-
Journal of the American Academy of... Nov 2021Although instrumental learning deficits are, among other deficits, assumed to contribute to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), no comprehensive systematic...
OBJECTIVE
Although instrumental learning deficits are, among other deficits, assumed to contribute to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), no comprehensive systematic review of instrumental learning deficits in ADHD exists. This review examines differences between ADHD and typically developing (TD) children in basic instrumental learning and the effects of reinforcement form, magnitude, schedule, and complexity, as well as effects of medication, on instrumental learning in children with ADHD.
METHOD
A systematic search of PubMed, PsyINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE+EMBASE CLASSIC, ERIC, and Web of Science was conducted for articles up to March 16, 2020. Experimental studies comparing instrumental learning between groups (ADHD versus TD) or a manipulation of reinforcement/medication within an ADHD sample were included. Quality of studies was assessed with an adapted version of the Hombrados and Waddington criteria to assess risk of bias in (quasi-) experimental studies.
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies from among 3,384 non-duplicate screened articles were included. No difference in basic instrumental learning was found between children with ADHD and TD children, nor effects of form or magnitude of reinforcement. Results regarding reinforcement schedule and reversal learning were mixed, but children with ADHD seemed to show deficits in conditional discrimination learning compared to TD children. Methylphenidate improved instrumental learning in children with ADHD. Quality assessment showed poor quality of studies with respect to sample sizes and outcome and missing data reporting.
CONCLUSION
The review identified very few and highly heterogenous studies, with inconsistent findings. No clear deficit was found in instrumental learning under laboratory conditions. Children with ADHD do show deficits in complex forms of learning, that is, conditional discrimination learning. Clearly more research is needed, using more similar task designs and manipulations.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Conditioning, Operant; Humans; Learning; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 33862167
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2021.03.009 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jun 2021Studies have demonstrated an increased risk of accidents and injuries in children, adolescents and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However,... (Review)
Review
Studies have demonstrated an increased risk of accidents and injuries in children, adolescents and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, little is known about how accident risk may alter over the lifespan. Additionally, it would be important to know if the most common types of accidents and injuries differ in ADHD patients over different age groups. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence of an ameliorating effect of ADHD medication on accident risk. Lastly, the underlying risk factors and causal mechanisms behind increased accident risk remain unclear. We therefore conducted a systematic review focusing on the above described research questions. Our results suggested that accident/injury type and overall risk changes in ADHD patients over the lifespan. ADHD medication appeared to be similarly effective at reducing accident risk in all age groups. However, studies with direct comparisons of accident/injuries and effects of medication at different age groups or in old age are still missing. Finally, comorbidities associated with ADHD such as substance abuse appear to further increase the accident/injury risk.
Topics: Accidents; Adolescent; Adult; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Comorbidity; Humans; Longevity; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 33582234
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.002 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis increasingly used in adults. The recommended first-line pharmacological treatment is central... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis increasingly used in adults. The recommended first-line pharmacological treatment is central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, such as methylphenidate, but uncertainty remains about its benefits and harms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of extended-release formulations of methylphenidate in adults diagnosed with ADHD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and four clinical trial registries up to February 2021. We searched 12 drug regulatory databases for clinical trial data up to 13 May 2020. In addition, we cross-referenced all available trial identifiers, handsearched reference lists, searched pharmaceutical company databases, and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trials comparing extended-release methylphenidate formulations at any dose versus placebo and other ADHD medications in adults diagnosed with ADHD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and rating scales and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risks of bias, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We meta-analysed the data using a random-effects model. We assessed three design characteristics that may impair the trial results' 'generalisability'; exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity; responder selection based on previous experience with CNS stimulants; and risk of withdrawal effects. Our prespecified primary outcomes were functional outcomes, self-rated ADHD symptoms, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes included quality of life, ADHD symptoms rated by investigators and by peers such as family members, cardiovascular variables, severe psychiatric adverse events, and other adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 trials (5066 participants), of which 21 reported outcome data for this review. We also identified one ongoing study. We included documents from six drug regulatory agencies covering eight trials. Twenty-one trials had an outpatient setting and three were conducted in prisons. They were primarily conducted in North America and Europe. The median participant age was 36 years. Twelve trials (76% of participants) were industry-sponsored, four (14% of participants) were publicly funded with industry involvement, seven (10% of participants) were publicly funded, and one had unclear funding. The median trial duration was eight weeks. One trial was rated at overall unclear risk of bias and 20 trials were rated at overall high risk of bias, primarily due to unclear blinding of participants and investigators, attrition bias, and selective outcome reporting. All trials were impaired in at least one of the three design characteristics related to 'generalisability'; for example, they excluded participants with psychiatric comorbidity such as depression or anxiety, or included participants only with a previous positive response to methylphenidate, or similar drugs. This may limit the trials' usefulness for clinical practice, as they may overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms. Extended-release methylphenidate versus placebo (up to 26 weeks) For the primary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' at 13-week follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.15 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.11 to 1.81; 1 trial, 409 participants) or serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.43, CI 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 14 trials, 4078 participants), whereas methylphenidate improved self-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.30; 16 trials, 3799 participants). For secondary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate improved self-rated quality of life (small effect; SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05; 6 trials, 1888 participants), investigator-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.36; 18 trials, 4183 participants), ADHD symptoms rated by peers such as family members (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; 3 trials, 1005 participants), and increased the risk of experiencing any adverse event (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.37; 14 trials, 4214 participants). We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, primarily due to high risk of bias and 'indirectness of the evidence'. One trial (419 participants) had follow-up at 52 weeks and two trials (314 participants) included active comparators, hence long-term and comparative evidence is limited.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found very low-certainty evidence that extended-release methylphenidate compared to placebo improved ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effects) measured on rating scales reported by participants, investigators, and peers such as family members. Methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' or serious adverse events, the effect on quality of life was small, and it increased the risk of several adverse effects. We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, due to high risk of bias, short trial durations, and limitations to the generalisability of the results. The benefits and harms of extended-release methylphenidate therefore remain uncertain.
Topics: Adult; Anxiety Disorders; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Humans; Methylphenidate; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35201607
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012857.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention or impulsivity or both, and hyperactivity, which affect children,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention or impulsivity or both, and hyperactivity, which affect children, adolescents, and adults. In some countries, methylphenidate is the first option to treat adults with moderate or severe ADHD. However, evidence on the efficacy and adverse events of immediate-release (IR) methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD in adults is limited and controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and harms (adverse events) of IR methylphenidate for treating ADHD in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight additional databases and three trial registers. We also searched internal reports on the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration websites. We checked citations of included trials to identify additional trials not captured by the electronic searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IR methylphenidate, at any dose, with placebo or other pharmacological interventions (including extended-release formulations of methylphenidate) for ADHD in adults. Primary outcomes comprised changes in the symptoms of ADHD (efficacy) and harms. Secondary outcomes included changes in the clinical impression of severity and improvement, level of functioning, depression, anxiety and quality of life. Outcomes could have been rated by investigators or participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data independently on the characteristics of the trials, participants, interventions; outcomes and financial conflict of interests. We resolved disagreements by discussion or consulting a third review author. We obtained additional, unpublished information from the authors of one included trial that had reported efficacy data in a graph. We calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data reported on the same or different scales, respectively. We summarized dichotomous variables as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials published between 2001 and 2016 involving 497 adults with ADHD. Three trials were conducted in Europe and one in Argentina; the remaining trials did not report their location. The RCTs compared IR methylphenidate with placebo, an osmotic-release oral system (OROS) of methylphenidate (an extended-release formulation), an extended-release formulation of bupropion, lithium, and Pycnogenol® (maritime pine bark extract). Participants comprised outpatients, inpatients in addiction treatment, and adults willing to attend an intensive outpatient program for cocaine dependence. The duration of the follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 weeks. IR methylphenidate versus placebo We found very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce symptoms of ADHD when measured with investigator-rated scales (MD -20.70, 95% CI -23.97 to -17.43; 1 trial, 146 participants; end scores; Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Report Scale (AISRS), scored from 0 to 54), but the evidence is uncertain. The effect of IR methylphenidate on ADHD symptoms when measured with participant-rated scales was moderate, but the certainty of the evidence is very low (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.06; I = 69%; 2 trials, 138 participants; end scores). There is very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce the clinical impression of the severity of ADHD symptoms (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.28; 2 trials, 139 participants; I = 0%; change and end scores; Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may slightly impact the clinical impression of an improvement in symptoms of ADHD (MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.51; 1 trial, 49 participants; end scores; CGI-Improvement scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is no clear evidence of an effect on anxiety (MD -0.20, 95% CI -4.84 to 4.44; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A; scored from 0 to 56); very low-certainty evidence) or depression (MD 2.80, 95% CI -0.09 to 5.69; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D; scored from 0 to 52); very low-certainty evidence) in analyses comparing IR methylphenidate with placebo. IR methylphenidate versus lithium Compared with lithium, it is uncertain whether IR methylphenidate increases or decreases symptoms of ADHD (MD 0.60, 95% CI -3.11 to 4.31; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (scored from 0 to 198); very low-certainty evidence); anxiety (MD -0.80, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.89; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-A; very low-certainty evidence); or depression (MD -1.20, 95% CI -3.81 to 1.41, 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-D scale; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed participant-rated changes in symptoms of ADHD, or clinical impression of severity or improvement in participants treated with IR methylphenidate compared with lithium. Adverse events were poorly assessed and reported. We rated all trials at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting of harms and masking of outcome assessors (failure to blind outcome assessor to measure adverse events). Overall, four trials with 203 participants who received IR methylphenidate and 141 participants who received placebo described the occurrence of harms. The use of IR methylphenidate in these trials increased the risk of gastrointestinal complications (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.95) and loss of appetite (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.96). Cardiovascular adverse events were reported inconsistently, preventing a comprehensive analysis. One trial comparing IR methylphenidate to lithium reported five and nine adverse events, respectively. We considered four trials to have notable concerns of vested interests influencing the evidence, and authors from two trials omitted information related to the sources of funding and conflicts of interest.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no certain evidence that IR methylphenidate compared with placebo or lithium can reduce symptoms of ADHD in adults (low- and very low-certainty evidence). Adults treated with IR methylphenidate are at increased risk of gastrointestinal and metabolic-related harms compared with placebo. Clinicians should consider whether it is appropriate to prescribe IR methylphenidate, given its limited efficacy and increased risk of harms. Future RCTs should explore the long-term efficacy and risks of IR methylphenidate, and the influence of conflicts of interest on reported effects.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Anxiety; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bias; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Depression; Drug Delivery Systems; Female; Flavonoids; Humans; Lithium Compounds; Male; Methylphenidate; Middle Aged; Placebos; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 33460048
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013011.pub2 -
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology Dec 2023Cesarean section is associated with moderate to severe pain and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly employed. The optimal NSAID, however, has not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cesarean section is associated with moderate to severe pain and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly employed. The optimal NSAID, however, has not been elucidated. In this network meta-analysis and systematic review, we compared the influence of control and individual NSAIDs on the indices of analgesia, side effects, and quality of recovery.
METHODS
CDSR, CINAHL, CRCT, Embase, LILACS, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing a specific NSAID to either control or another NSAID in elective or emergency cesarean section under general or neuraxial anesthesia. Network plots and league tables were constructed, and the quality of evidence was evaluated with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis.
RESULTS
We included 47 trials. Cumulative intravenous morphine equivalent consumption at 24 h, the primary outcome, was examined in 1,228 patients and 18 trials, and control was found to be inferior to diclofenac, indomethacin, ketorolac, and tenoxicam (very low quality evidence owing to serious limitations, imprecision, and publication bias). Indomethacin was superior to celecoxib for pain score at rest at 8-12 h and celecoxib + parecoxib, diclofenac, and ketorolac for pain score on movement at 48 h. In regard to the need for and time to rescue analgesia COX-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib were inferior to other NSAIDs.
CONCLUSIONS
Our review suggests the presence of minimal differences among the NSAIDs studied. Nonselective NSAIDs may be more effective than selective NSAIDs, and some NSAIDs such as indomethacin might be preferable to other NSAIDs.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Diclofenac; Ketorolac; Celecoxib; Cesarean Section; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Indomethacin; Pain
PubMed: 37066603
DOI: 10.4097/kja.23014 -
Chronic Respiratory Disease May 2017Fatigue is a common manifestation of sarcoidosis, often persisting without evidence of disease activity. First-line therapies for sarcoidosis have limited effect on... (Review)
Review
Fatigue is a common manifestation of sarcoidosis, often persisting without evidence of disease activity. First-line therapies for sarcoidosis have limited effect on fatigue. This review aimed to assess the treatment options targeting sarcoidosis-associated fatigue. Medline and Web of Science were searched in November 2015; the bibliographies of these papers, and relevant review papers, were also searched. Studies were included if they reported on the efficacy of interventions (both pharmacological and non-pharmacological) on fatigue scores in sarcoidosis patients. Eight studies were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated six different interventions (infliximab, adalimumab, ARA 290, methylphenidate, armodafinil and exercise programmes). There is evidence to support a treatment effect of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-αtherapies (adalimumab and infliximab) and neurostimulants (methylphenidate and armodafinil), but within five of the studies, the risk of bias was high within most domains and the remaining three studies included only small numbers of participants and were short in duration. Trial evidence for treating fatigue as a manifestation of sarcoidosis is limited and requires further investigation. Anti-TNF-α therapies may be beneficial in patients with organ-threatening disease. Neurostimulants have some trial evidence supporting improvements in fatigue but further investigation is needed before they can be recommended.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antirheumatic Agents; Benzhydryl Compounds; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Exercise Therapy; Fatigue; Humans; Infliximab; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Oligopeptides; Sarcoidosis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 27507833
DOI: 10.1177/1479972316661926 -
Journal of Optometry 2018The aim of the present meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of cyclopentolate and tropicamide in controlling accommodation during refraction. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The aim of the present meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of cyclopentolate and tropicamide in controlling accommodation during refraction.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Science direct and Ovid databases by the key words: "tropicamide"; "cyclopentolate"; "cycloplegia" and "cycloplegic" from inception to April 2016. Methodological quality of the literature was evaluated according to the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine and modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 2; Biostat Inc., USA).
RESULTS
The present meta-analysis included six studies (three randomized controlled trials and three case-control studies). Pooled standardized difference in the mean changes in the refractive error was 0.175 D [lower and upper limits: -0.089; 0.438] more plus in the cyclopentolate group compared to the tropicamide group; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.194; Cochrane Q value=171.72 (p<0.05); I=95.34%). Egger's regression intercept was -5.33 (p=0.170). Considering type of refractive errors; refractive assessment procedure and age group; although cycloplegic effect of cyclopentolate was stronger than tropicamide; however, this effect was only statistically significant in children; hyperopic patients and with retinoscopy.
CONCLUSION
We suggest that tropicamide may be considered as a viable substitute for cyclopentolate due to its rapid onset of action. Although these results should be used cautiously in infants and in patients with high hyperopia or strabismus when using tropicamide as the sole cycloplegic agent especially in situations that the findings are variable or there is no consistency between the examination results and clinical manifestations of the visual problems.
Topics: Accommodation, Ocular; Case-Control Studies; Cyclopentolate; Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological; Humans; Mydriatics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Refractive Errors; Tropicamide
PubMed: 29132914
DOI: 10.1016/j.optom.2017.09.001 -
Medicine Oct 2017Dexmedetomidine showed some potential in pain control in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine showed some potential in pain control in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy.
METHODS
We searched the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of dexmedetomidine on knee arthroscopy in PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases. The primary outcome was pain scores. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Five RCTs were included. Overall, compared with control intervention in patients with knee arthroscopy, dexmedetomidine intervention could significantly reduce the pain scores [Std. mean difference = -0.84; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = -1.24 to -0.44; P < .0001] and postoperative diclofenac sodium consumption (Std. mean difference = -1.76; 95% CI = -3.32 to -0.21; P = .03), improve duration of analgesic effect (Std. mean difference = 1.78; 95% CI = 0.56-3.00; P = .004), but showed no influence on hypotension [risk ratio (RR) = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.14-5.92; P = .94], bradycardia (RR = 4.93; 95% CI = 0.91-26.58; P = .06), nausea, and vomiting (RR = 1.96; 95% CI = 0.31-12.58; P = .48).
CONCLUSION
Dexmedetomidine intervention was able to significantly reduce the pain scores and postoperative diclofenac sodium consumption, and improve duration of analgesic effect in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy, but had no influence on hypotension, bradycardia, nausea, and vomiting.
Topics: Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Dexmedetomidine; Diclofenac; Humans; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 29068980
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007938 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Despite the high prevalence of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and its harmful effects, there are currently no therapies proven to treat this symptom. Recently, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the high prevalence of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and its harmful effects, there are currently no therapies proven to treat this symptom. Recently, a number of pharmacological therapies have been investigated as potential treatments for apathy in AD.
OBJECTIVES
Objective 1: To assess the safety and efficacy of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD).Objective 2: To assess the effect on apathy of pharmacotherapies investigated for other primary outcomes in the treatment of AD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (ALOIS), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) portal, ICTRP on 17 May 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Eligible studies were double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) investigating apathy as a primary or secondary outcome in people with AD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors extracted data. We assessed the risks of bias of included studies using Cochrane methods, and the overall quality of evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We calculated mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals on an intention-to-treat basis for all relevant outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 studies involving a total of 6384 participants in the quantitative analyses. Risk of bias is very low to moderate. All studies reported appropriate methods of randomization and blinding. Most studies reported appropriate methods of allocation concealment. Four studies, three with methylphenidate and one with modafinil, had a primary aim of improving apathy. In these studies, all participants had clinically significant apathy at baseline. Methylphenidate may improve apathy compared to placebo. This finding was present when apathy was assessed using the apathy evaluation scale (AES), which was used by all three studies investigating methylphenidate: MD -4.99, 95% CI -9.55 to -0.43, n = 145, 3 studies, low quality of evidence, but not when assessed with the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI)-apathy subscale, which was used by two of the three studies investigating methylphenidate: MD -0.08, 95% CI -3.85 to 3.69, n = 85, 2 studies, low quality of evidence. As well as having potential benefits for apathy, methylphenidate probably also slightly improves cognition (MD 1.98, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.91, n = 145, 3 studies, moderate quality of evidence), and probably improves instrumental activities of daily living (MD 2.30, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.86, P = 0.004, n = 60, 1 study, moderate quality of evidence), compared to placebo. There may be no difference between methylphenidate and placebo in the risk of developing an adverse event: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.42, n = 145, 3 studies, low quality of evidence. There was insufficient evidence from one very small study of modafinil to determine the effect of modafinil on apathy assessed with the FrSBe-apathy subscale: MD 0.27, 95% CI -3.51 to 4.05, n = 22, 1 study, low quality of evidence. In all other included studies, apathy was a secondary outcome and participants were not selected on the basis of clinically significant apathy at baseline. We considered the evidence on apathy from these studies to be indirect and associated with publication bias. There was low or very low quality of evidence on cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) (six studies), ChEI discontinuation (one study), antipsychotics (two studies), antipsychotic discontinuation (one study), antidepressants (two studies), mibampator (one study), valproate (three studies) and semagacestat (one study).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Methylphenidate may demonstrate a benefit for apathy and may have slight benefits for cognition and functional performance in people with AD, but this finding is associated with low-quality evidence. Our meta-analysis is limited by the small number of studies within each drug class, risk of bias, publication bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies. Additional studies should be encouraged targeting people with AD with clinically significant apathy which investigate apathy as a primary outcome measure, and which have a longer duration and a larger sample size. This could increase the quality of evidence for methylphenidate, and may confirm whether or not it is an effective pharmacotherapy for apathy in AD.
Topics: Alanine; Alzheimer Disease; Antidepressive Agents; Apathy; Azepines; Benzhydryl Compounds; Biphenyl Compounds; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Humans; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 29727467
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012197.pub2