-
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : JAD 2023Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia, causing progressive decline of memory, thinking, and behavior, impairing daily functioning. Early AD (eAD)...
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia, causing progressive decline of memory, thinking, and behavior, impairing daily functioning. Early AD (eAD) includes mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD and mild AD dementia.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to investigate symptomatic treatment prevalence and treatment patterns in eAD.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews were searched in November 2021 for observational studies reporting symptomatic treatment patterns in eAD. The range of patients receiving treatment was collated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) prevalence tool. Two independent reviewers screened the records, one performed data extraction and quality assessment while a second checked.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies (prospective and retrospective cohorts, cross-sectional studies, and a survey) were included. Population size ranged from 23 to 2,028. Worldwide, 18 to 35% of patients diagnosed with MCI due to AD received any AChE inhibitor (three studies; n = 631), 7 to 8% memantine (two studies; n = 229), and 9% combination therapy (one study; n = 402). Patients receiving no treatment ranged from 41 to 54% (two studies; n = 733). Worldwide, in mild AD dementia patients, 13 to 89% received any AChE inhibitor (six studies; n = 3,715), 1 to 21% memantine (five studies, n = 3,527), and 0.4 to 39% combination therapy (four studies, n = 3,018). Patients receiving no treatment ranged from 9 to 26% (five studies, n = 4,073).
CONCLUSION
Limitations in reporting led to unclear risk of bias. The results reveal a pattern of use of symptomatic treatment in eAD beyond approved labels and highlights the opportunity for new consensus guidelines to inform clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Memantine; Prospective Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Retrospective Studies; Dementia; Cognitive Dysfunction; Disease Progression
PubMed: 36404542
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-220471 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Glutamergic system dysfunction has been implicated in the pathophysiology of bipolar depression. This is an update of the 2015 Cochrane Review for the use of glutamate... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Glutamergic system dysfunction has been implicated in the pathophysiology of bipolar depression. This is an update of the 2015 Cochrane Review for the use of glutamate receptor modulators for depression in bipolar disorder.
OBJECTIVES
1. To assess the effects of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in alleviating the acute symptoms of depression in people with bipolar disorder. 2. To review the acceptability of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in people with bipolar disorder who are experiencing depressive symptoms.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO all years to July 2020. We did not apply any restrictions to date, language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing ketamine or other glutamate receptor modulators with other active psychotropic drugs or saline placebo in adults with bipolar depression.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Primary outcomes were response rate and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included remission rate, depression severity change scores, suicidality, cognition, quality of life, and dropout rate. The GRADE framework was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten studies (647 participants) were included in this review (an additional five studies compared to the 2015 review). There were no additional studies added to the comparisons identified in the 2015 Cochrane review on ketamine, memantine and cytidine versus placebo. However, three new comparisons were found: ketamine versus midazolam, N-acetylcysteine versus placebo, and riluzole versus placebo. The glutamate receptor modulators studied were ketamine (three trials), memantine (two), cytidine (one), N-acetylcysteine (three), and riluzole (one). Eight of these studies were placebo-controlled and two-armed. In seven trials the glutamate receptor modulators had been used as add-on drugs to mood stabilisers. Only one trial compared ketamine with an active comparator, midazolam. The treatment period ranged from a single intravenous administration (all ketamine studies), to repeated administration for riluzole, memantine, cytidine, and N-acetylcysteine (with a follow-up of eight weeks, 8 to 12 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 to 20 weeks, respectively). Six of the studies included sites in the USA, one in Taiwan, one in Denmark, one in Australia, and in one study the location was unclear. All participants had a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder and were experiencing an acute bipolar depressive episode, diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition (IV) or fourth edition text revision (IV-TR). Among all glutamate receptor modulators included in this review, only ketamine appeared to be more efficacious than placebo 24 hours after infusion for response rate (odds ratio (OR) 11.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 107.74; P = 0.03; participants = 33; studies = 2; I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence). Ketamine seemed to be more effective in reducing depression rating scale scores (MD -11.81, 95% CI -20.01 to -3.61; P = 0.005; participants = 32; studies = 2; I = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of ketamine's efficacy in producing remission over placebo at 24 hours (OR 5.16, 95% CI 0.51 to 52.30; P = 0.72; participants = 33; studies = 2; I = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). Evidence on response, remission or depression rating scale scores between ketamine and midazolam was uncertain at 24 hours due to very low-certainty evidence (OR 3.20, 95% CI 0.23 to 45.19). In the one trial assessing ketamine and midazolam, there were no dropouts due to adverse effects or for any reason (very low-certainty evidence). Placebo may have been more effective than N-acetylcysteine in reducing depression rating scale scores at three months, although this was based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 1.28, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.31; participants = 58; studies = 2). Very uncertain evidence found no difference in response at three months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.14; participants = 69; studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for remission or acceptability. Extremely limited data were available for riluzole vs placebo, finding only very-low certainty evidence of no difference in dropout rates (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 12.84; P = 0.46; participants = 19; studies = 1; I = 0%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is difficult to draw reliable conclusions from this review due to the certainty of the evidence being low to very low, and the relatively small amount of data usable for analysis in bipolar disorder, which is considerably less than the information available for unipolar depression. Nevertheless, we found uncertain evidence in favour of a single intravenous dose of ketamine (as add-on therapy to mood stabilisers) over placebo in terms of response rate up to 24 hours, however ketamine did not show any better efficacy for remission in bipolar depression. Even though ketamine has the potential to have a rapid and transient antidepressant effect, the efficacy of a single intravenous dose may be limited. We did not find conclusive evidence on adverse events with ketamine, and there was insufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions for the remaining glutamate receptor modulators. However, ketamine's psychotomimetic effects (such as delusions or delirium) may have compromised study blinding in some studies, and so we cannot rule out the potential bias introduced by inadequate blinding procedures. To draw more robust conclusions, further methodologically sound RCTs (with adequate blinding) are needed to explore different modes of administration of ketamine, and to study different methods of sustaining antidepressant response, such as repeated administrations.
Topics: Adult; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Humans; Ketamine; Quality of Life; Receptors, Glutamate
PubMed: 34623633
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011611.pub3 -
Neural Regeneration Research May 2019To assess and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine) on cognition, behavior, function, and...
OBJECTIVE
To assess and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine) on cognition, behavior, function, and global status in patients with vascular cognitive impairment.
DATA SOURCES
The initial literature search was performed with PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) from inception to January 2018 for studies regarding donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine for treatment of vascular cognitive impairment.
DATA SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials on donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine as monotherapy in the treatment of vascular cognitive impairment were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Efficacy was assessed by changes in scores of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale, cognitive subscale, Mini-Mental State Examination, Neuropsychiatric Inventory scores and Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Scale Plus Caregiver's Input, Activities of Daily Living, the Clinical Dementia Rating scale. Safety was evaluated by mortality, total adverse events (TAEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), nausea, vomiting. diarrhea, or cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs).
RESULTS
After screening 1717 citations, 12 randomized controlled trials were included. Donepezil and rivastigmine (mean difference (e) = -0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-1.32; MD = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.18-1.79) were significantly more effective than placebo in reducing Mini-Mental State Examination scores. Donepezil, galantamine, and memantine (MD = -1.30, 95% CI: -2.27 to -0.42; MD = -1.67, 95% CI: -3.36 to -0.06; MD = -2.27, 95% CI: -3.91 to -0.53) showed superior benefits on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive scores compared with placebo. Memantine (MD = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.05-7.29) improved global status (Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Scale Plus Caregiver's Input) more than the placebo. Safety results revealed that donepezil 10 mg (odds ratio (OR) = 3.04, 95% CI: 1.86-5.41) contributed to higer risk of adverse events than placebo. Galantamine (OR = 5.64, 95% CI: 1.31-26.71) increased the risk of nausea. Rivastigmine (OR = 16.80, 95% CI: 1.78-319.26) increased the risk of vomiting. No agents displayed a significant risk of serious adverse events, mortality, cerebrovascular accidents, or diarrhea.
CONCLUSION
We found significant efficacy of donepezil, galantamine, and memantine on cognition. Memantine can provide significant efficacy in global status. They are all safe and well tolerated.
PubMed: 30688266
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.249228 -
Swiss Medical Weekly Jun 2019The clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy with acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) and memantine compared to AChEI or memantine alone in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy with acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) and memantine compared to AChEI or memantine alone in patients with Alzheimer’s disease is inconclusive.
AIMS OF THE STUDY
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy of AChEI and memantine to monotherapy with either substance in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (Mini-Mental State Examination score is <20).
METHODS
We systematically searched EMBASE, Medline and CENTRAL until February 2018 for eligible RCTs. We pooled the outcome data using inverse variance weighting models assuming random effects, and assessed the quality of evidence (QoE) according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS
We included nine RCTs (2604 patients). At short-term follow-up (closest to 6 months), combination therapy compared to AChEI monotherapy had a significantly greater effect on cognition than AChEI monotherapy (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.35, 7 RCTs, low QoE) and clinical global impression (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.01, 4 RCTs, moderate QoE), but not on activities of daily living (SMD 0.09, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.18, 5 RCTs, moderate QoE) or behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (mean difference −3.07, 95% CI −6.53 to 0.38, 6 RCT, low QoE). There was no significant difference in adverse events (relative risk ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12, 4 RCTs, low QoE). Evidence for long-term follow-up (≥ 9 months) or nursing home placement was sparse. Only two studies compared combination therapy with memantine monotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Combination therapy had statistically significant effects on cognition and clinical global impression. The clinical relevance of these effects is uncertain. The overall QoE was very low. With the current evidence, it remains unclear whether combination therapy adds any benefit. Large pragmatic RCTs with long-term follow-up and focus on functional outcomes, delay in nursing home placement and adverse events are needed.  .
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Alzheimer Disease; Antiparkinson Agents; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31269225
DOI: 10.4414/smw.2019.20093 -
BMC Geriatrics Jul 2018The risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear. In addition, variability between the results of clinical trials has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Predictors of discontinuation, efficacy, and safety of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 18 randomized clinical trials involving 5004 patients.
BACKGROUND
The risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear. In addition, variability between the results of clinical trials has been observed. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment in patients with AD and to determine the predictor effect of patient, intervention, and study design related covariates.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trials was performed. Primary outcomes were all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events (AE) and efficacy on cognitive function. Odds ratio (OR) and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Meta-regression was conducted to identify related covariates. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included trials.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies involving 5004 patients were included. No differences between memantine and placebo were found for all-cause treatment discontinuation (OR=0.97 [0.82, 1.14]) and discontinuation due to AE (OR=1.18 [0.91, 1.53]). Memantine showed small improvement on cognitive function (SMD=0.15 [0.08, 0.22]). Baseline functional ability was positively associated with all-cause treatment discontinuation and discontinuation due to AE.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that memantine has a very small efficacy on AD symptomatology and its safety profile is similar to that of placebo. No evidence of treatment discontinuation improvement with memantine is found, indicating a dubious risk-benefit relationship. No intervention characteristic or subgroup of patients clearly shows a significantly better risk-benefit relationship.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42014015696 .
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Dopamine Agents; Double-Blind Method; Forecasting; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 30041625
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-018-0857-5 -
Turk Psikiyatri Dergisi = Turkish... 2019Many patients with schizophrenia respond partially to treatment with antipsychotic medications. A wide range of pharmaceutical agents are utilized as augmentation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Many patients with schizophrenia respond partially to treatment with antipsychotic medications. A wide range of pharmaceutical agents are utilized as augmentation therapy in order to increase the efficacy of antipsychotic medication treatment. Memantine which is a noncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist is one such agent among these. In this study, by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis we aimed to assess the efficacy of memantine augmentation on psychopathology in patients with schizophrenia receiving antipsychotic medication.
METHOD
We analyzed double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of memantine add-on treatment in schizophrenia patients receiving antipsychotic medications. The primary outcome measure was amelioration of negative symptoms and the secondary outcome measures were amelioration of positive, total and general psychopathology symptoms. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plot and Egger test.
RESULTS
Eleven studies (n=570) were included. Although memantine add-on treatment was superior to placebo for ameliorating negative symptoms (SMD=0.596, 95% CI=0.075-1.118, p=0.025), there were no statistically significant differences in the amelioration of general psychopathology (SMD=0.034, 95% CI=0.419-0.488, p=0.883), positive (SMD=-0.041, 95% CI=0.217-0.135, p=0.650) and overall (SMD=0.315, 95% CI=0.256-0.887, p=0.280) symptoms. No publication bias was observed between studies according to Funnel plots and Egger test results.
CONCLUSION
Memantine augmentation treatment seems to be beneficial for particularly treating negative symptoms in schizophrenia patients. Further studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up durations are needed.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Memantine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 32594486
DOI: No ID Found -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Jun 2024The various pharmacological interventions, ranging from mood stabilizers and antipsychotics to antidepressants, reflect the diff/iculty of treating depressive/manic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The various pharmacological interventions, ranging from mood stabilizers and antipsychotics to antidepressants, reflect the diff/iculty of treating depressive/manic symptomatology of bipolar disorder (BD). Among a broad range of mechanisms implicated, immune dysregulation may contribute to the increased inflammation that influences the course of BD. Inflammatory, neurotrophic and oxidative stress factors may be identified as promising peripheral biomarkers in brain functioning, perhaps serving as predictors of an effective response to treatment for BD. The present systematic review aimed to examine the evidence supporting the pharmacotherapeutic value of inflammatory and neurotrophic biomarkers in BD.
METHODS
PubMed, PsychINFO, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 2024 by two independent reviewers. A total of 40 studies with 3371 patients with diagnosis and intervention of BD were selected.
RESULTS
Inconsistencies in the effects of pharmacological treatments on the connection between the expected anti-inflammatory response and symptomatologic improvement were identified. Mood stabilizers (lithium), antipsychotics (quetiapine), antidepressants (ketamine) or their combination were described to increase both pro-inflammatory (TNFα, IL-6) and anti-inflammatory (IL-4, IL-8) factors. Other medications, such as memantine and dextromethorphan, autoimmune (infliximab) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (aspirin, celecoxib) drugs, antidiabetics (pioglitazone), and even dietary supplementation (omega-3), or their combination, clearly decrease inflammatory factors (TNFα, IL-6, IL-1β, C-reactive protein) and/or increase the neurotrophic factor BDNF in BD patients.
CONCLUSION
Inflammation in BD requires further investigation to understand the underlying immunologic mechanism, to identify predictors of treatment response, and to make informed decisions about the use and development of more effective pharmacological interventions for BD.
PubMed: 38879067
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2024.111056 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Jan 2018Treatment of pain following major limb amputations is often a clinical challenge in a patient population consisting mainly of elderly with underlying diseases....
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Treatment of pain following major limb amputations is often a clinical challenge in a patient population consisting mainly of elderly with underlying diseases. Literature on management of acute post-amputation pain is scarce. We performed a systematic review on this topic to evaluate the efficacy and safety of analgesic interventions for acute pain following major limb amputation.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the following key words: [(amputation) AND (pain OR analgesi* OR pain relief)] AND (acute OR postoperative). Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational studies investigating treatment of acute pain following major amputations for any indication (peripheral vascular disease, malignant disease, trauma) were included. The review was performed according to the standards described in the PRISMA statement. The Cochrane quality assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the RCTs.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies with total of 949 patients were included. The studies were generally small and heterogeneous on outcomes, study designs and quality. There were 16 studies on epidural or continuous perineural analgesia (CPI). Based on five RCTs (n=268) and two observational studies (n=49), epidural analgesia decreased the intensity of acute stump pain as compared to systemic analgesics, during the first 24 h after the operation. Based on one study epidural analgesia caused more adverse effects like sedation, nausea and motor block than continuous perineural local anesthetic infusion. Based on one RCT (n=21) and eight observational studies (n=501) CPI seemed to decrease opioid consumption as compared to systemic analgesics only, on the first three postoperative days, and was well tolerated. Only three trials investigated systemic analgesics (oral memantine, oral gabapentine, iv ketamine). Ketamine did not decrease acute pain or opioid consumption after amputation as compared to other systemic analgesics. Gabapentin did not decrease acute pain when combined to epidural analgesia as compared to epidural analgesia and opioid treatment, and caused adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS
The main finding of this systematic review is that evidence regarding pain management after major limb amputation is very limited. Epidural analgesia may be effective, but firm evidence is lacking. Epidural causes more adverse effects than CPI. The results on efficacy of CPI are indecisive. The data on adjuvant medications combined to epidural analgesia or CPI is limited. Studies on efficacy and adverse effects of systemic analgesics for amputation pain, especially concentrating on elderly patients, are needed.
Topics: Acute Pain; Amputation, Surgical; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 29794290
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2017-0170 -
CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics Feb 2019Success in treating patients with atypical parkinsonian syndromes, namely progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), cortico-basal degeneration (CBD), multiple system atrophy...
AIMS
Success in treating patients with atypical parkinsonian syndromes, namely progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), cortico-basal degeneration (CBD), multiple system atrophy (MSA), Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD), and Lewy body dementia with (LBD), remains exceedingly low. The present work overviews the most influential research literature collected on MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus for available treatment in atypical parkinsonisms without time restriction.
DISCUSSION
Transdermal rotigotine, autologous mesenchymal stem cells, tideglusib, and coenzyme Q10 along with donepezil, rivastigmine, memantine, and the deep brain stimulation have shown some benefits in alleviating symptoms in APS. Moreover, many new clinical trials are ongoing testing microtubule stabilizer, antitau monoclonal antibody, tau acetylation inhibition, cell replacement, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, active immunization, inhibition of toxic α-synuclein oligomers formation, and inhibition of microglia.
CONCLUSION
A detailed knowledge of the pathological mechanism underlying the disorders is needed, and disease-modifying therapies are required to offer better therapeutic options to physician and caregivers of APS patients.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiparkinson Agents; Child; Humans; Parkinsonian Disorders
PubMed: 30294976
DOI: 10.1111/cns.13068 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2014Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects 1 in 68 children in the United States. Even though it is a common disorder, only two... (Review)
Review
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects 1 in 68 children in the United States. Even though it is a common disorder, only two medications (risperidone and aripiprazole) are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat symptoms associated with ASD. However, these medications are approved to treat irritability, which is not a core symptom of ASD. A number of novel medications, which have not been approved by the FDA to treat ASD have been used off-label in some studies to treat ASD symptoms, including medications approved for Alzheimer's disease. Interestingly, some of these studies are high-quality, double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) studies. This article systematically reviews studies published through April, 2014, which examined the use of Alzheimer's medications in ASD, including donepezil (seven studies, two were DBPC, five out of seven reported improvements), galantamine (four studies, two were DBPC, all reported improvements), rivastigmine (one study reporting improvements), tacrine (one study reporting improvements), and memantine (nine studies, one was DBPC, eight reported improvements). An evidence-based scale was used to rank each medication. Collectively, these studies reported improvements in expressive language and communication, receptive language, social interaction, irritability, hyperactivity, attention, eye contact, emotional lability, repetitive or self-stimulatory behaviors, motor planning, disruptive behaviors, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, lethargy, overall ASD behaviors, and increased REM sleep. Reported side effects are reviewed and include irritability, gastrointestinal problems, verbal or behavioral regression, headaches, irritability, rash, tremor, sedation, vomiting, and speech problems. Both galantamine and memantine had sufficient evidence ranking for improving both core and associated symptoms of ASD. Given the lack of medications approved to treat ASD, further studies on novel medications, including Alzheimer's disease medications, are needed.
PubMed: 25202686
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2014.00087