-
International Journal of Molecular... Jul 2022Patients with Parkinson’s disease are prone to a higher incidence of melanoma. Amantadine (an anti-Parkinson drug) possesses the antiproliferative potential that can...
Patients with Parkinson’s disease are prone to a higher incidence of melanoma. Amantadine (an anti-Parkinson drug) possesses the antiproliferative potential that can be favorable when combined with other chemotherapeutics. Cisplatin (CDDP) and mitoxantrone (MTO) are drugs used in melanoma chemotherapy, but they have many side effects. (1) Clinical observations revealed a high incidence of malignant melanoma in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Amantadine as an anti-Parkinson drug alleviates symptoms of Parkinson’s disease and theoretically, it should have anti-melanoma properties. (2) To characterize the interaction profile for combinations of amantadine with CDDP and MTO in four human melanoma cell lines (A375, SK-MEL 28, FM55P and FM55M2), type I isobolographic analysis was used in the MTT test. (3) Amantadine produces the anti-proliferative effects in various melanoma cell lines. Flow cytometry analysis indicated that amantadine induced apoptosis and G1/S phase cell cycle arrest. Western blotting analysis showed that amantadine markedly decreased cyclin-D1 protein levels and increased p21 levels. Additionally, amantadine significantly increased the Bax/Bcl-2 ratio. The combined application of amantadine with CDDP at the fixed-ratio of 1:1 exerted an additive interaction in the four studied cell lines in the MTT test. In contrast, the combination of amantadine with MTO (ratio of 1:1) produced synergistic interaction in the FM55M2 cell line in the MTT (* p < 0.05). The combination of amantadine with MTO was also additive in the remaining tested cell lines (A375, FM55P and SK-MEL28) in the MTT test. (4) Amantadine combined with MTO exerted the most desirable synergistic interaction, as assessed isobolographically. Additionally, the exposure of melanoma cell lines to amantadine in combination with CDDP or MTO augmented the induction of apoptosis mediated by amantadine alone.
Topics: Amantadine; Apoptosis; Cell Line, Tumor; Cell Proliferation; Cisplatin; Cytostatic Agents; Humans; Melanoma; Parkinson Disease
PubMed: 35886997
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23147653 -
Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and... Dec 2023An important drug used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease is amantadine. We are the first to perform a comprehensive study based on various glycation and oxidation...
An important drug used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease is amantadine. We are the first to perform a comprehensive study based on various glycation and oxidation factors, determining the impact of amantadine on protein glycoxidation. Sugars (glucose, fructose, galactose) and aldehydes (glyoxal, methylglyoxal) were used as glycation agents, and chloramine T was used as an oxidant. Glycoxidation biomarkers in albumin treated with amantadine were generally not different from the control group (glycation/oxidation factors), indicating that the drug did not affect oxidation and glycation processes. Molecular docking analysis did not reveal strong binding sites of amantadine on the bovine serum albumin structure. Although amantadine poorly scavenged hydroxyl radical and hydrogen peroxide, it had significantly lower antioxidant and antiglycation effect than all protein oxidation and glycation inhibitors. In some cases, amantadine even demonstrated glycoxidant, proglycation, and prooxidant properties. In summary, amantadine exhibited weak antioxidant properties and a lack of antiglycation activity.
Topics: Antioxidants; Glycation End Products, Advanced; Molecular Docking Simulation; Serum Albumin, Bovine; Amantadine
PubMed: 36325591
DOI: 10.1080/14756366.2022.2137161 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the management of cancer-related fatigue'.In healthy individuals, fatigue is a protective response to physical or mental stress, often relieved by rest. By contrast, in palliative care patients' fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Fatigue frequently occurs in patients with advanced disease (e.g. cancer-related fatigue) and modalities used to treat cancer can often contribute. Further complicating issues are the multidimensionality, subjective nature and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. The pathophysiology is not fully understood and evidence-based treatment approaches are needed.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for fatigue in palliative care, with a focus on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including patients with cancer and other chronic diseases.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, and a selection of cancer journals up to 28 April 2014. We searched the references of identified articles and contacted authors to obtain unreported data. To validate the search strategy we selected sentinel references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) concerning adult palliative care with a focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue compared to placebo, application of two drugs, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia). We did not include studies on fatigue related to antineoplastic treatment (e.g. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgical intervention). We also included secondary outcomes that were assessed in fatigue-related studies (e.g. exhaustion, tiredness).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MM and MC) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We screened the search results and included studies if they met the selection criteria. If we identified two or more studies that investigated a specific drug with the same dose in a population with the same disease and using the same assessment instrument or scale, we conducted meta-analysis. In addition, we compared the type of drug investigated in specific populations, as well as the frequent adverse effects of fatigue treatment, by creating overview tables.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we screened 1645 publications of which 45 met the inclusion criteria (20 additional studies to the previous reviews). In total, we analysed data from 18 drugs and 4696 participants. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials and we discuss the reasons for this in the review. There were some sources of potential bias in the included studies, including a lack of description of the methods of blinding and allocation concealment, and the small size of the study populations. We included studies investigating pemoline and modafinil in participants with multiple sclerosis (MS)-associated fatigue and methylphenidate in patients suffering from advanced cancer and fatigue in meta-analysis. Treatment results pointed to weak and inconclusive evidence for the efficacy of amantadine, pemoline and modafinil in multiple sclerosis and for carnitine and donepezil in cancer-related fatigue. Methylphenidate and pemoline seem to be effective in patients with HIV, but this is based only on one study per intervention, with only a moderate number of participants in each study. Meta-analysis shows an estimated superior effect for methylphenidate in cancer-related fatigue (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.83). Therapeutic effects could not be described for dexamphetamine, paroxetine or testosterone. There were a variety of results for the secondary outcomes in some studies. Most studies had low participant numbers and were heterogeneous. In general, adverse reactions were mild and had little or no impact.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for the treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Fatigue research in palliative care seems to focus on modafinil and methylphenidate, which may be beneficial for the treatment of fatigue associated with palliative care although further research about their efficacy is needed. Dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, acetylsalicylic acid, armodafinil, amantadine and L-carnitine should be further examined. Consensus is needed regarding fatigue outcome parameters for clinical trials.
Topics: Adult; Amantadine; Benzhydryl Compounds; Carnitine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Chronic Disease; Fatigue; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Multiple Sclerosis; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Pemoline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26026155
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006788.pub3 -
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : JAD 2018Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the presence in the brain of extracellular amyloid-β protein (Aβ) and intracellular... (Review)
Review
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the presence in the brain of extracellular amyloid-β protein (Aβ) and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles composed of hyperphosphorylated tau protein. The N-Methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDAR), ionotropic glutamate receptor, are essential for processes like learning and memory. An excessive activation of NMDARs has been associated with neuronal loss. The discovery of extrasynaptic NMDARs provided a rational and physiological explanation between physiological and excitotoxic actions of glutamate. Memantine (MEM), an antagonist of extrasynaptic NMDAR, is currently used for the treatment of AD jointly with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. It has been demonstrated that MEM preferentially prevents the excessive continuous extrasynaptic NMDAR disease activation and therefore prevents neuronal cell death induced by excitotoxicity without disrupting physiological synaptic activity. The problem is that MEM has shown no clear positive effects in clinical applications while, in preclinical stages, had very promising results. The data in preclinical studies suggests that MEM has a positive impact on improving AD brain neuropathology, as well as in preventing Aβ production, aggregation, or downstream neurotoxic consequences, in part through the blockade of extrasynaptic NMDAR. Thus, the focus of this review is primarily to discuss the efficacy of MEM in preclinical models of AD, consider possible combinations of this drug with others, and then evaluate possible reasons for its lack of efficacy in clinical trials. Finally, applications in other pathologies are also considered.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Animals; Humans; Memantine; Neuroprotective Agents
PubMed: 29254093
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-170672 -
Neurocritical Care Feb 2021Neurostimulants may improve or accelerate cognitive and functional recovery after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), ischemic stroke (IS), or subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH),...
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
Neurostimulants may improve or accelerate cognitive and functional recovery after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), ischemic stroke (IS), or subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), but few studies have described their safety and effectiveness in the intensive care unit (ICU). The objective of this study was to describe amantadine and modafinil administration practices during acute stroke care starting in the ICU and to evaluate safety and effectiveness.
METHODS
Consecutive adult ICU patients treated with amantadine and/or modafinil following acute non-traumatic IS, ICH, or SAH were evaluated. Neurostimulant administration data were extracted from the electronic medication administration record, including medication (amantadine, modafinil, or both), starting dose, time from stroke to initiation, and whether the neurostimulant was continued at hospital discharge. Patients were considered responders if they met two of three criteria within 9 days of neurostimulant initiation: increase in Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score ≥ 3 points from pre-treatment baseline, improved wakefulness or participation documented in caregiver notes, or clinical improvement documented in physical or occupational therapy notes. Potential confounders of the effectiveness assessment and adverse drug effects were also recorded.
RESULTS
A total of 87 patients were evaluable during the 3.7-year study period, including 41 (47%) with ICH, 29 (33%) with IS, and 17 (20%) with SAH. The initial neurostimulant administered was amantadine in 71 (82%) patients, modafinil in 13 (15%), or both in 3 (3%) patients. Neurostimulants were initiated a median of 7 (4.25, 12.75) days post-stroke (range 1-27 days) for somnolence (77%), not following commands (32%), lack of eye opening (28%), or low GCS (17%). The most common starting dose was 100 mg twice daily for both amantadine (86%) and modafinil (54%). Of the 79 patients included in the effectiveness evaluation, 42 (53%) were considered responders, including 34/62 (55%) receiving amantadine monotherapy and 8/24 (33%) receiving both amantadine and modafinil at the time they met the definition of a responder. No patient receiving modafinil monotherapy was considered a responder. The median time from initiation to response was 3 (2, 5) days. Responders were more frequently discharged home or to acute rehabilitation compared to non-responders (90% vs 62%, p = 0.006). Among survivors, 63/72 (88%) were prescribed a neurostimulant at hospital discharge. The most common potential adverse drug effect was sleep disruption (16%).
CONCLUSIONS
Neurostimulant administration during acute stroke care may improve wakefulness. Future controlled studies with a neurostimulant administration protocol, prospective evaluation, and discretely defined response and safety criteria are needed to confirm these encouraging findings.
Topics: Adult; Amantadine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Modafinil; Retrospective Studies; Stroke
PubMed: 32435964
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-020-00986-4 -
European Journal of Cancer Care May 2019Many patients with brain cancer experience cognitive problems. In this narrative review, we comprehensively evaluated empirical studies on various intervention... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Many patients with brain cancer experience cognitive problems. In this narrative review, we comprehensively evaluated empirical studies on various intervention approaches for cognitive problems in these patients.
METHODS
Intervention studies that reported effects on cognitive functioning (either objectively tested or subjectively reported) in adult patients with primary and/or secondary brain tumours were identified through online searches in PubMed (MEDLINE) and Web of Science up to 13 March 2019.
RESULTS
Of the 364 identified records, 10 pharmacological (including five randomised placebo-controlled trials), 10 cognitive rehabilitation (including five [pilot] RCTs) and two multiple-group exercise studies matched the inclusion criteria. Seventeen of 22 studies had final sample sizes smaller than 40. Several cognitive rehabilitation studies and some pharmacological approaches (donepezil and memantine) showed (at least partial) benefits for cognitive problems in adults with brain cancer. The effects of other pharmacological and exercise interventions were inconclusive and/or preliminary.
CONCLUSION
Overall, drawing firm conclusions is complicated due to various methodological shortcomings, including the absence of a (placebo) control group and small sample sizes. Promising effects have been reported for cognitive rehabilitation and some pharmacological approaches. Suggestions for more thorough research with respect to the various approaches are provided.
Topics: Brain Neoplasms; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Cognitive Dysfunction; Cognitive Remediation; Donepezil; Dopamine Agents; Exercise; Ginkgo biloba; Humans; Memantine; Plant Extracts
PubMed: 31090162
DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13088 -
Biomolecules Jul 2020Memantine, an -methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist approved for treating Alzheimer's disease, has a good safety profile and is increasingly being studied for... (Review)
Review
Memantine, an -methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist approved for treating Alzheimer's disease, has a good safety profile and is increasingly being studied for possible use in a variety of non-dementia psychiatric disorders. There is an abundance of basic and clinical data that support the hypothesis that NMDA receptor hypofunction contributes to the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. However, there are numerous randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials showing that add-on treatment with memantine improves negative and cognitive symptoms, particularly the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, indicating that memantine as adjunctive therapy in schizophrenia helps to ameliorate negative symptoms and cognitive deficits. It remains unclear why memantine does not show undesirable central nervous system (CNS) side effects in humans unlike other NMDA receptor antagonists, such as phencyclidine and ketamine. However, the answer could lie in the fact that it would appear that memantine works as a low-affinity, fast off-rate, voltage-dependent, and uncompetitive antagonist with preferential inhibition of extrasynaptic receptors. It is reasonable to assume that the effects of memantine as adjunctive therapy on negative symptoms and cognitive deficits in schizophrenia may derive primarily, if not totally, from its NMDA receptor antagonist activity at NMDA receptors including extrasynaptic receptors in the CNS.
Topics: Animals; Antipsychotic Agents; Drug Combinations; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 32751985
DOI: 10.3390/biom10081134 -
Current Opinion in Pharmacology Feb 2015The clinical benefits of the glutamate receptor antagonists memantine and ketamine have helped sustain optimism that glutamate receptors represent viable targets for... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
The clinical benefits of the glutamate receptor antagonists memantine and ketamine have helped sustain optimism that glutamate receptors represent viable targets for development of therapeutic drugs. Both memantine and ketamine antagonize N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDARs), a glutamate receptor subfamily, by blocking the receptor-associated ion channel. Although many of the basic characteristics of NMDAR inhibition by memantine and ketamine appear similar, their effects on humans and to a lesser extent on rodents are strongly divergent. Some recent research suggests that preferential inhibition by memantine and ketamine of distinct NMDAR subpopulations may contribute to the drugs' differential clinical effects. Here we review studies that shed light on possible explanations for differences between the effects of memantine and ketamine.
Topics: Animals; Drug Design; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Ketamine; Memantine; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 25462293
DOI: 10.1016/j.coph.2014.11.006 -
Microbiology Spectrum Dec 2021Viral diseases of the central nervous system (CNS) represent a major global health concern. Difficulties in treating these diseases are caused mainly by the biological...
Viral diseases of the central nervous system (CNS) represent a major global health concern. Difficulties in treating these diseases are caused mainly by the biological tissues and barriers, which hinder the transport of drugs into the CNS. To counter this, a nanobody-mediated virus-targeting drug delivery platform (SWCNTs-P-A-Nb) is constructed for CNS viral disease therapy. Viral encephalopathy and retinopathy (VER), caused by nervous necrosis virus (NNV), is employed as a disease model. SWCNTs-P-A-Nb is successfully constructed by employing single-walled carbon nanotubes, amantadine, and NNV-specific nanobody (NNV-Nb) as the nanocarrier, anti-NNV drug, and targeting ligand, respectively. Results showed that SWCNTs-P-A-Nb has a good NNV-targeting ability and , improving the specific distribution of amantadine in NNV-infected sites under the guidance of NNV-Nb. SWCNTs-P-F-A-Nb can pass through the muscle and gill and be excreted by the kidney. SWCNTs-P-A-Nb can transport amantadine in a fast manner and prolong the action time, improving the anti-NNV activity of amantadine. Results so far have indicated that the nanobody-mediated NNV-targeting drug delivery platform is an effective method for VER therapy, providing new ideas and technologies for control of the CNS viral diseases. CNS viral diseases have resulted in many deadly epidemics throughout history and continue to pose one of the greatest threats to public health. Drug therapy remains challenging due to the complex structure and relative impermeability of the biological tissues and barriers. Therefore, development in the intelligent drug delivery platform is highly desired for CNS viral disease therapy. In the study, a nanobody-mediated virus-targeting drug delivery platform is constructed to explore the potential application of targeted therapy in CNS viral diseases. Our findings hold great promise for the application of targeted drug delivery in CNS viral disease therapy.
Topics: Amantadine; Animals; Antiviral Agents; Cell Line; Central Nervous System; Central Nervous System Viral Diseases; Drug Delivery Systems; Encephalitis, Viral; Fishes; Nanotubes, Carbon; Nodaviridae; Perciformes; Single-Domain Antibodies
PubMed: 34817277
DOI: 10.1128/Spectrum.01487-21 -
Viruses Oct 2021We report the in vitro efficacy of ion-channel inhibitors amantadine, memantine and rimantadine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In...
We report the in vitro efficacy of ion-channel inhibitors amantadine, memantine and rimantadine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In VeroE6 cells, rimantadine was most potent followed by memantine and amantadine (50% effective concentrations: 36, 80 and 116 µM, respectively). Rimantadine also showed the highest selectivity index, followed by amantadine and memantine (17.3, 12.2 and 7.6, respectively). Similar results were observed in human hepatoma Huh7.5 and lung carcinoma A549-hACE2 cells. Inhibitors interacted in a similar antagonistic manner with remdesivir and had a similar barrier to viral escape. Rimantadine acted mainly at the viral post-entry level and partially at the viral entry level. Based on these results, rimantadine showed the most promise for treatment of SARS-CoV-2.
Topics: A549 Cells; Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Amantadine; Animals; Antiviral Agents; Cell Line, Tumor; Chlorocebus aethiops; Denmark; Drug Repositioning; Humans; Ion Channels; Memantine; Rimantadine; SARS-CoV-2; Vero Cells; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34696509
DOI: 10.3390/v13102082