-
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Sep 2021This systematic review provides supporting evidence for the accompanying clinical practice guideline on the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
This systematic review provides supporting evidence for the accompanying clinical practice guideline on the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children. The review focuses on prescription medications with U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval and nonpharmacologic interventions studied for the treatment of symptoms caused by central disorders of hypersomnolence.
METHODS
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine to perform a systematic review. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies addressing pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for central disorders of hypersomnolence were identified. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the clinical significance of all outcomes. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence for the purpose of making specific treatment recommendations.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 678 studies; 144 met the inclusion criteria and 108 provided data suitable for statistical analyses. Evidence for the following interventions is presented: armodafinil, clarithromycin, clomipramine, dextroamphetamine, flumazenil, intravenous immune globulin (IVIG), light therapy, lithium, l-carnitine, liraglutide, methylphenidate, methylprednisolone, modafinil, naps, pitolisant, selegiline, sodium oxybate, solriamfetol, and triazolam. The task force provided a detailed summary of the evidence along with the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use considerations.
CITATION
Maski K, Trotti LM, Kotagal S, et al. Treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment. 2021;17(9):1895-1945.
Topics: Adult; Child; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; GRADE Approach; Humans; Modafinil; Sleep; Sodium Oxybate; United States
PubMed: 34743790
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.9326 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into adulthood and can affects individuals' social and occupational functioning, as well as their quality of life and health. ADHD is frequently associated with other mental disorders such as substance use disorders and anxiety and affective disorders. Amphetamines are used to treat adults with ADHD, but uncertainties about their efficacy and safety remain.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for adults with ADHD.
SEARCH METHODS
In August 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and two trials registers, and we ran citation searches for included studies. We also contacted the corresponding authors of all included studies, other experts in the field, and the pharmaceutical company, Shire, and we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews for other published, unpublished, or ongoing studies. For each included study, we performed a citation search in Web of Science to identify any later studies that may have cited it.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of amphetamines (at any dose) for ADHD in adults aged 18 years and over against placebo or an active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data from each included study. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) to assess continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We conducted a stratified analysis to determine the influence of moderating variables. We assessed trials for risk of bias and drew a funnel plot to investigate the possibility of publication bias. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, which yielded high, moderate, low, or very low quality ratings based on evaluation of within-trial risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity of data; precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 studies that investigated three types of amphetamines: dexamphetamine (10.2 mg/d to 21.8 mg/d), lisdexamfetamine (30 mg/d to 70 mg/d), and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS; 12.5 mg/d to 80 mg/d). These studies enrolled 2521 participants; most were middle-aged (35.3 years), Caucasian males (57.2%), with a combined type of ADHD (78.8%). Eighteen studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was conducted in both Canada and the USA. Ten were multi-site studies. All studies were placebo-controlled, and three also included an active comparator: guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine. Most studies had short-term follow-up and a mean study length of 5.3 weeks.We found no studies that had low risk of bias in all domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, mainly because amphetamines have powerful subjective effects that may reveal the assigned treatment, but also because we noted attrition bias, and because we could not rule out the possibility of a carry-over effect in studies that used a cross-over design.Sixteen studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, one study was publicly funded, and two studies did not report their funding sources.Amphetamines versus placeboSeverity of ADHD symptoms: we found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians (SMD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to -0.75; 13 studies, 2028 participants) and patients (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.28; six studies, 120 participants).Retention: overall, we found low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines did not improve retention in treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; 17 studies, 2323 participants).Adverse events: we found that amphetamines were associated with an increased proportion of patients who withdrew because of adverse events (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 4.45; 17 studies, 2409 participants).Type of amphetamine: we found differences between amphetamines for the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians. Both lisdexamfetamine (SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.85; seven studies, 896 participants; low-quality evidence) and MAS (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.66; five studies, 1083 participants; low-quality evidence) reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms. In contrast, we found no evidence to suggest that dexamphetamine reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.32; one study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence). In addition, all amphetamines were efficacious in reducing the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients (dexamphetamine: SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.40; two studies, 35 participants; low-quality evidence; lisdexamfetamine: SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01; three studies, 67 participants; low-quality evidence; MAS: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.12; one study, 18 participants; very low-quality evidence).Dose at study completion: different doses of amphetamines did not appear to be associated with differences in efficacy.Type of drug-release formulation: we investigated immediate- and sustained-release formulations but found no differences between them for any outcome.Amphetamines versus other drugsWe found no evidence that amphetamines improved ADHD symptom severity compared to other drug interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Amphetamines improved the severity of ADHD symptoms, as assessed by clinicians or patients, in the short term but did not improve retention to treatment. Amphetamines were associated with higher attrition due to adverse events. The short duration of studies coupled with their restrictive inclusion criteria limits the external validity of these findings. Furthermore, none of the included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Overall, the evidence generated by this review is of low or very low quality.
Topics: Adult; Amphetamines; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dextroamphetamine; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30091808
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007813.pub3 -
The European Respiratory Journal May 2016Modafinil is used internationally to treat residual sleepiness despite continuous positive airway pressure in obstructive sleep apnoea (res-OSA). In 2011, the European... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Modafinil is used internationally to treat residual sleepiness despite continuous positive airway pressure in obstructive sleep apnoea (res-OSA). In 2011, the European Medicines Agency removed the indication based on an unfavourable risk-benefit profile in two trials for efficacy and all accumulated safety data. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials of modafinil (or armodafinil) in res-OSA to quantify efficacy and safety.We systematically searched and assessed studies from major databases, conferences and trials registries to find randomised, placebo-controlled trials of modafinil/armodafinil for ≥2 weeks in adult res-OSA treating sleepiness.We analysed 10 of the 232 articles identified that met inclusion criteria (1466 patients). Modafinil/armodafinil improved the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (2.2 points, 95% CI 1.5-2.9) and the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test over placebo (3 min, 95% CI 2.1-3.8 min). Modafinil/armodafinil tripled adverse events and doubled adverse events leading to withdrawal but did not increase serious adverse events (hospitalisations or death).Modafinil and armodafinil improve subjective and objective daytime sleepiness in res-OSA. We believe our analysis is a fairer analysis of the risk-benefit profile of this indication. Clinicians may want to use this data to balance the risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis with their patients.
Topics: Adult; Benzhydryl Compounds; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Modafinil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Sleep Stages; Sleep Wake Disorders; Treatment Outcome; Wakefulness; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 26846828
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01509-2015 -
Psychological Medicine Jan 2022There is mixed evidence on the association between headache and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as headache and ADHD medications. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There is mixed evidence on the association between headache and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as headache and ADHD medications. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the co-occurrence of headache in children with ADHD, and the effects of ADHD medications on headache. Embase, Medline and PsycInfo were searched for population-based and clinical studies comparing the prevalence of headache in ADHD and controls through January 26, 2021. In addition, we updated the search of a previous systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ADHD medications on June 16, 2020. Trials of amphetamines, atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with a placebo arm and reporting data on headache as an adverse event, were included. Thirteen epidemiological studies and 58 clinical trials were eligible for inclusion. In epidemiological studies, a significant association between headache and ADHD was found [odds ratio (OR) = 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.63-2.46], which remained significant when limited to studies reporting ORs adjusted for possible confounders. The pooled prevalence of headaches in children with ADHD was 26.6%. In RCTs, three ADHD medications were associated with increased headache during treatment periods, compared to placebo: atomoxetine (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.06-1.56), guanfacine (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.12-1.82), and methylphenidate (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.09-1.63). The summarized evidence suggests that headache is common in children with ADHD, both as part of the clinical presentation as such and as a side effect of some standard medications. Monitoring and clinical management strategies of headache in ADHD, in general, and during pharmacological treatment are recommended.
Topics: Child; Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Guanfacine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Methylphenidate; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Comorbidity; Headache; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34635194
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291721004141 -
Cureus May 2023The literature on pharmacologic treatments for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is inconsistent and unstandardized. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate... (Review)
Review
The literature on pharmacologic treatments for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is inconsistent and unstandardized. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate choices in pharmacologic treatment options for POTS and the challenges encountered in the studies. We searched numerous databases like PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for literature published before April 8, 2023. The search was done to retrieve potential peer-reviewed articles that explored drug therapy in POTS. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct the systematic review. Of the 421 potential articles assessed, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Results demonstrated that pharmacologic treatment options for POTS were effective in reducing symptoms of POTS, but most of the studies were underpowered. Several were terminated due to various reasons. Midodrine ivabradine, bisoprolol, fludrocortisone, droxidopa, desmopressin, propranolol, modafinil, methylphenidate, and melatonin have been studied with positive impact but sample sizes that were low in the range of 10-50 subjects. Therefore, we concluded the treatment options effectively improve symptoms of POTS and increase orthostatic tolerance, but more evidence is needed as most studies had a low sample size and thus are underpowered.
PubMed: 37313107
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.38887 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Cocaine dependence is a severe disorder for which no medication has been approved. Like opioids for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulants could be... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cocaine dependence is a severe disorder for which no medication has been approved. Like opioids for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulants could be an effective therapy for treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of psychostimulants for cocaine abuse and dependence. Specific outcomes include sustained cocaine abstinence and retention in treatment. We also studied the influence of type of drug and comorbid disorders on psychostimulant efficacy.
SEARCH METHODS
This is an update of the review previously published in 2010. For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO up to 15 February 2016. We handsearched references of obtained articles and consulted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised parallel group controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of a psychostimulant drug versus placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 studies involving 2366 participants. The included studies assessed nine drugs: bupropion, dexamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil, mazindol, methamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts and selegiline. We did not consider any study to be at low risk of bias for all domains included in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Attrition bias was the most frequently suspected potential source of bias of the included studies. We found very low quality evidence that psychostimulants improved sustained cocaine abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.77, P = 0.02), but they did not reduce cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.33) among participants who continued to use it. Furthermore, we found moderate quality evidence that psychostimulants did not improve retention in treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06). The proportion of adverse event-induced dropouts and cardiovascular adverse event-induced dropouts was similar for psychostimulants and placebo (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, respectively). When we included the type of drug as a moderating variable, the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine abstinence was higher with bupropion and dexamphetamine than with placebo. Psychostimulants also appeared to increase the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine and heroin abstinence amongst methadone-maintained, dual heroin-cocaine addicts. Retention to treatment was low, though, so our results may be compromised by attrition bias. We found no evidence of publication bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found mixed results. Psychostimulants improved cocaine abstinence compared to placebo in some analyses but did not improve treatment retention. Since treatment dropout was high, we cannot rule out the possibility that these results were influenced by attrition bias. Existing evidence does not clearly demonstrate the efficacy of any pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence, but substitution treatment with psychostimulants appears promising and deserves further investigation.
PubMed: 27670244
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007380.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of cognitive deficits in this population is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing or ameliorating cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation.
SEARCH METHODS
For this review update we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo via Ovid to 12 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled (RCTs) trials that evaluated pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in cranial irradiated adults, with objective cognitive functioning as a primary or secondary outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MK, JD) independently extracted data from selected studies and carried out a risk of bias assessment. Cognitive function, fatigue and mood outcomes were reported. No data were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this updated review. Six were from the original version of the review, and two more were added when the search was updated. Nineteen further studies were assessed as part of this update but did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. Of the eight included studies, four studies investigated "prevention" of cognitive problems (during radiotherapy and follow-up) and four studies investigated "amelioration" (interventions to treat cognitive impairment as a late complication of radiotherapy). There were five pharmacological studies (two studies on prevention and three in amelioration) and three non-pharmacological studies (two on prevention and one in amelioration). Due to differences between studies in the interventions being evaluated, a meta-analysis was not possible. Studies in early radiotherapy treatment phase (five studies) Pharmacological studies in the "early radiotherapy treatment phase" were designed to prevent or ameliorate cognitive deficits and included drugs used in dementia (memantine) and fatigue (d-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride). Non-pharmacological studies in the "early radiotherapy treatment phase" included a ketogenic diet and a two-week cognitive rehabilitation and problem-solving programme. In the memantine study, the primary cognitive outcome of memory at six months did not reach significance, but there was significant improvement in overall cognitive function compared to placebo, with similar adverse events across groups. The d-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride study found no statistically significant difference between arms, with few adverse events. The study of a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet found no effect, although a lower than expected calorie intake in the control group complicates interpretation of the results. The study investigating the utility of a rehabilitation program did not carry out a statistical comparison of cognitive performance between groups. Studies in delayed radiation or late effect phase (four studies) The "amelioration" pharmacological studies to treat cognitive complications of radiotherapy included drugs used in dementia (donepezil) or psychostimulants (methylphenidate and modafinil). Non-pharmacological measures included cognitive rehabilitation and problem solving (Goal Management Training). These studies included patients with cognitive problems at entry who had "stable" brain cancer. The donepezil study did not find an improvement in the primary cognitive outcome of overall cognitive performance, but did find improvement in an individual test of memory, compared to placebo; adverse events were not reported. A study comparing methylphenidate with modafinil found improvements in cognitive function in both the methylphenidate and modafinil arms; few adverse events were reported. Another study comparing two different doses of modafinil combined treatment arms and found improvements across all cognitive tests, however, a number of adverse events were reported. Both studies were limited by a small sample size. The Goal Management Training study suggested a benefit of the intervention, a behavioural intervention that combined mindfulness and strategy training, on executive function and processing speed. There were a number of limitations across studies and few were without high risks of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this update, limited additional evidence was found for the treatment or amelioration of cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation. As concluded in the original review, there is supportive evidence that memantine may help prevent cognitive deficits for adults with brain metastases receiving cranial irradiation. There is supportive evidence that donepezil, methylphenidate and modafinil may have a role in treating cognitive deficits in adults with brain tumours who have been treated with cranial irradiation; patient withdrawal affected the statistical power of these studies. Further research that tries to minimise the withdrawal of consent, and subsequently reduce the requirement for imputation procedures, may offer a higher certainty of evidence. There is evidence from only a single small study to support non-pharmacological interventions in the amelioration of cognitive deficits. Further research is required.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Modafinil; Donepezil; Memantine; Quality of Life; Cognitive Dysfunction; Cranial Irradiation; Cognition; Methylphenidate; Brain Neoplasms; Fatigue; Dementia
PubMed: 36427235
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011335.pub3 -
Cancer Medicine May 2023Neurocognitive impairments are common in patients with current or previously treated brain tumours, and such impairments can negatively affect patient outcomes including... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neurocognitive impairments are common in patients with current or previously treated brain tumours, and such impairments can negatively affect patient outcomes including quality of life and survival. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe interventions used to ameliorate (improve) or prevent cognitive impairments in adults with brain tumours.
METHODS
We performed a literature search of the Ovid MEDLINE, PsychINFO and PsycTESTS databases from commencement until September 2021.
RESULTS
In total, 9998 articles were identified by the search strategy; an additional 14 articles were identified through other sources. Of these, 35 randomised and nonrandomised studies were deemed to meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria of our review and were subsequently included for evaluation. A range of interventions were associated with positive effects on cognition, including pharmacological agents such as memantine, donepezil, methylphenidate, modafinil, ginkgo biloba and shenqi fuzheng, and nonpharmacological interventions such as general and cognitive rehabilitation, working memory training, Goal Management Training, aerobic exercise, virtual reality training combined with computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation, hyperbaric oxygen therapy and semantic strategy training. However, most identified studies had a number of methodological limitations and were judged to be at moderate-to-high risk of bias. In addition, it remains unclear whether and to what extent the identified interventions lead to durable cognitive benefits after cessation of the intervention.
CONCLUSION
The 35 studies identified in this systematic review have indicated potential cognitive benefits for a number of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions in patients with brain tumours. Study limitations were identified and further studies should focus on improved study reporting, methods to reduce bias and minimise participant drop-out and withdrawal where possible, and consider standardisation of methods and interventions across studies. Greater collaboration between centres could result in larger studies with standardised methods and outcome measures, and should be a focus of future research in the field.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Quality of Life; Cognitive Dysfunction; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Brain Neoplasms
PubMed: 36880363
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5760 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2021Sleep disorders are among the main comorbidities in patients with a Disorder of Consciousness (DOC). Given the key role of sleep in neural and cognitive functioning,... (Review)
Review
Sleep disorders are among the main comorbidities in patients with a Disorder of Consciousness (DOC). Given the key role of sleep in neural and cognitive functioning, detecting and treating sleep disorders in DOCs might be an effective therapeutic strategy to boost consciousness recovery and levels of awareness. To date, no systematic reviews have been conducted that explore the effect of sleep treatments in DOCs; thus, we systematically reviewed the existing studies on both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for sleep disorders in DOCs. Among 2267 assessed articles, only 7 were included in the systematic review. The studies focused on two sleep disorder categories (sleep-related breathing disorders and circadian rhythm dysregulation) treated with both pharmacological (Modafinil and Intrathecal Baclofen) and non-pharmacological (positive airway pressure, bright light stimulation, and central thalamic deep brain stimulation) interventions. Although the limited number of studies and their heterogeneity do not allow generalized conclusions, all the studies highlighted the effectiveness of treatments on both sleep disorders and levels of awareness. For this reason, clinical and diagnostic evaluations able to detect sleep disorders in DOC patients should be adopted in the clinical routine for the purpose of intervening promptly with the most appropriate treatment.
PubMed: 35054255
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12010088 -
Journal of Parkinson's Disease 2023Fatigue is one of the most common and debilitating non-motor symptoms among patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and significantly impacts quality of life. Therefore,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Physical Exercise as a Potential Treatment for Fatigue in Parkinson's Disease? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Interventions.
BACKGROUND
Fatigue is one of the most common and debilitating non-motor symptoms among patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and significantly impacts quality of life. Therefore, effective treatment options are needed.
OBJECTIVE
To provide an update on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including pharmacological and non-pharmacological (but non-surgical) treatments that examine the effects of fatigue on PD patients.
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases for (cross-over) RCTs on pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for treating fatigue in PD patients until May 2021. Meta-analyses for random-effects models were calculated when two or more studies on the same treatment option were available using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Fourteen pharmacological and 16 non-pharmacological intervention RCTs were identified. For pharmacological approaches, a meta-analysis could only be performed for modafinil compared to placebo (n = 2) revealing a non-significant effect on fatigue (SMD = - 0.21, 95% CI - 0.74-0.31, p = 0.43). Regarding non-pharmacological approaches, physical exercise (n = 8) following different training approaches versus passive or placebo control groups showed a small significant effect (SMD = - 0.37, 95% CI - 0.69- - 0.05, p = 0.02) which could not be demonstrated for acupuncture vs. sham-acupuncture (SMD = 0.16, 95% CI - 0.19-0.50, p = 0.37).
CONCLUSION
Physical exercise may be a promising strategy to treat fatigue in PD patients. Further research is required to examine the efficacy of this treatment strategy and further interventions. Future studies should differentiate treatment effects on physical and mental fatigue as the different underlying mechanisms of these symptoms may lead to different treatment responses. More effort is required to develop, evaluate, and implement holistic fatigue management strategies for PD patients.
Topics: Humans; Parkinson Disease; Exercise; Modafinil; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37334618
DOI: 10.3233/JPD-225116