-
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 -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Sep 2021This systematic review provides supporting evidence for the accompanying clinical practice guideline on the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
This systematic review provides supporting evidence for the accompanying clinical practice guideline on the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children. The review focuses on prescription medications with U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval and nonpharmacologic interventions studied for the treatment of symptoms caused by central disorders of hypersomnolence.
METHODS
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine to perform a systematic review. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies addressing pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for central disorders of hypersomnolence were identified. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the clinical significance of all outcomes. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence for the purpose of making specific treatment recommendations.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 678 studies; 144 met the inclusion criteria and 108 provided data suitable for statistical analyses. Evidence for the following interventions is presented: armodafinil, clarithromycin, clomipramine, dextroamphetamine, flumazenil, intravenous immune globulin (IVIG), light therapy, lithium, l-carnitine, liraglutide, methylphenidate, methylprednisolone, modafinil, naps, pitolisant, selegiline, sodium oxybate, solriamfetol, and triazolam. The task force provided a detailed summary of the evidence along with the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use considerations.
CITATION
Maski K, Trotti LM, Kotagal S, et al. Treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment. 2021;17(9):1895-1945.
Topics: Adult; Child; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; GRADE Approach; Humans; Modafinil; Sleep; Sodium Oxybate; United States
PubMed: 34743790
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.9326 -
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Sep 2021This guideline establishes clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children.
INTRODUCTION
This guideline establishes clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children.
METHODS
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine to develop recommendations and assign strengths to each recommendation, based on a systematic review of the literature and an assessment of the evidence using the GRADE process. The task force provided a summary of the relevant literature and the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use considerations that support the recommendations. The AASM Board of Directors approved the final recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are intended to guide clinicians in choosing a specific treatment for central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children. Each recommendation statement is assigned a strength ("strong" or "conditional"). A "strong" recommendation (ie, "We recommend…") is one that clinicians should follow under most circumstances. A "conditional" recommendation (ie, "We suggest…") is one that requires that the clinician use clinical knowledge and experience and strongly consider the individual patient's values and preferences to determine the best course of action. Under each disorder, strong recommendations are listed in alphabetical order followed by the conditional recommendations in alphabetical order. The section on adult patients with hypersomnia because of medical conditions is categorized based on the clinical and pathological subtypes identified in ICSD-3. The interventions in all the recommendation statements were compared to no treatment.
1
We recommend that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (STRONG).
2
We recommend that clinicians use pitolisant for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (STRONG).
3
We recommend that clinicians use sodium oxybate for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (STRONG).
4
We recommend that clinicians use solriamfetol for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (STRONG).
5
We suggest that clinicians use armodafinil for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
6
We suggest that clinicians use dextroamphetamine for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
7
We suggest that clinicians use methylphenidate for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
8
We recommend that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (STRONG).
9
We suggest that clinicians use clarithromycin for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
10
We suggest that clinicians use methylphenidate for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
11
We suggest that clinicians use pitolisant for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
12
We suggest that clinicians use sodium oxybate for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
13
We suggest that clinicians use lithium for the treatment of Kleine-Levin syndrome in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
14
We suggest that clinicians use armodafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to dementia with Lewy bodies in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
15
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to Parkinson's disease in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
16
We suggest that clinicians use sodium oxybate for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to Parkinson's disease in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
17
We suggest that clinicians use armodafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to traumatic brain injury in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
18
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to traumatic brain injury in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
19
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to myotonic dystrophy in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
20
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to multiple sclerosis in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
21
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of narcolepsy in pediatric patients. (CONDITIONAL).
22
We suggest that clinicians use sodium oxybate for the treatment of narcolepsy in pediatric patients. (CONDITIONAL).
CITATION
Maski K, Trotti LM, Kotagal S, et al. Treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. . 2021;17(9):1881-1893.
Topics: Adult; Child; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Humans; Idiopathic Hypersomnia; Modafinil; Narcolepsy; Sleep; United States
PubMed: 34743789
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.9328 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom in people with a primary brain tumour (PBT). The effectiveness of interventions for treating clinically significant levels of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom in people with a primary brain tumour (PBT). The effectiveness of interventions for treating clinically significant levels of fatigue in this population is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for adults with PBT and clinically significant (or high levels) of fatigue.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and checked the reference lists of included studies in April 2022. We also searched relevant conference proceedings, and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention in adults with PBT and fatigue, where fatigue was the primary outcome measure. We restricted inclusion specifically to studies that enrolled only participants with clinically significant levels of fatigue to improve the clinical utility of the findings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (JD, DC) independently evaluated search results for the updated search. Two review authors (JD, SYK) extracted data from selected studies, and carried out a risk of bias assessment. We extracted data on fatigue, mood, cognition, quality of life and adverse events outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
The original review identified one study and this update identified a further two for inclusion. One study investigated the use of modafinil, one study the use of armodafinil and one study the use of dexamfetamine. We identified three ongoing studies. In the original review, the single eligible trial compared modafinil to placebo for 37 participants with a high- or low-grade PBT. One new study compared two doses of armodafinil (150 mg and 250 mg) to placebo for 297 people with a high-grade glioma. The second new study compared dexamfetamine sulfate to placebo for 46 participants with a low- or high-grade PBT. The evidence was uncertain for both modafinil and dexamfetamine regarding fatigue outcome measures, compared to controls, at study endpoint. Two trials did not reach the planned recruitment target and therefore may not, in practice, have been adequately powered to detect a difference. These trials were at a low risk of bias across most areas. There was an unclear risk of bias related to the use of mean imputation for one study because the investigators did not analyse the impact of imputation on the results and information regarding baseline characteristics and randomisation were not clear. The certainty of the evidence measured using GRADE was very low across all three studies. There was one identified study awaiting classification once data are available, which investigated the feasibility of 'health coaching' for people with a PBT experiencing fatigue. There were three ongoing studies that may be eligible for an update of this review, all investigating a non-pharmacological intervention for fatigue in people with PBT.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently insufficient evidence to draw reliable and generalisable conclusions regarding potential effectiveness or harm of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments for fatigue in people with PBT. More research is needed on how best to treat people with brain tumours with high fatigue.
Topics: Adult; Brain Neoplasms; Dextroamphetamine; Fatigue; Glioma; Humans; Modafinil
PubMed: 36094728
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011376.pub3 -
Current Neuropharmacology 2020To systematically review the literature on the therapeutic use of amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate in elderly population with and without dementia.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature on the therapeutic use of amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate in elderly population with and without dementia.
METHODS
We conducted two researches on the PubMed, Scopus and Embase using the keywords ("elderly") AND ("amphetamine" OR "methylphenidate" OR "lisdexamfetamine") and then ("Alzheimer" OR "dementia") AND ("amphetamine" OR "methylphenidate" OR "lisdexamfetamine").
RESULTS
Twenty-nine papers met all the eligibility criteria. The results are encouraging as 81.5% of the studies showed clinical improvement of the investigated condition.
CONCLUSION
Amphetamines and methylphenidate are probably effective strategies for different conditions in the elderly population. However, further studies are needed to provide more robust evidence on efficacy, dosage and safety for this population.
Topics: Aged; Amphetamine; Dementia; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 31660835
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X17666191010093021