-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2022Narcolepsy is a neurological disease characterized by a core symptom of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Although effective pharmacological interventions for...
Narcolepsy is a neurological disease characterized by a core symptom of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Although effective pharmacological interventions for narcolepsy have been developed, a lack of comparative evidence supporting the relative efficacy among these medications leads to clinical treatment challenge. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to overcome this lack of head-to-head comparisons. Databases were searched systematically for randomized controlled trials that compared pharmacological interventions for narcolepsy. The primary outcomes were changes in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT). A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted. A total of 19 RCTs involving 2504 patients were included. Solriamfetol achieved the highest ranking based on the P-scores, and was superior to pitolisant (MD -2.88, 95% CI -4.89--0.88) and sodium oxybate (MD -2.56, 95% CI -4.62--0.51) for ESS change. Consistently, solriamfetol achieved the highest ranking according to MWT change, and was superior to pitolisant (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.02-0.88) and modafinil (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.05-0.79). Although solriamfetol demonstrated superior efficacy in EDS improvement, evidence from the clustered ranking plot supported that efficacy-safety profiles of pitolisant, sodium oxybate, and modafinil are more balanced than solriamfetol. Therefore, the choice of medication for EDS in narcolepsy should be made on an individual basis.
PubMed: 36362535
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11216302 -
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Dec 2021Excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea affects 9%-22% of continuous positive airway pressure-treated patients. An indirect treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY OBJECTIVES
Excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea affects 9%-22% of continuous positive airway pressure-treated patients. An indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis was performed to compare efficacy and safety of medications (solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil) approved to treat excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea.
METHODS
Efficacy and safety measures assessed in this indirect treatment comparison included Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), 20-minute Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT20), Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGI-C), Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (any, serious, or leading to discontinuation).
RESULTS
A systematic literature review identified 6 parallel-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials that randomized 1,714 total participants to placebo, solriamfetol, modafinil, or armodafinil. In this indirect treatment comparison, all comparators were associated with greater improvements than placebo on the ESS, MWT20, and CGI-C after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. Relative to comparators and placebo at 12 weeks, solriamfetol at 150 mg or 300 mg had the highest probabilities of improvement in the ESS, MWT20, and CGI-C. Modafinil (200 or 400 mg) and solriamfetol (150 or 300 mg) were associated with greater improvement on the FOSQ than placebo at 12 weeks. Less than 2% of patients using placebo or comparators experienced serious or discontinuation-related treatment-emergent adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this indirect treatment comparison show 12 weeks of treatment with solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil resulted in varying levels of improvement on the ESS, MWT20, and CGI-C and similar safety risks in participants with excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnea.
CITATION
Ronnebaum S, Bron M, Patel D, et al. Indirect treatment comparison of solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil for excessive daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea. . 2021;17(12):2543-2555.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Carbamates; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Modafinil; Phenylalanine; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34402784
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.9610 -
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 -
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 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Jul 2020To review the efficacy of antidepressants and other therapeutic agents for the treatment of cognitive impairment in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).
OBJECTIVE
To review the efficacy of antidepressants and other therapeutic agents for the treatment of cognitive impairment in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).
DATA SOURCES
We conducted a database search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase through Ovid on May 7, 2019. The year of publication was not restricted. The search terms "Major Depressive Disorder," "depress*," "cognit*," and "therapeutics" were used.
STUDY SELECTION
The studies included in this review were clinical trials of antidepressants and other therapeutic agents in MDD populations. Participants were aged between 18 and 65 years and had a DSM-III, -IV, or -5 diagnosis of MDD. In total, 2,045 research papers were screened, 53 full-text articles were assessed, and 26 articles were eligible to be included in this systematic review.
DATA EXTRACTION
The data and quality of research papers were assessed and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved through a third reviewer.
RESULTS
Overall, studies demonstrated that tricyclic antidepressants do not have procognitive effects, while vortioxetine and bupropion have demonstrated procognitive effects in MDD populations relative to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. Several non-antidepressant agents, such as modafinil, amphetamines, and erythropoietin, have also demonstrated significant positive effects on cognition in depression.
CONCLUSIONS
Present-day antidepressants and other agents have demonstrated procognitive effects in MDD, but the findings between various agents are mixed. Further research looking at objective measures of cognitive performance would be helpful to obtain more definitive results regarding the efficacy of therapeutics for cognitive impairment in MDD.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Cognitive Dysfunction; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 32726521
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.19r13200 -
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 -
Wellcome Open Research 2021Shift work is essential in society but can be detrimental to health and quality of life and is associated with decreased productivity and increased risk of accidents....
A scoping review of the evidence for the impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on shift work related sleep disturbance in an occupational setting.
Shift work is essential in society but can be detrimental to health and quality of life and is associated with decreased productivity and increased risk of accidents. Interventions to reduce these consequences are needed, but the extent and range of trial evidence for interventions for those most affected by their shift-work schedules is unclear. We therefore carried out a scoping review to assess the availability of evidence to inform the development and evaluation of future interventions. We aimed to identify clinical trials of any intervention for shift work-related sleep disturbance that included a comparator group, where the intervention was delivered in an occupational setting. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline and Science Citation Index from inception to 30 March 2020 for relevant citations. Citations were screened by two independent reviewers, a third reviewer resolved disagreements. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. From 1250 unique citations, 14 studies met inclusion criteria for comparative trials of treatment in an occupational setting. There were five trials of hypnotics, five trials of stimulants, and four trials of non-pharmacological therapies (cognitive behavioural therapy, light therapy, aromatherapy and herbal medicine). Outcomes included sleep parameters, day-time sleepiness, and quality of life. There were no consistently reported outcomes across trials. Interventions fell into three distinct groups investigated in distinct time periods without progression from efficacy trials to wider-scale interventions. The lack of consistent patient-reported outcome measures limits synthesising findings. Some trials focussed on optimising sleep, others on reducing wake-time sleepiness. Adequately powered trials of existing interventions are needed, with the development and testing of novel combination treatments in patients with well-defined shift work sleep disorder. A core set of clinically relevant outcomes will develop and standardise the evidence-base for shift work sleep disorder.
PubMed: 37346814
DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17002.2 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2024Traumatic brain injury (TBI), in any form and severity, can pose risks for developing chronic symptoms that can profoundly hinder patients' work/academic, social, and...
Traumatic brain injury (TBI), in any form and severity, can pose risks for developing chronic symptoms that can profoundly hinder patients' work/academic, social, and personal lives. In the past 3 decades, a multitude of pharmacological, stimulation, and exercise-based interventions have been proposed to ameliorate symptoms, memory impairment, mental fatigue, and/or sleep disturbances. However, most research is preliminary, thus limited influence on clinical practice. This review aims to systematically appraise the evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCT) regarding the effectiveness of pharmacological, stimulation, and exercise-based interventions in treating chronic symptoms due to TBI. Our search results indicate that despite the largest volume of literature, pharmacological interventions, especially using neurostimulant medications to treat physical, cognitive, and mental fatigue, as well as daytime sleepiness, have yielded inconsistent results, such that some studies found improvements in fatigue (e.g., Modafinil, Armodafinil) while others failed to yield the improvements after the intervention. Conversely, brain stimulation techniques (e.g., transcranial magnetic stimulation, blue light therapy) and exercise interventions were effective in ameliorating mental health symptoms and cognition. However, given that most RCTs are equipped with small sample sizes, more high-quality, larger-scale RCTs is needed.
PubMed: 38562423
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1321239