-
Pharmacopsychiatry Apr 2020Several reports of the effectiveness of the use of psychostimulants for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are available. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Several reports of the effectiveness of the use of psychostimulants for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are available.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted including double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Outcomes were the improvement of apathy scales score (primary), mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score, activities of daily living scale score, Zarit burden interview score, all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and incidence of at least 1 adverse event.
RESULTS
Three methylphenidate studies and 1 modafinil study were identified (n=156). Results from combined psychostimulants were superior to placebo in the improvement of apathy scales score (standardized mean differences [SMD]=-0.63 (-1.22, -0.04), p=0.04, all studies) and the MMSE score (SMD=-0.58 (-1.14, -0.02), p=0.04, 3 methylphenidate studies). The modafinil study was excluded from the meta-analysis for the improvement of apathy scales score; therefore, the effect size increased (SMD=-0.82 (-1.43, -0.20), p=0.009). However, no significant differences were observed in terms of other outcomes, including safety outcomes between the treatment groups.
DISCUSSION
Methylphenidate would be effective in treating apathy and cognitive impairment in AD patients.
Topics: Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Apathy; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognitive Dysfunction; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Methylphenidate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32000270
DOI: 10.1055/a-1076-8228 -
Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2019Animal models and human studies have identified the potential of modafinil as a cognitive enhancing agent, independent of its effects on promoting wakefulness in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Animal models and human studies have identified the potential of modafinil as a cognitive enhancing agent, independent of its effects on promoting wakefulness in sleep-deprived samples. Given that single-dose applications of other putative memory enhancers (eg, D-cycloserine, yohimbine, and methylene blue) have shown success in enhancing clinical outcomes for anxiety-related disorders, we conducted a meta-analytic review examining the potential for single-dose effects for modafinil on cognitive functioning in non-sleep-deprived adults.
METHODS
A total of 19 placebo-controlled trials that examined the effects of single-dose modafinil versus placebo on the cognitive domains of attention, executive functioning, memory, or processing speed were identified, allowing for the calculation of 67 cognitive domain-specific effect sizes.
RESULTS
The overall positive effect of modafinil over placebo across all cognitive domains was small and significant (g = 0.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.15; P < 0.001). No significant differences between cognitive domains were found. Likewise, no significant moderation was found for modafinil dose (100 mg vs 200 mg) or for the populations studied (psychiatric vs nonpsychiatric).
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the available evidence indicates only limited potential for modafinil to act as a cognitive enhancer outside sleep-deprived populations.
Topics: Adult; Attention; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognition; Executive Function; Humans; Modafinil; Nootropic Agents
PubMed: 31433334
DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001085 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Apr 2024Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Pharmacotherapy offers a potential treatment approach for EDS in OSA patients. This... (Review)
Review
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Pharmacotherapy offers a potential treatment approach for EDS in OSA patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for alleviating EDS in patients with OSA. Following PRISMA guidelines, we included randomized controlled trials investigating pharmacological treatments for EDS in adult OSA until August 2023. We conducted meta-analysis, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses using a random effects model. Finally, a network meta-analysis synthesized direct and indirect evidence, followed by a comprehensive safety analysis. We included 32 articles in the meta-analysis (n = 3357). Pharmacotherapy showed a significant improvement in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score (Mean Difference (MD) -2.73, (95 % Confidence Interval (CI) [-3.25, -2.20], p < 0.01) and Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT) score (MD 6.00 (95 % CI [2.66, 9.33] p < 0.01). Solriamfetol, followed by Pitolisant and modafinil, exhibited the greatest ESS reduction, while Danavorexton, followed by Solriamfetol and MK-7288, had the strongest impact on MWT. MK-7288 had the most total adverse events (AEs), followed by Danavorexton and armodafinil. Pharmacological Interventions significantly alleviate EDS in OSA patients but with heterogeneity across medications. Treatment decisions should involve a personalized assessment of patient factors and desired outcomes.
PubMed: 38754208
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2024.101934 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Fatigue is the most commonly reported symptom in people with advanced cancer. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is pervasive and debilitating, and can greatly impact quality... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fatigue is the most commonly reported symptom in people with advanced cancer. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is pervasive and debilitating, and can greatly impact quality of life (QoL). CRF has a highly variable clinical presentation, likely due to a complex interaction of multiple factors. Corticosteroids are commonly used to improve CRF, but the benefits are unclear and there are significant adverse effects associated with long-term use. With the increasing survival of people with metastatic cancer, the long-term effects of medications are becoming increasingly relevant. Since the impact of CRF can be immensely debilitating and can negatively affect QoL, its treatment warrants further review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of corticosteroids compared with placebo or an active comparator in adults with advanced cancer and CRF.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Science), LILACS, and two clinical trial registries from inception to 18 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults aged ≥18 years. We included participants with advanced cancer who were suffering from CRF. We included trials that randomised participants to corticosteroids at any dose, by any route, administered for the relief of CRF; compared to placebo or an active comparator, including supportive care or non-pharmacological treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy; two review authors assessed risk of bias; and two extracted data. We extracted the primary outcome of participant-reported fatigue relief using validated scales and secondary outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events and QoL. We calculated the risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between groups for dichotomous outcomes. We measured arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI between groups for continuous outcomes. We used standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs when an outcome was measured with different instruments measuring the same construct. We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse the outcome data. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 297 enroled participants; data were available for only 239 participants. Three studies compared corticosteroid (equivalent ≤ 8 mg dexamethasone) to placebo. One study compared corticosteroid (dexamethasone 4 mg) to an active comparator (modafinil 100 mg). There were insufficient data to evaluate subgroups, such as dose and duration of treatment. One study had a high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding, and one study had a high risk of attrition bias. Otherwise, we assessed risks of bias as low or unclear. Comparison 1: corticosteroids compared with placebo Participant-reported fatigue relief The was no clear difference between corticosteroids and placebo (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.14; 3 RCTs, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence) for relief of fatigue at one week of the intervention. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for study limitations due to unclear risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of lIfe One study reported QoL at one week using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) well-being, and found no clear difference in QoL between groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -1.93 to 0.77). Another study measured QoL using the Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer Patients Treated with Anticancer Drugs (QoL-ACD), and found no clear difference between groups. There was no clear difference between groups for either study, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 2: corticosteroids compared with active comparator (modafinil) Participant-reported fatigue relief There was improvement in fatigue from baseline to two weeks in both groups (modafinil MD 10.15, 95% CI 7.43 to 12.87; dexamethasone MD 9.21, 95% CI 6.73 to 11.69), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD -0.94, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.61; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for very serious study limitations and imprecision. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events There were no serious adverse events reported in either group (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of lIfe One study measured QoL at two weeks, using the ESAS-well-being. There was marked improvement in QoL from baseline in both groups (modafinil MD -2.43, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.98; dexamethasone MD -2.16, 95% CI -2.68 to -1.64), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD 0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.93; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of systemic corticosteroids in adults with cancer and CRF. We included four small studies that provided very low-certainty of evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroids in the management of CRF. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids in this setting.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Adolescent; Quality of Life; Modafinil; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Fatigue
PubMed: 36688471
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013782.pub2 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jun 2021Debilitating neurocognitive deficits are seen in alcohol use disorders (AUD) and Wernicke-Korsakoff's syndrome (WKS). These shared characteristics suggest a spectrum of... (Review)
Review
Debilitating neurocognitive deficits are seen in alcohol use disorders (AUD) and Wernicke-Korsakoff's syndrome (WKS). These shared characteristics suggest a spectrum of alcohol-induced neurocognitive disorders (AIND). Cognitive pharmacological enhancing agents (CPEA) have been examined in the treatment of other psychiatric disorders, but little is known about the effects of these agents on AINDs. Our aim was to synthesize the evidence for the effectiveness of CPEAs on AINDs. Databases were searched for controlled trials examining CPEAs on AUD, WKS, and alcohol-related dementia (ARD). Eligible studies were included in a qualitative synthesis and a quality assessment was conducted. The search identified 23 studies (4 ≤ ns ≤ 98). Evidence suggests that modafinil may improve executive functions in AUD and ARD, but this effect may only be present in patients with severe deficits. The studies were rated as having a moderate risk of bias. Despite the promising effects of modafinil, small samples and inconsistent evidence deem the results preliminary. More research is warranted examining the effects of transdiagnostic CPEAs on deficits across AINDs.
Topics: Alcoholism; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Executive Function; Humans; Korsakoff Syndrome
PubMed: 33667552
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.038 -
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Oct 2019To assess the efficacy of modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting drug, in major depressive disorder (MDD), with a specific focus on the putative procognitive effects of...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting drug, in major depressive disorder (MDD), with a specific focus on the putative procognitive effects of modafinil.
DATA SOURCES
A database search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase was conducted. No date limits were applied (the end date of the search was October 26, 2018), and only articles in English were included. The following search terms were used: modafinil, depression, depress*, major depressive disorder, cognition, cognitive dysfunction, and cogniti*.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies included were placebo-controlled or open-label trials of modafinil in MDD populations. Participants had to be diagnosed with MDD via DSM-IV or DSM-5 criteria, and no other interventions other than standard antidepressant treatment could be used in the trial. Overall, 540 articles were screened, 22 full-text research articles for inclusion criteria were assessed, and 12 studies were included in this review.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of publications.
RESULTS
Modafinil was associated with improvements in executive functioning after 4 weeks of open-label adjunctive treatment in currently depressed participants. Furthermore, in a placebo-controlled study of remitted MDD participants, modafinil led to rapid improvements in episodic and working memory after a single dose. There were contradictory findings on the subjective effects of modafinil on concentration.
CONCLUSIONS
Modafinil shows preliminary evidence of alleviating specific cognitive symptoms in MDD patients, especially in the short term. However, more research using placebo-controlled longitudinal designs is needed to assess the benefits of modafinil, as there are very few studies addressing modafinil and cognition in MDD.
Topics: Adult; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognition Disorders; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder, Major; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Modafinil; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31599501
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.19r12767 -
Journal of Sleep Research Aug 2021Graduate medical education (GME) training commonly requires residents and fellows to engage in night float shift work. This review aims to assess the effectiveness of...
Graduate medical education (GME) training commonly requires residents and fellows to engage in night float shift work. This review aims to assess the effectiveness of interventions for trainees when preparing for, completing, and recovering from working night float shifts. We reviewed all available studies published prior to September 2019 using PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, the Cochrane library, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar databases. We included all original, primary research articles assessing either non-pharmacological or pharmacological interventions on the chronobiological and physiological effects of night float shift work among GME trainees. Five studies (n = 179 patients) met inclusion criteria. Interventions included melatonin in the morning before sleep after night float shifts, napping during night float shifts, modafinil after a night of sleep deprivation, and caffeinated energy drinks after 6 consecutive night float shifts. Melatonin improved one measure of attention. A 2-hr nap was associated with improved speed related to task switching. Modafinil improved performance in tests of cognition. Caffeinated energy drinks led to improvement in select driving performance variables and reaction time. Effect sizes for outcome variables were calculated. Heterogeneity among the studies precluded combining the data in a meta-analysis. According to GRADE criteria, the quality of the evidence in these studies was low or very low. Our findings suggest GME trainees may benefit from utilising a limited number of interventions when preparing for or recovering from night float shift work. More investigation is needed to identify interventions that could help GME trainees adapt to and recover from working night float shifts.
Topics: Adaptation, Physiological; Attention; Caffeine; Education, Medical, Graduate; Energy Drinks; Fatigue; Humans; Melatonin; Modafinil; Reaction Time; Sleep; Sleep Deprivation; Sleep Disorders, Circadian Rhythm; Work Schedule Tolerance
PubMed: 33058426
DOI: 10.1111/jsr.13212 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Idiopathic hypersomnia is a disorder of excessive daytime sleepiness, often accompanied by long sleep times or pronounced difficulty in awakening, in the absence of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Idiopathic hypersomnia is a disorder of excessive daytime sleepiness, often accompanied by long sleep times or pronounced difficulty in awakening, in the absence of a known cause. The optimal treatment strategy for idiopathic hypersomnia is currently unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of medications for daytime sleepiness and related symptoms in individuals with idiopathic hypersomnia and, in particular, whether medications may: 1. reduce subjective measures of sleepiness; 2. reduce objective measures of sleepiness; 3. reduce symptoms of cognitive dysfunction; 4. improve quality of life; and 5. be associated with adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 4 February 2021: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 1 February 2021), and reference lists of articles. CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialized registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We previously searched the WHO ICTRP separately when loading of ICTRP records into CRS Web was temporarily suspended.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized studies comparing any medication to placebo, another medication, or a behavioral intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We contacted study authors for additional data. We collected data on adverse events from the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three trials, with a total of 112 participants. Risk of bias was low for the included studies. Two pharmaceutical company-sponsored trials compared modafinil with placebo, involving 102 participants, nearly all of whom had idiopathic hypersomnia without long sleep time. Modafinil significantly improved self-reported sleepiness on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale by 5.08 points more than placebo (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.01 to 7.16; 2 studies, 101 participants; high-certainty evidence). Modafinil also significantly improved disease severity on the Clinical Global Impression of Severity scale by 1.02 points (95% CI 0.11 to 1.93; 1 study, 30 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and resulted in a greater proportion of participants who were "much improved" or "very much improved" on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (odds ratio (OR) for improvement 5.14, 95% CI 1.76 to 15.00; 1 study, 70 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Ability to remain awake on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test was significantly improved with modafinil, by 4.74 minutes more than with placebo (95% CI 2.46 to 7.01; 2 studies, 99 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ratings of exhaustion and effectiveness/performance were improved with modafinil compared to placebo in one study. Number of naps per week was no different between modafinil and placebo across two studies. Participants receiving modafinil experienced more side effects, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.28 to 9.94; 2 studies, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). One trial studying 20 participants with different disorders of sleepiness included 10 participants with idiopathic hypersomnia, with or without long sleep time, and compared clarithromycin to placebo. We only included the subset of trial data for those participants with idiopathic hypersomnia, per our protocol. There were no significant differences between clarithromycin and placebo for the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, psychomotor vigilance testing, sleep inertia, other subjective ratings, or side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Modafinil is effective for the treatment of several aspects of idiopathic hypersomnia symptomatology, based on studies predominantly including participants with idiopathic hypersomnia without long sleep times, with low risk of bias, and evidence certainty ranging from high to low. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether clarithromycin is effective for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia. There is a clear need for additional studies testing interventions for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia.
Topics: Bias; Clarithromycin; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Humans; Idiopathic Hypersomnia; Modafinil; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wakefulness; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 34031871
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012714.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019People with schizophrenia have a range of different symptoms, including positive symptoms (hallucinations and delusions), negative symptoms (such as social withdrawal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
People with schizophrenia have a range of different symptoms, including positive symptoms (hallucinations and delusions), negative symptoms (such as social withdrawal and lack of affect), and cognitive impairment. The standard medication for people with schizophrenia is antipsychotics. However, these medications may not be effective for all symptoms of schizophrenia, as cognitive and negative symptoms are usually hard to treat. Additional therapies or medications are available for the management of these symptoms. Modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting agent most frequently used in narcolepsy or shift work sleep disorder, is one intervention that is theorised to have an effect of these symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this review was to assess the effects of modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.
SEARCH METHODS
On 27 April 2015, 24 May 2017, and 31 October 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for the inclusion of records in the register.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected all randomised controlled trials comparing modafinil with placebo or other treatments for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently extracted data from the included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis. We used GRADE to complete a 'Summary of findings' table and assessed risk of bias for the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven studies including a total of 422 participants contributed to data analyses. Most studies had a small population size (average 38 people per study) and were of short duration. We also detected a high risk of bias for selective outcome reporting in just under 50% of the trials. We therefore rated the overall methodological quality of the included studies as low. We considered seven main outcomes of interest: clinically important change in overall mental state, clinically important change in cognitive functioning, incidence of a clinically important adverse effect/event, clinically important change in global state, leaving the study early for any reason, clinically important change in quality of life, and hospital admission. All studies assessed the effects of adding modafinil to participants' usual antipsychotic treatment compared to adding placebo to usual antipsychotic treatment. Six studies found that adding modafinil to antipsychotic treatment may have little or no effect on overall mental state of people with schizophrenia, specifically the risk of worsening psychosis (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.98; participants = 209; studies = 6, low-quality evidence). Regarding the effect of modafinil on cognitive function, the trials did not report clinically important change data, but one study reported endpoint scores on the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB): in this study we found no clear difference in scores between modafinil and placebo treatment groups (MD -3.10, 95% CI -10.9 to 4.7; participants = 48; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Only one study (N = 35) reported adverse effect/event data. In this study one serious adverse event occurred in each group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.42; participants = 35; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). One study measured change in global state using the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement Scale. This study found that adding modafinil to antipsychotic treatment may have little or no effect on global state (RR 6.36, 95% CI 0.94 to 43.07, participants = 21; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Nine studies found that modafinil has no effect on numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.52 participants = 357; studies = 9, moderate-quality evidence). None of the trials reported clinically important change in quality of life, but one study did report quality of life using endpoint scores on the Quality of Life Inventory, finding no clear difference between treatment groups (MD -0.2, 95% CI -1.18 to 0.78; participants = 20; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Finally, one study reported data for number of participants needing hospitalisation: one participant in each group was hospitalised (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.42; participants = 35; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to methodological issues, low sample size, and short duration of the clinical trials as well as high risk of bias for outcome reporting, most of the evidence available for this review is of very low or low quality. For results where quality is low or very low, we are uncertain or very uncertain if the effect estimates are true effects, limiting our conclusions. Specifically, we found that modafinil is no better or worse than placebo at preventing worsening of psychosis; however, we are uncertain about this result. We have more confidence that participants receiving modafinil are no more likely to leave a trial early than participants receiving placebo. However, we are very uncertain about the remaining equivocal results between modafinil and placebo for outcomes such as improvement in global state or cognitive function, incidence of adverse events, and changes in quality of life. More high-quality data are needed before firm conclusions regarding the effects of modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders can be made.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Cognition; Humans; Modafinil; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 31828767
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008661.pub2 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2022Pharmacological neuroenhancement (PN) describes the use of divergent psychoactive substances to enhance mental performance (cognition) without medical need. This kind of...
Pharmacological neuroenhancement (PN) describes the use of divergent psychoactive substances to enhance mental performance (cognition) without medical need. This kind of substance abuse takes place predominantly in stressful situations. Users implicitly-or even explicitly-describe this kind of drug abuse to be a coping strategy. Regarding the decision making process whether to use PN drugs or not, users indicate that legal aspects to be decisive. However, the legal situation has been neglected so far. To elucidate the German legal situation, PN substances have to be divided into over-the-counter drugs, prescription drugs and illegal drugs. Amphetamines have the highest cognition-enhancing potential, followed by modafinil and caffeine-containing substances. It is pointed out that the use of both freely available and prescription PN substances and narcotics without medical indication have so far been largely exempt from punishment under German law. However, individuals (physicians, bus and truck drivers, etc.) taking PN substances may expose others at risk due to wrong decisions (driving or treatment), errors based on side effects of the used substances. Therefore, the protection of life and health of others could legitimize criminal regulation.
Topics: Humans; Criminals; Substance-Related Disorders; Illicit Drugs; Amphetamines; Adaptation, Psychological
PubMed: 36388290
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1028654