-
Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2022(1) Objective: We performed a systematic review to explore the prevalence of intravenous (IV) rehydration therapy in hospital settings, and we assessed it by patient... (Review)
Review
(1) Objective: We performed a systematic review to explore the prevalence of intravenous (IV) rehydration therapy in hospital settings, and we assessed it by patient groups and populations. (2) Methods: A systematic review of major databases and grey literature was undertaken from inception to 28 March 2022. Studies reporting prevalence of IV rehydration therapy in a hospital setting were identified. The data were synthesised in a narrative approach. (3) Results: Overall, 29 papers met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of IV rehydration therapy in paediatric patients ranged from 4.5% (hospitalised with diarrhoea and dehydration) to 100% (admitted to the emergency department with mild to moderate dehydration caused by viral gastroenteritis), and in adults this ranged from 1.5% (had single substance ingestion of modafinil) to 100% (hospitalised with hypercalcemia). The most common indication for IV rehydration therapy in paediatric patients was dehydration due to fluid loss from the gastrointestinal tract. Other causes included malnutrition, neuromuscular disease, bronchiolitis, and influenza. In adults, indications for IV rehydration therapy were much more diverse: fever, diarrhoea, drug intoxication, hypercalcemia, cancer, and postural tachycardia syndrome; (4) Conclusions: This systematic review showed that IV rehydration therapy in paediatric patients is often used to treat dehydration and diarrhoea, while in adults it has a broader spectrum of use. While IV rehydration therapy is important in correcting fluid problems and electrolyte status, the maintenance fluid prescribing practices vary considerably, and guidelines are scarce.
PubMed: 36648776
DOI: 10.3390/epidemiologia4010002 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Apr 2022Dopaminergic dysfunction is thought to be central to schizophrenia symptomatology. Previous meta-analyses of prodopaminergic drugs in schizophrenia have important... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dopaminergic dysfunction is thought to be central to schizophrenia symptomatology. Previous meta-analyses of prodopaminergic drugs in schizophrenia have important limitations, and also did not include dopamine D2/D3 partial agonists. We investigated the effect of medications which increase dopamine signalling on schizophrenia symptoms by meta-analysing double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. 59 RCTs were included: 29 of prodopaminergic treatments, 30 of partial agonists. Partial agonists were significantly superior to placebo against positive (SMD=-0.33,p = 1.2 ×10), negative (SMD=-0.29,p = 2.2 × 10-) and total symptoms (SMD =-0.39,p = 1.7 × 10) in schizophrenia. There were no significant differences between pooled pro-dopaminergic drugs and placebo in any symptom domain. In subgroup analysis of five studies where patients were selected for negative symptom severity, ar/modafinil was superior to placebo against negative symptoms (SMD=-0.34,p = 0.037). These data favour the clinical use of partial agonists for negative symptoms in schizophrenia, with clinically meaningful effect sizes. Our findings also suggest a benefit for ar/modafinil in patients with predominant negative symptoms. Future trials of other prodopaminergic therapies and dopamine partial agonists in patients with predominant negative symptoms are warranted.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Dopamine; Dopamine Agonists; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 35131396
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104568 -
Cureus Jul 2021Narcolepsy is characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and cataplexy. Histamine neurons play an important role in enhancing wakefulness. The objective of our... (Review)
Review
Narcolepsy is characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and cataplexy. Histamine neurons play an important role in enhancing wakefulness. The objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of pitolisant, a histamine 3 (H3)-receptor antagonist/inverse agonist, in patients with a high burden of narcolepsy symptoms. We conducted an advanced PubMed search strategy with inclusion and exclusion criteria. The outcome included the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and adverse effects frequency. Our primary outcome included the mean ESS score at the endpoint and showed that pitolisant was superior to the placebo, but not non-inferior to modafinil. Adverse effects were less common and shorter in duration in the pitolisant group compared to the modafinil-treated patients. Pitolisant was efficacious in reducing excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy compared with placebo, and it was well-tolerated in patients with severe narcolepsy symptoms as compared with modafinil.
PubMed: 34345566
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.16095 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2022Narcolepsy is a neurological disease characterized by a core symptom of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Although effective pharmacological interventions for...
Narcolepsy is a neurological disease characterized by a core symptom of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Although effective pharmacological interventions for narcolepsy have been developed, a lack of comparative evidence supporting the relative efficacy among these medications leads to clinical treatment challenge. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to overcome this lack of head-to-head comparisons. Databases were searched systematically for randomized controlled trials that compared pharmacological interventions for narcolepsy. The primary outcomes were changes in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT). A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted. A total of 19 RCTs involving 2504 patients were included. Solriamfetol achieved the highest ranking based on the P-scores, and was superior to pitolisant (MD -2.88, 95% CI -4.89--0.88) and sodium oxybate (MD -2.56, 95% CI -4.62--0.51) for ESS change. Consistently, solriamfetol achieved the highest ranking according to MWT change, and was superior to pitolisant (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.02-0.88) and modafinil (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.05-0.79). Although solriamfetol demonstrated superior efficacy in EDS improvement, evidence from the clustered ranking plot supported that efficacy-safety profiles of pitolisant, sodium oxybate, and modafinil are more balanced than solriamfetol. Therefore, the choice of medication for EDS in narcolepsy should be made on an individual basis.
PubMed: 36362535
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11216302 -
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy Feb 2021Narcolepsy is a chronic sleep disorder characterized by a pentad of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), cataplexy, sleep paralysis, hypnagogic/hypnopompic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
INTRODUCTION
Narcolepsy is a chronic sleep disorder characterized by a pentad of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), cataplexy, sleep paralysis, hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations, and disturbed nocturnal sleep. Treatment of narcolepsy remains challenging and current therapy is strictly symptomatically based.
AREAS COVERED
The present manuscript is based on an extensive Internet and PubMed search from 1990 to 2020. It is focused on the clinical and pharmacological properties of pitolisant in the treatment of narcolepsy.
EXPERT OPINION
Currently there is no cure for narcolepsy. Although efforts have been made, current treatments do not always allow to obtain an optimal control of symptoms. Pitolisant is an antagonist/inverse agonist of the histamine H3 autoreceptor. Its mechanism of action is novel and distinctive compared to the other available therapies for narcolepsy. Clinical trials suggest that pitolisant administered at a dose of ≤36 mg/day is an effective treatment option for narcolepsy, reducing EDS and cataplexy. Pitolisant is available as oral tablets and offers a convenient once-daily regimen. Pitolisant is generally well tolerated and showed minimal abuse potential in animals and humans. Long-term studies comparing the effectiveness and tolerability of pitolisant with active drugs (e.g. modafinil, sodium oxybate) are needed.
Topics: Animals; Cataplexy; Humans; Modafinil; Narcolepsy; Piperidines; Sleep; Sodium Oxybate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32941089
DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2020.1817387 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Dec 2021To evaluate and compare the effects of three cognitive boosting intervention approaches (computerised cognitive training, cognitive remediation and pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To evaluate and compare the effects of three cognitive boosting intervention approaches (computerised cognitive training, cognitive remediation and pharmacological cognitive enhancers) on measures of impulsive action and impulsive choice.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of publications that reported original controlled trials of cognitive boosting interventions.
SETTING
Studies conducted anywhere in the world. No language restrictions were applied.
PARTICIPANTS
Treatment-seeking adults with substance use disorder or gambling disorder.
MEASUREMENTS
Our primary outcome was a reduction in impulsive action or choice on a validated cognitive measure post-intervention. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and determined pooled estimates from published reports. We performed random-effects analyses for impulsive action and impulsive choice outcomes and planned moderator analyses.
FINDINGS
Of 2204 unique studies identified, 60 were included in the full-text review. Twenty-three articles were considered eligible for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis and 16 articles were included in our meta-analysis. Articles eligible for pooled analyses included five working memory training (computerised cognitive training) studies with 236 participants, three goal management training (cognitive remediation) studies with 99 participants, four modafinil (cognitive enhancer) studies with 160 participants and four galantamine (cognitive enhancer) studies with 131 participants. Study duration ranged from 5 days to 13 weeks, with immediate follow-up assessments. There were no studies identified that specifically targeted gambling disorder. We only found evidence for a benefit on impulsive choice of goal management training, although only in two studies involving 66 participants (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.49-1.23; P = 0.02; I = 0%, P = 0.95).
CONCLUSION
Cognitive remediation, and specifically goal management training, may be an effective treatment for addressing impulsive choice in addiction. Preliminary evidence does not support the use of computerised cognitive training or pharmacological enhancers to boost impulse control in addiction.
Topics: Adult; Behavior, Addictive; Bias; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Humans; Impulsive Behavior
PubMed: 33751683
DOI: 10.1111/add.15469 -
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Dec 2021Excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea affects 9%-22% of continuous positive airway pressure-treated patients. An indirect treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY OBJECTIVES
Excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea affects 9%-22% of continuous positive airway pressure-treated patients. An indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis was performed to compare efficacy and safety of medications (solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil) approved to treat excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea.
METHODS
Efficacy and safety measures assessed in this indirect treatment comparison included Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), 20-minute Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT20), Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGI-C), Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (any, serious, or leading to discontinuation).
RESULTS
A systematic literature review identified 6 parallel-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials that randomized 1,714 total participants to placebo, solriamfetol, modafinil, or armodafinil. In this indirect treatment comparison, all comparators were associated with greater improvements than placebo on the ESS, MWT20, and CGI-C after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. Relative to comparators and placebo at 12 weeks, solriamfetol at 150 mg or 300 mg had the highest probabilities of improvement in the ESS, MWT20, and CGI-C. Modafinil (200 or 400 mg) and solriamfetol (150 or 300 mg) were associated with greater improvement on the FOSQ than placebo at 12 weeks. Less than 2% of patients using placebo or comparators experienced serious or discontinuation-related treatment-emergent adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this indirect treatment comparison show 12 weeks of treatment with solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil resulted in varying levels of improvement on the ESS, MWT20, and CGI-C and similar safety risks in participants with excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea.
CITATION
Ronnebaum S, Bron M, Patel D, et al. Indirect treatment comparison of solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil for excessive daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea. . 2021;17(12):2543-2555.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Carbamates; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Modafinil; Phenylalanine; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34402784
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.9610 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Oct 2019Cognitive impairment is recognized as a common symptom experienced by cancer survivors which impacts on quality of life (QoL) and day-to-day activities. One of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive impairment is recognized as a common symptom experienced by cancer survivors which impacts on quality of life (QoL) and day-to-day activities. One of the treatment options is the use of psychostimulants but the evidence supporting its use remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To identify the level of evidence of psychostimulants' effect on the management of cognitive impairment in adult cancer survivors.
METHODS
Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL) and reference lists of relevant reviews were searched from inception to December 2017, with no language restrictions applied. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating the effect of psychostimulants on cognitive impairment among cancer patients with no primary or secondary brain tumor or brain radiation, were included. The primary outcome was cognitive function changes, whereas secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs) and QoL.
RESULTS
Six RCTs were included: three studies investigating methylphenidate and three modafinil, with a total of 244 and 146 patients, respectively. Due to important differences in methodologies between studies, a meta-analysis was assumed inappropriate for the primary outcome. A narrative synthesis was performed. One study using methylphenidate and two using modafinil demonstrated improvements in some cognitive functions as measured by objective cognitive assessment tests. Psychostimulants did not improve QoL and were not associated with more AEs.
CONCLUSION
To date, limited evidence is available to estimate the usefulness (or lack) of psychostimulants on cognitive function in this population.
Topics: Adult; Cancer Survivors; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognition; Cognitive Dysfunction; Humans; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31250183
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-04907-w -
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Apr 2020The novel phenethylamines 4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine (2C-B) fall in the top 10 most used new psychoactive substances (NPSs) among...
BACKGROUND
The novel phenethylamines 4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine (2C-B) fall in the top 10 most used new psychoactive substances (NPSs) among high-risk substance users. Various phenethylamines and NPS are also highly used in populations with mental disorders, depression, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Moreover, NPS use is highly prevalent among men and women with risky sexual behavior. Considering these specific populations and their frequent concurrent use of drugs, such as antidepressants, ADHD medication, and antiretrovirals, reports on potential interactions between these drugs, and phenethylamines 4-FA and 2C-B, were reviewed.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic literature review on 4-FA and 2C-B interactions with antidepressants (citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, duloxetine, bupropion, venlafaxine, phenelzine, moclobemide, and tranylcypromine), ADHD medications (atomoxetine, dexamphetamine, methylphenidate, and modafinil), and antiretrovirals.
RESULTS
Limited literature exists on the pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions of 2C-B and 4-FA. Only one case report indicated a possible interaction between 4-FA and ADHD medication. Although pharmacokinetic interactions between 4-FA and prescription drugs remain speculative, their pharmacodynamic points toward interactions between 4-FA and ADHD medication and antidepressants. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of 2C-B also points toward such interactions, between 2C-B and prescription drugs such as antidepressants and ADHD medication.
CONCLUSIONS
A drug-drug (phenethylamine-prescription drug) interaction potential is anticipated, mainly involving monoamine oxidases for 2C-B and 4-FA, with monoamine transporters being more specific to 4-FA.
Topics: Amphetamines; Antidepressive Agents; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Depressive Disorder; Dimethoxyphenylethylamine; Drug Interactions; Humans; Phenethylamines; Prescription Drugs
PubMed: 32022784
DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000725 -
CNS Spectrums Jul 2020Depression is considered to be the most difficult to treat phase of bipolar disorder as patients experience residual symptoms causing long-term disability. This work...
BACKGROUND
Depression is considered to be the most difficult to treat phase of bipolar disorder as patients experience residual symptoms causing long-term disability. This work aims to explore the role of add-on stimulant and stimulant-like medication in resistant bipolar depression patients.
METHODS
Systematic review of add-on stimulants and stimulant-like drugs in resistant bipolar depression by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Analysis was performed using the random-effects models. Heterogeneity was evaluated with Cochran's Q and I2 statistics.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials of add-on modafinil, armodafinil, and lisdexamphetamine (LDX) (n = 813) vs placebo (n = 815) in the treatment of resistant bipolar depression were included. These drugs were more likely to induce remission from an episode of resistant bipolar depression (relative risk [RR] = 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-1.77; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome = 16). Moreover, they did not induce more dropouts than placebo (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.91-1.18), nor did they increase the risk of adverse effects (53/772 vs 41/771) at the end of treatment (RR = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.81-2.10; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome = 62). Suicidality and manic switch were not affected by active treatment. Heterogeneity was low (Cochran's Q: P > .05), but sometimes with a large CI.
CONCLUSIONS
LDX, modafinil, and armodafinil seem to offer a reasonably well-tolerated and safe treatment in resistant bipolar depression. Treatment guidelines should, therefore, be revised to include these medications earlier in the therapeutic algorithm for resistant acute bipolar depression. Further research is, however, necessary for the elucidation of the clinical usefulness of these and other similar compounds.
PubMed: 32641179
DOI: 10.1017/S109285292000156X