-
International Journal of Molecular... Aug 2022Since 1906, when Dr. Alois Alzheimer first described in a patient "a peculiar severe disease process of the cerebral cortex", people suffering from this pathology have... (Review)
Review
Since 1906, when Dr. Alois Alzheimer first described in a patient "a peculiar severe disease process of the cerebral cortex", people suffering from this pathology have been waiting for a breakthrough therapy. Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an irreversible, progressive neurodegenerative brain disorder and the most common form of dementia in the elderly with a long presymptomatic phase. Worldwide, approximately 50 million people are living with dementia, with AD comprising 60-70% of cases. Pathologically, AD is characterized by the deposition of amyloid β-peptide (Aβ) in the neuropil (neuritic plaques) and blood vessels (amyloid angiopathy), and by the accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau in neurons (neurofibrillary tangles) in the brain, with associated loss of synapses and neurons, together with glial activation, and neuroinflammation, resulting in cognitive deficits and eventually dementia. The current competitive landscape in AD consists of symptomatic treatments, of which there are currently six approved medications: three AChEIs (donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine), one NMDA-R antagonist (memantine), one combination therapy (memantine/donepezil), and GV-971 (sodium oligomannate, a mixture of oligosaccharides derived from algae) only approved in China. Improvements to the approved therapies, such as easier routes of administration and reduced dosing frequencies, along with the developments of new strategies and combined treatments are expected to occur within the next decade and will positively impact the way the disease is managed. Recently, Aducanumab, the first disease-modifying therapy (DMT) has been approved for AD, and several DMTs are in advanced stages of clinical development or regulatory review. Small molecules, mAbs, or multimodal strategies showing promise in animal studies have not confirmed that promise in the clinic (where small to moderate changes in clinical efficacy have been observed), and therefore, there is a significant unmet need for a better understanding of the AD pathogenesis and the exploration of alternative etiologies and therapeutic effective disease-modifying therapies strategies for AD. Therefore, a critical review of the disease-modifying therapy pipeline for Alzheimer's disease is needed.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Amyloid beta-Peptides; Animals; Donepezil; Humans; Memantine; Patient-Centered Care; Polypharmacology
PubMed: 36012569
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23169305 -
Ageing Research Reviews Dec 2022Dementia is a progressive neurodegenerative syndrome that has no cure. Although a significant proportion of people with dementia progress into the severe stages of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a progressive neurodegenerative syndrome that has no cure. Although a significant proportion of people with dementia progress into the severe stages of the disease, evidence on the clinical effectiveness of treatments for people with severe dementia remains limited.
AIMS
To systematically review the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for people living with severe dementia and assess the quality of the evidence.
METHOD
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and online clinical trial registers up to January 2022, for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) in people living with severe dementia. Quality and risk of bias were assessed independently by two authors.
RESULTS
A total of 30 trials met our inclusion criteria of which 14 evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, and 16 evaluated a non-pharmacological intervention. Pharmacological treatments: Meta-analyses indicated that pharmacological treatments (donepezil: 10 mg, 5 mg; galantamine: 24 mg; memantine: 10 mg) are associated with better outcomes compared to placebo for: severity of symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI 0.26-0.48; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.26; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and clinical impression of change (Relative Risk (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.14-1.57; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacological treatments were also more likely to reduce mortality compared to placebo (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.89; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). Non-pharmacological treatments: Five trials were included in the meta-analyses of non-pharmacological interventions (multi-sensory stimulation, needs assessment, and activities-based interventions); results showed that non-pharmacological interventions may reduce neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia compared to usual care (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.06; low certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that pharmacological treatments may decrease disease severity and improve function for people with severe dementia. Non-pharmacological treatments are probably effective in reducing neuropsychiatric symptoms but the quality of evidence remains low. There is an urgent need for high-quality evidence for other outcomes and for developing service-user informed interventions for this under-served group.
Topics: Humans; Dementia; Activities of Daily Living; Memantine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36243355
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101758 -
Current Neuropharmacology 2021Crocus sativus L. (saffron) appears to own neuroprotective effects on cognitive impairment in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The purpose of this work is to... (Review)
Review
Crocus sativus L. (saffron) appears to own neuroprotective effects on cognitive impairment in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The purpose of this work is to review evidence and mechanisms of saffron-induced therapeutic outcomes and measureable cognitive benefits in AD. The literature was reviewed, and preclinical and clinical studies were identified. In vitro and in vivo preclinical studies were selected according to these criteria: 1) development of saffron pharmacological profile on biological or biophysical endpoints; 2) evaluation of saffron efficacy using animal screens as an AD model, and 3) duration of the studies of at least 3 months. As for the clinical studies, the selection criteria included: 1) patients aged ≥ 60, 2) AD diagnosis according to National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIAAA) criteria, and 3) appropriate procedures to assess cognitive, functional, and clinical status. A total of 1477 studies published until November 2020 were identified during an initial phase, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria and were selected for this review. Seventeen in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies have described the efficacy of saffron on cognitive impairment in animal models of AD, highlighting that crocin appears to be able to regulate glutamate levels, reduce oxidative stress, and modulate Aβ and tau protein aggregation. Only four clinical studies have indicated that the effects of saffron on cognitive impairment were not different from those produced by donepezil and memantine and that it had a better safety profile. Saffron and its compounds should be further investigated in order to consider them a safer alternative in AD treatment.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Animals; Cognitive Dysfunction; Crocus; Donepezil; Humans; Memantine
PubMed: 33441068
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X19666210113144703 -
The Primary Care Companion For CNS... Nov 2022
Topics: Humans; Catatonia; Benzodiazepines; COVID-19; Amantadine; Electroconvulsive Therapy
PubMed: 36399386
DOI: 10.4088/PCC.22cr03394 -
BMJ Open Jul 2022Motor neuron disease (MND) is a rapidly fatal neurodegenerative disease. Despite decades of research and clinical trials there remains no cure and only one globally... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Motor Neuron Disease Systematic Multi-Arm Adaptive Randomised Trial (MND-SMART): a multi-arm, multi-stage, adaptive, platform, phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of repurposed drugs in motor neuron disease.
INTRODUCTION
Motor neuron disease (MND) is a rapidly fatal neurodegenerative disease. Despite decades of research and clinical trials there remains no cure and only one globally approved drug, riluzole, which prolongs survival by 2-3 months. Recent improved mechanistic understanding of MND heralds a new translational era with many potential targets being identified that are ripe for clinical trials. Motor Neuron Disease Systematic Multi-Arm Adaptive Randomised Trial (MND-SMART) aims to evaluate the efficacy of drugs efficiently and definitively in a multi-arm, multi-stage, adaptive trial. The first two drugs selected for evaluation in MND-SMART are trazodone and memantine.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
Initially, up to 531 participants (177/arm) will be randomised 1:1:1 to oral liquid trazodone, memantine and placebo. The coprimary outcome measures are the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale Revised (ALSFRS-R) and survival. Comparisons will be conducted in four stages. The decision to continue randomising to arms after each stage will be made by the Trial Steering Committee who receive recommendations from the Independent Data Monitoring Committee. The primary analysis of ALSFRS-R will be conducted when 150 participants/arm, excluding long survivors, have completed 18 months of treatment; if positive the survival effect will be inferentially analysed when 113 deaths have been observed in the placebo group. The trial design ensures that other promising drugs can be added for evaluation in planned trial adaptations. Using this novel trial design reduces time, cost and number of participants required to definitively (phase III) evaluate drugs and reduces exposure of participants to potentially ineffective treatments.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
MND-SMART was approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee on 2 October 2019. (REC reference: 19/WS/0123) Results of the study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and a summary provided to participants.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS
European Clinical Trials Registry (2019-000099-41); NCT04302870.
Topics: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Memantine; Motor Neuron Disease; Neurodegenerative Diseases; Riluzole; Trazodone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35798516
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064173 -
The Journal of Head Trauma...To describe dosing practices for amantadine hydrochloride and related adverse effects among children and young adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to...
Prescribing Patterns of Amantadine During Pediatric Inpatient Rehabilitation After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Multicentered Retrospective Review From the Pediatric Brain Injury Consortium.
OBJECTIVES
To describe dosing practices for amantadine hydrochloride and related adverse effects among children and young adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to pediatric inpatient rehabilitation units.
SETTING
Eight pediatric acute inpatient rehabilitation units located throughout the United States comprising the Pediatric Brain Injury Consortium.
PARTICIPANTS
Two-hundred thirty-four children and young adults aged 2 months to 21 years with TBI.
DESIGN
Retrospective data revie.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Demographic variables associated with the use of amantadine, amantadine dose, and reported adverse effects.
RESULTS
Forty-nine patients (21%) aged 0.9 to 20 years received amantadine during inpatient rehabilitation. Forty-five percent of patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation with a disorder of consciousness (DoC) were treated with amantadine, while 14% of children admitted with higher levels of functioning received amantadine. Children with DoC who were not treated with amantadine were younger than those with DoC who received amantadine (median 3.0 vs 11.6 years, P = .008). Recorded doses of amantadine ranged from 0.7 to 13.5 mg/kg/d; the highest total daily dose was 400 mg/d. Adverse effects were reported in 8 patients (16%); nausea/abdominal discomfort and agitation were most common, each reported in 3 patients. The highest reported dose without an adverse effect was 10.1 mg/kg/d.
CONCLUSION
During pediatric inpatient rehabilitation, amantadine was prescribed to children across a range of ages and injury severity and was most commonly prescribed to older children with DoC. Dosing varied widely, with weight-based dosing for younger/smaller children at both lower and higher doses than what had been previously reported. Prospective studies are needed to characterize the safety and tolerability of higher amantadine doses and optimize amantadine dosing parameters for children with TBI.
Topics: Adolescent; Amantadine; Brain Injuries; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Child; Humans; Inpatients; Retrospective Studies; United States; Young Adult
PubMed: 34320554
DOI: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000709 -
Clinical Interventions in Aging 2015The use of multi drug regimens among the elderly population has increased tremendously over the last decade although the benefits of medications are always accompanied... (Review)
Review
The use of multi drug regimens among the elderly population has increased tremendously over the last decade although the benefits of medications are always accompanied by potential harm, even when prescribed at recommended doses. The elderly populations are particularly at an increased risk of adverse drug reactions considering comorbidity, poly-therapy, physiological changes affecting the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of many drugs and, in some cases, poor compliance due to cognitive impairment and/or depression. In this setting, drug-drug interaction may represent a serious and even life-threatening clinical condition. Moreover, the inability to distinguish drug-induced symptoms from a definitive medical diagnosis often results in addition of yet another drug to treat the symptoms, which in turn increases drug-drug interactions. Cognitive enhancers, including acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, are the most widely prescribed agents for Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, including psychotic symptoms and behavioral disorders, represent noncognitive disturbances frequently observed in AD patients. Antipsychotic drugs are at high risk of adverse events, even at modest doses, and may interfere with the progression of cognitive impairment and interact with several drugs including anti-arrhythmics and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. Other medications often used in AD patients are represented by anxiolytic, like benzodiazepine, or antidepressant agents. These agents also might interfere with other concomitant drugs through both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic mechanisms. In this review we focus on the most frequent drug-drug interactions, potentially harmful, in AD patients with behavioral symptoms considering both physiological and pathological changes in AD patients, and potential pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic drug interaction mechanisms.
Topics: Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Drug Interactions; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine
PubMed: 26392756
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S87466 -
BMC Neurology May 2022Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD-MCI) is associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline. PD-MCI is characterized by impairments in executive... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD-MCI) is associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline. PD-MCI is characterized by impairments in executive function and visuospatial recognition. The visuospatial n-back test is useful for assessing both domains. The 0-back test reflects visuospatial recognition, while the 1-back and 2-back tests reflect working memory. Cholinesterase inhibitors are effective in the treatment of PD-MCI and dementia in PD (PDD). Although some studies have reported the efficacy of memantine for PDD, the therapeutic efficacy of memantine in patients with PD-MCI remains uncertain.
METHODS
This study aimed to investigate the effects of memantine on brain function in patients with PD-MCI, using a randomized double-blinded crossover protocol and functional MRI (fMRI). Ten patients who completed 16 weeks of follow-up were included. They were randomly assigned to either the memantine or placebo. Patients in the memantine group received 5 mg/day of memantine in the first week. The memantine dose was increased by 5 mg/day per week, until a final dose of 20 mg/day. Patients in the placebo group received the placebo following the same regimen as memantine. After the intervention, they underwent a 4 weeks washout period. Following the crossover protocol, a second intervention was conducted after the washout period. In each intervention, fMRI and neuropsychological tests were performed at the maximum dose period. Comparing the memantine and placebo groups, we investigated difference in the brain regions using the visuospatial n-back test.
RESULTS
There were no significant regions enhanced by memantine comparing with placebo at any load of n-back tests. In contrast, exploring regions reduced by memantine, we found significant reduction of activations within right lingual gyrus and left superior frontal gyrus in comparison between 2-back and 0-back test. A number of correct answers of the 2-back test and time to complete Trail Making Test-A were worse during memantine intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
Memantine did not improve visuospatial working memory of the patients with PD-MCI. Treatment for PD should be planned carefully considering the impact on cognitive function. Further study is needed to establish new therapeutic strategy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
UMIN000046104. Retrospectively registered. First registration date: 28 Sept 2017.
Topics: Cognitive Dysfunction; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Memantine; Neuropsychological Tests; Parkinson Disease
PubMed: 35562711
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-022-02699-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Pharmacologic therapies for management of heroin withdrawal have been studied and reviewed widely. Opium dependence is generally associated with less severe dependence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacologic therapies for management of heroin withdrawal have been studied and reviewed widely. Opium dependence is generally associated with less severe dependence and milder withdrawal symptoms than heroin. The evidence on withdrawal management of heroin might therefore not be exactly applicable for opium.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of various pharmacologic therapies for the management of the acute phase of opium withdrawal.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following sources up to September 2017: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, regional and national databases (IMEMR, Iranmedex, and IranPsych), main electronic sources of ongoing trials, and reference lists of all relevant papers. In addition, we contacted known investigators to obtain missing data or incomplete trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Controlled clinical trials and randomised controlled trials on pharmacological therapies, compared with no intervention, placebo, other pharmacologic treatments, different doses of the same drug, and psychosocial intervention, to manage acute withdrawal from opium in a maximum duration of 30 days.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials involving 1096 participants. No pooled analysis was possible. Studies were carried out in three countries, Iran, India, and Thailand, in outpatient and inpatient settings. The quality of the evidence was generally very low.When the mean of withdrawal symptoms was provided for several days, we mainly focused on day 3. The reason for this was that the highest severity of opium withdrawal is in the second to fourth day.Comparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, clonidine was twice as good as methadone for completion of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.38; 361 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). All the other results showed no differences between the considered drugs: baclofen versus clonidine (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.80; 66 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence); clonidine versus clonidine plus amantadine (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24; 69 participants, 1 study); clonidine versus buprenorphine in an inpatient setting (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 1 study, 35 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus tramadol (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37; 1 study, 72 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.43; 1 study, 40 participants, low-quality evidence), and tincture of opium versus methadone (1 study, 74 participants, low-quality evidence).Comparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, adding amantadine to clonidine decreased withdrawal scores rated at day 3 (mean difference (MD) -3.56, 95% CI -5.97 to -1.15; 1 study, 60 participants, very low-quality evidence). Comparing clonidine with buprenorphine in an inpatient setting, we found no difference in withdrawal symptoms rated by a physician (MD -1.40, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.13; 1 study, 34 participants, very low-quality evidence), and results in favour of buprenorpine when rated by participants (MD -11.80, 95% CI -15.56 to -8.04). Buprenorphine was superior to clonidine in controlling severe withdrawal symptoms in an outpatient setting (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1 study, 76 participants). We found no difference in the comparison of methadone versus tramadol (MD 0.04, 95% CI -2.68 to 2.76; 1 study, 72 participants) and in the comparison of methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (MD -2.20, 95% CI -6.72 to 2.32; 1 study, 40 participants).Comparing clonidine versus buprenorphine in an outpatient setting, more adverse effects were reported in the clonidine group (1 study, 76 participants). Higher numbers of participants in the clonidine group experienced hypotension at days 5 to 8, headache at days 1 to 8, sedation at days 5 to 8, dizziness and dry mouth at days 1 to 10, and nausea at days 1 to 9. Sweating was reported in a significantly higher number of participants in the buprenorphine group at days 1 to 10. We found no difference between groups for all the other comparisons considering this outcome.Comparing different dosages of the same pharmacological detoxification treatment, a high dose of clonidine (1 to 1.2 mg/day) did not differ from a low dose of clonidine (0.5 to 0.6 mg/day) in completion of treatment in an inpatient setting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19; 1 study, 68 participants), however a higher number of participants with hypotension was reported in the high-dose group (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.98). Gradual reduction of methadone was associated with more adverse effects than abrupt withdrawal of methadone (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.94; 1 study, 20 participants, very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Results did not support using any specific pharmacological approach for the management of opium withdrawal due to generally very low-quality evidence and small or no differences between treatments. However, it seems that opium withdrawal symptoms are significant, especially at days 2 to 4 after discontinuation of opium. All of the assessed medications might be useful in alleviating symptoms. Those who receive clonidine might experience hypotension.
Topics: Amantadine; Amines; Baclofen; Buprenorphine; Clonidine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Gabapentin; Humans; Methadone; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Tramadol; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 29929212
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007522.pub2 -
Nature Communications Jul 2022N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDARs) are transmembrane proteins that are activated by the neurotransmitter glutamate and are found at most excitatory vertebrate...
N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDARs) are transmembrane proteins that are activated by the neurotransmitter glutamate and are found at most excitatory vertebrate synapses. NMDAR channel blockers, an antagonist class of broad pharmacological and clinical significance, inhibit by occluding the NMDAR ion channel. A vast literature demonstrates that NMDAR channel blockers, including MK-801, phencyclidine, ketamine, and the Alzheimer's disease drug memantine, can bind and unbind only when the NMDAR channel is open. Here we use electrophysiological recordings from transfected tsA201 cells and cultured neurons, NMDAR structural modeling, and custom-synthesized compounds to show that NMDAR channel blockers can enter the channel through two routes: the well-known hydrophilic path from extracellular solution to channel through the open channel gate, and also a hydrophobic path from plasma membrane to channel through a gated fenestration ("membrane-to-channel inhibition" (MCI)). Our demonstration that ligand-gated channels are subject to MCI, as are voltage-gated channels, highlights the broad expression of this inhibitory mechanism.
Topics: Dizocilpine Maleate; Ion Channels; Ketamine; Memantine; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 35840593
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-31817-z