-
Neural Plasticity 2021Recent pharmacoepidemiologic studies suggest that pharmacological neuroenhancement (pNE) and mood enhancement are globally expanding phenomena with distinctly different... (Review)
Review
Recent pharmacoepidemiologic studies suggest that pharmacological neuroenhancement (pNE) and mood enhancement are globally expanding phenomena with distinctly different regional characteristics. Sociocultural and regulatory aspects, as well as health policies, play a central role in addition to medical care and prescription practices. The users mainly display self-involved motivations related to cognitive enhancement, emotional stability, and adaptivity. Natural stimulants, as well as drugs, represent substance abuse groups. The latter comprise purines, methylxanthines, phenylethylamines, modafinil, nootropics, antidepressants but also benzodiazepines, -adrenoceptor antagonists, and cannabis. Predominant pharmacodynamic target structures of these substances are the noradrenergic/dopaminergic and cholinergic receptor/transporter systems. Further targets comprise adenosine, serotonin, and glutamate receptors. Meta-analyses of randomized-controlled studies in healthy individuals show no or very limited verifiability of positive effects of pNE on attention, vigilance, learning, and memory. Only some members of the substance abuse groups, i.e., phenylethylamines and modafinil, display positive effects on attention and vigilance that are comparable to caffeinated drinks. However, the development of new antidementia drugs will increase the availability and the potential abuse of pNE. Social education, restrictive regulatory measures, and consistent medical prescription practices are essential to restrict the phenomenon of neuroenhancement with its social, medical, and ethical implications. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the highly dynamic field of pharmacological neuroenhancement and elaborates the dramatic challenges for the medical, sociocultural, and ethical fundaments of society.
Topics: Affect; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Drug Development; Ethics; Forecasting; Humans; Motivation; Nootropic Agents; Pharmacoepidemiology
PubMed: 33519929
DOI: 10.1155/2021/8823383 -
Pediatric Blood & Cancer Jan 2021Children with brain tumors may develop inattention, slow processing, and hypersomnia. Stimulant medications improve these problems, but their effect on growth, heart...
INTRODUCTION
Children with brain tumors may develop inattention, slow processing, and hypersomnia. Stimulant medications improve these problems, but their effect on growth, heart rate, and blood pressure (BP) are inadequately explored.
PROCEDURE
We retrospectively studied children with brain tumors treated at our institution that had data available for 1 year pre and 2 years on stimulant treatment. Tumor location, gender, radiation treatment (RT), age at RT, drug type, and hormone therapy were variables of interest.
RESULTS
We identified 65 children (35 males) that fulfilled eligibility criteria. Focal RT was utilized in 58; 11 additionally had whole brain RT; and seven received no RT. Thirty were treated for hypersomnia and inattention, eight for hypersomnia alone, and rest for inattention. Modafinil was the first drug in 18 (27.7%), and methylphenidate in the others. Forty-seven (72.3%), 45 (69.2%), and 49 (75.4%) were on thyroxine, cortisone, and growth hormones, respectively. There was no difference in pre- and post-stimulant body mass index (BMI), heart rate, and BP. There was also no difference between modafinil and methylphenidate groups. Rate of height acquisition slowed on stimulants (P = .0096). Thyroxine treatment correlated with increase in BMI after stimulants (P = .04). Younger age (P = .0003) and higher prestimulant BMI (P = .0063) correlated with increased heart rate on stimulants, while higher age at RT (P =.016) correlated with elevated systolic BP on stimulants. No associations were found with height acquisition and diastolic BP.
CONCLUSION
Stimulants are well tolerated by children with brain tumors that are appropriately managed for endocrine deficiencies, but may reduce the trajectory of height attainment.
Topics: Blood Pressure; Body Height; Body Mass Index; Body Weight; Brain Neoplasms; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Heart Rate; Humans; Male; Prognosis; Radiotherapy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33049111
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.28740 -
Sleep Medicine Dec 2023Modafinil is a common treatment for excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in narcolepsy. The long-term use of modafinil can lead to tolerance with the loss of efficacy and...
STUDY OBJECTIVES
Modafinil is a common treatment for excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in narcolepsy. The long-term use of modafinil can lead to tolerance with the loss of efficacy and the continuous increase of its dose. Pharmacological strategies to deal with the tolerance to modafinil are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of pitolisant-supported bridging during drug holidays in patients with tolerance to modafinil.
METHODS
Narcolepsy patients on monotherapy with modafinil who developed symptoms of tolerance were eligible. The following alternating therapy regimen was established: Monday to Friday patients continued on modafinil whereas Saturday and Sunday they switched to pitolisant to "bridge" the EDS symptoms. Patients were assessed at baseline and after three months with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and the Ullanlinna Narcolepsy Scale (UNS). Health-related quality of life (HrQol) was evaluated by EuroQol5D. Adverse events were documented in the patients' diaries.
RESULTS
41 patients aged 30.9 ± 5.6 years were included. After three months of the alternating therapy regimen, the symptoms of tolerance decreased and the modafinil dose could be reduced by 41% (p < 0.01) resulting in better safety. The EDS improved on ESS (baseline: 18.2 ± 4.2, follow-up: 12.6 ± 4.0, p < 0.0001) and UNS (baseline: 25.8 ± 7.9, follow-up: 18.9 ± 5.9, p < 0.0001). The HrQol increased significantly.
CONCLUSION
Patients with tolerance to modafinil could benefit from pitolisant-supported bridging during drug holidays. This alternating pharmacological strategy proved to be safe and helped to reduce EDS and to decrease the modafinil dose. Further randomized controlled studies are required to evaluate the different strategies to deal with the tolerance to modafinil.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
Clinical Trials.gov Identifier NCT05321355.
Topics: Humans; Modafinil; Quality of Life; Narcolepsy; Piperidines; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Benzhydryl Compounds
PubMed: 37839272
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2023.10.005 -
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 -
Psychopharmacology Aug 2022Modafinil has been proposed as a potentially effective clinical treatment for neuropsychiatric disorders characterized by cognitive control deficits. However, the...
RATIONALE
Modafinil has been proposed as a potentially effective clinical treatment for neuropsychiatric disorders characterized by cognitive control deficits. However, the precise effects of modafinil, particularly on brain network functions, are not completely understood.
OBJECTIVES
To address this gap, we examined the effects of modafinil on resting-state brain activity in 30 healthy adults using microstate analysis. Electroencephalographic (EEG) microstates are discrete voltage topographies generated from resting-state network activity.
METHODS
Using a placebo-controlled, within-subjects design, we examined changes to microstate parameters following placebo (0 mg), low (100 mg), and high (200 mg) modafinil doses. We also examined the functional significance of these microstates via associations between microstate parameters and event-related potential indexes of conflict monitoring and automatic error processing (N2 and error-related negativity) and behavioral responses (accuracy and RT) from a subsequent flanker interference task.
RESULTS
Five microstates emerged following each treatment condition, including four canonical microstates (A-D). Modafinil increased microstate C proportion and occurrence regardless of dose, relative to placebo. Modafinil also decreased microstate A proportion and microstate B proportion and occurrence relative to placebo. These modafinil-related changes in microstate parameters were not associated with similar changes in flanker ERPs or behavior. Finally, modafinil made transitions between microstates A and B less likely and transitions from A and B to C more likely.
CONCLUSIONS
Previous fMRI work has correlated microstates A and B with auditory and visual networks and microstate C with a salience network. Thus, our results suggest modafinil may deactivate large-scale sensory networks in favor of a higher order functional network during resting-state in healthy adults.
Topics: Adult; Brain; Cognition Disorders; Cognitive Dysfunction; Electroencephalography; Humans; Modafinil
PubMed: 35471613
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-022-06149-x -
Bipolar Disorders Jun 2022Cognitive impairments are an emerging treatment target in mood disorders, but currently there are no evidence-based pro-cognitive treatments indicated for patients in... (Review)
Review
Randomised controlled cognition trials in remitted patients with mood disorders published between 2015 and 2021: A systematic review by the International Society for Bipolar Disorders Targeting Cognition Task Force.
BACKGROUND
Cognitive impairments are an emerging treatment target in mood disorders, but currently there are no evidence-based pro-cognitive treatments indicated for patients in remission. With this systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Targeting Cognition Task force provides an update of the most promising treatments and methodological recommendations.
METHODS
The review included RCTs of candidate pro-cognitive interventions in fully or partially remitted patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. We followed the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from January 2015, when two prior systematic reviews were conducted, until February 2021. Two independent authors reviewed the studies with the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for Randomised trials.
RESULTS
We identified 16 RCTs (N = 859) investigating cognitive remediation (CR; k = 6; N = 311), direct current or repetitive magnetic stimulation (k = 3; N = 127), or pharmacological interventions (k = 7; N = 421). CR showed most consistent cognitive benefits, with two trials showing improvements on primary outcomes. Neuromodulatory interventions revealed no clear efficacy. Among pharmacological interventions, modafinil and lurasidone showed early positive results. Sources of bias included small samples, lack of pre-screening for objective cognitive impairment, no primary outcome and no information on allocation sequence masking.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence for pro-cognitive treatments in mood disorders is emerging. Recommendations are to increase sample sizes, pre-screen for impairment in targeted domain(s), select one primary outcome, aid transfer to real-world functioning, investigate multimodal interventions and include neuroimaging.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Cognition; Cognitive Dysfunction; Humans; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Mood Disorders
PubMed: 35174594
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.13193 -
Clinical Drug Investigation Nov 2019Parkinson's disease is a disorder growing in prevalence, disability, and deaths. Healthcare databases provide a 'real-world' perspective for millions of individuals. We...
BACKGROUND
Parkinson's disease is a disorder growing in prevalence, disability, and deaths. Healthcare databases provide a 'real-world' perspective for millions of individuals. We envisioned helping accelerate drug discovery by using these databases.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study were to assess the association of marketed medications with the risk of parkinsonism in four US claims databases and to evaluate the consistency of the association of β-adrenoreceptor modulation with parkinsonism.
METHODS
The study was conducted using a self-controlled cohort design in which subjects served as their own control. The time from treatment initiation until discontinuation or end of observation was the exposed period and a similar time preceding medication was the unexposed period. Medications were studied at ingredient and class level. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) and combined IRR were calculated.
RESULTS
We assessed 2181 drugs and 117,015,066 people. Diphenhydramine, isradipine, methylphenidate, armodafinil, and modafinil were associated with reduced risk for parkinsonism in at least two databases. Armodafinil, modafinil, methylphenidate, and the β-agonist albuterol were associated with a 56%, 54%, 39%, and 17% reduction in the risk of having parkinsonism, respectively. Isradipine results were heterogeneous and no significant association was found. Propranolol was associated with a 32% increased risk, the only β-adrenoceptor antagonist (β-blocker) associated with an increased risk.
CONCLUSIONS
Armodafinil, modafinil, and methylphenidate were associated with a decreased risk of parkinsonism, as were β-agonists. Of the β-blockers, only propranolol was associated with increased risk. Healthcare database analyses that incorporate scientific rigor provide insight and direction for drug discovery efforts. These findings show association not causality; however, they offer considerable support to the association between β-adrenergic receptor modulation and risk of Parkinson's disease.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Antiparkinson Agents; Cohort Studies; Databases, Factual; Drug Discovery; Female; Humans; Male; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Parkinson Disease, Secondary; Product Surveillance, Postmarketing
PubMed: 31327127
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-019-00830-4 -
Neuropharmacology Nov 2019Substance use disorders (SUD) are serious public health problems worldwide. Although significant progress has been made in understanding the neurobiology of drug reward... (Review)
Review
Substance use disorders (SUD) are serious public health problems worldwide. Although significant progress has been made in understanding the neurobiology of drug reward and the transition to addiction, effective pharmacotherapies for SUD remain limited and a majority of drug users relapse even after a period of treatment. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several medications for opioid, nicotine, and alcohol use disorders, whereas none are approved for the treatment of cocaine or other psychostimulant use disorders. The medications approved by the FDA for the treatment of SUD can be divided into two major classes - agonist replacement therapies, such as methadone and buprenorphine for opioid use disorders (OUD), nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and varenicline for nicotine use disorders (NUD), and antagonist therapies, such as naloxone for opioid overdose and naltrexone for promoting abstinence. In the present review, we primarily focus on the pharmacological rationale of agonist replacement strategies in treatment of opioid dependence, and the potential translation of this rationale to new therapies for cocaine use disorders. We begin by describing the neural mechanisms underlying opioid reward, followed by preclinical and clinical findings supporting the utility of agonist therapies in the treatment of OUD. We then discuss recent progress of agonist therapies for cocaine use disorders based on lessons learned from methadone and buprenorphine. We contend that future studies should identify agonist pharmacotherapies that can facilitate abstinence in patients who are motivated to quit their illicit drug use. Focusing on those that are able to achieve abstinence from cocaine will provide a platform to broaden the effectiveness of medication and psychosocial treatment strategies for this underserved population. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'New Vistas in Opioid Pharmacology'.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Dextroamphetamine; Dopamine Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins; Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors; Drug Development; Humans; Methadone; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Nicotinic Agonists; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Oxalates; Piperazines; Receptors, Opioid, mu; Tobacco Use Disorder; Tropanes; Varenicline
PubMed: 31009632
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2019.04.015 -
Cureus Jun 2022Introductionː Postoperative cognitive dysfunction has long-term consequences of increased mortality, loss of autonomy, and prolonged hospitalization. We sought to...
Introductionː Postoperative cognitive dysfunction has long-term consequences of increased mortality, loss of autonomy, and prolonged hospitalization. We sought to determine whether exposing patients to modafinil may attenuate or prevent this devastating syndrome from affecting the elderly postoperatively. Methodsː Adults aged 65 and older and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III physical status scheduled for elective noncardiac/non-neurosurgical surgery were included. Subjects were tested with the Trail Making Test (TMT) and Rey Auditory Visual Learning Test (RAVLT) preoperatively as well as in the immediate postoperative period, at 1 week, and at 3 months. After baseline testing, patients were randomized into three groups: 0) placebo pre and post-procedure; 1) modafinil only pre-procedure and placebo post-procedure; and 2) modafinil pre and post-procedure. A nonsurgical control group was also utilized. Resultsː Seventy-six subjects completed the trial 3 months post-surgery. The baseline RAVLT obtained was analyzed with 2-way ANOVA with repeated measures and showed improvement in learning in all groups (p = 0.03). At 1-week post-surgery, Group 0 subjects demonstrated no learning improvement in the RAVLT. However, there was a significant improvement in learning in both groups that received modafinil (p<0.01), and in the nonsurgical controls (p<0.01). This learning benefit normalized at 3 months. Conclusionː In this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we found that patients who received modafinil showed improvement in the RAVLT at 1 week. However, this learning benefit normalized at 3 months. Further study should examine dose effect, timing, and route of administration to determine if the effect can be enhanced and if in fact, wakefulness is improved post-surgically.
PubMed: 35891830
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.26204 -
Current Addiction Reports 2022This review summarizes recent clinical trial research on pharmacological treatments for substance use disorders, with a specific focus on agents with potential abuse... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
This review summarizes recent clinical trial research on pharmacological treatments for substance use disorders, with a specific focus on agents with potential abuse liability.
RECENT FINDINGS
Pharmacological treatments for substance use disorders may include gabapentinoids, baclofen, modafinil, ketamine, cannabinoids, gamma-hydroxybutyrate, and psychedelics. Gabapentinoids may decrease negative subjective effects of withdrawal in alcohol and cannabis use disorders. Cannabinoids similarly appear to decrease use and withdrawal symptoms in cannabis use disorder, while research shows stimulant medications may reduce cravings and increase abstinence in cocaine use disorder. Ketamine and psychedelics may help treat multiple substance use disorders. Ketamine may reduce withdrawal symptoms, promote abstinence, and diminish cravings in alcohol and cocaine use disorders and psychedelics may promote remission, decrease use, and reduce cravings in alcohol and opioid use disorders.
SUMMARY
Regardless of current regulatory approval statuses and potentials for abuse, multiple agents should not be dismissed prematurely as possible treatments for substance use disorders. However, further clinical research is needed before effective implementation can begin in practice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40429-022-00432-9.
PubMed: 35990796
DOI: 10.1007/s40429-022-00432-9