-
Brain Sciences Mar 2021Cognitive enhancers (CEs), also known as "smart drugs", "study aids" or "nootropics" are a cause of concern. Recent research studies investigated the use of CEs being... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Cognitive enhancers (CEs), also known as "smart drugs", "study aids" or "nootropics" are a cause of concern. Recent research studies investigated the use of CEs being taken as study aids by university students. This manuscript provides an overview of popular CEs, focusing on a range of drugs/substances (e.g., prescription CEs including amphetamine salt mixtures, methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam; and non-prescription CEs including caffeine, cobalamin (vitamin B12), guarana, pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and vinpocetine) that have emerged as being misused. The diverted non-prescription use of these molecules and the related potential for dependence and/or addiction is being reported. It has been demonstrated that healthy students (i.e., those without any diagnosed mental disorders) are increasingly using drugs such as methylphenidate, a mixture of dextroamphetamine/amphetamine, and modafinil, for the purpose of increasing their alertness, concentration or memory.
AIM
To investigate the level of knowledge, perception and impact of the use of a range of CEs within Higher Education Institutions.
METHODOLOGY
A systematic review was conducted in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Whilst 1400 studies were identified within this study through a variety of electronic databases (e.g., 520 through PubMed, 490 through Science Direct and 390 through Scopus), 48 papers were deemed relevant and were included in this review.
RESULTS
The most popular molecules identified here included the stimulant CEs, e.g., methylphenidate, modafinil, amphetamine salt mixtures and caffeine-related compounds; stimulant CEs' intake was more prevalent among males than females; drugs were largely obtained from friends and family, as well as via the Internet. It is therefore suggested that CEs are increasingly being used among healthy individuals, mainly students without any diagnosed cognitive disorders, to increase their alertness, concentration, or memory, in the belief that these CEs will improve their performance during examinations or when studying. The impact of stimulant CEs may include tolerance, dependence and/or somatic (e.g., cardiovascular; neurological) complications.
DISCUSSION
The availability of CEs for non-medical indications in different countries is influenced by a range of factors including legal, social and ethical factors. Considering the risk factors and motivations that encourage university students to use CE drugs, it is essential to raise awareness about CE-related harms, counteract myths regarding "safe" CE use and address cognitive enhancement in an early stage during education as a preventative public health measure.
PubMed: 33802176
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11030355 -
F1000Research 2019Eating disorders are serious psychiatric illnesses with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Effective treatments have traditionally included behaviorally focused... (Review)
Review
Eating disorders are serious psychiatric illnesses with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Effective treatments have traditionally included behaviorally focused therapies as well as several medication strategies. Recent years have seen promising developments in these treatments, including additional support for family-based approaches for children and adolescents, new evidence for "third-wave" behavioral therapies, and new support for the use of lisdexamfetamine for binge eating disorder and olanzapine for anorexia nervosa. Case study and pilot data are beginning to show limited support for neuromodulatory interventions targeting brain regions thought to be involved in eating disorders. This review summarizes treatment developments over the last several years and points towards future directions for the field.
Topics: Adolescent; Anorexia Nervosa; Behavior Therapy; Binge-Eating Disorder; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Feeding and Eating Disorders; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate
PubMed: 31598212
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.19847.1 -
PloS One 2020Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD.
METHODS
We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework.
RESULTS
Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049.
Topics: Adult; Amphetamine; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bayes Theorem; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dextroamphetamine; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Guanfacine; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Male; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33085721
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240584 -
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology 2023Pediatric attention-deficit disorder (ADHD) impacts a significant percentage of the population world-wide. Pharmacologic treatments have been shown to be safe and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pediatric attention-deficit disorder (ADHD) impacts a significant percentage of the population world-wide. Pharmacologic treatments have been shown to be safe and effective for managing symptoms. Various medication formulations exist, and new medication agents are continually approved each year.
AREAS COVERED
This article offers an overview of ADHD, an overview of both stimulant and non-stimulant medication options as well as an overview of stimulant misuse. It explores the medication mechanisms of action and side effect profiles, as well as offering an in-depth summary of the novel agents recently approved and soon-to-be approved for use in youth. PubMed and Medline were utilized. Search terms included children, adolescents, ADHD, and medication. FDA package inserts were reviewed for all medications.
EXPERT OPINION
New formulations of medications include an evening administered, extended, and delayed-release form of methylphenidate (DR/ER MPH), a methylphenidate pro-drug (serdexmethylphenidate) and an amphetamine patch. The availability of a new SNRI (selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), viloxazine extended-release (VER), and the pending approval of a triple reuptake inhibitor (centanafadine) provides welcome additions to the prescriber's toolbox.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Child; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Methylphenidate; Amphetamine; Prodrugs
PubMed: 37587841
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2023.2249414 -
Science Advances Jun 2023The efficacy of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancers in everyday complex tasks remains to be established. Using the knapsack optimization problem as a stylized...
The efficacy of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancers in everyday complex tasks remains to be established. Using the knapsack optimization problem as a stylized representation of difficulty in tasks encountered in daily life, we discover that methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, and modafinil cause knapsack value attained in the task to diminish significantly compared to placebo, even if the chance of finding the optimal solution (~50%) is not reduced significantly. Effort (decision time and number of steps taken to find a solution) increases significantly, but productivity (quality of effort) decreases significantly. At the same time, productivity differences across participants decrease, even reverse, to the extent that above-average performers end up below average and vice versa. The latter can be attributed to increased randomness of solution strategies. Our findings suggest that "smart drugs" increase motivation, but a reduction in quality of effort, crucial to solve complex problems, annuls this effect.
Topics: Humans; Cognition; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Motivation; Central Nervous System Stimulants
PubMed: 37315143
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.add4165 -
World Journal of Psychiatry Jun 2023Available pharmacotherapies for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are reviewed based on clinical and research experience, highlighting some older drugs with emerging... (Review)
Review
Available pharmacotherapies for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are reviewed based on clinical and research experience, highlighting some older drugs with emerging evidence. Several medications show efficacy in ASD, though controlled studies in ASD are largely lacking. Only risperidone and aripiprazole have Federal Drug Administration approval in the United States. Methylphenidate (MPH) studies showed lower efficacy and tolerability for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than in the typically developing (TD) population; atomoxetine demonstrated lower efficacy but comparable tolerability to TD outcomes. Guanfacine improved hyperactivity in ASD comparably to TD. Dex-troamphetamine promises greater efficacy than MPH in ASD. ADHD medications reduce impulsive aggression in youth, and may also be key for this in adults. Controlled trials of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors citalopram and fluoxetine demonstrated poor tolerability and lack of efficacy for repetitive behaviors. Trials of antiseizure medications in ASD remain inconclusive, however clinical trials may be warranted in severely disabled individuals showing bizarre behaviors. No identified drugs treat ASD core symptoms; oxytocin lacked efficacy. Amitriptyline and loxapine however, show promise. Loxapine at 5-10 mg daily resembled an atypical antipsychotic in positron emission tomography studies, but may be weight-sparing. Amitriptyline at approximately 1 mg/ kg/day used cautiously, shows efficacy for sleep, anxiety, impulsivity and ADHD, repetitive behaviors, and enuresis. Both drugs have promising neurotrophic properties.
PubMed: 37383284
DOI: 10.5498/wjp.v13.i6.262