-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2014Dystonia is usually a lifelong condition with persistent pain and disability. Focal dystonia affects a single part of the body; generalised dystonia can affect most or... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Dystonia is usually a lifelong condition with persistent pain and disability. Focal dystonia affects a single part of the body; generalised dystonia can affect most or all of the body. It is more common in women, and some types of dystonia are more common in people of Ashkenazi descent.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, surgical treatments, and physical treatments for focal and generalised dystonia? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 19 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, amantadine, baclofen, benzatropine, biofeedback, botulinum toxins, bromocriptine, carbamazepine, carbidopa/levodopa, clonazepam, clozapine, deep brain stimulation of thalamus and globus pallidus, diazepam, gabapentin, haloperidol, lorazepam, myectomy (for focal dystonia), occupational therapy, ondansetron, physiotherapy, pregabalin, procyclidine, selective peripheral denervation (for focal dystonia), speech therapy, tizanidine, trazodone hydrochloride, and trihexyphenidyl.
Topics: Analgesics; Anticonvulsants; Dystonia; Humans; Physical Therapy Modalities; Speech Therapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25347760
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2012The effectiveness and safety of amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) for preventing and treating influenza A in adults has been systematically reviewed. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The effectiveness and safety of amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) for preventing and treating influenza A in adults has been systematically reviewed. However, little is known about these treatments in children and the elderly.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of AMT and RMT in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to June week 3, 2011) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2011).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing AMT and/or RMT with placebo, control, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of AMT or RMT, or both, or no intervention, in children and the elderly.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and assessed methodological quality. We resolved disagreements by consensus. In all comparisons except for one, we separately analysed the trials in children and the elderly using Review Manager software.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 12 studies involving 2494 participants (1586 children and adolescents and 908 elderly) compared AMT and RMT with placebo, paracetamol (one trial; 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials; 545 seniors). All studies were RCTs but most were still susceptible to bias. Two trials in the elderly had a high risk of bias because of incomplete outcome data. In one of those trials there was also a lack of outcome assessment blinding. Risk of bias was unclear in 10 studies due to unclear random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Only two trials in children were considered to have a low risk of bias.AMT was effective in preventing influenza A in children. A total of 773 participants were included in this outcome (risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza in the control group was 10 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). The quality of the evidence was considered low. For treatment purposes, RMT was beneficial for abating fever on day three of treatment. For this purpose one study was selected with low risk of bias and included 69 children (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was 14 per 100, 95% CI 5 to 34. The quality of the evidence was moderate.RMT did not show a prophylactic effect against influenza in the elderly, but the quality of evidence was considered very low. There were 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41, for an assumed risk of 17 per 100 and a corresponding risk in the RMT group of 7 per 100, 95% CI 2 to 23). We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria.There was no evidence of adverse effects of AMT and RMT in children or an adverse effect of RMT in the elderly. We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
AMT is effective in preventing influenza A in children but the NNTB is high (NNTB: 12 (95% CI 9 to 17). RMT probably helps the abatement of fever on day three of treatment, but the quality of the evidence is poor. Due to the small number of available studies, we could not reach a definitive conclusion on the safety of AMT or the effectiveness of RMT in preventing influenza in children and the elderly.
Topics: Adolescent; Aged; Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Child; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rimantadine; Sex Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 22258950
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002745.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2004Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but these drugs are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but these drugs are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value and concerns about possible adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety ("effects") of amantadine and rimantadine in healthy adults.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November week 2, 2003), EMBASE (January 1990 to September 2003) and the reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers, researchers and authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with placebo, control antivirals or no intervention, or comparing doses or schedules of amantadine and/or rimantadine in healthy adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For prevention trials the numbers of participants with clinical influenza (influenza-like-illness or ILI), i.e. confirmed influenza A, and adverse effects were analysed. Analysis for treatment trials included the mean duration of fever and length of hospital stay, and the number of adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
Amantadine prevented 25% of ILI cases (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 36%), and 61% of influenza A cases (95% CI 35% to 76%). Amantadine reduced duration of fever by one day (95% CI 0.7 to 1.3). Rimantadine demonstrated comparable effectiveness, but there were fewer trials and the results for prevention were not statistically significant. Both amantadine and rimantadine induced significant gastrointestinal adverse effects. Adverse effects of the central nervous system and study withdrawals were significantly more common with amantadine than rimantadine.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
Amantadine and rimantadine have comparable effectiveness in the prevention and treatment of influenza A in healthy adults, although rimantadine causes fewer adverse effects than amantadine.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rimantadine
PubMed: 15266442
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001169.pub2 -
BMJ Open Jul 2019The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the management of agitated behaviours following traumatic brain...
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the management of agitated behaviours following traumatic brain injury (TBI).
METHODS
We performed a search strategy in PubMed, OvidMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Directory of Open Access Journals, LILACS, Web of Science and Prospero (up to 10 December 2018) for published and unpublished evidence on the risks and benefits of 9 prespecified medications classes used to control agitated behaviours following TBI. We included all randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies examining the effects of medications administered to control agitated behaviours in TBI patients. Included studies were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: (1) agitated behaviour was the presenting symptom; (2) agitated behaviour was not the presenting symptom, but was measured as an outcome variable; and (3) safety of pharmacological interventions administered to control agitated behaviours was measured.
RESULTS
Among the 181 articles assessed for eligibility, 21 studies were included. Of the studies suggesting possible benefits, propranolol reduced maximum intensities of agitation per week and physical restraint use, methylphenidate improved anger measures following 6 weeks of treatment, valproic acid reduced weekly agitated behaviour scale ratings and olanzapine reduced irritability, aggressiveness and insomnia between weeks 1 and 3 of treatment. Amantadine showed variable effects and may increase the risk of agitation in the critically ill. In three studies evaluating safety outcomes, antipsychotics were associated with an increased duration of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) in unadjusted analyses. Small sample sizes, heterogeneity and an unclear risk of bias were limits.
CONCLUSIONS
Propranolol, methylphenidate, valproic acid and olanzapine may offer some benefit; however, they need to be further studied. Antipsychotics may increase the length of PTA. More studies on tailored interventions and continuous evaluation of safety and efficacy throughout acute, rehabilitation and outpatient settings are needed.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42016033140.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychoses, Substance-Induced; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31289093
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029604 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2008Although amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) are used to relieve or treat influenza A symptoms in healthy adults, little is known about the effectiveness and safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) are used to relieve or treat influenza A symptoms in healthy adults, little is known about the effectiveness and safety of these antivirals in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to systematically consider evidence on the effectiveness and safety of AMT and RMT in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2007, issue 3); MEDLINE (1966 to July 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2007).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing AMT and/or RMT in children and the elderly with placebo, control, other antivirals or comparing different doses or schedules of AMT and/or RMT or no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and assessed methodological quality. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. In all comparisons except for one, the trials in children and in the elderly were analysed separately. Data were analysed and reported using Cochrane Review Manager 4.2. software.
MAIN RESULTS
In children, RMT was effective in the abatement of fever on day three of treatment. AMT showed a prophylactic effect against influenza A infection. AMT and RMT were not related to an increase in the occurrence of adverse effects. RMT also was considered to be well tolerated by the elderly, but showed no prophylactic effect. Different doses were comparable in the prophylaxis of influenza in the elderly, as well as in reporting adverse effects. Zanamivir prevented influenza A more effectively than RMT in the elderly.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
AMT was effective in the prophylaxis of influenza A in children. As confounding matters might have affected our findings, caution should be taken when considering which patients should to be given this prophylactic. Our conclusions about effectiveness of both antivirals for the treatment of influenza A in children were limited to a proven benefit of RMT in the abatement of fever on day three of treatment. Due to the small number of available studies we could not reach a definitive conclusion on the safety of AMT or the effectiveness of RMT in preventing influenza in children and the elderly.
Topics: Aged; Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Child; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rimantadine; Sex Factors
PubMed: 18254006
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002745.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2006Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but they are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but they are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value and concerns about possible adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and safety ("effects") of amantadine and rimantadine in healthy adults.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (2003 to August Week 4, 2005), EMBASE (October 2003 to July 2005) and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with placebo, control medication or no intervention, or comparing doses or schedules of amantadine and/or rimantadine in healthy adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For prophylaxis (prevention) trials the numbers of participants with clinical influenza (influenza-like-illness or ILI) or with confirmed influenza A and adverse effects were analysed. Analysis for treatment trials was of the mean duration of fever, length of hospital stay and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
Amantadine prevented 25% of ILI cases (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 36%), and 61% of influenza A cases (95% CI 35% to 76%). Amantadine reduced duration of fever by one day (95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). Rimantadine demonstrated comparable effectiveness, but there were fewer trials and the results for prophylaxis were not statistically significant. Both amantadine and rimantadine induced significant gastrointestinal adverse effects. Adverse effects of the central nervous system and study withdrawals were significantly more common with amantadine than rimantadine. Neither drug affected the rate of viral shedding from the nose and the course of asymptomatic influenza.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Amantadine and rimantadine have comparable efficacy and effectiveness in relieving or treating symptoms of influenza A in healthy adults, although rimantadine induces fewer adverse effects than amantadine. The effectiveness of both drugs in interrupting transmission is probably low. Routine use of both drugs should be discouraged and both drugs should only be used when all other measures fail.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Emergencies; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rimantadine; Virus Shedding
PubMed: 16625539
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001169.pub3 -
Medicine Apr 2024Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. Dementia severity was assessed mainly through cognitive function, psychobehavioral symptoms, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. Dementia severity was assessed mainly through cognitive function, psychobehavioral symptoms, and daily living ability. Currently, there are not many drugs that can be selected to treat mild to moderate AD, and the value of drugs remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs), memantine, and sodium oligomannate (GV-971) in the treatment of patients with AD. Additionally, molecular docking analysis will be used to investigate the binding affinities of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine with key receptor proteins associated with AD, including beta-amyloid (Abeta), microtubule-associated protein (MAP), apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4), and Mitofusin-2 (MFN2), to further validate the results of the meta-analysis.
METHODS
We obtained clinical trials characterized by randomization, placebo control, and double-blinded methodologies concerning ChEIs, memantine, and GV-971. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.4 software. Molecular docking was also conducted to evaluate the results.
RESULTS
All drugs improved the cognitive function, with the effect value ranging from -1.23 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.30) for 20 mg memantine to -3.29 (95% CI -4.14 to -2.45) for 32 mg galantamine. Although 32 mg galanthamine and GV-971 did not improve the clinicians' Global Impression of Change scale, other drugs showed significant results compared with placebo. On NPI, only 10 mg of donepezil and 24 mg of galantamine had improvement effects. On ADCS/ADL, only 20 mg memantine and 900 mg GV-971 had no significant difference from the placebo. Donepezil 5 mg and GV-971 900 mg did not increase the drug withdrawal rates due to various reasons or adverse reactions when compared to the placebo. Donepezil demonstrated superior binding to the protein and exhibited greater efficacy compared to other drugs.
CONCLUSION
ChEIs, memantine, and GV-971 all can slow the progression of AD but have different effects on respective assessments. Donepezil and GV-971 were relatively well tolerated.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Donepezil; Galantamine; Memantine; Molecular Docking Simulation; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 38640313
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037799 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2010Evidence for the efficacy of treatments for autism has improved in recent years. In this systematic review the evidence for both drug and non-drug treatments is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Evidence for the efficacy of treatments for autism has improved in recent years. In this systematic review the evidence for both drug and non-drug treatments is appraised and clinical guidance is provided for their use.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of early intensive multidisciplinary intervention programmes in children with autism? What are the effects of dietary interventions in children with autism? What are the effects of drug treatments in children with autism? What are the effects of non-drug treatments in children with autism? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2009 (Clinical evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 30 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: applied behavioural analysis; auditory integration training; Autism Preschool Programme; casein-free diet; chelation; Child's Talk programme; cognitive behavioural therapy; digestive enzymes; EarlyBird programme; facilitated communication; Floortime therapy; gluten-free diet; immunoglobulins; melatonin; memantine; methylphenidate; More Than Words programme; music therapy; olanzapine; omega-3 fish oil; picture exchange communication system; Portage scheme; probiotics; relationship development interventions; risperidone; secretin; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); sensory integration training; social stories; social skills training; Son-Rise programme; TEACCH; vitamin A; vitamin B6 (pyridoxine) plus magnesium; and vitamin C.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Autistic Disorder; Caseins; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Infant; Language Disorders; Magnesium; Memantine; Secretin
PubMed: 21729335
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2012Multiple sclerosis is the most common cause of neurological disability in young adults. Irreversible disability can occur, but life expectancy is generally not affected. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Multiple sclerosis is the most common cause of neurological disability in young adults. Irreversible disability can occur, but life expectancy is generally not affected.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions aimed at reducing relapse rates and disability in people with multiple sclerosis? What are the effects of interventions to improve symptoms during acute relapse? What are the effects of treatments for fatigue, spasticity, and multidisciplinary care on disability in people with multiple sclerosis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 71 systematic reviews, RCTs, and observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following key interventions: amantadine, azathioprine, behaviour modification, botulinum toxin, corticosteroids, exercise, gabapentin, inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation, interferon beta, intrathecal baclofen, intravenous immunoglobulin, methotrexate, mitoxantrone, modafinil, natalizumab, oral drug treatments, parenteral glatiramer acetate, physiotherapy, and plasma exchange.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Humans; Life Expectancy; Multiple Sclerosis; Plasma Exchange; Plasmapheresis; Sex Factors
PubMed: 22321967
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2010Dementia is characterised by chronic, global, non-reversible deterioration in memory, executive function, and personality. Speech and motor function may also be impaired. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Dementia is characterised by chronic, global, non-reversible deterioration in memory, executive function, and personality. Speech and motor function may also be impaired.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments on cognitive symptoms of dementia (Alzheimer's, Lewy body, or vascular)? What are the effects of treatments on behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (Alzheimer's, Lewy body, or vascular)? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 33 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine), antidepressants (clomipramine, fluoxetine, imipramine, sertraline), antipsychotics (haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone), aromatherapy, benzodiazepines (diazepam, lorazepam), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), cognitive stimulation, exercise, ginkgo biloba, memantine, mood stabilisers (carbamazepine, sodium valproate/valproic acid), music therapy, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), omega 3 (fish oil), reminiscence therapy, and statins.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Dementia; Galantamine; Humans; Memantine
PubMed: 21726471
DOI: No ID Found