-
Lancet (London, England) Sep 2019Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is controversy about which agent should be used. We aimed to compare and rank antipsychotics by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials.
METHODS
We did a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials and compared 32 antipsychotics. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to Jan 8, 2019. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We included randomised controlled trials in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in patients with treatment resistance, first episode, predominant negative or depressive symptoms, concomitant medical illnesses, and relapse-prevention studies. Our primary outcome was change in overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales. We also extracted data for eight efficacy and eight safety outcomes. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in metaregressions and sensitivity analyses. Effect size measures were standardised mean differences, mean differences, or risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014919.
FINDINGS
We identified 54 417 citations and included 402 studies with data for 53 463 participants. Effect size estimates suggested all antipsychotics reduced overall symptoms more than placebo (although not statistically significant for six drugs), with standardised mean differences ranging from -0·89 (95% CrI -1·08 to -0·71) for clozapine to -0·03 (-0·59 to 0·52) for levomepromazine (40 815 participants). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for reduction of positive symptoms (31 179 participants) varied from -0·69 (95% CrI -0·86 to -0·52) for amisulpride to -0·17 (-0·31 to -0·04) for brexpiprazole, for negative symptoms (32 015 participants) from -0·62 (-0·84 to -0·39; clozapine) to -0·10 (-0·45 to 0·25; flupentixol), for depressive symptoms (19 683 participants) from -0·90 (-1·36 to -0·44; sulpiride) to 0·04 (-0·39 to 0·47; flupentixol). Risk ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation (42 672 participants) ranged from 0·52 (0·12 to 0·95; clopenthixol) to 1·15 (0·36 to 1·47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0·92 (0·17 to 2·03; pimozide) to 10·20 (4·72 to 29·41; zuclopenthixol), for use of antiparkinson medication (24 911 participants) from 0·46 (0·19 to 0·88; clozapine) to 6·14 (4·81 to 6·55; pimozide). Mean differences compared to placebo for weight gain (28 317 participants) ranged from -0·16 kg (-0·73 to 0·40; ziprasidone) to 3·21 kg (2·10 to 4·31; zotepine), for prolactin elevation (21 569 participants) from -77·05 ng/mL (-120·23 to -33·54; clozapine) to 48·51 ng/mL (43·52 to 53·51; paliperidone) and for QTc prolongation (15 467 participants) from -2·21 ms (-4·54 to 0·15; lurasidone) to 23·90 ms (20·56 to 27·33; sertindole). Conclusions for the primary outcome did not substantially change after adjusting for possible effect moderators or in sensitivity analyses (eg, when excluding placebo-controlled studies). The confidence in evidence was often low or very low.
INTERPRETATION
There are some efficacy differences between antipsychotics, but most of them are gradual rather than discrete. Differences in side-effects are more marked. These findings will aid clinicians in balancing risks versus benefits of those drugs available in their countries. They should consider the importance of each outcome, the patients' medical problems, and preferences.
FUNDING
German Ministry of Education and Research and National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antipsychotic Agents; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31303314
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31135-3 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2022Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare immune-mediated acute polyradiculo-neuropathy that typically develops after a previous gastrointestinal or respiratory... (Review)
Review
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare immune-mediated acute polyradiculo-neuropathy that typically develops after a previous gastrointestinal or respiratory infection. This narrative overview aims to summarise and discuss current knowledge and previous evidence regarding triggers and pathophysiology of GBS. A systematic search of the literature was carried out using suitable search terms. The most common subtypes of GBS are acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) and acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN). The most common triggers of GBS, in three quarters of cases, are previous infections. The most common infectious agents that cause GBS include , , and cytomegalovirus. is responsible for about a third of GBS cases. GBS due to is usually more severe than that due to other causes. Clinical presentation of GBS is highly dependent on the structure of pathogenic lipo-oligosaccharides (LOS) that trigger the innate immune system via Toll-like-receptor (TLR)-4 signalling. AIDP is due to demyelination, whereas in AMAN, structures of the axolemma are affected in the nodal or inter-nodal space. In conclusion, GBS is a neuro-immunological disorder caused by autoantibodies against components of the myelin sheath or axolemma. Molecular mimicry between surface structures of pathogens and components of myelin or the axon is one scenario that may explain the pathophysiology of GBS.
Topics: Humans; Amantadine; Autoantibodies; Axons; Campylobacter jejuni; Guillain-Barre Syndrome
PubMed: 36430700
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232214222 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the USA, it is also widely used off-label for mild AD.
OBJECTIVES
To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with dementia. To assess whether memantine adds benefit for people already taking cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of trials (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/) up to 25 March 2018. We examined clinical trials registries, press releases and posters of memantine manufacturers; and the web sites of the FDA, EMEA and NICE. We contacted authors and companies for missing information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised trials of memantine in people with dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We pooled and analysed data from four clinical domains across different aetiologies and severities of dementia and for AD with agitation. We assessed the impact of study duration, severity and concomitant use of ChEIs. Consequently, we restricted analyses to the licensed dose (20 mg/day or 28 mg extended release) and data at six to seven months duration of follow-up, and analysed separately results for mild and moderate-to-severe AD.We transformed results for efficacy outcomes into the difference in points on particular outcome scales.
MAIN RESULTS
Across all types of dementia, data were available from almost 10,000 participants in 44 included trials, most of which were at low or unclear risk of bias. For nearly half the studies, relevant data were obtained from unpublished sources. The majority of trials (29 in 7885 participants) were conducted in people with AD.1. Moderate-to-severe AD (with or without concomitant ChEIs). High-certainty evidence from up to 14 studies in around 3700 participants consistently shows a small clinical benefit for memantine versus placebo: clinical global rating (CGR): 0.21 CIBIC+ points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.30); cognitive function (CF): 3.11 Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) points (95% CI 2.42 to 3.92); performance on activities of daily living (ADL): 1.09 ADL19 points (95% CI 0.62 to 1.64); and behaviour and mood (BM): 1.84 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points (95% CI 1.05 to 2.76). There may be no difference in the number of people discontinuing memantine compared to placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.04) corresponding to 13 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 more). Although there is moderate-certainty evidence that fewer people taking memantine experience agitation as an adverse event: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99) (25 fewer people per 1000, 95% CI 1 to 44 fewer), there is also moderate-certainty evidence, from three additional studies, suggesting that memantine is not beneficial as a treatment for agitation (e.g. Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory: clinical benefit of 0.50 CMAI points, 95% CI -3.71 to 4.71) .The presence of concomitant ChEI does not impact on the difference between memantine and placebo, with the possible exceptions of the BM outcome (larger effect in people taking ChEIs) and the CF outcome (smaller effect).2. Mild AD (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) 20 to 23): mainly moderate-certainty evidence based on post-hoc subgroups from up to four studies in around 600 participants suggests there is probably no difference between memantine and placebo for CF: 0.21 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI -0.95 to 1.38); performance on ADL: -0.07 ADL 23 points (95% CI -1.80 to 1.66); and BM: -0.29 NPI points (95% CI -2.16 to 1.58). There is less certainty in the CGR evidence, which also suggests there may be no difference: 0.09 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.12 to 0.30). Memantine (compared with placebo) may increase the numbers of people discontinuing treatment because of adverse events (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.39).3. Mild-to-moderate vascular dementia. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence from two studies in around 750 participants indicates there is probably a small clinical benefit for CF: 2.15 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI 1.05 to 3.25); there may be a small clinical benefit for BM: 0.47 NOSGER disturbing behaviour points (95% CI 0.07 to 0.87); there is probably no difference in CGR: 0.03 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.28 to 0.34); and there may be no difference in ADL: 0.11 NOSGER II self-care subscale points (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) or in the numbers of people discontinuing treatment: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.34).There is limited, mainly low- or very low-certainty efficacy evidence for other types of dementia (Parkinson's disease and dementia Lewy bodies (for which CGR may show a small clinical benefit; four studies in 319 people); frontotemporal dementia (two studies in 133 people); and AIDS-related Dementia Complex (one study in 140 people)).There is high-certainty evidence showing no difference between memantine and placebo in the proportion experiencing at least one adverse event: RR 1.03 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.06); the RR does not differ between aetiologies or severities of dementia. Combining available data from all trials, there is moderate-certainty evidence that memantine is 1.6 times more likely than placebo to result in dizziness (6.1% versus 3.9%), low-certainty evidence of a 1.3-fold increased risk of headache (5.5% versus 4.3%), but high-certainty evidence of no difference in falls.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found important differences in the efficacy of memantine in mild AD compared to that in moderate-to-severe AD. There is a small clinical benefit of memantine in people with moderate-to-severe AD, which occurs irrespective of whether they are also taking a ChEI, but no benefit in people with mild AD.Clinical heterogeneity in AD makes it unlikely that any single drug will have a large effect size, and means that the optimal drug treatment may involve multiple drugs, each having an effect size that may be less than the minimum clinically important difference.A definitive long-duration trial in mild AD is needed to establish whether starting memantine earlier would be beneficial over the long term and safe: at present the evidence is against this, despite it being common practice. A long-duration trial in moderate-to-severe AD is needed to establish whether the benefit persists beyond six months.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Alzheimer Disease; Cognition Disorders; Dementia; Dementia, Vascular; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 30891742
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003154.pub6 -
Journal of Parkinson's Disease 2021Long-term physiotherapy is acknowledged to be crucial to manage motor symptoms for Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, but its effectiveness is not well understood. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Long-term physiotherapy is acknowledged to be crucial to manage motor symptoms for Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, but its effectiveness is not well understood.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the evidence regarding the effectiveness of long-term physiotherapy to improve motor symptoms and reduce antiparkinsonian medication dose in PD patients.
METHODS
Pubmed, Cochrane, PEDro, and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials before August 31, 2020 that investigated the effectiveness of physiotherapy for 6 months or longer on motor symptoms and levodopa-equivalent dose (LED) in PD patients with Hoehn and Yahr stage 1- 3. We performed random effects meta-analyses for long-term physiotherapy versus no/control intervention and estimated standard mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Levels of evidence were rated by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
From 2,940 studies, 10 studies involving 663 PD patients were assessed. Long-term physiotherapy had favorable effects on motor symptoms in off medication state [- 0.65, 95% CI - 1.04 to - 0.26, p = 0.001] and LED [- 0.49, 95% CI - 0.89to - 0.09, p = 0.02]. Subgroup analyses demonstrated favorable effects on motor symptoms in off medication state by aerobic exercise [- 0.42, 95% CI - 0.64 to - 0.20, p < 0.001] and LED by multidisciplinary rehabilitation of primarily physiotherapy [- 1.00, 95% CI - 1.44 to - 0.56, p < 0.001]. Quality of evidence for aerobic exercise and multidisciplinary rehabilitation were low and very low.
CONCLUSION
This review provided evidence that long-term physiotherapy has beneficial impact on motor symptoms and antiparkinsonian medication dose in PD patients and could motivate implementation of long-term physiotherapy.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 34366377
DOI: 10.3233/JPD-212782 -
Developmental Medicine and Child... Sep 2021To update a systematic review of evidence published up to December 2015 for pharmacological/neurosurgical interventions among individuals with cerebral palsy (CP) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To update a systematic review of evidence published up to December 2015 for pharmacological/neurosurgical interventions among individuals with cerebral palsy (CP) and dystonia.
METHOD
Searches were updated (January 2016 to May 2020) for oral baclofen, trihexyphenidyl, benzodiazepines, clonidine, gabapentin, levodopa, botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT), intrathecal baclofen (ITB), and deep brain stimulation (DBS), and from database inception for medical cannabis. Eligible studies included at least five individuals with CP and dystonia and reported on dystonia, goal achievement, motor function, pain/comfort, ease of caregiving, quality of life (QoL), or adverse events. Evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE.
RESULTS
Nineteen new studies met inclusion criteria (two trihexyphenidyl, one clonidine, two BoNT, nine ITB, six DBS), giving a total of 46 studies (four randomized, 42 non-randomized) comprising 915 participants when combined with those from the original systematic review. Very low certainty evidence supported improved dystonia (clonidine, ITB, DBS) and goal achievement (clonidine, BoNT, ITB, DBS). Low to very low certainty evidence supported improved motor function (DBS), pain/comfort (clonidine, BoNT, ITB, DBS), ease of caregiving (clonidine, BoNT, ITB), and QoL (ITB, DBS). Trihexyphenidyl, clonidine, BoNT, ITB, and DBS may increase adverse events. No studies were identified for benzodiazepines, gabapentin, oral baclofen, and medical cannabis.
INTERPRETATION
Evidence evaluating the use of pharmacological and neurosurgical management options for individuals with CP and dystonia is limited to between low and very low certainty. What this paper adds Meta-analysis suggests that intrathecal baclofen (ITB) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) may improve dystonia and pain. Meta-analysis suggests that DBS may improve motor function. Clonidine, botulinum neurotoxin, ITB, and DBS may improve achievement of individualized goals. ITB and DBS may improve quality of life. No direct evidence is available for oral baclofen, benzodiazepines, gabapentin, or medical cannabis.
Topics: Baclofen; Botulinum Toxins; Cerebral Palsy; Clonidine; Deep Brain Stimulation; Dystonia; Humans; Injections, Spinal; Levodopa; Neurosurgical Procedures; Trihexyphenidyl
PubMed: 33772789
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.14874 -
BMJ Open Apr 2022To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer's dementia (AD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer's dementia (AD).
DESIGN
Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) based on our previously published systematic review and aggregate data NMA.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, AgeLine and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2016.
PARTICIPANTS
80 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including 21 138 adults with AD, and 12 RCTs with IPD including 6906 patients.
INTERVENTIONS
Cognitive enhancers (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine) alone or in any combination against other cognitive enhancers or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We requested IPD from authors, sponsors and data sharing platforms. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We appraised study quality with the Cochrane risk-of-bias. We conducted a two-stage random-effects IPD-NMA, and assessed their findings using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis).
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES
We included trials assessing cognition with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and adverse events.
RESULTS
Our IPD-NMA compared nine treatments (including placebo). Donepezil (mean difference (MD)=1.41, 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.32) and donepezil +memantine (MD=2.57, 95% CI: 0.07 to 5.07) improved MMSE score (56 RCTs, 11 619 participants; CINeMA score: moderate) compared with placebo. According to P-score, oral rivastigmine (OR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.94, P-score=16%) and donepezil (OR=1.08, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.35, P-score=30%) had the least favourable safety profile, but none of the estimated treatment effects were sufficiently precise when compared with placebo (45 RCTs, 15 649 patients; CINeMA score: moderate to high). For moderate-to-severe impairment, donepezil, memantine and their combination performed best, but for mild-to-moderate impairment donepezil and transdermal rivastigmine ranked best. Adjusting for MMSE baseline differences, oral rivastigmine and galantamine improved MMSE score, whereas when adjusting for comorbidities only oral rivastigmine was effective.
CONCLUSIONS
The choice among the different cognitive enhancers may depend on patient's characteristics. The MDs of all cognitive enhancer regimens except for single-agent oral rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine, against placebo were clinically important for cognition (MD larger than 1.40 MMSE points), but results were quite imprecise. However, two-thirds of the published RCTs were associated with high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, and IPD were only available for 15% of the included RCTs.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42015023507.
Topics: Adult; Alzheimer Disease; Donepezil; Galantamine; Humans; Memantine; Network Meta-Analysis; Nootropic Agents; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 35473731
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid psychiatric disorders that complicate tic disorders. Medications commonly used to treat ADHD symptoms include stimulants such as methylphenidate and amphetamine; non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine; tricyclic antidepressants; and alpha agonists. Alpha agonists are also used as a treatment for tics. Due to the impact of ADHD symptoms on the child with tic disorder, treatment of ADHD is often of greater priority than the medical management of tics. However, for many decades, clinicians have been reluctant to use stimulants to treat children with ADHD and tics for fear of worsening their tics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for ADHD in children with comorbid tic disorders on symptoms of ADHD and tics.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 12 other databases. We also searched two trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for ADHD used specifically in children with comorbid tic disorders. We included both parallel-group and cross-over study designs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane, in that two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data using standardized forms, assessed risk of bias, and graded the overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight randomized controlled trials (four of which were cross-over trials) with 510 participants (443 boys, 67 girls) in this review. Participants in these studies were children with both ADHD and a chronic tic disorder. All studies took place in the USA and ranged from three to 22 weeks in duration. Five of the eight studies were funded by charitable organizations or government agencies, or both. One study was funded by the drug manufacturer. The other two studies did not specify the source of funding. Risk of bias of included studies was low for blinding; low or unclear for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and attrition bias; and low or high for selective outcome reporting. We were unable to combine any of the studies in a meta-analysis due to important clinical heterogeneity and unit-of-analysis issues.Several of the trials assessed multiple agents. Medications assessed included methylphenidate, clonidine, desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine, atomoxetine, and deprenyl. There was low-quality evidence for methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine, and very low-quality evidence for desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine and deprenyl in the treatment of ADHD in children with tics. All studies, with the exception of a study using deprenyl, reported improvement in symptoms of ADHD. Tic symptoms also improved in children treated with guanfacine, desipramine, methylphenidate, clonidine, and a combination of methylphenidate and clonidine. In one study, tics limited further dosage increases of methylphenidate. High-dose dextroamphetamine appeared to worsen tics in one study, although the length of this study was limited to three weeks. There was appetite suppression or weight loss in association with methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, atomoxetine, and desipramine. There was insomnia associated with methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine, and sedation associated with clonidine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Following an updated search of potentially relevant studies, we found no new studies that matched our inclusion criteria and thus our conclusions have not changed.Methylphenidate, clonidine, guanfacine, desipramine, and atomoxetine appear to reduce ADHD symptoms in children with tics though the quality of the available evidence was low to very low. Although stimulants have not been shown to worsen tics in most people with tic disorders, they may, nonetheless, exacerbate tics in individual cases. In these instances, treatment with alpha agonists or atomoxetine may be an alternative. Although there is evidence that desipramine may improve tics and ADHD in children, safety concerns will likely continue to limit its use in this population.
Topics: Adolescent; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Child, Preschool; Clonidine; Desipramine; Dextroamphetamine; Female; Guanfacine; Humans; Male; Methylphenidate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selegiline; Tic Disorders
PubMed: 29944175
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007990.pub3 -
Current Neuropharmacology 2022Despite increasing worldwide incidence of Parkinson's disease, the therapy is still suboptimal due to the diversified clinical manifestations, lack of sufficient...
BACKGROUND
Despite increasing worldwide incidence of Parkinson's disease, the therapy is still suboptimal due to the diversified clinical manifestations, lack of sufficient treatment, the poor adherence in advanced patients, and varied response. Proper intake of medications regarding food and managing drug-food interactions may optimize Parkinson's disease treatment.
OBJECTIVES
We investigated potential effects that food, beverages, and dietary supplements may have on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs used by parkinsonian patients; identified the most probable interactions; and shaped recommendations for the optimal intake of drugs regarding food.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review in adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and included a total of 81 studies in the qualitative synthesis.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
We found evidence for levodopa positive interaction with coffee, fiber and vitamin C, as well as for the potential beneficial impact of low-fat and protein redistribution diet. Contrastingly, high-protein diet and ferrous sulfate supplements can negatively affect levodopa pharmacokinetics and effectiveness. For other drugs, the data of food impact are scarce. Based on the available limited evidence, all dopamine agonists (bromocriptine, cabergoline, ropinirole), tolcapone, rasagiline, selegiline in tablets, safinamide, amantadine and pimavanserin can be taken with or without a meal. Opicapone and orally disintegrating selegiline tablets should be administered on an empty stomach. Of monoamine oxidase B inhibitors, safinamide is the least susceptible for interaction with the tyramine-rich food, whereas selegiline and rasagiline may lose selectivity to monoamine oxidase B when administered in supratherapeutic doses. The level of presented evidence is low due to the poor studies design, their insufficient actuality, and missing data.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Levodopa; Monoamine Oxidase; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Parkinson Disease; Selegiline
PubMed: 34784871
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X19666211116142806 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2024Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in patients with schizophrenia. However, no comprehensive review and network meta-analysis has been conducted to compare the efficacy of treatments for AIA.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy associated with AIA treatments.
DATA SOURCES
Three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were systematically searched by multiple researchers for double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing active drugs for the treatment of AIA with placebo or another treatment between May 30 and June 18, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Selected studies were RCTs that compared adjunctive drugs for AIA vs placebo or adjunctive treatment in patients treated with antipsychotics fulfilling the criteria for akathisia, RCTs with sample size of 10 patients or more, only trials in which no additional drugs were administered during the study, and RCTs that used a validated akathisia score. Trials with missing data for the main outcome (akathisia score at the end points) were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and synthesis were performed, estimating standardized mean differences (SMDs) through pairwise and network meta-analysis with a random-effects model. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the severity of akathisia measured by a validated scale at the last available end point.
RESULTS
Fifteen trials involving 492 participants compared 10 treatments with placebo. Mirtazapine (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -1.20; 95% CI, -1.83 to -0.58), biperiden (6 mg/d for ≥14 days; SMD, -1.01; 95% CI, -1.69 to -0.34), vitamin B6 (600-1200 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.57 to -0.26), trazodone (50 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.14), mianserin (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.19), and propranolol (20 mg/d for ≥6 days; SMD, -0.78; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.22) were associated with greater efficacy than placebo, with low to moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34.6%; 95% CI, 0.0%-71.1%). Cyproheptadine, clonazepam, zolmitriptan, and valproate did not yield significant effects. Eight trials were rated as having low risk of bias; 2, moderate risk; and 5, high risk. Sensitivity analyses generally confirmed the results for all drugs except for cyproheptadine and propranolol. No association between effect sizes and psychotic severity was found.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, mirtazapine, biperiden, and vitamin B6 were associated with the greatest efficacy for AIA, with vitamin B6 having the best efficacy and tolerance profile. Trazodone, mianserin, and propranolol appeared as effective alternatives with slightly less favorable efficacy and tolerance profiles. These findings should assist prescribers in selecting an appropriate medication for treating AIA.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Biperiden; Cyproheptadine; Gallopamil; Mianserin; Mirtazapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trazodone; Vitamin B 6; Akathisia, Drug-Induced
PubMed: 38451521
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.1527 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Dec 2021Although levodopa remains the most effective drug for symptomatic management of Parkinson's Disease (PD), treatment during advanced disease stages may raise...
Although levodopa remains the most effective drug for symptomatic management of Parkinson's Disease (PD), treatment during advanced disease stages may raise unpredictable motor fluctuations and other complications. Counteracting these complications with other pharmacological therapies may prompt a vicious circle of side effects, and here, nutritional therapy may have great potential. Knowledge about the role of diet in PD is emerging and multiple studies have investigated nutritional support specifically with respect to levodopa therapy. With this systematic review, we aim to give a comprehensive overview of dietary approaches to optimize levodopa treatment in PD. A systematic search was performed using the databases of PubMed and Scopus between January 1985 and September 2020. Nutritional interventions with the rationale to optimize levodopa therapy in human PD patients were eligible for this study and their quality was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. In total, we included 22 papers that addressed the effects of dietary proteins (n = 10), vitamins (n = 7), fiber (n = 2), soybeans (n = 1), caffeine (n = 1), and ketogenic diets (n = 1) on levodopa therapy. Interventions with protein redistribution diets (PRDs), dietary fiber, vitamin C, and caffeine improved levodopa absorption, thereby enhancing clinical response and reducing motor fluctuations. Furthermore, supplementation of vitamin B-12, vitamin B-6, and folic acid successfully reduced high homocysteine concentrations that emerged from levodopa metabolism and promoted many metabolic and clinical complications, such as neuropathology and osteoporosis. In conclusion, dietary interventions have the potential to optimize levodopa efficacy and control side effects. Nutrition that improves levodopa absorption, including PRDs, fiber, vitamin C, and caffeine, is specifically recommended when fluctuating clinical responses appear. Supplements of vitamin B-12, vitamin B-6, and folic acid are advised along with levodopa initiation to attenuate hyperhomocysteinemia, and importantly, their potential to treat consequent metabolic and clinical complications warrants future research.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Diet; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Vitamin B 12
PubMed: 34113965
DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmab060