-
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : JAD 2017We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether memantine was beneficial for the treatment of depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder (MDD) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether memantine was beneficial for the treatment of depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD). The analysis included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of memantine in MDD and BD. The primary outcome measures for efficacy and safety were response rate and all-cause discontinuation, respectively. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. We identified six trials including 451 patients: MDD, four trials (n = 189), three of which studied memantine augmentation for antidepressants; BD, two trials (n = 262), both on memantine augmentation for mood stabilizers. The mean study duration was 8.33 weeks, and the mean age of patients was 39.9 years. Memantine was not superior to placebo with regard to response rate (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.70-1.20, I2 = 72%), remission rate, improvement of depressive symptoms scale score, all-cause discontinuation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.60-1.18, I2 = 0%), discontinuation due to inefficacy and adverse events, or incidence of individual adverse events including decreased appetite, dizziness, nausea, and sedation. Although we conducted sensitivity analyses of the response rate to determine the reasons for the heterogeneity (diagnosis, age of patients, memantine dose, memantine augmentation, geographical region, and statistical population), we did not seek confounding factors. Memantine did not improve the treatment efficacy for depressive symptoms in MDD and BD patients. Long-term study of memantine for depression is required.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Memantine
PubMed: 28222534
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-161251 -
Health Technology Assessment... Feb 2009To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness of amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir for seasonal and post-exposure prophylaxis of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness of amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir for seasonal and post-exposure prophylaxis of influenza.
DATA SOURCES
A MEDLINE search strategy was used and searches were carried out in July 2007.
REVIEW METHODS
An independent health economic model was developed based on a review of existing cost-effectiveness models and clinical advice.The model draws together a broad spectrum of evidence relating to the costs and consequences associated with influenza and its prevention. Where direct evidence concerning the effectiveness of prophylaxis within specific model subgroups was lacking, the model uses estimates from mixed subgroups or extrapolates from other mutually exclusive subgroups.
RESULTS
Twenty-six published references relating to 22 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness review, along with one unpublished report. Eight, six and nine RCTs were included for amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir respectively. The study quality was variable and gaps in the evidence base limited the assessment of the clinical effectiveness of the interventions. For seasonal prophylaxis, there was limited evidence for the efficacy of amantadine in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza (SLCI) in healthy adults [relative risk (RR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-2.03]. Oseltamivir was effective in preventing SLCI, particularly when used in at-risk elderly subjects (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.63). The preventative efficacy of zanamivir was most notable in at-risk adults and adolescents (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07-0.44), and healthy and at-risk elderly subjects (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02-1.72). For post-exposure prophylaxis, data on the use of amantadine were again limited: in adolescents an RR of 0.10 (95% CI 0.03-0.34) was reported for the prevention of SLCI. Oseltamivir was effective in households of mixed composition (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.45). The efficacy of zanamivir in post-exposure prophylaxis within households was also reported (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.33). Interventions appeared to be well tolerated. Limited evidence was available for the effectiveness of the interventions in preventing complications and hospitalisation and in minimising length of illness and time to return to normal activities. No clinical effectiveness data were identified for health-related quality of life or mortality outcomes. With the exception of at-risk children, the incremental cost-utility of seasonal influenza prophylaxis is expected to be in the range 38,000-428,000 pounds per QALY gained (depending on subgroup). The cost-effectiveness ratios for oseltamivir and zanamivir as post-exposure prophylaxis are expected to be below 30,000 pounds per QALY gained in healthy children, at-risk children, healthy elderly and at-risk elderly individuals. Despite favourable clinical efficacy estimates, the incorporation of recent evidence of viral resistance to amantadine led to it being dominated in every economic comparison.
CONCLUSIONS
All three interventions showed some efficacy for seasonal and post-exposure prophylaxis. However, weaknesses and gaps in the clinical evidence base are directly relevant to the interpretation of the health economic model and rendered the use of advanced statistical analyses inappropriate. These data limitations should be borne in mind in interpreting the findings of the review.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Influenza, Human; Models, Economic; Oseltamivir; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Premedication; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seasons; Treatment Outcome; Zanamivir
PubMed: 19215705
DOI: 10.3310/hta13110 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Apr 2012Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials in patients with influenza suggest a lack of evidence about the effects of antiviral therapy on several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials in patients with influenza suggest a lack of evidence about the effects of antiviral therapy on several patient-important outcomes of influenza.
PURPOSE
To systematically review observational studies for benefits and harms of oseltamivir, zanamivir, amantadine, or rimantadine in the treatment of influenza.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SIGLE, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Panteleimon, and LILACS up to November 2010; contact with pharmaceutical companies; and reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational studies in any language that compared single antiviral therapy with no therapy or other antiviral therapy, or that had no comparator, for influenza or influenza-like illness.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two independent investigators extracted data. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
DATA SYNTHESIS
74 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses of the few studies providing effects with adjustment for confounders suggest that, in high-risk populations, oral oseltamivir may reduce mortality (odds ratio, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43]; low-quality evidence), hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.66 to 0.89]; low-quality evidence), and duration of symptoms (33 hours [CI, 21 to 45 hours]; very low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Earlier treatment with oseltamivir was generally associated with better outcomes. Inhaled zanamivir may lead to shorter symptom duration (23 hours [CI, 17 to 28 hours]; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer hospitalizations (odds ratio, 0.66 [CI, 0.37 to 1.18]) but more complications than no treatment. Direct comparison of oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir suggests no important differences in key outcomes. Data from 1 study suggest that oral amantadine may reduce mortality and pneumonia associated with influenza A. No included study evaluated rimantadine.
LIMITATIONS
Mortality was assessed in high-risk patients, and generalizability is limited. The overall body of evidence is limited by risk for confounding and selection, reporting, and publication bias.
CONCLUSION
Therapy with oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir may provide a net benefit over no treatment of influenza. However, as with the randomized trials, the confidence in the estimates of the effects for decision making is low to very low. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES: World Health Organization and McMaster University.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; Hospitalization; Humans; Influenza, Human; Oseltamivir; Rimantadine; Treatment Outcome; Zanamivir
PubMed: 22371849
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-7-201204030-00411 -
Neurodegenerative Disease Management Dec 2020Fatigue is a debilitating symptom of multiple sclerosis (MS) affecting at least 75% of patients. Amantadine has been tested for MS-related fatigue treatment but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Fatigue is a debilitating symptom of multiple sclerosis (MS) affecting at least 75% of patients. Amantadine has been tested for MS-related fatigue treatment but efficacy and safety remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of qualified literatures searched until 30 April 2020. A total of 11 clinical trials were included. The meta-analysis revealed improvement of MS-related fatigue with amantadine treatment using the patients' subjective responses and validated fatigue scales. Amantadine is the most studied drug that has shown improvement of MS-related fatigue, with mild side effects and good tolerability. Larger studies using a standard measurement for MS-related fatigue are recommended to improve the quality of evidence. Safety and efficacy on long-term use needs further investigation.
Topics: Amantadine; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Male; Multiple Sclerosis
PubMed: 33012266
DOI: 10.2217/nmt-2020-0030 -
European Journal of Pain (London,... Aug 2019N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors are involved in pain signalling and neuroplasticity. Memantine has been shown to have analgesic properties in pre-clinical and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors are involved in pain signalling and neuroplasticity. Memantine has been shown to have analgesic properties in pre-clinical and small clinical studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of memantine to prevent or reduce chronic pain.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched for comparative trials using memantine, either against placebo or active medications, for chronic pain in adults. Pain relief was considered our primary outcome. Meta-analyses were conducted if outcomes were reported in two or more studies. Outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality was assessed using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Among 454 citations, 15 studies were included with populations predominantly consisting of neuropathic conditions and fibromyalgia. Overall, we observed unclear reporting of randomization and allocation methods, apart from potential for publication bias. Among the 11 studies looking at chronic pain treatment, the difference in end pain score with memantine was not significant: MD = -0.58 units (95% CI -1.31, 0.14); I = 82% (low quality). In two surgical studies using memantine for pain prevention, memantine decreased pain intensity: MD = -1.02 units (95% CI -1.38, -0.66); I = 0%. Dizziness was significantly more common with memantine: RR = 4.90 (95% CI 1.26, 18.99); I = 52% (moderate quality).
CONCLUSION
The current evidence regarding the use of memantine for chronic pain is limited and uncertain. Despite its potential, pain relief achieved in clinical studies is small and is associated with an increase in dizziness.
SIGNIFICANCE
Despite a sound rationale, the benefit of using memantine for chronic pain is unclear. Our systematic review and meta-analysis show that memantine may have the potential to decrease pain. However, it can also increase common adverse effects. Considering the small number of studies with potential for bias and inconclusive evidence, there was low to very low certainty. Hence, no clear recommendations can be made about its routine clinical use until larger and more definitive studies are conducted.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Memantine; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 30848504
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.1393 -
The American Journal of Geriatric... Apr 2015To clarify whether memantine is more efficacious in several outcomes and safer than placebo in patients with Lewy body disorders, we performed a meta-analysis of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To clarify whether memantine is more efficacious in several outcomes and safer than placebo in patients with Lewy body disorders, we performed a meta-analysis of memantine in patients with Lewy body disorders.
METHODS
The meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials of memantine for Lewy body disorders in all patients with Lewy body disorders. Motor function, activities of daily living, Neuropsychiatric Inventory, Mini-Mental State Exam, discontinuation rate, and individual side effects were evaluated.
RESULTS
No significant effects of memantine on motor function scores, Mini-Mental State Exam scores, Neuropsychiatric Inventory scores, and activity of daily living scores were found. However, memantine was superior to placebo in Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change scores (standardized mean difference: -0.26; 95% confidence interval: -0.51 to -0.02; z = 2.08; p = 0.04; two studies; N = 258). Dropout due to all causes, inefficacy, or adverse events were similar in both groups. Moreover, no significant differences in serious adverse events, somnolence/tiredness, stroke, dizziness/vertigo, and confusion were found between the groups.
CONCLUSION
Our results suggest that memantine did not have a benefit for the treatment of Lewy body disorders in cognition and motor function. However, memantine may be superior to placebo for the overall impression of the disorders. Further, memantine is well tolerated.
Topics: Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Lewy Body Disease; Memantine; Patient Dropouts
PubMed: 24406251
DOI: 10.1016/j.jagp.2013.11.007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Autism spectrum disorder (ASD; also known as autism) is a developmental disability that begins in childhood and is typically seen in around 1% to 2% of children. It is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD; also known as autism) is a developmental disability that begins in childhood and is typically seen in around 1% to 2% of children. It is characterised by social communication difficulties and repetitive and restricted behaviours and routines that can have a negative impact on a child's quality of life, achievement at school, and social interactions with others. It has been hypothesised that memantine, which is traditionally used to treat dementia, may be effective in reducing the core symptoms of autism as well as some co-occurring symptoms such as hyperactivity and language difficulties. If memantine is being used to treat the core symptoms of autism, it is important to review the evidence of its effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of memantine on the core symptoms of autism, including, but not limited to, social communication and stereotypical behaviours.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and three trials registers up to February 2022. We also checked reference lists of key studies and checked with experts in the field for any additional papers. We searched for retractions of the included studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Retraction Watch Database. No retractions or corrections were found.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any dose of memantine compared with placebo in autistic people. We also included RCTs in which only one group received memantine, but both groups received the same additional therapy (e.g. a behaviour intervention).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were core autism symptoms and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were language, intelligence, memory, adaptive behaviour, hyperactivity, and irritability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs (two double-blind and one single-blind) with 204 participants that examined the short-term effect (immediately postintervention) of memantine in autistic people. Two studies took place in the USA and the other in Iran. All three studies focused on children and adolescents, with a mean age of 9.40 (standard deviation (SD) 2.26) years. Most participants were male (range across studies 73% to 87%). The diagnosis of ASD was based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition; 4th edition, text revision; or 5th edition). To confirm the diagnosis, one study used the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R); one used ADOS, ADI-R or the Autism Diagnostic Interview Screener; and one used the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale. Dosage of memantine was based on the child's weight and ranged from 3 mg to 15 mg per day. Comparisons Two studies examined memantine compared with placebo; in the other study, both groups had a behavioural intervention while only one group was given memantine. Risk of bias All studies were rated at high risk of bias overall, as they were at high or unclear risk of bias across all but four domains in one study, and all but two domains in the other two studies. One study was funded by Forest Laboratories, LLC, (Jersey City, New Jersey), Allergan. The study sponsor was involved in the study design, data collection (via contracted clinical investigator sites), analysis and interpretation of data, and the decision to present these results. The other two studies reported no financial support or sponsorship; though in one of the two, the study medication was an in-kind contribution from Forest Pharmaceuticals. Primary outcomes There was no clear evidence of a difference between memantine and placebo with respect to severity of core symptoms of autism, although we are very uncertain about the evidence. The standardised mean difference in autism symptoms score in the intervention group versus the control group was -0.74 standard deviations (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.07 to 0.58; 2 studies, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence; medium effect size); lower scores indicate less severe autistic symptoms. Two studies (144 participants) recorded adverse effects that the authors deemed related to the study and found there may be no difference between memantine and placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.39; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes There may be no difference between memantine and placebo on language (2 studies, 144 participants; low-certainty evidence); memory or adaptive behaviour (1 study, 23 participants; both low-certainty evidence); or hyperactivity or irritability (1 study, 121 participants; both low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is unclear whether memantine is an effective treatment for autistic children. None of the three included trials reported on the effectiveness of memantine in adults. Further studies using rigorous designs, larger samples, longer follow-up and clinically meaningful outcome measures that are important to autistic people and their families will strengthen our knowledge of the effects of memantine in autism.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Memantine; Odds Ratio; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36006807
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013845.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Postpolio syndrome (PPS) may affect survivors of paralytic poliomyelitis and is characterised by a complex of neuromuscular symptoms leading to a decline in physical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postpolio syndrome (PPS) may affect survivors of paralytic poliomyelitis and is characterised by a complex of neuromuscular symptoms leading to a decline in physical functioning. The effectiveness of pharmacological treatment and rehabilitation management in PPS is not yet established. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials for the effect of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment for PPS compared to placebo, usual care or no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 21 July 2014: Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus. We also checked reference lists of all relevant articles, searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database and trial registers and contacted investigators known to be involved in research in this area.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of any form of pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment for people with PPS. The primary outcome was self perceived activity limitations and secondary outcomes were muscle strength, muscle endurance, fatigue, pain and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 pharmacological (modafinil, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), pyridostigmine, lamotrigine, amantadine, prednisone) and three non-pharmacological (muscle strengthening, rehabilitation in a warm climate (that is temperature ± 25°C, dry and sunny) and a cold climate (that is temperature ± 0°C, rainy or snowy), static magnetic fields) studies with a total of 675 participants with PPS in this review. None of the included studies were completely free from any risk of bias, the most prevalent risk of bias being lack of blinding.There was moderate- and low-quality evidence that IVIg has no beneficial effect on activity limitations in the short term and long term, respectively, and inconsistency in the evidence for effectiveness on muscle strength. IVIg caused minor adverse events in a substantial proportion of the participants. Results of one trial provided very low-quality evidence that lamotrigine might be effective in reducing pain and fatigue, resulting in fewer activity limitations without generating adverse events. Data from two single trials suggested that muscle strengthening of thumb muscles (very low-quality evidence) and static magnetic fields (moderate-quality evidence) are safe and beneficial for improving muscle strength and pain, respectively, with unknown effects on activity limitations. Finally, there was evidence varying from very low quality to high quality that modafinil, pyridostigmine, amantadine, prednisone and rehabilitation in a warm or cold climate are not beneficial in PPS.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to insufficient good-quality data and lack of randomised studies, it was impossible to draw definite conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions for PPS. Results indicated that IVIg, lamotrigine, muscle strengthening exercises and static magnetic fields may be beneficial but need further investigation to clarify whether any real and meaningful effect exists.
Topics: Cold Temperature; Exercise Therapy; Hot Temperature; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Lamotrigine; Muscle Fatigue; Muscle Strength; Postpoliomyelitis Syndrome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triazines
PubMed: 25984923
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007818.pub3 -
Ageing Research Reviews Dec 2022Dementia is a progressive neurodegenerative syndrome that has no cure. Although a significant proportion of people with dementia progress into the severe stages of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a progressive neurodegenerative syndrome that has no cure. Although a significant proportion of people with dementia progress into the severe stages of the disease, evidence on the clinical effectiveness of treatments for people with severe dementia remains limited.
AIMS
To systematically review the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for people living with severe dementia and assess the quality of the evidence.
METHOD
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and online clinical trial registers up to January 2022, for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) in people living with severe dementia. Quality and risk of bias were assessed independently by two authors.
RESULTS
A total of 30 trials met our inclusion criteria of which 14 evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, and 16 evaluated a non-pharmacological intervention. Pharmacological treatments: Meta-analyses indicated that pharmacological treatments (donepezil: 10 mg, 5 mg; galantamine: 24 mg; memantine: 10 mg) are associated with better outcomes compared to placebo for: severity of symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI 0.26-0.48; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.26; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and clinical impression of change (Relative Risk (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.14-1.57; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacological treatments were also more likely to reduce mortality compared to placebo (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.89; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). Non-pharmacological treatments: Five trials were included in the meta-analyses of non-pharmacological interventions (multi-sensory stimulation, needs assessment, and activities-based interventions); results showed that non-pharmacological interventions may reduce neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia compared to usual care (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.06; low certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that pharmacological treatments may decrease disease severity and improve function for people with severe dementia. Non-pharmacological treatments are probably effective in reducing neuropsychiatric symptoms but the quality of evidence remains low. There is an urgent need for high-quality evidence for other outcomes and for developing service-user informed interventions for this under-served group.
Topics: Humans; Dementia; Activities of Daily Living; Memantine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36243355
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101758 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2022Nonarteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy (NAION) is the second most common cause of optic nerve-related permanent visual loss in adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nonarteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy (NAION) is the second most common cause of optic nerve-related permanent visual loss in adults.
AIM
We aimed to analyze the efficacy of the noninvasive and minimally invasive therapeutic options of NAION.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to 10 June 2019 to identify the studies that report on the effect of different therapies on visual acuity (VA) and visual field (VF). Weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for these outcomes. The efficacy of steroids was investigated in quantitative, oxygen, steroid plus erythropoietin (EPO), levodopa/carbidopa, memantine, and heparin-induced extracorporeal LDL/fibrinogen precipitation (HELP) therapies and other therapeutic modalities in qualitative synthesis.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were found to be eligible. We found that steroid therapy compared to control did not improve VA ( = 0.182, WMD = 0.14, 95% CI: -0.07, 0.35) or VF ( = 0.853, WMD = 0.16, 95% CI: -1.54, 1.86). Qualitative analysis could be performed for oxygen, steroid plus EPO, and HELP as well, however, none of them showed VA and VF benefit. Two individual studies found memantine and levodopa beneficial regarding VA.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review did not reveal any effective treatment. Further investigations are needed to find therapy for NAION.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Levodopa; Memantine; Optic Neuropathy, Ischemic; Oxygen; Steroids; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 35270411
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052718