-
Journal of Affective Disorders Jun 2016Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AceI) and memantine might prove useful in bipolar disorder (BD) given their neuroprotective and pro-cognitive effects, as highlighted by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in bipolar disorder: A systematic review and best evidence synthesis of the efficacy and safety for multiple disease dimensions.
BACKGROUND
Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AceI) and memantine might prove useful in bipolar disorder (BD) given their neuroprotective and pro-cognitive effects, as highlighted by several case reports. We aimed to systematically review the efficacy and safety of AceI and memantine across multiple outcome dimensions in BD.
METHODS
Systematic PubMed and SCOPUS search until 04/17/2015 without language restrictions. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), open label studies and case series of AceI or memantine in BD patients reporting quantitative data on depression, mania, psychotic symptoms, global functioning, or cognitive performance. We summarized results using a best-evidence based synthesis.
RESULTS
Out of 214 hits, 12 studies (RCTs=5, other designs=7, total n=422) were included. Donepezil (studies=5; treated=102 vs. placebo=21): there was strong evidence for no effect on mania and psychotic symptoms; low evidence indicating no effect on depression. Galantamine (studies=3; treated=21 vs. controls=20) (placebo=10, healthy subjects=10): there was strong evidence for no effect on mania; moderate evidence for no effect on depression; low evidence for no effect on global functioning. Memantine (studies=4; treated=152 vs. placebo=88): there was conflicting evidence regarding efficacy for mania, depression and global functioning.
LIMITATIONS
Paucity of RCTs; small sample size studies; heterogeneous design, outcome and patient characteristics.
CONCLUSION
There is limited but converging evidence of no effect of AceI in BD, and conflicting evidence about memantine in BD. Too few studies of mostly medium/low quality and lacking sufficient numbers of patients in specific mood states, especially mania, contributed data, focusing solely on short-term/medium-term treatment, necessitating additional high-quality research to yield more definite results.
Topics: Adult; Bipolar Disorder; Case-Control Studies; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Clinical Trials as Topic; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Donepezil; Evidence-Based Medicine; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Female; Galantamine; Humans; Indans; Male; Memantine; Middle Aged; Piperidines; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27010579
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.03.034 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Apr 2022The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological interventions to diminish cognitive side effects of ECT. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological interventions to diminish cognitive side effects of ECT.
METHODS
Electronic databases of Pubmed, PsycInfo, Embase and Scopus were searched from inception through 1 April, 2021, using terms for ECT (e.g. electroconvulsive therapy), cognitive outcome (e.g. cogni*) and pharmacological intervention (e.g. calcium channel blocker and general terms, like protein). Original studies with humans receiving ECT were included, which applied pharmacological interventions in comparison with placebo or no additive intervention to diminish cognitive side effects. Data quality was assessed using Risk of Bias and GRADE. Random-effects models were used. PROSPERO registration number was CRD42021212773.
RESULTS
Qualitative synthesis (systematic review) showed 52 studies reporting sixteen pharmacological intervention-types. Quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) included 26 studies (1387 patients) describing twelve pharmacological intervention-types. Low-quality evidence of efficacy was established for memantine (large effect size) and liothyronine (medium effect size). Very low-quality evidence shows effect of acetylcholine inhibitors, piracetam and melatonin in some cognitive domains. Evidence of no efficacy was revealed for ketamine (very low-quality), herbal preparations with anti-inflammatory properties (very low to low-quality) and opioid receptor agonists (low-quality).
CONCLUSION
Memantine and liothyronine are promising for further research and future application. Quality of evidence was low because of differences in ECT techniques, study populations and cognitive measurements. These findings provide a guide for rational choices of potential pharmacological intervention research targets to decrease the burden of cognitive side effects of ECT. Future research should be more uniform in design and attempt to clarify pathophysiological mechanisms of cognitive side effects of ECT.
Topics: Cognition; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Humans; Ketamine; Memantine; Triiodothyronine
PubMed: 35075641
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13397 -
Iranian Journal of Psychiatry Jul 2022Available treatments of depression have limited efficacy and unsatisfactory remission rates. This study aims to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating... (Review)
Review
Available treatments of depression have limited efficacy and unsatisfactory remission rates. This study aims to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating effects of glutamate receptor modulators in treating patients with resistant depression. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021225516). Scopus, ISI Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and three trial registries were searched up to September 2020 to find RCTs evaluating glutamate receptor modulators for resistant depression. The difference between intervention and control groups in changing depression scores from baseline to endpoint was considered the primary outcome. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess the quality of the RCTs. No funding was received. Thirty-eight RCTs were included. Based on the included studies, compelling evidence was found for ketamine (with or without electroconvulsive therapy, intravenous or other forms), nitrous oxide, amantadine, and rislenemdaz (MK-0657); the results for MK-0657, amantadine, and nitrous oxide were only based on one study for each. Lithium, lanicemine, D-cycloserine, and decoglurant showed mixed results for efficacy, and, riluzole, and 7-chlorokynurenic acid were mostly comparable to placebo. A limited number of studies were available that addressed drugs other than ketamine. The study cannot determine the difference between statistical and clinical significance between the agents and placebo due to high heterogeneity among the RCTs. Nevertheless, ketamine could be used as an efficacious drug in TRD; still, additional studies are needed to delineate the optimum dosage, duration of efficacy, and intervals. Further studies are also recommended on the effectiveness of glutamatergic system modulators other than ketamine on treatment-resistant depression.
PubMed: 36474699
DOI: 10.18502/ijps.v17i3.9733 -
Brain & Spine 2024TBIs contribute in over one-third of injury-related deaths with mortality rates as high as 50% in trauma centers serving the most severe TBI. The effect of TBI on... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
TBIs contribute in over one-third of injury-related deaths with mortality rates as high as 50% in trauma centers serving the most severe TBI. The effect of TBI on mortality is about 10% across all ages. Amantadine hydrochloride is one of the most commonly prescribed medications for patients undergoing inpatient neurorehabilitation who have disorders of consciousness. It is a dopamine (DA) receptor agonist and a N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist via dopamine release and dopamine reuptake inhibition. The current study will synthesize the current available evidence and show the effect of Amantadine in functional improvement after TBI.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Does Amantadine have an effect on functional improvement of TBI patients?
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This systematic review included all randomized placebo-controlled trials that compare the use of Amantadine versus placebo for functional improvement of patients after TBI. Outcome measures included DRS, GCS and/or GOS scores.
RESULTS
Three studies with a total of 281 patients were included in the quantitative analyses. GRADE assessments show that there was a high certainty of evidence for functional improvement in terms of DRS scores.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Evidence of this review show that the use of Amantadine may have a beneficial effect on functional outcome in moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries among adult patients. Given the still-limited body of knowledge, more relevant studies must be made exploring the impact of Amantadine therapies on promoting functional recovery within the brain injury rehabilitation care continuum, with the goals of achieving larger sample sizes and establishing the early- or later-treatment beneficial effects.
PubMed: 38465280
DOI: 10.1016/j.bas.2024.102773 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Pharmacologic therapies for management of heroin withdrawal have been studied and reviewed widely. Opium dependence is generally associated with less severe dependence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacologic therapies for management of heroin withdrawal have been studied and reviewed widely. Opium dependence is generally associated with less severe dependence and milder withdrawal symptoms than heroin. The evidence on withdrawal management of heroin might therefore not be exactly applicable for opium.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of various pharmacologic therapies for the management of the acute phase of opium withdrawal.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following sources up to September 2017: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, regional and national databases (IMEMR, Iranmedex, and IranPsych), main electronic sources of ongoing trials, and reference lists of all relevant papers. In addition, we contacted known investigators to obtain missing data or incomplete trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Controlled clinical trials and randomised controlled trials on pharmacological therapies, compared with no intervention, placebo, other pharmacologic treatments, different doses of the same drug, and psychosocial intervention, to manage acute withdrawal from opium in a maximum duration of 30 days.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials involving 1096 participants. No pooled analysis was possible. Studies were carried out in three countries, Iran, India, and Thailand, in outpatient and inpatient settings. The quality of the evidence was generally very low.When the mean of withdrawal symptoms was provided for several days, we mainly focused on day 3. The reason for this was that the highest severity of opium withdrawal is in the second to fourth day.Comparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, clonidine was twice as good as methadone for completion of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.38; 361 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). All the other results showed no differences between the considered drugs: baclofen versus clonidine (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.80; 66 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence); clonidine versus clonidine plus amantadine (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24; 69 participants, 1 study); clonidine versus buprenorphine in an inpatient setting (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 1 study, 35 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus tramadol (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37; 1 study, 72 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.43; 1 study, 40 participants, low-quality evidence), and tincture of opium versus methadone (1 study, 74 participants, low-quality evidence).Comparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, adding amantadine to clonidine decreased withdrawal scores rated at day 3 (mean difference (MD) -3.56, 95% CI -5.97 to -1.15; 1 study, 60 participants, very low-quality evidence). Comparing clonidine with buprenorphine in an inpatient setting, we found no difference in withdrawal symptoms rated by a physician (MD -1.40, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.13; 1 study, 34 participants, very low-quality evidence), and results in favour of buprenorpine when rated by participants (MD -11.80, 95% CI -15.56 to -8.04). Buprenorphine was superior to clonidine in controlling severe withdrawal symptoms in an outpatient setting (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1 study, 76 participants). We found no difference in the comparison of methadone versus tramadol (MD 0.04, 95% CI -2.68 to 2.76; 1 study, 72 participants) and in the comparison of methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (MD -2.20, 95% CI -6.72 to 2.32; 1 study, 40 participants).Comparing clonidine versus buprenorphine in an outpatient setting, more adverse effects were reported in the clonidine group (1 study, 76 participants). Higher numbers of participants in the clonidine group experienced hypotension at days 5 to 8, headache at days 1 to 8, sedation at days 5 to 8, dizziness and dry mouth at days 1 to 10, and nausea at days 1 to 9. Sweating was reported in a significantly higher number of participants in the buprenorphine group at days 1 to 10. We found no difference between groups for all the other comparisons considering this outcome.Comparing different dosages of the same pharmacological detoxification treatment, a high dose of clonidine (1 to 1.2 mg/day) did not differ from a low dose of clonidine (0.5 to 0.6 mg/day) in completion of treatment in an inpatient setting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19; 1 study, 68 participants), however a higher number of participants with hypotension was reported in the high-dose group (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.98). Gradual reduction of methadone was associated with more adverse effects than abrupt withdrawal of methadone (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.94; 1 study, 20 participants, very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Results did not support using any specific pharmacological approach for the management of opium withdrawal due to generally very low-quality evidence and small or no differences between treatments. However, it seems that opium withdrawal symptoms are significant, especially at days 2 to 4 after discontinuation of opium. All of the assessed medications might be useful in alleviating symptoms. Those who receive clonidine might experience hypotension.
Topics: Amantadine; Amines; Baclofen; Buprenorphine; Clonidine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Gabapentin; Humans; Methadone; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Tramadol; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 29929212
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007522.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with rule-breaking, criminality, substance use, unemployment, relationship difficulties, and premature death.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with rule-breaking, criminality, substance use, unemployment, relationship difficulties, and premature death. Certain types of medication (drugs) may help people with AsPD. This review updates a previous Cochrane review, published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and adverse effects of pharmacological interventions for adults with AsPD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers up to 5 September 2019. We also checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in which adults (age 18 years and over) with a diagnosis of AsPD or dissocial personality disorder were allocated to a pharmacological intervention or placebo control condition.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings tables' and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. The primary outcomes were: aggression; reconviction; global state/global functioning; social functioning; and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies (three new to this update), involving 416 participants with AsPD. Most studies (10/11) were conducted in North America. Seven studies were conducted exclusively in an outpatient setting, one in an inpatient setting, and one in prison; two studies used multiple settings. The average age of participants ranged from 28.6 years to 45.1 years (overall mean age 39.6 years). Participants were predominantly (90%) male. Study duration ranged from 6 to 24 weeks, with no follow-up period. Data were available from only four studies involving 274 participants with AsPD. All the available data came from unreplicated, single reports, and did not allow independent statistical analysis to be conducted. Many review findings were limited to descriptive summaries based on analyses carried out and reported by the trial investigators. No study set out to recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD; many participants presented primarily with substance abuse problems. The studies reported on four primary outcomes and six secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were aggression (six studies) global/state functioning (three studies), social functioning (one study), and adverse events (seven studies). Secondary outcomes were leaving the study early (eight studies), substance misuse (five studies), employment status (one study), impulsivity (one study), anger (three studies), and mental state (three studies). No study reported data on the primary outcome of reconviction or the secondary outcomes of quality of life, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment, housing/accommodation status, economic outcomes or prison/service outcomes. Eleven different drugs were compared with placebo, but data for AsPD participants were only available for five comparisons. Three classes of drug were represented: antiepileptic; antidepressant; and dopamine agonist (anti-Parkinsonian) drugs. We considered selection bias to be unclear in 8/11 studies, attrition bias to be high in 7/11 studies, and performance bias to be low in 7/11 studies. Using GRADE, we rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome in this review as very low, meaning that we have very little confidence in the effect estimates reported. Phenytoin (antiepileptic) versus placebo One study (60 participants) reported very low-certainty evidence that phenytoin (300 mg/day), compared to placebo, may reduce the mean frequency of aggressive acts per week (phenytoin mean = 0.33, no standard deviation (SD) reported; placebo mean = 0.51, no SD reported) in male prisoners with aggression (skewed data) at endpoint (six weeks). The same study (60 participants) reported no evidence of difference between phenytoin and placebo in the number of participants reporting the adverse event of nausea during week one (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 16.76; very low-certainty evidence). The study authors also reported that no important side effects were detectable via blood cell counts or liver enzyme tests (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure reconviction, global/state functioning or social functioning. Desipramine (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (29 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between desipramine (250 to 300 mg/day) and placebo on mean social functioning scores (desipramine = 0.19; placebo = 0.21), assessed with the family-social domain of the Addiction Severity Index (scores range from zero to one, with higher values indicating worse social functioning), at endpoint (12 weeks) (very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies included in this comparison measured the other primary outcomes: aggression; reconviction; global/state functioning; or adverse events. Nortriptyline (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (20 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between nortriptyline (25 to 75 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (nortriptyline = 0.3; placebo = 0.7), assessed with the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90) Global Severity Index (GSI; mean of subscale scores, ranging from zero to four, with higher scores indicating greater severity of symptoms), at endpoint (six months) in men with alcohol dependency (very low-certainty evidence). The study measured side effects but did not report data on adverse events for the AsPD subgroup. The study did not measure aggression, reconviction or social functioning. Bromocriptine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo One study (18 participants) reported no evidence of difference between bromocriptine (15 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (bromocriptine = 0.4; placebo = 0.7), measured with the GSI of the SCL-90 at endpoint (six months) (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on adverse effects, but reported that 12 patients randomised to the bromocriptine group experienced severe side effects, five of whom dropped out of the study in the first two days due to nausea and severe flu-like symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure aggression, reconviction and social functioning. Amantadine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo The study in this comparison did not measure any of the primary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence summarised in this review is insufficient to draw any conclusion about the use of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of antisocial personality disorder. The evidence comes from single, unreplicated studies of mostly older medications. The studies also have methodological issues that severely limit the confidence we can draw from their results. Future studies should recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD, and use relevant outcome measures, including reconviction.
Topics: Adult; Aggression; Alcohol-Related Disorders; Amantadine; Antisocial Personality Disorder; Anxiety; Bromocriptine; Desipramine; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nortriptyline; Phenytoin; Placebos; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32880105
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007667.pub3 -
The International Journal of... Dec 2014We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of combination therapy with cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with Alzheimer's... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of combination therapy with cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with Alzheimer's disease.
METHODS
We reviewed cognitive function, activities of daily living, behavioral disturbance, global assessment, discontinuation rate, and individual side effects.
RESULTS
Seven studies (total n=2182) were identified. Combination therapy significantly affected behavioral disturbance scores (standardized mean difference=-0.13), activity of daily living scores (standardized mean difference=-0.10), and global assessment scores (standardized mean difference=-0.15). In addition, cognitive function scores (standardized mean difference=-0.13, P=.06) exhibited favorable trends with combination therapy. The effects of combination therapy were more significant in the moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease subgroup in terms of all efficacy outcome scores. The discontinuation rate was similar in both groups, and there were no significant differences in individual side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Combination therapy was beneficial for the treatment of moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease in terms of cognition, behavioral disturbances, activities of daily living, and global assessment was well tolerated.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Antiparkinson Agents; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Combined Modality Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Memantine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25548104
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyu115 -
PloS One 2015We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials testing memantine monotherapy for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials testing memantine monotherapy for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).
METHODS
The meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials of memantine monotherapy for AD, omitting those in which patients were also administered a cholinesterase inhibitor. Cognitive function, activities of daily living, behavioral disturbances, global function, stage of dementia, drug discontinuation rate, and individual side effects were compared between memantine monotherapy and placebo groups. The primary outcomes were cognitive function and behavioral disturbances; the others were secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Nine studies including 2433 patients that met the study's inclusion criteria were identified. Memantine monotherapy significantly improved cognitive function [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-0.39 to -0.14, p=0.0001], behavioral disturbances (SMD=-0.12, 95% CI=-0.22 to -0.01, p=0.03), activities of daily living (SMD=-0.09, 95% CI=-0.19 to -0.00, p=0.05), global function assessment (SMD=-0.18, 95% CI=-0.27 to -0.09, p=0.0001), and stage of dementia (SMD=-0.23, 95% CI=-0.33 to -0.12, p=0.0001) scores. Memantine was superior to placebo in terms of discontinuation because of inefficacy [risk ratio (RR)=0.36, 95% CI=0.17¬ to 0.74, p=0.006, number needed to harm (NNH)=non significant]. Moreover, memantine was associated with less agitation compared with placebo (RR=0.68, 95% CI=0.49 to 0.94, p=0.02, NNH=non significant). There were no significant differences in the rate of discontinuation because of all causes, all adverse events, and individual side effects other than agitation between the memantine monotherapy and placebo groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Memantine monotherapy improved cognition, behavior, activities of daily living, global function, and stage of dementia and was well-tolerated by AD patients. However, the effect size in terms of efficacy outcomes was small and thus there is limited evidence of clinical benefit.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Alzheimer Disease; Humans; Memantine; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25860130
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123289 -
Journal of Parkinson's Disease 2021Many studies on Parkinson's disease (PD) patients affected by Coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19) were recently published. However, the small sample size of infected...
BACKGROUND
Many studies on Parkinson's disease (PD) patients affected by Coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19) were recently published. However, the small sample size of infected patients enrolled in most studies did not allow to draw robust conclusions on the COVID-19 impact in PD.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to assess whether the prevalence and outcome of COVID-19 in PD patients are different from those observed in the general population.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting data on PD patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 (PD-COVID+). We extracted prevalence, clinical-demographic data, outcome, and mortality. We also analyzed risk or protective factors based on comparisons between PD-COVID+ and control populations with PD without COVID-19 or without PD with COVID-19.
RESULTS
We included 16 studies reporting on a total of 11,325 PD patients, 1,061 with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. The median infection prevalence ranged from 0.6% to 8.5%. PD-COVID+ patients had a median age of 74 and a disease duration of 9.4 years. Pooling all PD-COVID+ patients from included studies, 28.6% required hospitalization, 37.1% required levodopa dose increasing, and 18.9% died. The case fatality was higher in PD-COVID+ patients than the general population, with longer PD duration as a possible risk factor for worse outcome. Amantadine and vitamin D were proposed as potential protective factors.
CONCLUSION
Available studies indicate a higher case fatality in PD patients affected by COVID-19 than the general population. Conversely, current literature does not definitively clarify whether PD patients are more susceptible to get infected. The potential protective role of vitamin D and amantadine is intriguing but deserves further investigation.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; COVID-19; Case-Control Studies; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Vitamin D; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33749619
DOI: 10.3233/JPD-202463 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015People with Down syndrome are vulnerable to developing dementia at an earlier age than the general population. Alzheimer's disease and cognitive decline in people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with Down syndrome are vulnerable to developing dementia at an earlier age than the general population. Alzheimer's disease and cognitive decline in people with Down syndrome can place a significant burden on both the person with Down syndrome and their family and carers. Various pharmacological interventions, including donepezil, galantamine, memantine and rivastigmine, appear to have some effect in treating cognitive decline in people without Down syndrome, but their effectiveness for those with Down syndrome remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of anti-dementia pharmacological interventions and nutritional supplements for treating cognitive decline in people with Down syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2015, we searched CENTRAL, ALOIS (the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, seven other databases, and two trials registers. In addition, we checked the references of relevant reviews and studies and contacted study authors, other researchers and relevant drug manufacturers to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-dementia pharmacological interventions or nutritional supplements for adults (aged 18 years and older) with Down syndrome, in which treatment was administered and compared with either placebo or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials and extracted the relevant data. Review authors contacted study authors to obtain missing information where necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
Only nine studies (427 participants) met the inclusion criteria for this review. Four of these (192 participants) assessed the effectiveness of donepezil, two (139 participants) assessed memantine, one (21 participants) assessed simvastatin, one study (35 participants) assessed antioxidants, and one study (40 participants) assessed acetyl-L-carnitine.Five studies focused on adults aged 45 to 55 years, while the remaining four studies focused on adults aged 20 to 29 years. Seven studies were conducted in either the USA or UK, one between Norway and the UK, and one in Japan. Follow-up periods in studies ranged from four weeks to two years. The reviewers judged all included studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias.Analyses indicate that for participants who received donepezil, scores in measures of cognitive functioning (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to 1.13) and measures of behaviour (SMD 0.42, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.89) were similar to those who received placebo. However, participants who received donepezil were significantly more likely to experience an adverse event (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.62). The quality of this body of evidence was low. None of the included donepezil studies reported data for carer stress, institutional/home care, or death.For participants who received memantine, scores in measures of cognitive functioning (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.52), behaviour (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.11), and occurrence of adverse events (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.17) were similar to those who received placebo. The quality of this body of evidence was low. None of the included memantine studies reported data for carer stress, institutional/home care, or death.Due to insufficient data, it was possible to provide a narrative account only of the outcomes for simvastatin, antioxidants, and acetyl-L-carnitine. Results from one pilot study suggest that participants who received simvastatin may have shown a slight improvement in cognitive measures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to the low quality of the body of evidence in this review, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of any pharmacological intervention for cognitive decline in people with Down syndrome.
Topics: Acetylcarnitine; Adult; Antioxidants; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Donepezil; Down Syndrome; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Middle Aged; Nootropic Agents; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Simvastatin
PubMed: 26513128
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011546.pub2