-
Spinal Cord Apr 2024A Systematic Review OBJECTIVES: To determine the therapeutic efficacy of in vivo reprogramming of astrocytes into neuronal-like cells in animal models of spinal cord...
STUDY DESIGN
A Systematic Review OBJECTIVES: To determine the therapeutic efficacy of in vivo reprogramming of astrocytes into neuronal-like cells in animal models of spinal cord injury (SCI).
METHODS
PRISMA 2020 guidelines were utilized, and search engines Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase until June 2023 were used. Studies that examined the effects of converting astrocytes into neuron-like cells with any vector in all animal models were included, while conversion from other cells except for spinal astrocytes, chemical mechanisms to provide SCI models, brain injury population, and conversion without in-vivo experience were excluded. The risk of bias was calculated independently.
RESULTS
5302 manuscripts were initially identified and after eligibility assessment, 43 studies were included for full-text analysis. After final analysis, 13 manuscripts were included. All were graded as high-quality assessments. The transduction factors Sox2, Oct4, Klf4, fibroblast growth factor 4 (Fgf4) antibody, neurogenic differentiation 1 (Neurod1), zinc finger protein 521 (Zfp521), ginsenoside Rg1, and small molecules (LDN193189, CHIR99021, and DAPT) could effectively reprogramme astrocytes into neuron-like cells. The process was enhanced by p21-p53, or Notch signaling knockout, valproic acid, or chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan inhibitors. The type of mature neurons was both excitatory and inhibitory.
CONCLUSION
Astrocyte reprogramming to neuronal-like cells in an animal model after SCI appears promising. The molecular and functional improvements after astrocyte reprogramming were demonstrated in vivo, and further investigation is required in this field.
Topics: Animals; Astrocytes; Neurons; Signal Transduction; Spinal Cord; Spinal Cord Injuries
PubMed: 38448665
DOI: 10.1038/s41393-024-00969-8 -
Palliative Medicine Apr 2024Seizures are an important palliative symptom, the management of which can be complicated by patients' capacity to swallow oral medications. In this setting, and the wish...
BACKGROUND
Seizures are an important palliative symptom, the management of which can be complicated by patients' capacity to swallow oral medications. In this setting, and the wish to avoid intravenous access, subcutaneous infusions may be employed. Options for antiseizure medications that can be provided subcutaneously may be limited. Subcutaneous sodium valproate may be an additional management strategy.
AIM
To evaluate the published experience of subcutaneous valproate use in palliative care, namely with respect to effectiveness and tolerability.
DESIGN
A systematic review was registered (PROSPERO CRD42023453427), conducted and reported according to PRISMA reporting guidelines.
DATA SOURCES
The databases PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus were searched for publications until August 11, 2023.
RESULTS
The searches returned 429 results, of which six fulfilled inclusion criteria. Case series were the most common study design, and most studies included <10 individuals who received subcutaneous sodium valproate. There were three studies that presented results on the utility of subcutaneous sodium valproate for seizure control, which described it to be an effective strategy. One study also described it as an effective treatment for neuropathic pain. The doses were often based on presumed 1:1 oral to subcutaneous conversion ratios. Only one study described a local site adverse reaction, which resolved with a change of administration site.
CONCLUSIONS
There are limited data on the use of subcutaneous sodium valproate in palliative care. However, palliative symptoms for which subcutaneous sodium valproate have been used successfully are seizures and neuropathic pain. The available data have described few adverse effects, supporting its use with an appropriate degree of caution.
Topics: Humans; Valproic Acid; Palliative Care; Seizures; Neuralgia
PubMed: 38444061
DOI: 10.1177/02692163241234597 -
The American Journal of Geriatric... May 2024Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are common and impart a significant burden to patients, caregivers, and the health system. However, there are...
OBJECTIVES
Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are common and impart a significant burden to patients, caregivers, and the health system. However, there are few pharmacological options for treating BPSD. We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials examining the efficacy of anticonvulsants in BPSD.
METHODS
We searched five electronic databases through January 2023, for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy of non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants for the treatment of BPSD. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to ascertain the risk of bias in included trials. Because statistical pooling of results using meta-analysis was not feasible, we synthesized findings using the Cochrane Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guidelines.
RESULTS
We identified 12 studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 systematic review. Five RCTs evaluating valproic acid were synthesized by a recent Cochrane review which concluded that this drug is likely ineffective for BPSD. We extracted data from 6 trials involving 248 individuals comparing non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants to either placebo or risperidone. Four trials (n = 97 participants) evaluated carbamazepine, only one of which demonstrated an improvement in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale measuring agitation, hostility, psychosis, and withdrawal/depression (effect size: 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-1.73) relative to placebo. Adverse effects were more common in patients receiving carbamazepine (20/27; 74%) relative to placebo (5/24; 21%). There is low quality evidence that oxcarbazepine is likely ineffective and that topiramate may be comparable to risperidone.
CONCLUSION
Anticonvulsants are unlikely to be effective in BPSD, although the quality of existing evidence is low.
PubMed: 38871629
DOI: 10.1016/j.jagp.2024.05.004 -
Seizure Jan 2024Epilepsy is one of the most frequent neurological comorbidities in patients with Down Syndrome (DS). Young patients and adults are the most affected, the latter mostly... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Epilepsy is one of the most frequent neurological comorbidities in patients with Down Syndrome (DS). Young patients and adults are the most affected, the latter mostly showing a phenotype labeled as "Late-onset myoclonic epilepsy" (LOMEDS). Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening complication in patients with epilepsy. In this study, we described a non-convulsive SE (NCSE) case in a patient diagnosed with LOMEDS. We also performed a systematic review of the literature on SE diagnosis and treatment in patients with Down Syndrome.
METHODS
Clinical and demographic characteristics of a DS patient diagnosed with NCSE were described. The systematic literature search dissected the diagnostic and therapeutic management of SE in patients with DS. The following databases were used: PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar.
RESULTS
5 DS individuals (4 from the past literature + 1 novel case report) with SE have been identified. The median age at SE onset was 42 years (IQR: 21-60.5 years). The most common SE type was myoclonic SE (MSE), followed by NCSE. Two cases of acute symptomatic etiology were described, whereas a progressive symptomatic etiology was otherwise reported. Ictal EEG recording information was available in two patients who showed generalized spike waves and polyspike and wave discharges. In 3 cases, SE was treated with intravenous antiseizure medications that produced a complete resolution.
CONCLUSION
SE may represent a rare complication in patients with DS. Although no definitive conclusions may be achieved due to the lack of evidence, treatment with valproic acid seems effective, especially in MSE. NCSE management is more challenging. It requires low doses of anesthetics, which should be used cautiously due to the high rate of complications.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Down Syndrome; Electroencephalography; Epilepsy; Status Epilepticus; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 38101201
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2023.11.009 -
European Journal of Clinical... Jan 2024This study intends to assess the reference range of lamotrigine concentration for treating childhood epilepsy. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This study intends to assess the reference range of lamotrigine concentration for treating childhood epilepsy.
METHODS
PubMed, Ovid-Embase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang data and VIP databases were searched from database inception to January 2022. RCT, cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study that estimated the reference range of lamotrigine for children epilepsy treatment were included. The data extracted included basic information, statistical methods, data type, and results of reference range. Descriptive analysis was performed for them.
RESULTS
8 studies were included and estimated the reference range, and all of them were calculated based on efficacy data and/or concentration data. Statistical methods including ROC curve, concentration-effect curve, mean ± standard deviation, 95% confidence interval and percentile interval were utilized. For lamotrigine monotherapy, the lower limits ranged from 2.06 mg/L to 3.99 mg/L, and the upper limits ranged from 8.43 mg/L to 9.08 mg/L, showing basic consistency. However, for lamotrigine concomitant with valproate, the lower limits ranged from 2.00 mg/L to 8.00 mg/L, and the upper limit was 11.50 mg/L, for lamotrigine concomitant with other antiepileptics, the lower limits ranged from 1.00 mg/L to 3.09 mg/L, and the upper limits varied from 5.90 mg/L to 16.24 mg/L, indicating inconsistency.
CONCLUSION
Several studies have estimated the reference range of lamotrigine for childhood epilepsy, while controversy exist and no studies have determined the upper limit of the range based on safety data. To establish the optimal reference range, further high-quality studies are necessary that consider both efficacy and safety data.
Topics: Child; Humans; Anticonvulsants; Lamotrigine; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Reference Values; Triazines; Epilepsy; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 37906300
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-023-03562-9 -
Headache May 2024To compare calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) versus nonspecific oral migraine preventives (NOEPs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Nonspecific oral medications versus anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
To compare calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) versus nonspecific oral migraine preventives (NOEPs).
BACKGROUND
Insurers mandate step therapy with NOEPs before approving CGRP mAbs.
METHODS
Databases were searched for class I or II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CGRP mAbs or NOEPs versus placebo for migraine prevention in adults. The primary outcome measure was monthly migraine days (MMD) or moderate to severe headache days.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs for CGRP mAbs, 5 RCTs for topiramate, and 3 RCTs for divalproex were included in the meta-analysis. There was high certainty that CGRP mAbs are more effective than placebo, with weighted mean difference (WMD; 95% confidence interval) of -1.64 (-1.99 to -1.28) MMD, which is compatible with small effect size (Cohen's d -0.25 [-0.34 to -0.16]). Certainty of evidence that topiramate or divalproex is more effective than placebo was very low and low, respectively (WMD -1.45 [-1.52 to -1.38] and -1.65 [-2.30 to -1.00], respectively; Cohen's d -1.25 [-2.47 to -0.03] and -0.48 [-0.67 to -0.29], respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that information size was adequate and that CGRP mAbs had clear benefit versus placebo. Network meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between CGRP mAbs and topiramate (WMD -0.19 [-0.56 to 0.17]) or divalproex (0.01 [-0.73 to 0.75]). No significant difference was seen between topiramate or divalproex (0.21 [-0.45 to 0.86]).
CONCLUSIONS
There is high certainty that CGRP mAbs are more effective than placebo, but the effect size is small. When feasible, CGRP mAbs may be prescribed as first-line preventives; topiramate or divalproex could be as effective but are less well tolerated. The findings of this study support the recently published 2024 position of the American Headache Society on the use of CGRP mAbs as the first-line treatment.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Oral; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide; Migraine Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Topiramate; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 38634515
DOI: 10.1111/head.14693