-
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jun 2022Non-emotional (e.g., executive functions) and emotional cognitive (e.g., facial emotion recognition) impairments are a well-known aspect of alcohol use disorder (AUD).... (Review)
Review
Non-emotional (e.g., executive functions) and emotional cognitive (e.g., facial emotion recognition) impairments are a well-known aspect of alcohol use disorder (AUD). These deficits may impede on treatment outcomes, increase the risk of relapse, and lead to socio-occupational disabilities. Previous systematic reviews have examined the effectiveness of cognitive enhancing pharmacological agents (CEPAs) targeting non-emotional, but not emotional, cognition in AUD. Our aim was to systematically review the effectiveness of CEPAs targeting emotional cognition in subclinical and clinical AUD populations. A qualitative synthesis of controlled trials was conducted, and the studies were assessed for risk of bias. Eight studies were eligible (15 ≤ ns ≤ 143), and they all had a moderate risk of bias. Modafinil and nalmefene were the most examined agents, with the findings suggesting a potential beneficial effect of the agents on implicit emotional domains (i.e., reward processing). Methodological shortcomings and heterogeneous findings across the studies do not allow inferences about the effectiveness of these compounds in AUD. Future studies should examine CEPAs targeting emotional cognition in more detail.
Topics: Alcoholism; Cognition; Emotions; Executive Function; Facial Recognition; Humans
PubMed: 35182608
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2022.110535 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Sep 2023Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a very common symptom in patients with cancer, and one of the five areas of highest priority in cancer research. There is currently no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a very common symptom in patients with cancer, and one of the five areas of highest priority in cancer research. There is currently no consensus on pharmacologic interventions for treating CRF. The aim of this systematic review is to provide more clarity on which pharmacologic interventions may be most promising, for future clinical trials. The network meta-analysis provides the ability to compare multiple agents when no direct head-to-head trials of all agents have been performed.
METHODS
Medline (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up until 5 March 2021. Studies were included if they reported on a pharmacologic intervention for CRF. Standardised mean differences and corresponding 95% CIs were computed using a random-effects maximum-likelihood model.
RESULTS
This review reports on 18 studies and 2604 patients, the most comprehensive review of pharmacologic interventions for CRF at the time of this publication. Methylphenidate, modafinil and paroxetine were superior to placebo. Methylphenidate and modafinil were equivalent to one another. Paroxetine was superior to modafinil.
CONCLUSION
Paroxetine should be further studied in future trials. As well, more safety data are needed on pharmacologic interventions.
Topics: Humans; Modafinil; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Paroxetine; Network Meta-Analysis; Methylphenidate; Fatigue; Neoplasms
PubMed: 34593386
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003244 -
CNS Spectrums Jul 2020Depression is considered to be the most difficult to treat phase of bipolar disorder as patients experience residual symptoms causing long-term disability. This work...
BACKGROUND
Depression is considered to be the most difficult to treat phase of bipolar disorder as patients experience residual symptoms causing long-term disability. This work aims to explore the role of add-on stimulant and stimulant-like medication in resistant bipolar depression patients.
METHODS
Systematic review of add-on stimulants and stimulant-like drugs in resistant bipolar depression by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Analysis was performed using the random-effects models. Heterogeneity was evaluated with Cochran's Q and I2 statistics.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials of add-on modafinil, armodafinil, and lisdexamphetamine (LDX) (n = 813) vs placebo (n = 815) in the treatment of resistant bipolar depression were included. These drugs were more likely to induce remission from an episode of resistant bipolar depression (relative risk [RR] = 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-1.77; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome = 16). Moreover, they did not induce more dropouts than placebo (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.91-1.18), nor did they increase the risk of adverse effects (53/772 vs 41/771) at the end of treatment (RR = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.81-2.10; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome = 62). Suicidality and manic switch were not affected by active treatment. Heterogeneity was low (Cochran's Q: P > .05), but sometimes with a large CI.
CONCLUSIONS
LDX, modafinil, and armodafinil seem to offer a reasonably well-tolerated and safe treatment in resistant bipolar depression. Treatment guidelines should, therefore, be revised to include these medications earlier in the therapeutic algorithm for resistant acute bipolar depression. Further research is, however, necessary for the elucidation of the clinical usefulness of these and other similar compounds.
PubMed: 32641179
DOI: 10.1017/S109285292000156X -
Neurocritical Care Aug 2020Amantadine and modafinil are neurostimulants that may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but the existing study results vary, and no comprehensive...
Amantadine and modafinil are neurostimulants that may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but the existing study results vary, and no comprehensive review has been published. This systematic review describes amantadine and modafinil administration practices post-stroke, evaluates timing and impact on clinical effectiveness measures, and identifies the incidence of potential adverse drug effects. A librarian-assisted search of the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE databases identified all English-language publications with "amantadine" or "modafinil" in the title or abstract from inception through February 1, 2020. Publications meeting predefined Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) criteria were included: Patients (≥ 18 years of age post-stroke); Intervention (amantadine or modafinil administration); Comparison (pretreatment baseline or control group); Outcomes (cognitive or functional outcome). Amantadine and modafinil administration practices, cognitive and functional outcomes, and incidence of potential adverse drug effects were collected following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance. Quantitative analyses were not performed due to heterogeneity in the clinical effectiveness measures; descriptive data are presented as number (percent) or median (interquartile range). Of 12,620 publications initially identified, 10 amantadine publications (n = 121 patients) and 12 modafinil publications (n = 120 patients) were included. Amantadine was initiated 39 (16, 385) days post-stroke, with most common initial doses of 100 mg once or twice daily (range 100-200 mg/day), and final daily dose of 200 (188, 200) mg/day. Modafinil was initiated 170 (17, 496) days post-stroke, with initial and final daily doses of 100 (100, 350) mg/day and 200 (100, 350) mg/day, respectively. The most common indication was consciousness disorders for amantadine (n = 3/10 publications; 30%) and fatigue for modafinil (n = 5/12; 42%). Forty unique clinical effectiveness measures (1.8 per study) with 141 domains (6.4 per study) were described across all studies. A positive response in at least one clinical effectiveness measure was reported in 70% of amantadine publications and 83% of modafinil publications. Only one publication each for amantadine (10%; n = 5 patients) and modafinil (8%; n = 21 patients) studied acutely hospitalized or ICU patients; both were randomized studies showing improvements in neurocognitive function for amantadine and fatigue for modafinil. Potential adverse drug effects were reported in approximately 50% of publications, most commonly visual hallucinations with amantadine (2% of patients) and dizziness (5% of patients) and dry eyes or mouth (5% of patients). Amantadine and modafinil may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but higher-quality data are needed to confirm this conclusion, especially in the acute care setting.
Topics: Amantadine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dopamine Agents; Humans; Modafinil; Recovery of Function; Stroke
PubMed: 32394130
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-020-00977-5 -
International Journal of Clinical... Feb 2019Stroke is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. The use of modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting agent, is hypothesised to benefit stroke patients.
INTRODUCTION
Stroke is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. The use of modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting agent, is hypothesised to benefit stroke patients.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions recommendations to assess the efficacy and safety of modafinil in poststroke patients. We prospectively registered the review protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42017078465) and reported the systematic review following the PRISMA statement.
RESULTS
Two published studies (77 participants) and one ongoing randomised controlled trial, with limited methodological quality, assessed the effects of modafinil (200 mg or 400 mg) for adults from 14 days poststroke up to 3 months poststroke and fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The clinical and methodological variability between studies precluded meta-analyses. Overall, these studies showed some benefit of modafinil for fatigue, but no benefit for disability, cognition, and for subscores of stroke-specific quality of life. Data for adverse events were scarce and mortality was not considered by studies. Due to very low quality related to the evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of modafinil for all outcomes assessed by our systematic review.
CONCLUSION
Based on two small randomised controlled trial, which provided very low quality evidence, the effects (benefits and harms) of modafinil for stroke patients are unclear and do not support its routinely use in clinical practice for this clinical situation. Number of Protocol registration in PROSPERO database: CRD42017078465 (available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017078465).
Topics: Cognition; Fatigue; Humans; Modafinil; Quality of Life; Stroke; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 30444561
DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.13295 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Factors contributing to subjective fatigue in people with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD) are not well known. This makes it difficult to manage fatigue effectively... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Factors contributing to subjective fatigue in people with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD) are not well known. This makes it difficult to manage fatigue effectively in PD.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, compared to an inactive control intervention, on subjective fatigue in people with PD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE (via PubMed); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; Ovid PsycINFO; PEDro; and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal up to April 2015. References of included studies and identified review articles were screened for additional studies. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that report on subjective fatigue in people with PD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data collection and risk of bias assessments.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven studies were eligible for this systematic review, with a total of 1817 people. Three studies included only people who experienced clinically relevant fatigue (Fatigue Severity Scale score ≥ 4 out of 7 or Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory total score > 48 out of 100), whereas all other studies did not select participants on the basis of experienced fatigue. Nine studies investigated the effects of medication (i.e. levodopa-carbidopa, memantine, rasagiline, caffeine, methylphenidate, modafinil or doxepin) on subjective fatigue. All studies were placebo controlled. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of doxepin on the impact of fatigue on activities in daily life (ADL) or fatigue severity (one study, N = 12, standardised mean difference (SMD) = -1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.84 to -0.15; low quality evidence). We found high quality evidence that rasagiline reduced or slowed down the progression of physical aspects of fatigue (one study, N = 1176, SMD = -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.16, I(2) = 0%). None of the other pharmacological interventions affected subjective fatigue in PD. With regard to adverse effects, only levodopa-carbidopa showed an increase for the risk of nausea (one study, N = 361, risk ratio (RR) = 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.27; high quality evidence). Two studies investigated the effect of exercise on fatigue compared with usual care. We found low quality evidence for the effect of exercise on reducing the impact of fatigue on ADL or fatigue severity (two studies, N = 57, SMD = -0.45, 95% CI -1.21 to 0.32, I(2) = 44%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current evidence, no clear recommendations for the treatment of subjective fatigue in PD can be provided. Doxepin may reduce the impact of fatigue on ADL and fatigue severity; however, this finding has to be confirmed in high quality studies. Rasagiline may be effective in reducing levels of physical fatigue in PD. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of levodopa-carbidopa, memantine, caffeine, methylphenidate, modafinil or exercise. Studies are needed to investigate the effect of exercise intensity on exercise capacity and subjective fatigue. Future studies should focus on interventions that address the maladaptive behavioural or cognitive aspects of fatigue in people with PD. Characteristics, such as severity and nature of perceived fatigue and underlying mood disorders should be considered to identify responders and non-responders when studying interventions for fatigue. The development of a core-set of self-report fatigue questionnaires with established responsiveness and known minimal important difference values will facilitate the interpretation of change in fatigue scores.
Topics: Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dopamine Agents; Exercise; Fatigue; Humans; Parkinson Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26447539
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010925.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the management of cancer-related fatigue'.In healthy individuals, fatigue is a protective response to physical or mental stress, often relieved by rest. By contrast, in palliative care patients' fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Fatigue frequently occurs in patients with advanced disease (e.g. cancer-related fatigue) and modalities used to treat cancer can often contribute. Further complicating issues are the multidimensionality, subjective nature and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. The pathophysiology is not fully understood and evidence-based treatment approaches are needed.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for fatigue in palliative care, with a focus on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including patients with cancer and other chronic diseases.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, and a selection of cancer journals up to 28 April 2014. We searched the references of identified articles and contacted authors to obtain unreported data. To validate the search strategy we selected sentinel references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) concerning adult palliative care with a focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue compared to placebo, application of two drugs, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia). We did not include studies on fatigue related to antineoplastic treatment (e.g. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgical intervention). We also included secondary outcomes that were assessed in fatigue-related studies (e.g. exhaustion, tiredness).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MM and MC) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We screened the search results and included studies if they met the selection criteria. If we identified two or more studies that investigated a specific drug with the same dose in a population with the same disease and using the same assessment instrument or scale, we conducted meta-analysis. In addition, we compared the type of drug investigated in specific populations, as well as the frequent adverse effects of fatigue treatment, by creating overview tables.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we screened 1645 publications of which 45 met the inclusion criteria (20 additional studies to the previous reviews). In total, we analysed data from 18 drugs and 4696 participants. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials and we discuss the reasons for this in the review. There were some sources of potential bias in the included studies, including a lack of description of the methods of blinding and allocation concealment, and the small size of the study populations. We included studies investigating pemoline and modafinil in participants with multiple sclerosis (MS)-associated fatigue and methylphenidate in patients suffering from advanced cancer and fatigue in meta-analysis. Treatment results pointed to weak and inconclusive evidence for the efficacy of amantadine, pemoline and modafinil in multiple sclerosis and for carnitine and donepezil in cancer-related fatigue. Methylphenidate and pemoline seem to be effective in patients with HIV, but this is based only on one study per intervention, with only a moderate number of participants in each study. Meta-analysis shows an estimated superior effect for methylphenidate in cancer-related fatigue (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.83). Therapeutic effects could not be described for dexamphetamine, paroxetine or testosterone. There were a variety of results for the secondary outcomes in some studies. Most studies had low participant numbers and were heterogeneous. In general, adverse reactions were mild and had little or no impact.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for the treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Fatigue research in palliative care seems to focus on modafinil and methylphenidate, which may be beneficial for the treatment of fatigue associated with palliative care although further research about their efficacy is needed. Dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, acetylsalicylic acid, armodafinil, amantadine and L-carnitine should be further examined. Consensus is needed regarding fatigue outcome parameters for clinical trials.
Topics: Adult; Amantadine; Benzhydryl Compounds; Carnitine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Chronic Disease; Fatigue; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Multiple Sclerosis; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Pemoline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26026155
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006788.pub3 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Dec 2016Pharmacotherapy has been used as an adjunct to CPAP for treatment of residual excessive sleepiness in patients with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Pharmacotherapy has been used as an adjunct to CPAP for treatment of residual excessive sleepiness in patients with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). However, no studies with a high level of evidence have been conducted to support this practice and confirm its effectiveness. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize and quantify the effects of pharmacological treatment in adults with OSAS who experience residual excessive sleepiness despite adequate CPAP use. We reviewed clinical trials that compared medications to placebo and evaluated the outcomes residual excessive sleepiness, cognition, and quality of life, as well as treatment effectiveness and safety. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL, and PsycINFO electronic databases were searched using highly sensitive search strategies. Trials were only included if measures were taken to ensure effective CPAP treatment. Eight randomized clinical trials were included. Pharmacotherapy with modafinil and armodafinil led to improvement of excessive daytime sleepiness, attention/alertness, and clinical condition as measured with the CGI-C. No improvements in quality of life or other cognitive domains (including memory, executive function, and language) could be confirmed. Pharmacotherapy did not cause any severe adverse effects, but was associated with significant dropout rates as compared with placebo. In conclusion, although our results demonstrate the effectiveness of pharmacological treatment as an adjunct to CPAP, further investigation is necessary to improve confidence in its effects. Many findings on the impact of pharmacotherapy on cognition and quality of life were evaluated through analysis of single studies, with heterogeneity in tests and absence of standardization, which reduced certainty as to whether actual improvement occurred in these outcomes.
Topics: Cognition; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Humans; Quality of Life; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Sleep Stages
PubMed: 27865102
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2015.10.005 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Dec 2021To evaluate and compare the effects of three cognitive boosting intervention approaches (computerised cognitive training, cognitive remediation and pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To evaluate and compare the effects of three cognitive boosting intervention approaches (computerised cognitive training, cognitive remediation and pharmacological cognitive enhancers) on measures of impulsive action and impulsive choice.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of publications that reported original controlled trials of cognitive boosting interventions.
SETTING
Studies conducted anywhere in the world. No language restrictions were applied.
PARTICIPANTS
Treatment-seeking adults with substance use disorder or gambling disorder.
MEASUREMENTS
Our primary outcome was a reduction in impulsive action or choice on a validated cognitive measure post-intervention. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and determined pooled estimates from published reports. We performed random-effects analyses for impulsive action and impulsive choice outcomes and planned moderator analyses.
FINDINGS
Of 2204 unique studies identified, 60 were included in the full-text review. Twenty-three articles were considered eligible for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis and 16 articles were included in our meta-analysis. Articles eligible for pooled analyses included five working memory training (computerised cognitive training) studies with 236 participants, three goal management training (cognitive remediation) studies with 99 participants, four modafinil (cognitive enhancer) studies with 160 participants and four galantamine (cognitive enhancer) studies with 131 participants. Study duration ranged from 5 days to 13 weeks, with immediate follow-up assessments. There were no studies identified that specifically targeted gambling disorder. We only found evidence for a benefit on impulsive choice of goal management training, although only in two studies involving 66 participants (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.49-1.23; P = 0.02; I = 0%, P = 0.95).
CONCLUSION
Cognitive remediation, and specifically goal management training, may be an effective treatment for addressing impulsive choice in addiction. Preliminary evidence does not support the use of computerised cognitive training or pharmacological enhancers to boost impulse control in addiction.
Topics: Adult; Behavior, Addictive; Bias; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Humans; Impulsive Behavior
PubMed: 33751683
DOI: 10.1111/add.15469 -
Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps Jun 2017Fatigue in military operations leads to safety and operational problems due to a decrease in alertness and performance. The primary method of counteracting the effects... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fatigue in military operations leads to safety and operational problems due to a decrease in alertness and performance. The primary method of counteracting the effects of sleep deprivation is to increase nightly sleep time, which in operational situations is not always feasible. History has taught us that surgeons and surgical teams are finite resources that cannot operate on patients indefinitely.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using the search terms '' and '' examining the impact of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance in military surgical teams. Studies examining outcomes on intensive care patients and subjects with comorbidities were not addressed in this review.
RESULTS
Sleep deprivation in any '' surgery has a significant impact on overall morbidity and mortality. Sleep deprivation in surgeons and surgical trainees negatively impacts cognitive performance and puts their own and patients' health at risk. All published research lacks consensus when defining '' and '' states. It is recognised that it would be unethical to conduct a well-designed randomised controlled trial, to determine the effects of fatigue on performance in surgery; however, there is a paucity between surrogate markers and applying simulated results to actual clinical performance. This requires further research. Recommended methods of combating fatigue include: prophylactically '' prior to known periods of sleep deprivation, napping, use of stimulant or alerting substances such as modafinil, coordinated work schedules to reduce circadian desynchronisation and regular breaks with enforced rest periods.
CONCLUSIONS
A forward surgical team will become combat-ineffective after 48 hours of continuous operations. This systematic review recommends implementing on-call periods of no more than 12 hours in duration, with adequate rest periods every 24 hours. Drug therapies and sleep banking may, in the short term, prevent negative effects of acute sleep deprivation.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Clinical Competence; Cognition; Fatigue; Health Personnel; Humans; Military Medicine; Military Personnel; Modafinil; Patient Care Team; Rest; Sleep; Sleep Deprivation; Surgeons; Task Performance and Analysis; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 27625370
DOI: 10.1136/jramc-2016-000640