-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Autism spectrum disorder (ASD; also known as autism) is a developmental disability that begins in childhood and is typically seen in around 1% to 2% of children. It is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD; also known as autism) is a developmental disability that begins in childhood and is typically seen in around 1% to 2% of children. It is characterised by social communication difficulties and repetitive and restricted behaviours and routines that can have a negative impact on a child's quality of life, achievement at school, and social interactions with others. It has been hypothesised that memantine, which is traditionally used to treat dementia, may be effective in reducing the core symptoms of autism as well as some co-occurring symptoms such as hyperactivity and language difficulties. If memantine is being used to treat the core symptoms of autism, it is important to review the evidence of its effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of memantine on the core symptoms of autism, including, but not limited to, social communication and stereotypical behaviours.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and three trials registers up to February 2022. We also checked reference lists of key studies and checked with experts in the field for any additional papers. We searched for retractions of the included studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Retraction Watch Database. No retractions or corrections were found.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any dose of memantine compared with placebo in autistic people. We also included RCTs in which only one group received memantine, but both groups received the same additional therapy (e.g. a behaviour intervention).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were core autism symptoms and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were language, intelligence, memory, adaptive behaviour, hyperactivity, and irritability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs (two double-blind and one single-blind) with 204 participants that examined the short-term effect (immediately postintervention) of memantine in autistic people. Two studies took place in the USA and the other in Iran. All three studies focused on children and adolescents, with a mean age of 9.40 (standard deviation (SD) 2.26) years. Most participants were male (range across studies 73% to 87%). The diagnosis of ASD was based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition; 4th edition, text revision; or 5th edition). To confirm the diagnosis, one study used the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R); one used ADOS, ADI-R or the Autism Diagnostic Interview Screener; and one used the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale. Dosage of memantine was based on the child's weight and ranged from 3 mg to 15 mg per day. Comparisons Two studies examined memantine compared with placebo; in the other study, both groups had a behavioural intervention while only one group was given memantine. Risk of bias All studies were rated at high risk of bias overall, as they were at high or unclear risk of bias across all but four domains in one study, and all but two domains in the other two studies. One study was funded by Forest Laboratories, LLC, (Jersey City, New Jersey), Allergan. The study sponsor was involved in the study design, data collection (via contracted clinical investigator sites), analysis and interpretation of data, and the decision to present these results. The other two studies reported no financial support or sponsorship; though in one of the two, the study medication was an in-kind contribution from Forest Pharmaceuticals. Primary outcomes There was no clear evidence of a difference between memantine and placebo with respect to severity of core symptoms of autism, although we are very uncertain about the evidence. The standardised mean difference in autism symptoms score in the intervention group versus the control group was -0.74 standard deviations (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.07 to 0.58; 2 studies, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence; medium effect size); lower scores indicate less severe autistic symptoms. Two studies (144 participants) recorded adverse effects that the authors deemed related to the study and found there may be no difference between memantine and placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.39; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes There may be no difference between memantine and placebo on language (2 studies, 144 participants; low-certainty evidence); memory or adaptive behaviour (1 study, 23 participants; both low-certainty evidence); or hyperactivity or irritability (1 study, 121 participants; both low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is unclear whether memantine is an effective treatment for autistic children. None of the three included trials reported on the effectiveness of memantine in adults. Further studies using rigorous designs, larger samples, longer follow-up and clinically meaningful outcome measures that are important to autistic people and their families will strengthen our knowledge of the effects of memantine in autism.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Memantine; Odds Ratio; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36006807
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013845.pub2 -
International Review of Neurobiology 2023Parkinson's disease (PD) is a complex disorder that leads to alterations in multiple neurotransmitter systems, notably glutamate. As such, several drugs acting at... (Review)
Review
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a complex disorder that leads to alterations in multiple neurotransmitter systems, notably glutamate. As such, several drugs acting at glutamatergic receptors have been assessed to alleviate the manifestation of PD and treatment-related complications, culminating with the approval of the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist amantadine for l-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine (l-DOPA)-induced dyskinesia. Glutamate elicits its actions through several ionotropic and metabotropic (mGlu) receptors. There are 8 sub-types of mGlu receptors, with sub-types 4 (mGlu) and 5 (mGlu) modulators having been tested in the clinic for endpoints pertaining to PD, while sub-types 2 (mGlu) and 3 (mGlu) have been investigated in pre-clinical settings. In this book chapter, we provide an overview of mGlu receptors in PD, with a focus on mGlu, mGlu, mGlu and mGlu receptors. For each sub-type, we review, when applicable, their anatomical localization and possible mechanisms underlying their efficacy for specific disease manifestation or treatment-induced complications. We then summarize the findings of pre-clinical studies and clinical trials with pharmacological agents and discuss the potential strengths and limitations of each target. We conclude by offering some perspectives on the potential use of mGlu modulators in the treatment of PD.
Topics: Humans; Parkinson Disease; Receptors, Metabotropic Glutamate; Amantadine; Glutamates
PubMed: 36868628
DOI: 10.1016/bs.irn.2022.10.001 -
Journal of Neural Transmission (Vienna,... Jul 2024To assess amantadine use and associated factors in the patients with Parkinson's disease (PD).
OBJECTIVE
To assess amantadine use and associated factors in the patients with Parkinson's disease (PD).
BACKGROUND
Immediate-release amantadine is approved for the treatment of PD and is largely used in clinical practice to treat "levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LIDs). Its use varies according to countries and PD stages. The prospective NS-Park cohort collects features of PD patients followed by 26 French PD Expert Centres.
METHODS
Variables used for the analyses included demographics, motor and non-motor PD symptoms and motor complications [motor fluctuations (MFs), LIDs)], antiparkinsonian pharmacological classes and levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD). We evaluated: (i) prevalence of amantadine use and compared clinical features of amantadine users vs. non-users (cross-sectional analysis); (ii) factors associated with amantadine initiation (longitudinal analysis); (iii) amantadine effect on LIDs, MFs, apathy, impulse control disorders and freezing of gait (Fog) (longitudinal analysis).
RESULTS
Amantadine use prevalence was 12.6% (1,585/12,542, median dose = 200 mg). Amantadine users were significantly younger, with longer and more severe PD symptoms, greater LEDD and more frequent use of device-aided/surgical treatment. Factors independently associated with amantadine initiation were younger age, longer PD duration, more frequent LIDs, MFs and FoG, higher LEDD and better cognitive function. 9 of the 658 patients on amantadine had stopped it at the following visit, after 12-18 months (1.3%). New users of amantadine presented a higher improvement in LIDs and MF compared to amantadine never users.
CONCLUSIONS
About 12% of PD patients within the French NS-Park cohort used amantadine, mostly those with younger age and more severe PD. Amantadine initiation was associated with a subsequent reduction in LIDs and MFs.
Topics: Amantadine; Humans; Male; Female; France; Aged; Antiparkinson Agents; Parkinson Disease; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced; Cross-Sectional Studies; Levodopa; Longitudinal Studies; Cohort Studies
PubMed: 38578434
DOI: 10.1007/s00702-024-02772-4 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2021
Topics: Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Fatigue; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Parkinson Disease; Surveys and Questionnaires; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33350472
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.1802 -
Ugeskrift For Laeger Jun 2022Viroporins are ion channels found in many viruses, where they contribute to virus life cycle and thereby pathogenesis. Viroporin targeting is a known, yet largely... (Review)
Review
Viroporins are ion channels found in many viruses, where they contribute to virus life cycle and thereby pathogenesis. Viroporin targeting is a known, yet largely unexplored, therapeutic strategy so far only used in Influenza A with the drugs amantadine and rimantadine. In this review, we seek to utilize the inhibition by amantadine of the viroporin Protein E in SARS-CoV-2 in an attempt to treat COVID-19 in its early stages. We are executing a double-blinded placebo-controlled trial based on promising in vivo and in vitro work as a stepping-stone for establishing a therapeutic antiviral regime: blocking of viroporins.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; Viroporin Proteins; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35703076
DOI: No ID Found -
Viruses Mar 2021Since the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic started in late 2019, the search for protective vaccines and for drug treatments has become mandatory to fight the global health emergency....
Since the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic started in late 2019, the search for protective vaccines and for drug treatments has become mandatory to fight the global health emergency. Travel restrictions, social distancing, and face masks are suitable counter measures, but may not bring the pandemic under control because people will inadvertently or at a certain degree of restriction severity or duration become incompliant with the regulations. Even if vaccines are approved, the need for antiviral agents against SARS-CoV-2 will persist. However, unequivocal evidence for efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 has not been demonstrated for any of the repurposed antiviral drugs so far. Amantadine was approved as an antiviral drug against influenza A, and antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 has been reasoned by analogy but without data. We tested the efficacy of amantadine in vitro in Vero E6 cells infected with SARS-CoV-2. Indeed, amantadine inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication in two separate experiments with IC concentrations between 83 and 119 µM. Although these IC concentrations are above therapeutic amantadine levels after systemic administration, topical administration by inhalation or intranasal instillation may result in sufficient amantadine concentration in the airway epithelium without high systemic exposure. However, further studies in other models are needed to prove this hypothesis.
Topics: Amantadine; Animals; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Chlorocebus aethiops; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; Vero Cells; Virus Replication; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33804989
DOI: 10.3390/v13040539 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Oct 2023The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed a severe need for effective antiviral treatment. The objectives of this study were to assess if pre-emptive treatment with amantadine... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed a severe need for effective antiviral treatment. The objectives of this study were to assess if pre-emptive treatment with amantadine for COVID-19 in non-hospitalized persons ≥40 years or adults with comorbidities was able to prevent disease progression and hospitalization. Primary outcomes were clinical status on day 14.
METHODS
Between 9 June 2021 and 27 January 2022, this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, single-centre clinical trial included 242 subjects with a follow-up period of 90 days. Subjects were randomly assigned 1:1 to either amantadine 100 mg or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The inclusion criteria were confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least one of (a) age ≥40 years, age ≥18 years and (b) at least one comorbidity, or (c) body mass index ≥30. The study protocol was published at www.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov (unique protocol #02032021) and at www.clinicaltrialregister.eu (EudraCT-number 2021-001177-22).
RESULTS
With 121 participants in each arm, we found no difference in the primary endpoint with 82 participants in the amantadine arm, and 92 participants in the placebo arm with no limitations to activities, respectively, and 25 and 37 with limitations to activities in the amantadine arm and the placebo arm, respectively. No participants in either group were admitted to hospital or died. The OR of having state severity increased by 1 in the amantadine group versus placebo was 1.8 (CI 1.0-3.3, [p 0.051]). On day 7, one participant was hospitalized in each group; throughout the study, this increased to five and three participants for amantadine versus placebo treatment (p 0.72). Similarly, on day 7, there was no difference in the status of oropharyngeal swabs. Most participants (108 in each group) were SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive (p 0.84).
CONCLUSION
We found no effect of amantadine on disease progression of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adolescent; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; RNA, Viral; Amantadine; Treatment Outcome; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 37353078
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.06.023 -
Respiratory Medicine Jun 2023Amantadine has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 because it shows anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity in vitro. However, to date, no controlled study has assessed the... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Amantadine has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 because it shows anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity in vitro. However, to date, no controlled study has assessed the safety and efficacy of amantadine in COVID-19.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Whether amantadine is effective and safe among patients with different COVID-19 severity classifications.
STUDY DESIGN
and Methods: This was multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled study.Patients with oxygen saturation ≤94% and no need for high-flow oxygen or ventilatory support were randomly allocated to receive oral amantadine or placebo (1:1) for 10 days in addition to standard care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery assessed over 28 days since randomisation, defined as discharge from hospital or no need for supplemental oxygen.
RESULTS
The study was terminated early due to a lack of efficacy after an interim analysis. Final data from 95 patients who received amantadine (mean age, 60.2 years; 65% male; 66% with comorbidities) and 91 patients who received placebo (mean age, 55.8 years; 60% male; 68% with comorbidities) were obtained. The median (95% CI) time to recovery was 10 days both in the amantadine (9-11) and placebo arms (8-11; subhazard ratio = 0.94 [95%CI 0.7-1.3]). The percentage of deaths and percentage of patients who required intensive care at 14 and 28 days did not significantly differ between the amantadine and placebo groups.
INTERPRETATION
Adding amantadine to standard care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 did not increase the likelihood of recovery.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04952519; www.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Female; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Double-Blind Method; Patients; Amantadine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36931576
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2023.107198 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jun 2023Tau protein aggregations are important contributors to the etiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Hydromethylthionine (HMT) is a potent inhibitor of tau aggregation in...
Tau protein aggregations are important contributors to the etiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Hydromethylthionine (HMT) is a potent inhibitor of tau aggregation in vitro and in vivo and is being developed as a possible anti-dementia medication. HMT was also shown to affect the cholinergic system and to interact with mitochondria. Here, we used tau-transgenic (L1 and L66) and wild-type NMRI mice that were treated with HMT, rivastigmine and memantine and with combinations thereof, for 2-4 weeks. We measured HMT concentrations in both brain homogenates and isolated mitochondria and concentrations of glucose, lactate and pyruvate in brain by microdialysis. In isolated brain mitochondria, we recorded oxygen consumption of mitochondrial complexes by respirometry. While rivastigmine and memantine lowered mitochondrial respiration, HMT did not affect respiration in wild-type animals and increased respiration in tau-transgenic L1 mice. Glucose and lactate levels were not affected by HMT administration. The presence of HMT in isolated mitochondria was established. In summary, traditional anti-dementia drugs impair mitochondrial function while HMT has no adverse effects on mitochondrial respiration in tau-transgenic mice. These results support the further development of HMT as an anti-dementia drug.
Topics: Mice; Animals; Rivastigmine; Memantine; tau Proteins; Mice, Transgenic; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Alzheimer Disease; Mitochondria
PubMed: 37445987
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241310810 -
Parkinsonism & Related Disorders Mar 2022Immediate-release (IR) amantadine has been used for treatment of levodopa induced dyskinesia (LID). The immediate-release/extended-release (IR/ER) amantadine formulation... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Immediate-release/extended-release amantadine (OS320) to treat Parkinson's disease with levodopa-induced dyskinesia: Analysis of the randomized, controlled ALLAY-LID studies.
BACKGROUND
Immediate-release (IR) amantadine has been used for treatment of levodopa induced dyskinesia (LID). The immediate-release/extended-release (IR/ER) amantadine formulation OS320 (OSMOLEX ER®) contains an IR outer layer and ER core for once-daily dosing.
OBJECTIVE
Report individual and pooled results for the similarly designed double-blind, placebo-controlled ALLAY-LID I and II trials, assessing IR/ER-amantadine for LID.
METHODS
PD patients with LID were randomized to IR/ER-amantadine 193 mg, 258 mg, or placebo. Primary endpoint was Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale (UDysRS) score change from baseline to Day 98. Secondary outcome was ON time without troublesome dyskinesia based on diaries. Exploratory outcomes were other diary states (including OFF), MDS-UPDRS Parts II + III and Fatigue Severity Scale.
RESULTS
Overall, 222 individuals enrolled (N = 87 ALLAY-LID I, N = 135 ALLAY-LID II); both trials terminated early for sponsor's decision. While ALLAY-LID I did not meet its primary endpoint, a significant reduction in UDysRS scores versus placebo was observed in ALLAY-LID II for both 193 mg and 258 mg doses. In the pooled analysis, placebo-adjusted UDysRS score differences were -5.5 [-9.8, -1.2], p = 0.012 and -5.2 [-9.5, -0.9], p = 0.017, respectively. IR/ER-amantadine 258 mg significantly increased time spent ON without troublesome dyskinesia in ALLAY-LID II and pooled analysis. Reductions in ON time with dyskinesia supported the primary outcome. There was no effect on OFF time or other outcomes. Overall, 13.3% (193 mg), 18.7% (258 mg) and 11.1% (placebo) discontinued for adverse events, most commonly hallucinations (4.0%, 10.7%, and 1.4%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
IR/ER-amantadine significantly reduced LID in ALLAY-LID II but not in ALLAY-LID I; post-hoc pooled data also indicated a positive treatment effect on LID.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiparkinson Agents; Double-Blind Method; Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35227940
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2022.01.022