarizes the anti-craving efficacy of pharmacotherapies tested for cocaine use disorder, in the context of randomized-controlled clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES
we assessed the databases of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO, without date restrictions up to August 2022, to identify relevant studies.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS
we included double-blinded randomized-controlled trials investigating pharmacotherapies for cocaine craving and/or cocaine use disorder whose outcomes included cocaine craving.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Two authors screened studies' titles and abstracts for inclusion, and both read all the included studies. We systematically gathered information on the following aspects of each study: title; author(s); year of publication; sample size; mean age; sample characteristics; study set-ting; whether participants were treatment-seeking; study design; craving measures; study interventions; drop-out rates; and other relevant outcomes.
RESULTS
Overall, we appraised 130 clinical trials, including 8137 participants. We further considered the drugs from the studies that scored equal to or greater than six points in the quality assessment. There was a correlation between craving and cocaine use outcomes (self-reports, timeline follow-back or urinary benzoylecgonine) in the vast majority of studies. In the short-term treatment, acute phenylalanine-tyrosine depletion, clonidine, fenfluramine, meta-chlorophenylpiperazine (m-CPP) and mecamylamine presented promising effects. In the long term, amphetamine, biperiden, carbamazepine, lisdexamfetamine, lorcaserin, methamphetamine, mirtazapine, pioglitazone, progesterone, guanfacine, levodopa, nefazodone presented promising anti-craving effects. Unfortunately, the highly tested medications were not successful in most of the trials, as follows: propranolol in the short term; amantadine, aripiprazole, bromocriptine, citicoline, ketamine, modafinil, olanzapine, topiramate in the long term. The remaining 52 medications had no positive anti-craving outcomes.
LIMITATIONS
Our review was limited by high heterogeneity of craving assessments across the studies and by a great range of pharmacotherapies. Further, the majority of the studies considered abstinence and retention in treatment as the main outcomes, whereas craving was a secondary outcome and some of the studies evaluated patients with cocaine use disorder with comorbidities such as opioid or alcohol use disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity. Lastly, most of the studies also included non-pharmacological treatments, such as counseling or psychotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a direct association between craving and cocaine use, underscoring craving as an important treatment target for promoting abstinence among persons with cocaine use disorder. Clonidine, fenfluramine and m-CPP showed to be promising medications for cocaine craving in the short-term treatment, and amphetamine, biperiden, carbamazepine, lisdexamfetamine, lorcaserin, methamphetamine, mirtazapine, pioglitazone, progesterone, guanfacine, levodopa, nefazodone in the long-term treatment.
PubMed: 36421870
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12111546 -
Annals of Internal Medicine May 2023Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is common among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic agents is unknown. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Wakefulness-Promoting Agents for Excessive Daytime Sleepiness in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is common among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic agents is unknown.
PURPOSE
To compare the effectiveness of drugs for EDS in OSA using network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 7 November 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Reviewers identified randomized trials that enrolled patients with EDS-associated OSA on or eligible for conventional therapy assigned to any pharmacologic intervention.
DATA EXTRACTION
Paired reviewers independently extracted data addressing effects of drugs on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT), and adverse events at the longest reported follow-up. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Fourteen trials (3085 patients) were eligible. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol improves ESS scores (mean difference [MD], -3.85 [95% CI, -5.24 to -2.50]; high certainty), and armodafinil-modafinil (MD, -2.25 [CI, -2.85 to -1.64]; moderate certainty) and pitolisant-H3-autoreceptor blockers (MD, -2.78 [CI, -4.03 to -1.51]; moderate certainty) probably improve ESS scores. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.9 [CI, 0.64 to 1.17]) and armodafinil-modafinil (SMD, 0.41 [CI, 0.27 to 0.55]) improve MWT (both high certainty), whereas pitolisant-H3-autoreceptor blockers probably do not (moderate certainty). At 4 weeks, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk [RR], 2.01 [CI, 1.14 to 3.51]; moderate certainty); solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (RR, 2.07 [CI, 0.67 to 6.25]; low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggests these interventions may not increase the risk for serious adverse events.
LIMITATIONS
There is limited evidence on long term or effectiveness among patients nonadherent or with mixed adherence to conventional OSA therapies.
CONCLUSION
Solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant reduce daytime sleepiness for patients with OSA already on conventional therapy, with solriamfetol likely superior. Adverse events probably increase the risk for discontinuation of armodafinil-modafinil and may increase the risk for discontinuation with solriamfetol.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
None.
Topics: Humans; Autoreceptors; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Modafinil; Network Meta-Analysis; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 37155992
DOI: 10.7326/M22-3473 -
European Journal of Neurology Sep 2021Narcolepsy is an uncommon hypothalamic disorder of presumed autoimmune origin that usually requires lifelong treatment. This paper aims to provide evidence-based...
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Narcolepsy is an uncommon hypothalamic disorder of presumed autoimmune origin that usually requires lifelong treatment. This paper aims to provide evidence-based guidelines for the management of narcolepsy in both adults and children.
METHODS
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN), European Sleep Research Society (ESRS) and European Narcolepsy Network (EU-NN) nominated a task force of 18 narcolepsy specialists. According to the EAN recommendations, 10 relevant clinical questions were formulated in PICO format. Following a systematic review of the literature (performed in Fall 2018 and updated in July 2020) recommendations were developed according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 10,247 references were evaluated, 308 studies were assessed and 155 finally included. The main recommendations can be summarized as follows: (i) excessive daytime sleepiness in adults-scheduled naps, modafinil, pitolisant, sodium oxybate (SXB), solriamfetol (all strong), methylphenidate, amphetamine derivates (both weak); (ii) cataplexy in adults-SXB, venlafaxine, clomipramine (all strong) and pitolisant (weak); (iii) excessive daytime sleepiness in children-scheduled naps, SXB (both strong), modafinil, methylphenidate, pitolisant, amphetamine derivates (all weak); (iv) cataplexy in children-SXB (strong), antidepressants (weak). Treatment choices should be tailored to each patient's symptoms, comorbidities, tolerance and risk of potential drug interactions.
CONCLUSION
The management of narcolepsy involves non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches with an increasing number of symptomatic treatment options for adults and children that have been studied in some detail.
Topics: Adult; Cataplexy; Child; Humans; Modafinil; Narcolepsy; Sleep; Sodium Oxybate
PubMed: 34173695
DOI: 10.1111/ene.14888 -
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Sep 2021This guideline establishes clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children.
INTRODUCTION
This guideline establishes clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children.
METHODS
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine to develop recommendations and assign strengths to each recommendation, based on a systematic review of the literature and an assessment of the evidence using the GRADE process. The task force provided a summary of the relevant literature and the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use considerations that support the recommendations. The AASM Board of Directors approved the final recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are intended to guide clinicians in choosing a specific treatment for central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children. Each recommendation statement is assigned a strength ("strong" or "conditional"). A "strong" recommendation (ie, "We recommend…") is one that clinicians should follow under most circumstances. A "conditional" recommendation (ie, "We suggest…") is one that requires that the clinician use clinical knowledge and experience and strongly consider the individual patient's values and preferences to determine the best course of action. Under each disorder, strong recommendations are listed in alphabetical order followed by the conditional recommendations in alphabetical order. The section on adult patients with hypersomnia because of medical conditions is categorized based on the clinical and pathological subtypes identified in ICSD-3. The interventions in all the recommendation statements were compared to no treatment.
1
We recommend that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (STRONG).
2
We recommend that clinicians use pitolisant for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (STRONG).
3
We recommend that clinicians use sodium oxybate for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (STRONG).
4
We recommend that clinicians use solriamfetol for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (STRONG).
5
We suggest that clinicians use armodafinil for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
6
We suggest that clinicians use dextroamphetamine for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
7
We suggest that clinicians use methylphenidate for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
8
We recommend that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (STRONG).
9
We suggest that clinicians use clarithromycin for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
10
We suggest that clinicians use methylphenidate for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
11
We suggest that clinicians use pitolisant for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
12
We suggest that clinicians use sodium oxybate for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
13
We suggest that clinicians use lithium for the treatment of Kleine-Levin syndrome in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
14
We suggest that clinicians use armodafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to dementia with Lewy bodies in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
15
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to Parkinson's disease in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
16
We suggest that clinicians use sodium oxybate for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to Parkinson's disease in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
17
We suggest that clinicians use armodafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to traumatic brain injury in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
18
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to traumatic brain injury in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
19
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to myotonic dystrophy in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
20
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to multiple sclerosis in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
21
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of narcolepsy in pediatric patients. (CONDITIONAL).
22
We suggest that clinicians use sodium oxybate for the treatment of narcolepsy in pediatric patients. (CONDITIONAL).
CITATION
Maski K, Trotti LM, Kotagal S, et al. Treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. . 2021;17(9):1881-1893.
Topics: Adult; Child; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Humans; Idiopathic Hypersomnia; Modafinil; Narcolepsy; Sleep; United States
PubMed: 34743789
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.9328 -
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Sep 2021This systematic review provides supporting evidence for the accompanying clinical practice guideline on the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
This systematic review provides supporting evidence for the accompanying clinical practice guideline on the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children. The review focuses on prescription medications with U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval and nonpharmacologic interventions studied for the treatment of symptoms caused by central disorders of hypersomnolence.
METHODS
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine to perform a systematic review. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies addressing pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for central disorders of hypersomnolence were identified. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the clinical significance of all outcomes. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence for the purpose of making specific treatment recommendations.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 678 studies; 144 met the inclusion criteria and 108 provided data suitable for statistical analyses. Evidence for the following interventions is presented: armodafinil, clarithromycin, clomipramine, dextroamphetamine, flumazenil, intravenous immune globulin (IVIG), light therapy, lithium, l-carnitine, liraglutide, methylphenidate, methylprednisolone, modafinil, naps, pitolisant, selegiline, sodium oxybate, solriamfetol, and triazolam. The task force provided a detailed summary of the evidence along with the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use considerations.
CITATION
Maski K, Trotti LM, Kotagal S, et al. Treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment. 2021;17(9):1895-1945.
Topics: Adult; Child; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; GRADE Approach; Humans; Modafinil; Sleep; Sodium Oxybate; United States
PubMed: 34743790
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.9326 -
Psychopharmacology Aug 2020Agonist-based pharmacologic intervention is an accepted approach in treatment of opioid and tobacco use disorders. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
RATIONALE
Agonist-based pharmacologic intervention is an accepted approach in treatment of opioid and tobacco use disorders.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate usefulness of an agonist approach as treatment of (psycho)stimulant use disorder (PSUD).
METHODS
We reviewed PubMed/Medline, LILACS, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases searching for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design studies evaluating outcomes of individuals treated for cocaine- or amphetamine-type substance use disorder. We combined results of all trials that included the following prescription psychostimulants (PPs): modafinil, methylphenidate, or amphetamines (mixed amphetamine salts, lisdexamphetamine, and dextroamphetamine). The combined sample consisted of 2889 patients. Outcomes of interest included the following: drug abstinence (defined as 2-3 weeks of sustained abstinence and the average maximum days of consecutive abstinence), percentage of drug-negative urine tests across trial, and retention in treatment. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE system.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight trials were included. Treatment with PPs increases rates of sustained abstinence [risk ratio (RR) = 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.10, 1.92)] and duration of abstinence [mean difference (MD) = 3.34, 95% CI = (1.06, 5.62)] in patients with PSUD, particularly those with cocaine use disorder (very low-quality evidence). Prescription amphetamines were particularly efficacious in promoting sustained abstinence in patients with cocaine use disorder [RR = 2.44, 95% CI = (1.66, 3.58)], and higher doses of PPs were particularly efficacious for treatment of cocaine use disorder [RR = 1.95, 95% CI = (1.38, 2.77)] (moderate-quality evidence). Treatment with prescription amphetamines also yielded more cocaine-negative urines [MD = 8.37%, 95% CI = (3.75, 12.98)]. There was no effect of PPs on the retention in treatment.
CONCLUSION
Prescription psychostimulants, particularly prescription amphetamines given in robust doses, have a clinically significant beneficial effect to promote abstinence in the treatment of individuals with PSUD, specifically the population with cocaine use disorder.
Topics: Amphetamine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cocaine; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Prescription Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance-Related Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32601988
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-020-05563-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into adulthood and can affects individuals' social and occupational functioning, as well as their quality of life and health. ADHD is frequently associated with other mental disorders such as substance use disorders and anxiety and affective disorders. Amphetamines are used to treat adults with ADHD, but uncertainties about their efficacy and safety remain.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for adults with ADHD.
SEARCH METHODS
In August 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and two trials registers, and we ran citation searches for included studies. We also contacted the corresponding authors of all included studies, other experts in the field, and the pharmaceutical company, Shire, and we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews for other published, unpublished, or ongoing studies. For each included study, we performed a citation search in Web of Science to identify any later studies that may have cited it.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of amphetamines (at any dose) for ADHD in adults aged 18 years and over against placebo or an active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data from each included study. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) to assess continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We conducted a stratified analysis to determine the influence of moderating variables. We assessed trials for risk of bias and drew a funnel plot to investigate the possibility of publication bias. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, which yielded high, moderate, low, or very low quality ratings based on evaluation of within-trial risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity of data; precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 studies that investigated three types of amphetamines: dexamphetamine (10.2 mg/d to 21.8 mg/d), lisdexamfetamine (30 mg/d to 70 mg/d), and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS; 12.5 mg/d to 80 mg/d). These studies enrolled 2521 participants; most were middle-aged (35.3 years), Caucasian males (57.2%), with a combined type of ADHD (78.8%). Eighteen studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was conducted in both Canada and the USA. Ten were multi-site studies. All studies were placebo-controlled, and three also included an active comparator: guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine. Most studies had short-term follow-up and a mean study length of 5.3 weeks.We found no studies that had low risk of bias in all domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, mainly because amphetamines have powerful subjective effects that may reveal the assigned treatment, but also because we noted attrition bias, and because we could not rule out the possibility of a carry-over effect in studies that used a cross-over design.Sixteen studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, one study was publicly funded, and two studies did not report their funding sources.Amphetamines versus placeboSeverity of ADHD symptoms: we found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians (SMD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to -0.75; 13 studies, 2028 participants) and patients (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.28; six studies, 120 participants).Retention: overall, we found low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines did not improve retention in treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; 17 studies, 2323 participants).Adverse events: we found that amphetamines were associated with an increased proportion of patients who withdrew because of adverse events (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 4.45; 17 studies, 2409 participants).Type of amphetamine: we found differences between amphetamines for the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians. Both lisdexamfetamine (SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.85; seven studies, 896 participants; low-quality evidence) and MAS (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.66; five studies, 1083 participants; low-quality evidence) reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms. In contrast, we found no evidence to suggest that dexamphetamine reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.32; one study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence). In addition, all amphetamines were efficacious in reducing the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients (dexamphetamine: SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.40; two studies, 35 participants; low-quality evidence; lisdexamfetamine: SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01; three studies, 67 participants; low-quality evidence; MAS: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.12; one study, 18 participants; very low-quality evidence).Dose at study completion: different doses of amphetamines did not appear to be associated with differences in efficacy.Type of drug-release formulation: we investigated immediate- and sustained-release formulations but found no differences between them for any outcome.Amphetamines versus other drugsWe found no evidence that amphetamines improved ADHD symptom severity compared to other drug interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Amphetamines improved the severity of ADHD symptoms, as assessed by clinicians or patients, in the short term but did not improve retention to treatment. Amphetamines were associated with higher attrition due to adverse events. The short duration of studies coupled with their restrictive inclusion criteria limits the external validity of these findings. Furthermore, none of the included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Overall, the evidence generated by this review is of low or very low quality.
Topics: Adult; Amphetamines; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dextroamphetamine; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30091808
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007813.pub3 -
The European Respiratory Journal May 2016Modafinil is used internationally to treat residual sleepiness despite continuous positive airway pressure in obstructive sleep apnoea (res-OSA). In 2011, the European... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Modafinil is used internationally to treat residual sleepiness despite continuous positive airway pressure in obstructive sleep apnoea (res-OSA). In 2011, the European Medicines Agency removed the indication based on an unfavourable risk-benefit profile in two trials for efficacy and all accumulated safety data. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials of modafinil (or armodafinil) in res-OSA to quantify efficacy and safety.We systematically searched and assessed studies from major databases, conferences and trials registries to find randomised, placebo-controlled trials of modafinil/armodafinil for ≥2 weeks in adult res-OSA treating sleepiness.We analysed 10 of the 232 articles identified that met inclusion criteria (1466 patients). Modafinil/armodafinil improved the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (2.2 points, 95% CI 1.5-2.9) and the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test over placebo (3 min, 95% CI 2.1-3.8 min). Modafinil/armodafinil tripled adverse events and doubled adverse events leading to withdrawal but did not increase serious adverse events (hospitalisations or death).Modafinil and armodafinil improve subjective and objective daytime sleepiness in res-OSA. We believe our analysis is a fairer analysis of the risk-benefit profile of this indication. Clinicians may want to use this data to balance the risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis with their patients.
Topics: Adult; Benzhydryl Compounds; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Modafinil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Sleep Stages; Sleep Wake Disorders; Treatment Outcome; Wakefulness; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 26846828
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01509-2015 -
Cureus May 2023The literature on pharmacologic treatments for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is inconsistent and unstandardized. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate... (Review)
Review
The literature on pharmacologic treatments for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is inconsistent and unstandardized. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate choices in pharmacologic treatment options for POTS and the challenges encountered in the studies. We searched numerous databases like PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for literature published before April 8, 2023. The search was done to retrieve potential peer-reviewed articles that explored drug therapy in POTS. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct the systematic review. Of the 421 potential articles assessed, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Results demonstrated that pharmacologic treatment options for POTS were effective in reducing symptoms of POTS, but most of the studies were underpowered. Several were terminated due to various reasons. Midodrine ivabradine, bisoprolol, fludrocortisone, droxidopa, desmopressin, propranolol, modafinil, methylphenidate, and melatonin have been studied with positive impact but sample sizes that were low in the range of 10-50 subjects. Therefore, we concluded the treatment options effectively improve symptoms of POTS and increase orthostatic tolerance, but more evidence is needed as most studies had a low sample size and thus are underpowered.
PubMed: 37313107
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.38887 -
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