-
Bipolar Disorders Mar 2020The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dopaminergic-enhancing agent modafinil/armodafinil (MoArm) as adjunctive treatment for bipolar... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dopaminergic-enhancing agent modafinil/armodafinil (MoArm) as adjunctive treatment for bipolar depression.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of major electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjunctive MoArm that included patients with bipolar I (BP-I) or bipolar II (BP-II) depression. Data for response/remission and all-cause discontinuation were analyzed. Effect size was summarized by relative risk (RR) using a random effect model.
RESULTS
Of 58 studies, five RCTs (N = 795 drug, N = 792 placebo) met inclusion criteria. Four armodafinil studies included only BP-I patients and one modafinil study included both bipolar subtypes with limited heterogeneity (I = 34%, P = .19; I = 18%, P = .30). Compared to placebo, augmentation with MoArm was associated with significantly greater rates of treatment response (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.37; P = .03) and remission (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.73; P = .005). All-cause discontinuation was not different than placebo (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.30; P = .45) with no evidence of increased risk of mood switch or suicide attempts with MoArm (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.39-2.5; P = .98; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.37-2.85; P = .97).
CONCLUSION
This narrower scope meta-analysis of one drug for one disease suggests that adjunctive MoArm may represent a novel therapeutic intervention. Further studies delineating the subtypes of bipolar depression responsive to these novel dopaminergic-enhancing agents are encouraged.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Female; Humans; Modafinil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31643130
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.12859 -
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry :... Aug 2016The objective of this systematic review is to summarize data from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of stimulants for psychiatric symptoms in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The objective of this systematic review is to summarize data from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of stimulants for psychiatric symptoms in individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
METHODS
A literature search was conducted of 5 major databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration) that identified RCTs on the use of stimulants for human patients with a diagnosis of TBI.
RESULTS
A total of 176 articles were identified, of which 18 matched the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in their entirety. The majority (17) of studies assessed methylphenidate (MPH), 1 assessed dextroamphetamine and MPH, and 1 assessed modafinil. One study showed significant improvement in depressive symptoms with MPH. Seven studies showed significant improvement in reaction time, whereas 4 studies showed significant improvement in accuracy with MPH compared with placebo. Of the 2 studies that included follow-up, only 1 found significant differences in disability ratings, attention-concentration, and motor memory at 30 days but not 90 days between the stimulant and placebo groups. The majority of studies demonstrated significant treatment effects immediately (ie, within minutes to hours) after first-time stimulant administration. Five of the 18 studies (3 adult, 2 pediatric) did not find benefit for stimulants when compared with placebo. Two studies that evaluated self-reported side effects found no significant difference between treatment groups, although 1 study showed a significant increase in mean arterial pressure in the stimulant group.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to suggest efficacy of stimulants for psychiatric symptoms in individuals with TBI. However, stimulants appear to improve attention after first-time administration and for short time periods in these individuals.
Topics: Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Depression; Humans; Methylphenidate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27490831
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical Therapeutics Apr 2016Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with nocturnal hypoxemia, excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), and sympathetic hyperactivation. Continuous positive airway... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with nocturnal hypoxemia, excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), and sympathetic hyperactivation. Continuous positive airway pressure is the first-line treatment for OSA. However, some patients may have residual EDS. Modafinil and its R-enantiomer, armodafinil, are wakefulness-promoting agents known to be effective in alleviating sleepiness.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of modafinil and armodafinil in treating EDS in patients with OSA. Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched for articles on OSA published before October 2015.
FINDINGS
We identified 11 RCTs of modafinil involving 723 patients and 5 RCTs of armodafinil involving 1009 patients. A pooled estimate of the mean differences in sleepiness parameters versus placebo were calculated using the random-effects model. Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores improved significantly in the modafinil group (weighted mean difference [WMD], -2.96 [95% confidence interval (CI), -3.73 to -2.19]) and in the armodafinil group (WMD, -2.63; 95% CI, -3.4 to -1.85) compared with those in the placebo group. Sleep latency, as measured on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test, was significantly prolonged in the modafinil group (WMD, 2.51 [95% CI, 1.5-3.52]) and in the armodafinil group (WMD, 2.71 [95% CI, 0.04-5.37]). Patients tolerated the adverse events with both medications well.
IMPLICATIONS
The findings from our study suggest that both modafinil and armodafinil significantly improved subjective and objective daytime sleepiness. Thus, modafinil and armodafinil may be recommended to patients with OSA, particularly those with EDS.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Humans; Modafinil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 26923035
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.02.004 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Jun 2017To systematically examine the effects of dopaminergic agents (modafinil, armodafinil, pramipexole, methylphenidate, and amphetamines) on bipolar depression outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically examine the effects of dopaminergic agents (modafinil, armodafinil, pramipexole, methylphenidate, and amphetamines) on bipolar depression outcomes.
METHODS
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of treatment with dopaminergic agents in bipolar depression. In a secondary analysis, findings from both randomized controlled trials and high-quality observational studies were pooled by means of meta-analytic procedures to explore dopaminergic treatment-related new mania.
RESULTS
Nine studies (1716 patients) were included in our meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Treatment with dopaminergic agents for bipolar depression was associated with an increase in both response (1671 individuals, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.50) and remission rates (1671 individuals, RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14, 1.71). There was no evidence of an increased risk of mood switch associated with this treatment (1646 individuals, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.49, 1.89). Our secondary analysis (1231 individuals) yielded a cumulative incidence of mood switch of 3% (95% CI 1.0, 5.0) during a mean follow-up period of 7.5 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary findings suggest that dopaminergic agents may represent a useful alternative for the treatment of bipolar depression, with no evidence for a related increase in the risk of mood destabilization during short-term follow-up.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Dopamine Agents; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28256707
DOI: 10.1111/acps.12712 -
European Journal of Cancer Care Nov 2016Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common symptom affecting 60-90% of cancer survivors, and effective management for CRF is not yet available. Recently, an increasing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common symptom affecting 60-90% of cancer survivors, and effective management for CRF is not yet available. Recently, an increasing number of trials examining the use of psychotropic drugs for the treatment of CRF have been performed, but these trials have yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aimed at assessing the effect and safety of psychotropic drugs for the management of CRF. Ten eligible trials of the psychotropic drugs methylphenidate and modafinil in a total of 1582 participants treated for CRF were subjected to statistical analyses. A meta-analysis of seven of these studies indicated that methylphenidate was superior to placebo for the treatment of CRF. Another meta-analysis of three studies evaluating modafinil found that this drug was no better than placebo. Adverse events were similar between both methylphenidate and modafinil and the placebo groups. Our meta-analysis indicated that the treatment of CRF with methylphenidate appears to be effective, whereas modafinil provides no benefit. These results of this analysis warrant further trials to confirm the efficacy and safety of psychotropic drugs for the treatment of CRF.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Fatigue; Humans; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Neoplasms; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 26490083
DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12397 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Fatigue is the most commonly reported symptom in people with advanced cancer. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is pervasive and debilitating, and can greatly impact quality... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fatigue is the most commonly reported symptom in people with advanced cancer. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is pervasive and debilitating, and can greatly impact quality of life (QoL). CRF has a highly variable clinical presentation, likely due to a complex interaction of multiple factors. Corticosteroids are commonly used to improve CRF, but the benefits are unclear and there are significant adverse effects associated with long-term use. With the increasing survival of people with metastatic cancer, the long-term effects of medications are becoming increasingly relevant. Since the impact of CRF can be immensely debilitating and can negatively affect QoL, its treatment warrants further review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of corticosteroids compared with placebo or an active comparator in adults with advanced cancer and CRF.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Science), LILACS, and two clinical trial registries from inception to 18 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults aged ≥18 years. We included participants with advanced cancer who were suffering from CRF. We included trials that randomised participants to corticosteroids at any dose, by any route, administered for the relief of CRF; compared to placebo or an active comparator, including supportive care or non-pharmacological treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy; two review authors assessed risk of bias; and two extracted data. We extracted the primary outcome of participant-reported fatigue relief using validated scales and secondary outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events and QoL. We calculated the risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between groups for dichotomous outcomes. We measured arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI between groups for continuous outcomes. We used standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs when an outcome was measured with different instruments measuring the same construct. We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse the outcome data. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 297 enroled participants; data were available for only 239 participants. Three studies compared corticosteroid (equivalent ≤ 8 mg dexamethasone) to placebo. One study compared corticosteroid (dexamethasone 4 mg) to an active comparator (modafinil 100 mg). There were insufficient data to evaluate subgroups, such as dose and duration of treatment. One study had a high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding, and one study had a high risk of attrition bias. Otherwise, we assessed risks of bias as low or unclear. Comparison 1: corticosteroids compared with placebo Participant-reported fatigue relief The was no clear difference between corticosteroids and placebo (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.14; 3 RCTs, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence) for relief of fatigue at one week of the intervention. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for study limitations due to unclear risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of lIfe One study reported QoL at one week using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) well-being, and found no clear difference in QoL between groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -1.93 to 0.77). Another study measured QoL using the Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer Patients Treated with Anticancer Drugs (QoL-ACD), and found no clear difference between groups. There was no clear difference between groups for either study, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 2: corticosteroids compared with active comparator (modafinil) Participant-reported fatigue relief There was improvement in fatigue from baseline to two weeks in both groups (modafinil MD 10.15, 95% CI 7.43 to 12.87; dexamethasone MD 9.21, 95% CI 6.73 to 11.69), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD -0.94, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.61; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for very serious study limitations and imprecision. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events There were no serious adverse events reported in either group (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of lIfe One study measured QoL at two weeks, using the ESAS-well-being. There was marked improvement in QoL from baseline in both groups (modafinil MD -2.43, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.98; dexamethasone MD -2.16, 95% CI -2.68 to -1.64), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD 0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.93; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of systemic corticosteroids in adults with cancer and CRF. We included four small studies that provided very low-certainty of evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroids in the management of CRF. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids in this setting.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Adolescent; Quality of Life; Modafinil; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Fatigue
PubMed: 36688471
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013782.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of chronic disability. Worldwide, it is the leading cause of disability in the under 40s, resulting in severe disability in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of chronic disability. Worldwide, it is the leading cause of disability in the under 40s, resulting in severe disability in some 150 to 200 million people per annum. In addition to mood and behavioural problems, cognition-particularly memory, attention and executive function-are commonly impaired by TBI. Cognitive problems following TBI are one of the most important factors in determining people's subjective well-being and their quality of life. Drugs are widely used in an attempt to improve cognitive functions. Whilst cholinergic agents in TBI have been reviewed, there has not yet been a systematic review or meta-analysis of the effect on chronic cognitive problems of all centrally acting pharmacological agents.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of centrally acting pharmacological agents for treatment of chronic cognitive impairment subsequent to traumatic brain injury in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS-the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register-on 16 November 2013, 23 February 2013, 20 January 2014, and 30 December 2014 using the terms: traumatic OR TBI OR "brain injury" OR "brain injuries" OR TBIs OR "axonal injury" OR "axonal injuries". ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases, numerous trial registries and grey literature sources. Supplementary searches were also performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, LILACs, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) Portal (ICTRP) and Web of Science with conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of any one centrally acting pharmacological agent that affects one or more of the main neurotransmitter systems in people with chronic traumatic brain injury; and there had to be a minimum of 12 months between the injury and entry into the trial.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors examined titles and abstracts of citations obtained from the search. Relevant articles were retrieved for further assessment. A bibliographic search of relevant papers was conducted. We extracted data using a standardised tool, which included data on the incidence of adverse effects. Where necessary we requested additional unpublished data from study authors. Risk of bias was assessed by a single author.
MAIN RESULTS
Only four studies met the criteria for inclusion, with a total of 274 participants. Four pharmacological agents were investigated: modafinil (51 participants); (-)-OSU6162, a monoamine stabiliser (12 participants of which six had a TBI); atomoxetine (60 participants); and rivastigmine (157 participants). A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the small number and heterogeneity of the studies.All studies examined cognitive performance, with the majority of the psychometric sub-tests showing no difference between treatment and placebo (n = 274, very low quality evidence). For (-)-OSU6162 modest superiority over placebo was demonstrated on three measures, but markedly inferior performance on another. Rivastigmine was better than placebo on one primary measure, and a single cognitive outcome in a secondary analysis of a subgroup with more severe memory impairment at baseline. The study of modafinil assessed clinical global improvement (n = 51, low quality evidence), and did not find any difference between treatment and placebo. Safety, as measured by adverse events, was reported by all studies (n = 274, very low quality evidence), with significantly more nausea reported by participants who received rivastigmine compared to placebo. There were no other differences in safety between treatment and placebo. No studies reported any deaths.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to determine whether pharmacological treatment is effective in chronic cognitive impairment in TBI. Whilst there is a positive finding for rivastigmine on one primary measure, all other primary measures were not better than placebo. The positive findings for (-)-OSU6162 are interpreted cautiously as the study was small (n = 6). For modafinil and atomoxetine no positive effects were found. All four drugs appear to be relatively well tolerated, although evidence is sparse.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Benzhydryl Compounds; Brain Injuries; Chronic Disease; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Humans; Middle Aged; Modafinil; Nootropic Agents; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 26624881
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009221.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2022Narcolepsy is a neurological disease characterized by a core symptom of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Although effective pharmacological interventions for...
Narcolepsy is a neurological disease characterized by a core symptom of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Although effective pharmacological interventions for narcolepsy have been developed, a lack of comparative evidence supporting the relative efficacy among these medications leads to clinical treatment challenge. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to overcome this lack of head-to-head comparisons. Databases were searched systematically for randomized controlled trials that compared pharmacological interventions for narcolepsy. The primary outcomes were changes in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT). A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted. A total of 19 RCTs involving 2504 patients were included. Solriamfetol achieved the highest ranking based on the P-scores, and was superior to pitolisant (MD -2.88, 95% CI -4.89--0.88) and sodium oxybate (MD -2.56, 95% CI -4.62--0.51) for ESS change. Consistently, solriamfetol achieved the highest ranking according to MWT change, and was superior to pitolisant (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.02-0.88) and modafinil (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.05-0.79). Although solriamfetol demonstrated superior efficacy in EDS improvement, evidence from the clustered ranking plot supported that efficacy-safety profiles of pitolisant, sodium oxybate, and modafinil are more balanced than solriamfetol. Therefore, the choice of medication for EDS in narcolepsy should be made on an individual basis.
PubMed: 36362535
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11216302 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Apr 2024Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Pharmacotherapy offers a potential treatment approach for EDS in OSA patients. This... (Review)
Review
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Pharmacotherapy offers a potential treatment approach for EDS in OSA patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for alleviating EDS in patients with OSA. Following PRISMA guidelines, we included randomized controlled trials investigating pharmacological treatments for EDS in adult OSA until August 2023. We conducted meta-analysis, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses using a random effects model. Finally, a network meta-analysis synthesized direct and indirect evidence, followed by a comprehensive safety analysis. We included 32 articles in the meta-analysis (n = 3357). Pharmacotherapy showed a significant improvement in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score (Mean Difference (MD) -2.73, (95 % Confidence Interval (CI) [-3.25, -2.20], p < 0.01) and Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT) score (MD 6.00 (95 % CI [2.66, 9.33] p < 0.01). Solriamfetol, followed by Pitolisant and modafinil, exhibited the greatest ESS reduction, while Danavorexton, followed by Solriamfetol and MK-7288, had the strongest impact on MWT. MK-7288 had the most total adverse events (AEs), followed by Danavorexton and armodafinil. Pharmacological Interventions significantly alleviate EDS in OSA patients but with heterogeneity across medications. Treatment decisions should involve a personalized assessment of patient factors and desired outcomes.
PubMed: 38754208
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2024.101934 -
Pharmacopsychiatry Apr 2020Several reports of the effectiveness of the use of psychostimulants for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are available. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Several reports of the effectiveness of the use of psychostimulants for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are available.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted including double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Outcomes were the improvement of apathy scales score (primary), mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score, activities of daily living scale score, Zarit burden interview score, all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and incidence of at least 1 adverse event.
RESULTS
Three methylphenidate studies and 1 modafinil study were identified (n=156). Results from combined psychostimulants were superior to placebo in the improvement of apathy scales score (standardized mean differences [SMD]=-0.63 (-1.22, -0.04), p=0.04, all studies) and the MMSE score (SMD=-0.58 (-1.14, -0.02), p=0.04, 3 methylphenidate studies). The modafinil study was excluded from the meta-analysis for the improvement of apathy scales score; therefore, the effect size increased (SMD=-0.82 (-1.43, -0.20), p=0.009). However, no significant differences were observed in terms of other outcomes, including safety outcomes between the treatment groups.
DISCUSSION
Methylphenidate would be effective in treating apathy and cognitive impairment in AD patients.
Topics: Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Apathy; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognitive Dysfunction; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Methylphenidate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32000270
DOI: 10.1055/a-1076-8228