-
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 -
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2022Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic mental illness impacting 1-2% of the population worldwide and causing high rates of functional impairment. Patients with BD spend most... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic mental illness impacting 1-2% of the population worldwide and causing high rates of functional impairment. Patients with BD spend most of their time in depressive episodes and up to one-third of patients do not respond to adequate doses of medications. Although no consensus exists for definition of treatment-resistant bipolar depression (TRBD), failure of symptoms improvement despite an adequate trial of two therapeutic agents is a common theme of TRBD. In this paper, we review the evidence base of therapeutic interventions, challenges, and potential future directions for TRBD.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search for randomized controlled trials on PubMed for the treatment of TRBD and ongoing trials for the treatment of TRBD/bipolar depression on clinicaltrials.gov.
RESULTS
Several therapeutic agents have been investigated for TRBD. Adjunctive pramipexole and modafinil have data supporting short-term efficacy in TRBD, along with limited data for racemic intravenous ketamine. Celecoxib augmentation of escitalopram and treatment with metformin in patients with insulin resistance showed promising results. Right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy displayed statistically significant response rate and improvement, but not remission compared to pharmacotherapy. Trials for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) have failed to show a significant difference from sham treatment in TRBD.
FUTURE TRENDS
Pharmacological treatments with novel mechanisms of actions like brexpiprazole and vortioxetine are being investigated following successes in unipolar depression. Modified TMS protocols such as accelerated TMS are under investigation. Innovative approaches like psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, interleukin-2, fecal microbiota transplantation and multipotent stromal cells are being studied.
CONCLUSION
Evidence on current treatment modalities for TRBD is limited with low efficacy. More research is needed for successful treatment of TRBD. Effective therapies and innovative approaches to treatment are being investigated and could show promise.
PubMed: 36561896
DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S273503 -
Brain Sciences Nov 2022cocaine craving is a core feature of cocaine use disorder and remains a critical challenge for abstinence and relapse prevention. This review summarizes the anti-craving... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
cocaine craving is a core feature of cocaine use disorder and remains a critical challenge for abstinence and relapse prevention. This review summarizes the anti-craving efficacy of pharmacotherapies tested for cocaine use disorder, in the context of randomized-controlled clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES
we assessed the databases of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO, without date restrictions up to August 2022, to identify relevant studies.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS
we included double-blinded randomized-controlled trials investigating pharmacotherapies for cocaine craving and/or cocaine use disorder whose outcomes included cocaine craving.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Two authors screened studies' titles and abstracts for inclusion, and both read all the included studies. We systematically gathered information on the following aspects of each study: title; author(s); year of publication; sample size; mean age; sample characteristics; study set-ting; whether participants were treatment-seeking; study design; craving measures; study interventions; drop-out rates; and other relevant outcomes.
RESULTS
Overall, we appraised 130 clinical trials, including 8137 participants. We further considered the drugs from the studies that scored equal to or greater than six points in the quality assessment. There was a correlation between craving and cocaine use outcomes (self-reports, timeline follow-back or urinary benzoylecgonine) in the vast majority of studies. In the short-term treatment, acute phenylalanine-tyrosine depletion, clonidine, fenfluramine, meta-chlorophenylpiperazine (m-CPP) and mecamylamine presented promising effects. In the long term, amphetamine, biperiden, carbamazepine, lisdexamfetamine, lorcaserin, methamphetamine, mirtazapine, pioglitazone, progesterone, guanfacine, levodopa, nefazodone presented promising anti-craving effects. Unfortunately, the highly tested medications were not successful in most of the trials, as follows: propranolol in the short term; amantadine, aripiprazole, bromocriptine, citicoline, ketamine, modafinil, olanzapine, topiramate in the long term. The remaining 52 medications had no positive anti-craving outcomes.
LIMITATIONS
Our review was limited by high heterogeneity of craving assessments across the studies and by a great range of pharmacotherapies. Further, the majority of the studies considered abstinence and retention in treatment as the main outcomes, whereas craving was a secondary outcome and some of the studies evaluated patients with cocaine use disorder with comorbidities such as opioid or alcohol use disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity. Lastly, most of the studies also included non-pharmacological treatments, such as counseling or psychotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a direct association between craving and cocaine use, underscoring craving as an important treatment target for promoting abstinence among persons with cocaine use disorder. Clonidine, fenfluramine and m-CPP showed to be promising medications for cocaine craving in the short-term treatment, and amphetamine, biperiden, carbamazepine, lisdexamfetamine, lorcaserin, methamphetamine, mirtazapine, pioglitazone, progesterone, guanfacine, levodopa, nefazodone in the long-term treatment.
PubMed: 36421870
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12111546 -
Psychopharmacology Feb 2021At all times humans have made attempts to improve their cognitive abilities by different means, among others, with the use of stimulants. Widely available stimulants... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
RATIONAL
At all times humans have made attempts to improve their cognitive abilities by different means, among others, with the use of stimulants. Widely available stimulants such as caffeine, but also prescription substances such as methylphenidate and modafinil, are being used by healthy individuals to enhance cognitive performance.
OBJECTIVES
There is a lack of knowledge on the effects of prescription stimulants when taken by healthy individuals (as compared with patients) and especially on the effects of different substances across different cognitive domains.
METHODS
We conducted a pilot study with three arms in which male participants received placebo and one of three stimulants (caffeine, methylphenidate, modafinil) and assessed cognitive performance with a test battery that captures various cognitive domains.
RESULTS
Our study showed some moderate effects of the three stimulants tested. Methylphenidate had positive effects on self-reported fatigue as well as on declarative memory 24 hours after learning; caffeine had a positive effect on sustained attention; there was no significant effect of modafinil in any of the instruments of our test battery. All stimulants were well tolerated, and no trade-off negative effects on other cognitive domains were found.
CONCLUSIONS
The few observed significant positive effects of the tested stimulants were domain-specific and of rather low magnitude. The results can inform the use of stimulants for cognitive enhancement purposes as well as direct further research to investigate the effects of stimulants on specific cognitive domains that seem most promising, possibly by using tasks that are more demanding.
Topics: Adult; Attention; Caffeine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognition; Double-Blind Method; Fatigue; Humans; Male; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Nootropic Agents; Pilot Projects; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 33201262
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-020-05691-w -
The Lancet. Neurology Jan 2021Methylphenidate, modafinil, and amantadine are commonly prescribed medications for alleviating fatigue in multiple sclerosis; however, the evidence supporting their...
BACKGROUND
Methylphenidate, modafinil, and amantadine are commonly prescribed medications for alleviating fatigue in multiple sclerosis; however, the evidence supporting their efficacy is sparse and conflicting. Our goal was to compare the efficacy of these three medications with each other and placebo in patients with multiple sclerosis fatigue.
METHODS
In this randomised, placebo-controlled, four-sequence, four-period, crossover, double-blind trial, patients with multiple sclerosis who reported fatigue and had a Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) score of more than 33 were recruited at two academic multiple sclerosis centres in the USA. Participants received oral amantadine (up to 100 mg twice daily), modafinil (up to 100 mg twice daily), methylphenidate (up to 10 mg twice daily), or placebo, each given for up to 6 weeks. All patients were intended to receive all four study medications, in turn, in one of four different sequences with 2-week washout periods between medications. A biostatistician prepared a concealed allocation schedule, stratified by site, randomly assigning a sequence of medications in approximately a 1:1:1:1 ratio, in blocks of eight, to a consecutive series of numbers. The statistician and pharmacists had no role in assessing the participants or collecting data, and the participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to allocation. The primary outcome measure was the MFIS measured while taking the highest tolerated dose at week 5 of each medication period, analysed by use of a linear mixed-effect regression model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03185065 and is closed.
FINDINGS
Between Oct 4, 2017, and Feb 27, 2019, of 169 patients screened, 141 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of four medication administration sequences: 35 (25%) patients to the amantadine, placebo, modafinil, and methylphenidate sequence; 34 (24%) patients to the placebo, methylphenidate, amantadine, and modafinil sequence; 35 (25%) patients to the modafinil, amantadine, methylphenidate, and placebo sequence; and 37 (26%) patients to the methylphenidate, modafinil, placebo, and amantadine sequence. Data from 136 participants were available for the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome. The estimated mean values of MFIS total scores at baseline and the maximal tolerated dose were as follows: 51·3 (95% CI 49·0-53·6) at baseline, 40·6 (38·2-43·1) with placebo, 41·3 (38·8-43·7) with amantadine, 39·0 (36·6-41·4) with modafinil, and 38·6 (36·2-41·0) with methylphenidate (p=0·20 for the overall medication effect in the linear mixed-effect regression model). As compared with placebo (38 [31%] of 124 patients), higher proportions of participants reported adverse events while taking amantadine (49 [39%] of 127 patients), modafinil (50 [40%] of 125 patients), and methylphenidate (51 [40%] of 129 patients). Three serious adverse events occurred during the study (pulmonary embolism and myocarditis while taking amantadine, and a multiple sclerosis exacerbation requiring hospital admission while taking modafinil).
INTERPRETATION
Amantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate were not superior to placebo in improving multiple sclerosis fatigue and caused more frequent adverse events. The results of this study do not support an indiscriminate use of amantadine, modafinil, or methylphenidate for the treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis.
FUNDING
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Topics: Adult; Amantadine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Male; Methylphenidate; Middle Aged; Modafinil; Multiple Sclerosis; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 33242419
DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30354-9 -
European Journal of Neurology Sep 2021Narcolepsy is an uncommon hypothalamic disorder of presumed autoimmune origin that usually requires lifelong treatment. This paper aims to provide evidence-based...
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Narcolepsy is an uncommon hypothalamic disorder of presumed autoimmune origin that usually requires lifelong treatment. This paper aims to provide evidence-based guidelines for the management of narcolepsy in both adults and children.
METHODS
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN), European Sleep Research Society (ESRS) and European Narcolepsy Network (EU-NN) nominated a task force of 18 narcolepsy specialists. According to the EAN recommendations, 10 relevant clinical questions were formulated in PICO format. Following a systematic review of the literature (performed in Fall 2018 and updated in July 2020) recommendations were developed according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 10,247 references were evaluated, 308 studies were assessed and 155 finally included. The main recommendations can be summarized as follows: (i) excessive daytime sleepiness in adults-scheduled naps, modafinil, pitolisant, sodium oxybate (SXB), solriamfetol (all strong), methylphenidate, amphetamine derivates (both weak); (ii) cataplexy in adults-SXB, venlafaxine, clomipramine (all strong) and pitolisant (weak); (iii) excessive daytime sleepiness in children-scheduled naps, SXB (both strong), modafinil, methylphenidate, pitolisant, amphetamine derivates (all weak); (iv) cataplexy in children-SXB (strong), antidepressants (weak). Treatment choices should be tailored to each patient's symptoms, comorbidities, tolerance and risk of potential drug interactions.
CONCLUSION
The management of narcolepsy involves non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches with an increasing number of symptomatic treatment options for adults and children that have been studied in some detail.
Topics: Adult; Cataplexy; Child; Humans; Modafinil; Narcolepsy; Sleep; Sodium Oxybate
PubMed: 34173695
DOI: 10.1111/ene.14888 -
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 -
Human Brain Mapping Oct 2022Stimulants like methylphenidate, modafinil, and caffeine have repeatedly shown to enhance cognitive processes such as attention and memory. However, brain-functional... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Stimulants like methylphenidate, modafinil, and caffeine have repeatedly shown to enhance cognitive processes such as attention and memory. However, brain-functional mechanisms underlying such cognitive enhancing effects of stimulants are still poorly characterized. Here, we utilized behavioral and resting-state fMRI data from a double-blind randomized placebocontrolled study of methylphenidate, modafinil, and caffeine in 48 healthy male adults. The results show that performance in different memory tasks is enhanced, and functional connectivity (FC) specifically between the frontoparietal network (FPN) and default mode network (DMN) is modulated by the stimulants in comparison to placebo. Decreased negative connectivity between right prefrontal and medial parietal but also between medial temporal lobe and visual brain regions predicted stimulant-induced latent memory enhancement. We discuss dopamine's role in attention and memory as well as its ability to modulate FC between large-scale neural networks (e.g., FPN and DMN) as a potential cognitive enhancement mechanism.
Topics: Adult; Brain; Brain Mapping; Caffeine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognition; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Neural Pathways
PubMed: 35670369
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25949 -
Current Neurology and Neuroscience... Mar 2023This paper reviews how sleep is impacted in patients with Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS), focusing on sleep-related breathing disturbances and excessive daytime sleepiness... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
This paper reviews how sleep is impacted in patients with Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS), focusing on sleep-related breathing disturbances and excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS).
RECENT FINDINGS
Hypothalamic dysfunction may underlie several aspects of the PWS phenotype. Central sleep apnea (CSA) can persist beyond infancy. Nocturnal hypoventilation is common and may occur without central or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Adenotonsillectomy, a mainstay of OSA treatment, may cause velopharyngeal insufficiency. Growth hormone (GH) is considered safe, but close surveillance for OSA remains important. Cardiac autonomic dysfunction occurs during slow wave sleep and may increase the risk of cardiovascular events. EDS and narcolepsy are also common. Modafinil and pitolisant are treatment options currently being studied. Sleep disorders are prevalent in individuals with PWS. Sleep-related breathing disorders present as CSA in infancy and later in life as OSA and hypoventilation. GH therapy has improved the clinical outcomes of patients with PWS, but close surveillance and treatment for OSA is recommended. EDS can persist even after sleep-related breathing disorders are treated, and some individuals may even develop narcolepsy. Early recognition and treatment of sleep-related disorders may prevent morbidity and result in improved survival of patients with PWS.
Topics: Humans; Prader-Willi Syndrome; Hypoventilation; Polysomnography; Sleep; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Narcolepsy
PubMed: 36790642
DOI: 10.1007/s11910-023-01254-6