-
Sleep Medicine Clinics Sep 2019Idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) is characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness despite normal or prolonged sleep. IH is distinguished from narcolepsy by the female... (Review)
Review
Idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) is characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness despite normal or prolonged sleep. IH is distinguished from narcolepsy by the female predominance, severe morning inertia, continuous drowsiness (rather than sleep attacks), unrefreshing naps, absence of cataplexy, sleep onset in REM periods, and hypocretin deficiency. In IH, the multiple sleep latency test demonstrates low sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility, compared with prolonged sleep monitoring. In some IH cases, an endogenous hypnotic peptide stimulating GABA receptors during wakefulness is suspected, which are improved by anti-GABA drugs. The benefits of modafinil, sodium oxybate, mazindol, and pitolisant were found in mostly retrospective studies.
Topics: Central Nervous System Stimulants; Clarithromycin; Flumazenil; GABA Modulators; Humans; Idiopathic Hypersomnia; Mazindol; Modafinil; Orexins; Piperidines; Polysomnography; Precision Medicine; Sleep; Sodium Oxybate; Wakefulness; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 31375202
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsmc.2019.05.007 -
Sleep Medicine Jun 2017Mazindol is an imidazo-isoindole derivative, a tricyclic compound and a non-amphetamine central nervous system stimulant that blocks dopamine and norepinephrine... (Review)
Review
Mazindol is an imidazo-isoindole derivative, a tricyclic compound and a non-amphetamine central nervous system stimulant that blocks dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake. Mazindol was withdrawn from the US and European markets in 1999 for reasons unrelated to its efficacy or safety around a time when other anorexic drugs were found to be associated with the development of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Despite the use of mazindol for decades, reports of PAH due to mazindol intake have been extremely rare. Recent interest on mazindol has emerged for the treatment of narcolepsy and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Therefore, an updated understanding of the potential benefits and risks of mazindol in these patient populations is warranted.
Topics: Central Nervous System Stimulants; Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Mazindol; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28522087
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2017.02.020 -
Acta Pharmaceutica (Zagreb, Croatia) Jun 2021The current study investigates the anorectic interaction and safety of the mazindol-metformin combination in rats. Isobologram and interaction index were used to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
The current study investigates the anorectic interaction and safety of the mazindol-metformin combination in rats. Isobologram and interaction index were used to determine anorectic interaction between mazindol and metformin in the sweetened milk model. The safety profile of the mazindol-metformin combination was determined by measuring anxiety, blood pressure, hematic biometry and blood chemistry. An acute dose of mazindol and metformin administered per os, individually or as a mixture, has reduced the milk consumption in rats in a dose-dependent manner. Theoretical effective dose 40 (ED40t) did not differ from the experimental effective dose 40 (ED40e) obtained with the mazindol-metformin mixture in the anorexia experiments, by Student's t-test. In addition, the interaction index confirmed the additive anorectic effect between both drugs. A single oral dose of ED40e mazindol-metformin mixture induced anxiolysis in the elevated plus-maze test. Moreover, oral administration of mazindol-metformin combination for 3 months significantly decreased glycemia, but not blood pressure nor other parameters of hematic biometry and blood chemistry. Results suggest that mazindol-metformin combination exerts an additive anorectic effect, as well as anxiolytic and hypoglycemic properties. Mazindol-metformin combination might be useful in obese patients with anxiety disorders or diabetes risk factors.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Animals; Appetite Depressants; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hypoglycemic Agents; Male; Maze Learning; Mazindol; Metformin; Rats; Rats, Wistar
PubMed: 33151165
DOI: 10.2478/acph-2021-0019 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Cocaine dependence is a severe disorder for which no medication has been approved. Like opioids for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulants could be... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cocaine dependence is a severe disorder for which no medication has been approved. Like opioids for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulants could be an effective therapy for treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of psychostimulants for cocaine abuse and dependence. Specific outcomes include sustained cocaine abstinence and retention in treatment. We also studied the influence of type of drug and comorbid disorders on psychostimulant efficacy.
SEARCH METHODS
This is an update of the review previously published in 2010. For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO up to 15 February 2016. We handsearched references of obtained articles and consulted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised parallel group controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of a psychostimulant drug versus placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 studies involving 2366 participants. The included studies assessed nine drugs: bupropion, dexamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil, mazindol, methamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts and selegiline. We did not consider any study to be at low risk of bias for all domains included in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Attrition bias was the most frequently suspected potential source of bias of the included studies. We found very low quality evidence that psychostimulants improved sustained cocaine abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.77, P = 0.02), but they did not reduce cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.33) among participants who continued to use it. Furthermore, we found moderate quality evidence that psychostimulants did not improve retention in treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06). The proportion of adverse event-induced dropouts and cardiovascular adverse event-induced dropouts was similar for psychostimulants and placebo (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, respectively). When we included the type of drug as a moderating variable, the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine abstinence was higher with bupropion and dexamphetamine than with placebo. Psychostimulants also appeared to increase the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine and heroin abstinence amongst methadone-maintained, dual heroin-cocaine addicts. Retention to treatment was low, though, so our results may be compromised by attrition bias. We found no evidence of publication bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found mixed results. Psychostimulants improved cocaine abstinence compared to placebo in some analyses but did not improve treatment retention. Since treatment dropout was high, we cannot rule out the possibility that these results were influenced by attrition bias. Existing evidence does not clearly demonstrate the efficacy of any pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence, but substitution treatment with psychostimulants appears promising and deserves further investigation.
PubMed: 27670244
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007380.pub4 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) May 2017The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of amfepramone, fenproporex and mazindol as a monotherapy for the treatment of obese or overweight patients. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of amfepramone, fenproporex and mazindol as a monotherapy for the treatment of obese or overweight patients. A systematic review of primary studies was conducted, followed by a direct meta-analysis (random effect) and mixed treatment comparison. Medline and other databases were searched. Heterogeneity was explored through I2 associated with a p-value. Of 739 identified publications, 25 were included in the meta-analysis. The global evaluation of Cochrane resulted in 19 studies with a high level of bias and six with unclear risk. Due to the lack of information in primary studies, direct meta-analyses were conducted only for amfepramone and mazindol. Compared to placebo, amfepramone resulted in higher weight loss in the short-term (<180 days; mean difference (MD) -1.281 kg; p<0.05; I2: 0.0%; p=0.379) and long-term (≥180 days; MD -6.518 kg; p<0.05; I2: 0.0%; p=0.719). Only studies with long-term follow up reported efficacy in terms of abdominal circumference and 5-10% weight reduction. These results corroborated the finding that the efficacy of amfepramone is greater than that of placebo. Treatment with mazindol showed greater short-term weight loss than that with placebo (MD -1.721 kg; p<0.05; I2: 0.9%; p=0.388). However, metabolic outcomes were poorly described, preventing a meta-analysis. A mixed treatment comparison corroborated the direct meta-analysis. Considering the high level of risk of bias and the absence of important published outcomes for anti-obesity therapy assessments, this study found that the evaluated drugs showed poor evidence of efficacy in the treatment of overweight and obese patients. Robust safety data were not identified to suggest changes in their regulatory status.
Topics: Appetite Depressants; Diethylpropion; Humans; Mazindol; Obesity; Overweight; Publication Bias; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Weight Loss
PubMed: 28591345
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2017(05)10 -
CNS Drugs Dec 2019This article provides an overview of the pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions (DDIs) for agents prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).... (Review)
Review
This article provides an overview of the pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions (DDIs) for agents prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Polypharmacy in the treatment of patients with ADHD leads to high exposures to DDIs and possibly adverse safety outcomes. We performed a systematic search of DDI reports for ADHD agents in Embase and Medline. We also searched for agents in the pharmacological pipeline, which include (1) mazindol, molindone and viloxazine, which were previously prescribed for other indications; (2) centanafadine and AR-08, never before approved; and (3) two extracts (Polygala tenuifolia extract and the French maritime pine bark extracts). The identified literature included case reports, cross-sectional, cross-over and placebo-controlled studies of patient cohorts and healthy volunteers. The DDIs were classified as follows: ADHD agents acting as perpetrators, i.e., affecting the clearance of co-prescribed agents (victim drugs), or ADHD agents being the victim drugs, being affected by other agents. Ratios for changes in pharmacokinetic parameters before and after the DDI were used as a rough estimate of the extent of the DDI. Alcohol may increase plasma dextroamphetamine concentrations by presystemic effects. Until studies are done to orient clinicians regarding dosing changes, clinicians need to be aware of the potential for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 inhibitors to increase amphetamine levels, which is equivalent to increasing dosages. Atomoxetine is a wide therapeutic window drug. The CYP2D6 poor metabolizers who do not have CYP2D6 activity had better atomoxetine response, but also an increased risk of adverse effects. CYP2D6 inhibitors have been used to increase atomoxetine response in CYP2D6 extensive metabolizers. Guanfacine is mainly metabolized by CYP3A4, which can be induced and inhibited. The package insert recommends that in guanfacine-treated patients, after adding potent CYP3A4 inducers, the guanfacine dose should be doubled; after adding potent CYP3A4 inhibitors the guanfacine dose should be halved. Based on a phenobarbital case report and our experience with CYP3A4-metabolized antipsychotics, these correction factors may be too low. According to two case reports, carbamazepine is a clinically relevant inducer of methylphenidate (MPH). A case series study suggested that MPH may be associated with important elevations in imipramine concentrations. Due to the absence of or limitations in the data, no comments for clinicians can be provided on the pharmacokinetic DDIs for clonidine, centanafadine, mazindol, molindone, AR-08, P. tenuifolia extract and the French maritime pine bark extracts. According to currently available data, clinicians should not expect that ADHD drugs modify each other's serum concentrations. A summary table for clinicians provides our current recommendations on pharmacokinetic DDIs of ADHD agents based on our literature review and the package inserts; whenever it was possible, we provide information on serum concentrations and dose correction factors. There will be a need to periodically update these recommendations and these correction factors as new knowledge becomes available.
Topics: Animals; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cross-Sectional Studies; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6; Drug Interactions; Humans
PubMed: 31776871
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-019-00683-7 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... Mar 2017Antiobesity pharmacotherapy remains the main point of disagreement among both scientists and regulators. This is probably due to small sample sizes, high levels of...
Antiobesity pharmacotherapy remains the main point of disagreement among both scientists and regulators. This is probably due to small sample sizes, high levels of heterogeneity, and low methodological quality. For many years, Brazil was one of the largest consumers of appetite suppressants worldwide, with evidence of irrational use of this drug class. Therefore, the country was the scene of a debate that divided the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa - Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária) and medical societies over the maintenance record of diethylpropion, mazindol and fenproporex. In this context, this commentary presents new arguments to contribute to the discussion, as well as recommendations for future studies.
Topics: Amphetamines; Appetite Depressants; Brazil; Cyclobutanes; Diethylpropion; Drug Approval; Humans; Mazindol; Obesity; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28489121
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.63.03.203 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Jan 2016Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) is a rare genetic syndrome. The phenotype includes moderate to intellectual disability, dysmorphia, obesity, and behavioral disturbances... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) is a rare genetic syndrome. The phenotype includes moderate to intellectual disability, dysmorphia, obesity, and behavioral disturbances (e.g., hetero and self-injurious behaviors, hyperphagia, psychosis). Psychotropic medications are widely prescribed in PWS for symptomatic control. We conducted a systematic review of published literature to examine psychotropic medications used in PWS. MEDLINE was searched to identify articles published between January 1967 and December 2014 using key words related to pharmacological treatments and PWS. Articles with original data were included based on a standardized four-step selection process. The identification of studies led to 241 records. All selected articles were evaluated for case descriptions (PWS and behavioral signs) and treatment (type, titration, efficiency, and side effects). Overall, 102 patients were included in these studies. Treatment involved risperidone (three reports, n = 11 patients), fluoxetine (five/n = 6), naltrexone (two/n = 2), topiramate (two/n = 16), fluvoxamine (one/n = 1), mazindol (one/n = 2), N-acetyl cysteine (one/n = 35), rimonabant (one/n = 15), and fenfluramine (one/n = 15).
CONCLUSION
We identified promising treatment effects with topiramate for self-injury and impulsive/aggressive behaviors, risperidone for psychotic symptoms associated with uniparental disomy (UPD), and N-acetyl cysteine for skin picking. The pharmacological approach of behavioral impairment in PWS has been poorly investigated to date. Further randomized controlled studies are warranted.
WHAT IS KNOWN
Behavioral disturbances in Prader-Willi syndrome including aggressive reactions, skin picking, and hyperphagia might be very difficult to manage. Antipsychotic drugs are widely prescribed, but weight gain and increased appetite are their major side effects.
WHAT IS NEW
Topiramate might be efficient for self-injury and impulsive/aggressive behaviors, N-acetyl cysteine is apromising treatment for skin picking and Antidepressants are indicated for OCD symptoms. Risperidone is indicated in case of psychotic symptoms mainly associated with uniparental disomy.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Cystine; Fructose; Humans; Prader-Willi Syndrome; Psychotropic Drugs; Risperidone; Topiramate
PubMed: 26584571
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-015-2670-x -
International Journal of Clinical... Aug 2022Obesity is the strongest risk factor for type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to explore 7% weight reduction rates of mazindol alone or combined with metformin in... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
Obesity is the strongest risk factor for type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to explore 7% weight reduction rates of mazindol alone or combined with metformin in non-diabetic obese Mexican subjects who had additional risk factors for T2D.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this randomized double-blind study, 137 participants received 1 mg mazindol (n = 65) alone or combined with 500 mg metformin (n = 72), twice a day, for 6 months.
RESULTS
Mazindol and mazindol-metformin were similarly effective. However, when subjects were subclassified into non-diabetics and prediabetics, according to glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) - < 5.7% and 5.7 - 6.4%, respectively - and/or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) - < 100 mg/dL and 100 - 125 mg/dL, respectively -, differences were evident. Prediabetics in the mazindol-metformin group had a higher rate of 7% weight reduction (78.4%, n = 37) compared to prediabetics treated with mazindol (48.3%, n = 29). Furthermore, mazindol-metformin treatment induced significant reductions in fasting plasma insulin, HOMA-IR, and HbA1c in prediabetics compared to mazindol. No differences were found in any parameter between non-diabetics treated with mazindol (n = 36) and mazindol-metformin (n = 35).
CONCLUSION
Our results highlight the effectiveness of mazindol-metformin to achieve higher rates of 7% weight reduction and to improve the glycemic profile in prediabetic obese subjects, which could be useful to prevent or delay T2D in these subjects.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Double-Blind Method; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Mazindol; Metformin; Obesity; Prediabetic State; Weight Loss
PubMed: 35770520
DOI: 10.5414/CP204180 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Fluoxetine is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor indicated for major depression. It is also thought to affect weight control: this seems to happen through appetite changes... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fluoxetine is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor indicated for major depression. It is also thought to affect weight control: this seems to happen through appetite changes resulting in decreased food intake and normalisation of unusual eating behaviours. However, the benefit-risk ratio of this off-label medication is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of fluoxetine for overweight or obese adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP Search Portal. The last date of the search was December 2018 for all databases, to which we applied no language restrictions .
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration of fluoxetine versus placebo, other anti-obesity agents, non-pharmacological therapy or no treatment in overweight or obese adults without depression, mental illness or abnormal eating patterns.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened abstracts and titles for relevance. Screening for inclusion, data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed by one author and checked by the second. We assessed trials for the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument. For additional information we contacted trial authors by email. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 1036 records, scrutinized 52 full-text articles and included 19 completed RCTs (one trial is awaiting assessment). A total of 2216 participants entered the trials, 1280 participants were randomly assigned to fluoxetine (60 mg/d, 40 mg/d, 20 mg/d and 10 mg/d) and 936 participants were randomly assigned to various comparison groups (placebo; the anti-obesity agents diethylpropion, fenproporex, mazindol, sibutramine, metformin, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, fluvoxamine, 5-hydroxy-tryptophan; no treatment; and omega-3 gel). Within the 19 RCTs there were 56 trial arms. Fifteen trials were parallel RCTs and four were cross-over RCTs. The participants in the included trials were followed up for periods between three weeks and one year. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low: the majority of trials had a high risk of bias in one or more of the risk of bias domains.For our main comparison group - fluoxetine versus placebo - and across all fluoxetine dosages and durations of treatment, the MD was -2.7 kg (95% CI -4 to -1.4; P < 0.001; 10 trials, 956 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -7.1 kg and 1.7 kg. The MD in body mass index (BMI) reduction across all fluoxetine dosages compared with placebo was -1.1 kg/m² (95% CI -3.7 to 1.4; 3 trials, 97 participants; very low certainty evidence). Only nine placebo-controlled trials reported adverse events. A total of 399 out of 627 participants (63.6%) receiving fluoxetine compared with 352 out of 626 participants (56.2%) receiving placebo experienced an adverse event. Random-effects meta-analysis showed an increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of any type in the fluoxetine groups compared with placebo (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.42; P = 0.07; 9 trials, 1253 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.74 and 1.88. Following fluoxetine treatment the adverse events of dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, insomnia and nausea were observed approximately twice as often compared to placebo. A total of 15 out of 197 participants (7.6%) receiving fluoxetine compared with 12 out of 196 participants (6.1%) receiving placebo experienced depression. The RR across all fluoxetine doses compared with placebo was 1.20 (95% CI 0.57 to 2.52; P = 0.62; 3 trials, 393 participants; very low certainty evidence). All-cause mortality, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects were not reported.The comparisons of fluoxetine with other anti-obesity agents (3 trials, 234 participants), omega-3 gel (1 trial, 48 participants) and no treatment (1 trial, 60 participants) showed inconclusive results (very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests that off-label fluoxetine may decrease weight compared with placebo. However, low-certainty evidence suggests an increase in the risk for dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, insomnia and nausea following fluoxetine treatment.
PubMed: 31613390
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011688.pub2