-
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... Feb 2024Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most studied chemoprophylaxis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). While... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most studied chemoprophylaxis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). While previous systematic reviews have shown NSAIDs reduce PEP, their impact on moderate to severe PEP (MSPEP) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the impact of NSAIDs on MSPEP among patients who developed PEP. We later surveyed physicians' understanding of that impact.
DESIGN
A systematic search for randomized trials using NSAIDs for PEP prevention was conducted. Pooled-prevalence and Odds-ratio of PEP, MSPEP were compared between treated vs. control groups. Analysis was performed using R software. Random-effects model was used for all variables. Physicians were surveyed via email before and after reviewing our results.
RESULTS
7688 patients in 25 trials were included. PEP was significantly reduced to 0.598 (95%CI, 0.47-0.76) in the NSAIDs group. Overall burden of MSPEP was reduced among all patients undergoing ERCP: OR 0.59 (95%CI, 0.42-0.83). However, NSAIDs didn't affect the proportion of MSPEP among those who developed PEP (p = 0.658). Rectal Indomethacin and diclofenac reduced PEP but not MSPEP. Efficacy didn't vary by risk, timing of administration, or bias-risk. Survey revealed a change in the impression of the effect of NSAIDs on MSPEP after reviewing our results.
CONCLUSIONS
Rectal diclofenac or indomethacin before or after ERCP reduce the overall burden of MSPEP by reducing the pool of PEP from which it can arise. However, the proportion of MSPEP among patients who developed PEP is unaffected. Therefore, NSAIDs prevent initiation of PEP, but do not affect severity among those that develop PEP. Alternative modalities are needed to reduce MSPEP among patients who develop PEP.
Topics: Humans; Diclofenac; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Administration, Rectal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Indomethacin; Pancreatitis
PubMed: 37981523
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2023.11.003 -
CNS Spectrums Oct 2019Our aim was to summarize the efficacy and safety of atomoxetine, amphetamines, and methylphenidate in schizophrenia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of the efficacy, safety, and biological effects of psychostimulants and atomoxetine in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to summarize the efficacy and safety of atomoxetine, amphetamines, and methylphenidate in schizophrenia.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review, searching PubMed/Scopus/Clinicaltrials.gov for double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of psychostimulants or atomoxetine in schizophrenia published up to 1 January 2017. A meta-analysis of outcomes reported in two or more studies is presented.
RESULTS
We included 22 studies investigating therapeutic effects of stimulants (k=14) or measuring symptomatic worsening/relapse prediction after stimulant challenge (k=6). Six studies of these two groups plus one additional study investigated biological effects of psychostimulants or atomoxetine. No effect resulted from interventional studies on weight loss (k=1), smoking cessation (k=1), and positive symptoms (k=12), and no improvement was reported with atomoxetine (k=3) for negative symptoms, with equivocal findings for negative (k=6) and mood symptoms (k=2) with amphetamines. Attention, processing speed, working memory, problem solving, and executive functions, among others, showed from no to some improvement with atomoxetine (k=3) or amphetamines (k=6). Meta-analysis did not confirm any effect of stimulants in any symptom domain, including negative symptoms, apart from atomoxetine improving problem solving (k=2, standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.73, 95% CI=0.10-1.36, p=0.02, I2=0%), and trending toward significant improvement in executive functions with amphetamines (k=2, SMD=0.80, 95% CI=-1.68 to +0.08, p=0.08, I2=66%). In challenge studies, amphetamines (k=1) did not worsen symptoms, and methylphenidate (k=5) consistently worsened or predicted relapse. Biological effects of atomoxetine (k=1) and amphetamines (k=1) were cortical activation, without change in β-endorphin (k=1), improved response to antipsychotics after amphetamine challenge (k=2), and an increase of growth hormone-mediated psychosis with methylphenidate (k=2). No major side effects were reported (k=6).
CONCLUSIONS
No efficacy for stimulants or atomoxetine on negative symptoms is proven. Atomoxetine or amphetamines may improve cognitive symptoms, while methylphenidate should be avoided in patients with schizophrenia. Insufficient evidence is available to draw firm conclusions.
Topics: Amphetamines; Antipsychotic Agents; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention; Executive Function; Humans; Memory, Short-Term; Methylphenidate; Problem Solving; Psychotic Disorders; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 30460884
DOI: 10.1017/S1092852918001050 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Apr 2021It remains unclear whether the dopaminergic and noradrenergic systems may be implied in suicide attempt risk. In addition, although the serotonergic system has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
It remains unclear whether the dopaminergic and noradrenergic systems may be implied in suicide attempt risk. In addition, although the serotonergic system has been extensively studied, no formal meta-analysis has been performed to examine its association with suicide attempt.
METHODS
Using PRISMA methodology, we performed a systematic literature review and random-effects meta-analyses of the differences in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of 5-HIAA, HVA and MHPG between suicide attempters and individuals who never attempted suicide.
RESULTS
We identified 30 studies including 937 suicide attempters and 1128 non-attempters; 29 of them measured CSF levels of 5-HIAA, 22 measured CSF levels of HVA and 14 measured CSF levels of MHPG. CSF levels of 5-HIAA and HVA were significantly lower in suicide attempters than in non-attempters [SMD = -0.43 (95% CI: -0.71 to -0.15; p < 0.01) and SMD = -0.45 (95% CI: -0.72 to -0.19; p < 0.01), respectively]. We did not find a significant association between CSF MHPG levels and suicide attempt.
LIMITATIONS
Our analyses relied on a limited number of studies of good quality and most studies included small sample sizes.
CONCLUSION
Both serotonin and dopamine systems may play a role in suicide attempt risk. Our findings suggest that a silo approach to biomarkers should be phased out in favor of the study of multiple systems in parallel and in the same populations to progress in the identification of the biological components independently associated with suicide risk, with the goal of identifying new treatment targets and improving suicide risk prediction.
Topics: Dopamine; Homovanillic Acid; Humans; Hydroxyindoleacetic Acid; Serotonin; Suicide, Attempted; Violence
PubMed: 33618064
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.01.045 -
Molecular Psychiatry Jun 2023Psychotic disorders are severe mental disorders with poorly understood etiology. Biomarkers in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) could provide etiological clues and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Psychotic disorders are severe mental disorders with poorly understood etiology. Biomarkers in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) could provide etiological clues and diagnostic tools for psychosis; however, an unbiased overview of CSF alterations in individuals with psychotic disorders is lacking. The objective of this study was to summarize all quantifiable findings in CSF from individuals with psychotic disorders compared to healthy controls (HC). Studies published before January 25th, 2023 were identified searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PsycINFO. Screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed by two independent reviewers following PRISMA guidelines. Findings in patients and healthy controls were compared and summarized using random-effects analyses and assessment of publication bias, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. 145 studies, covering 197 biomarkers, were included, of which 163 biomarkers have not previously been investigated in meta-analyses. All studies showed some degree of bias. 55 biomarkers measured in CSF were associated with psychosis and of these were 15 biomarkers measured in ≥2 studies. Patients showed increased levels of noradrenaline (standardized mean difference/SMD, 0.53; 95% confidence interval/CI, 0.16 to 0.90) and its metabolite 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.55), the serotonin metabolite 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (SMD, 0.11; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.21), the pro-inflammatory neurotransmitter kynurenic acid (SMD, 1.58; 95% CI: 0.34 to 2.81), its precursor kynurenine (SMD,0.99; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.38), the cytokines interleukin-6 (SMD, 0.58; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.77) and interleukin-8 (SMD, 0.43; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.62), the endocannabinoid anandamide (SMD, 0.78; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.02), albumin ratio (SMD, 0.40; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.72), total protein (SMD, 0.29; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.43), immunoglobulin ratio (SMD, 0.45; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.85) and glucose (SMD, 0.48; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.94). Neurotensin (SMD, -0.67; 95% CI: -0.89 to -0.46) and γ-aminobutyric acid (SMD, -0.29; 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.09) were decreased. Most biomarkers showed no significant differences, including the dopamine metabolites homovanillic acid and 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid. These findings suggest that dysregulation of the immune and adrenergic system as well as blood-brain barrier dysfunction are implicated in the pathophysiology of psychotic disorders.
Topics: Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Biomarkers; Norepinephrine; Dopamine; Homovanillic Acid
PubMed: 37169812
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-023-02059-2 -
European Journal of Drug Metabolism and... Mar 2024BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is one of the most common neuropsychiatric conditions in children, and methylphenidate (MPH) is one...
UNLABELLED
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is one of the most common neuropsychiatric conditions in children, and methylphenidate (MPH) is one of the first-line therapies. MPH is available in a variety of extended-release (ER) formulations worldwide, and most formulations are not considered bioequivalent due to differences in pharmacokinetics. It is hypothesized that the current bioequivalence guidelines from the different regulatory bodies may generate inconsistent findings or recommendations when assessing the bioequivalence of ER MPH formulations. This manuscript aims to conduct a comprehensive and narrative critical literature review to analyze pharmacokinetic data pertaining to ER formulations of MPH in order to assess bioequivalence, differences in regulatory guidelines, and additional pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic parameters that may help define interchangeability.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library with no time limits. Study characteristics, non-compartmental pharmacokinetic parameters, and bioequivalence data were extracted for analysis.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies were identified with primary pharmacokinetic data after the administration of ER MPH, of which 10 were direct comparative studies (i.e., at least 2 formulations tested within a single setting) and 23 were indirect comparisons (i.e., different experimental settings). Two formulations were consistently reported as bioequivalent across the regulatory bodies using criteria from their guidance documents, although inconsistencies have been observed. However, when additional kinetic criteria (discussed in this manuscript) were imposed, only one study met the more stringent definition of bioequivalence. Various clinical factors also had inconsistent effects on the pharmacokinetics and interchangeability of the different formulations, which were associated with a lack of standardization for assessing covariates across the regulatory agencies.
CONCLUSION
Additional pharmacokinetic parameters and consistency in guidelines across the regulatory bodies may improve bioequivalence assessments. Based on our findings, more research is also required to understand whether bioequivalence is an appropriate measure for determining MPH interchangeability. This critical review is suitable for formulation scientists, clinical pharmacologists, and clinicians.
Topics: Child; Humans; Methylphenidate; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Therapeutic Equivalency; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Delayed-Action Preparations; Cross-Over Studies
PubMed: 38127227
DOI: 10.1007/s13318-023-00873-1 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Feb 2024There is currently no standard of care for pharmacological treatment of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) use disorder (ATSUD). This systematic review with meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
There is currently no standard of care for pharmacological treatment of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) use disorder (ATSUD). This systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022354492) aimed to pool results from randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate efficacy and safety of prescription psychostimulants (PPs) for ATSUD.
METHODS
Major indexing sources and trial registries were searched to include records published before 29 August 2022. Eligible studies were RCTs evaluating efficacy and safety of PPs for ATSUD. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Risk ratio (RR) and risk difference were calculated for random-effect meta-analysis of dichotomous variables. Mean difference and standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated for random-effect meta-analysis of continuous variables.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs (n = 561 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Trials studied methylphenidate (n = 7), with daily doses of 54-180 mg, and dextroamphetamine (n = 3), with daily doses of 60-110 mg, for 2-24 weeks. PPs significantly decreased end-point craving [SMD -0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.55, -0.03], while such a decrease did not reach statistical significance for ATS use, as evaluated by urine analysis (UA) (RR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.85-1.01). No effect was observed for self-reported ATS use, retention in treatment, dropout following adverse events, early-stage craving, withdrawal and depressive symptoms. In a sensitivity analysis, treatment was associated with a significant reduction in UA positive for ATS (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.79-0.99) after removing studies with a high risk of bias. In subgroup analyses, methylphenidate and high doses of PPs were negatively associated with ATS use by UA, while higher doses of PPs and treatment duration (≥ 20 weeks) were positively associated with longer retention.
CONCLUSIONS
Among individuals with amphetamine-type stimulant use disorder, treatment with prescription psychostimulants may decrease ATS use and craving. While effect size is limited, it may increase with a higher dosage of medications.
Topics: Humans; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Methylphenidate; Substance-Related Disorders; Amphetamines; Prescriptions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37880829
DOI: 10.1111/add.16347 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Oct 2021Evidence regarding the pharmacological interventions to manage cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is currently synthesized in several systematic reviews, portraying a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence regarding the pharmacological interventions to manage cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is currently synthesized in several systematic reviews, portraying a fragmented literature synthesis. Thus, we aimed to critically appraise the available systematic reviews on pharmacological intervention for improving CRF in adult cancer patients.
METHODS
Three databases were systematically searched from January 2010 to July 2020. The pooled meta-analyses' effect sizes (standardized mean difference, SMD) were quantitatively pooled using a random-effects model. Chi-squared (Q) and I-square statistics (I²) tested the heterogeneity.
RESULTS
The SMD of the effect of psychostimulants on CRF was -0.20 (95 % CI: -0.32, 0.08; p < 0.0001), along with significant higher improvement of fatigue (SMD=-0.69; 95 % CI=-1.29, -0,09, p < 0.0001) after methylphenidate administration. No statistical differences were found in the occurrences of adverse events between methylphenidate and placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
This study corroborated that psychostimulant therapy may be moderately effective in reducing CRF. Scarce evidence on the short- and long-term adverse events.
PROSPERO
CRD42020181879 (registration date: 26/07/2020).
Topics: Adult; Fatigue; Humans; Methylphenidate; Neoplasms; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 34051301
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103373 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration, inflammation, and swelling. This causes pain and restricted movement of the affected finger. Non-surgical treatment options include activity modification, oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), splinting, and local injections with anti-inflammatory drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To review the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus placebo, glucocorticoids, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route for trigger finger.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO trials portal until 30 September 2020. We applied no language or publication status restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of adult participants with trigger finger that compared NSAIDs administered topically, orally, or by injection versus placebo, glucocorticoid, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two or more review authors independently screened the reports, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The seven major outcomes were resolution of trigger finger symptoms, persistent moderate or severe symptoms, recurrence of symptoms, total active range of finger motion, residual pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Treatment effects were reported as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
Two RCTs conducted in an outpatient hospital setting were included (231 adult participants, mean age 58.6 years, 60% female, 95% to 100% moderate to severe disease). Both studies compared a single injection of a non-selective NSAID (12.5 mg diclofenac or 15.0 mg ketorolac) given at lower than normal doses with a single injection of a glucocorticoid (triamcinolone 20 mg or 5 mg), with maximum follow-up duration of 12 weeks or 24 weeks. In both studies, we detected risk of attrition and performance bias. One study also had risk of selection bias. The effects of treatment were sensitive to assumptions about missing outcomes. All seven outcomes were reported in one study, and five in the other. NSAID injection may offer little to no benefit over glucocorticoid injection, based on low- to very low-certainty evidence from two trials. Evidence was downgraded for bias and imprecision. There may be little to no difference between groups in resolution of symptoms at 12 to 24 weeks (34% with NSAIDs, 41% with glucocorticoids; absolute effect 7% lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% lower to 5% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). The rate of persistent moderate to severe symptoms may be higher at 12 to 24 weeks in the NSAIDs group (28%) compared to the glucocorticoid group (14%) (absolute effect 14% higher, 95% CI 2% to 33% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.46; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs result in fewer recurrences at 12 to 24 weeks (1%) compared to glucocorticoid (21%) (absolute effect 20% lower, 95% CI 21% to 13% lower; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in mean total active motion at 24 weeks (235 degrees with NSAIDs, 240 degrees with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 5% lower, 95% CI 34.54% lower to 24.54% higher; 1 study, 99 participants; MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.54 to 24.54; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in residual pain at 12 to 24 weeks (20% with NSAIDs, 24% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 11% lower to 7% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in participant-reported treatment success at 24 weeks (64% with NSAIDs, 68% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 18% lower to 15% higher; 1 study, 121 participants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAID injection has an effect on adverse events at 12 to 24 weeks (1% with NSAIDs, 1% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 0% difference, 95% CI 2% lower to 3% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.42; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For adults with trigger finger, by 24 weeks' follow-up, results from two trials show that compared to glucocorticoid injection, NSAID injection offered little to no benefit in the treatment of trigger finger. Specifically, there was no difference in resolution, symptoms, recurrence, total active motion, residual pain, participant-reported treatment success, or adverse events.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Diclofenac; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Ketorolac; Male; Middle Aged; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Triamcinolone; Trigger Finger Disorder
PubMed: 33849080
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012789.pub2 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2024Tension-type headache is the most common type of primary headache and results in a huge socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Tension-type headache is the most common type of primary headache and results in a huge socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of simple analgesics for the treatment of episodic tension-type headache (ETTH) in adults.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Chinese BioMedical Literature database and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases for eligible randomized clinical trials reporting the efficacy and/or safety of simple analgesics. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare relative efficacy and safety. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank interventions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018090554.
RESULTS
We highlighted six studies including 3507 patients. For the 2 h pain-free rate, the SUCRA ranking was ibuprofen > diclofenac-K > ketoprofen > acetaminophen > naproxen > placebo. All drugs except naproxen reported a higher 2 h pain-free rate than placebo, with a risk ratio (RR) of 2.86 (95% credible interval, CrI: 1.62-5.42) for ibuprofen and 2.61 (1.53-4.88) for diclofenac-K. For adverse events rate, the SUCRA ranking was: metamizol > diclofenac-K > ibuprofen > lumiracoxib > placebo > aspirin > acetaminophen > naproxen > ketoprofen. The adverse event rates of all analgesics were no higher than those of placebo, except for ketoprofen. Moreover, all drugs were superior to placebo in the global assessment of efficacy. In particular, the RR of lumiracoxib was 2.47 (1.57-4.57). Global heterogeneity between the studies was low.
CONCLUSIONS
Simple analgesics are considered more effective and safe as a placebo for ETTH in adults. Our results suggest that ibuprofen and diclofenac-K may be the two best treatment options for patients with ETTH from a comprehensive point of view (both high-quality evidence).
Topics: Humans; Tension-Type Headache; Analgesics; Adult; Network Meta-Analysis; Ibuprofen; Acetaminophen; Bayes Theorem; Treatment Outcome; Diclofenac; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Naproxen; Ketoprofen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Male
PubMed: 38813682
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2024.2357235 -
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