-
Therapeutic Advances in Rare Disease 2022The rare inherited autosomal recessive disease Friedreich ataxia (FA) causes progressive neurodegenerative changes and disability in patients. A systematic literature... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The rare inherited autosomal recessive disease Friedreich ataxia (FA) causes progressive neurodegenerative changes and disability in patients. A systematic literature review (SLR) was carried out to understand and summarize the published efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions in this disease.
METHODS
Database searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane by two independent reviewers. In addition, trial registries and conference proceedings were hand-searched.
RESULTS
Thirty-two publications were deemed eligible according to PICOS criteria. Twenty-four publications detail randomized controlled trials. The most frequently identified therapeutic intervention was idebenone ( = 11), followed by recombinant erythropoietin ( = 6), omaveloxolone ( = 3), and amantadine hydrochloride ( = 2). Other therapeutic interventions were investigated in one publication: A0001, CoQ10, creatine, deferiprone, interferon-γ-1b, the L-carnitine levorotatory form of 5-hydroxytryptophan, luvadaxistat, resveratrol, RT001, and vatiquinone (EPI-743). These studies included patients from 8 to 73 years old, and disease duration varied from 4.7 to 19 years. Disease severity as per the mean GAA1 and GAA2 allele repeat length ranged from 350 to 930 and 620 to 987 nucleotides, respectively. Most frequently reported efficacy outcomes were the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS, = 10), the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (modified FARS and FARS-neuro, = 12), the Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA, = 7), and the Activities of Daily Living scale (ADL, = 8). Each of these assesses the severity of disability in FA patients. In many studies, patients with FA deteriorated according to these severity scales regardless of treatment, or inconclusive results were found. Generally, these therapeutic interventions were well-tolerated and safe. Serious adverse events were atrial fibrillation ( = 1), craniocerebral injury ( = 1), and ventricular tachycardia ( = 1).
CONCLUSION
Identified literature showed a considerable unmet need for therapeutic interventions that halt or slow the deteriorating nature of FA. Novel efficacious drugs should be investigated that aim to improve symptoms or slow disease progression.
PubMed: 37180421
DOI: 10.1177/26330040221139872 -
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... Mar 2013Influenza is a communicable acute respiratory infection which, during epidemics, can cause high morbidity and mortality rates. Traditional Chinese medicinal herbs, often... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Influenza is a communicable acute respiratory infection which, during epidemics, can cause high morbidity and mortality rates. Traditional Chinese medicinal herbs, often administered following a particular Chinese medical theory, may be a potential treatment of choice.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of Chinese medicinal herbs used to prevent and treat influenza and to estimate the frequency of adverse effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November week 2, 2012), EMBASE (January 1988 to November 2012) and CNKI (January 1988 to 29 March 2012). We also searched reference lists of articles and the WHO ICTRP search portal (November 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing traditional Chinese medicinal herbs with placebo, no treatment or conventional medicine normally used in preventing and treating uncomplicated influenza.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies involving 2521 participants. The methodological quality of 17 included studies was poor. Included RCTs separately compared medicinal herbs with different antiviral drugs, precluding any pooling of results. Only three indicated that compared with antiviral drugs, Chinese medicinal herbs may be effective in preventing influenza and alleviating influenza symptoms. 'Ganmao' capsules were found to be more effective than amantadine in decreasing influenza symptoms and speeding recovery in one study (in which adverse reactions were mentioned in the amantadine group although no data were reported). There were no significant differences between 'E Shu You' and ribavirin in treating influenza, nor in the occurrence of adverse reactions. Ten studies reported mild adverse reactions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most Chinese medical herbs in the included studies showed similar effects to antiviral drugs in preventing or treating influenza. Few were shown to be superior to antiviral drugs. No obvious adverse events were reported in the included studies. However, current evidence remains weak due to methodological limitations of the trials. More high-quality RCTs with larger numbers of participants and clear reporting are needed.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Influenza, Human; Phytotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ribavirin
PubMed: 23543533
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004559.pub4 -
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 -
The American Journal of Geriatric... Feb 2012Apathy in patients with dementia is common, underrecognized, and undertreated. We sought to improve understanding of the pharmacologic treatment of apathy in dementia by... (Review)
Review
Apathy in patients with dementia is common, underrecognized, and undertreated. We sought to improve understanding of the pharmacologic treatment of apathy in dementia by performing a systematic literature review of studies that used apathy outcome scales to document results of pharmacologic treatments for apathy. There is limited evidence of efficiency of pharmacotherapy for treatment of apathy in dementia. The best results were found for acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. There was some evidence of efficacy for memantine, but less evidence of efficacy for stimulants, calcium antagonists, and antipsychotics. There was no evidence to support the use of antidepressants or anticonvulsants. The research quality of studies was modest. Recommendations for standardizing research and for holistic evaluation and treatment are provided.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Apathy; Calcium Channel Blockers; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Dementia; Dopamine Agents; Humans; Memantine; Motivation
PubMed: 21841459
DOI: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e31822001a6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2005Memantine, a low affinity antagonist to glutamate NMDA receptors, may prevent excitatory neurotoxicity in dementia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Memantine, a low affinity antagonist to glutamate NMDA receptors, may prevent excitatory neurotoxicity in dementia.
OBJECTIVES
To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with Alzheimer's disease (AD), vascular (VD) and mixed dementia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group was searched on 20 May 2005. This register contains references from all major healthcare databases and many ongoing trial databases and is updated regularly. In addition the search engines Copernic and Google were used to identify unpublished trials through inspection of the websites of licensing bodies like the FDA , EMEA and NICE and of companies' websites (Lundbeck, Merz, Forest, Suntori etc) and clinical trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomized trials of memantine in people with dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were pooled where possible. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and observed case (OC) analyses are reported.
MAIN RESULTS
1. Moderate to severe AD. Two out of three six month studies show a small beneficial effect of memantine. Pooled data indicate a beneficial effect at six months on cognition (4.12 points on the 100 point SIB , 95% CI 2.14 to 5.74, P < 0.00001), activities of daily living (1.27 points on the 54 point ADCS-ADLsev, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.09, P = 0.003) and behaviour (2.76 points on the 144 NPI, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.63, P = 0.004), supported by clinical impression of change (0.28 points on the 7 point CIBIC+, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41, P < 0.0001).2. Mild to moderate AD. In a single six month trial, memantine had a beneficial effect on ITT analysis of cognition, (1.9 ADAS-Cog points, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.45, P = 0.02) and behaviour (3.50 NPI points 95% CI 0.15 to 6.85, P = 0.04) supported by clinical global impression of change (0.30 CIBIC+ points, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.51, P = 0.005), but no effect on activities of daily living or OC analysis of cognition. The statistical significance of these benefits could be overturned by data from two unpublished studies which are known to show no significant effect. 3. Mild to moderate vascular dementia. In two six month studies, memantine improved cognition (1.85 ADAS-Cog points, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.83, P = 0.0002), and behaviour (0.84 95% CI 0.06 to 0.91, P = 0.03) but this was not supported by clinical global measures.4. Patients taking memantine appeared to be less likely to develop agitation (93/1167 [8%] versus 134/1141 [12%] (Peto odds ratio (OR): 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.86, P = 0.002). This was consistently seen in moderate to severe dementia. There were no data which suggested an effect on agitation which is already present.5. Memantine is well tolerated.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Published data suggest a small beneficial effect of memantine at six months in moderate to severe AD. The beneficial effect on cognition in patients with mild to moderate vascular dementia was not detectable on global assessment at six months. Whether memantine has any effect in mild to moderate AD is unknown.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Cognition Disorders; Dementia; Dementia, Vascular; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 16034889
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003154.pub4 -
Pharmacological Research Jun 2010The term neuroenhancement refers to improvement in the cognitive, emotional and motivational functions of healthy individuals through, inter alia, the use of drugs. Of... (Review)
Review
The term neuroenhancement refers to improvement in the cognitive, emotional and motivational functions of healthy individuals through, inter alia, the use of drugs. Of known interventions, psychopharmacology provides readily available options, such as the anti-dementia drugs, e.g. acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine) and memantine. Based on a systematic review we found that expectations about the potential of these drugs exceed their actual effects, as has been demonstrated in randomised controlled trials. Both single and repeated dose trials were included in the systematic review, however repeated dose trials have only been conducted for donepezil. In six small trials lasting 14-42 days, the following results emerged: donepezil improved the retention of training on complex aviation tasks and verbal memory for semantically processed words. In one study episodic memory was improved, whereas in others it remained unaffected by donepezil. In a sleep deprivation trial, donepezil reduced the memory and attention deficits resulting from 24h of sleep deprivation. Two studies reported even transient negative effects. Regarding the safety profile of donepezil, these studies found that it was rather well tolerated. In any case, since large longitudinal studies are not available no conclusions can be drawn. Seven small studies about the effects of a single dose of memantine, and one study with a single dose of rivastigmine have been reported. Again, these studies are not adequate to answer our research question. If, as here and elsewhere suggested, the concept of pharmaceutical neuroenhancement is not to be rejected in principle, the decision of healthy individuals to take drugs for the purpose of neuroenhancement should be based on exhaustive information. At the moment, the research that would support or oppose the use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for neuroenhancement by healthy individuals has not yet been performed.
Topics: Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Donepezil; Emotions; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Motivation; Phenylcarbamates; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 20193764
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2010.02.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Dementia is a progressive syndrome characterised by deterioration in memory, thinking and behaviour, and by impaired ability to perform daily activities. Two classes of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a progressive syndrome characterised by deterioration in memory, thinking and behaviour, and by impaired ability to perform daily activities. Two classes of drug - cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine) and memantine - are widely licensed for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, and rivastigmine is also licensed for Parkinson's disease dementia. These drugs are prescribed to alleviate symptoms and delay disease progression in these and sometimes in other forms of dementia. There are uncertainties about the benefits and adverse effects of these drugs in the long term and in severe dementia, about effects of withdrawal, and about the most appropriate time to discontinue treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of withdrawal or continuation of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine, or both, in people with dementia on: cognitive, neuropsychiatric and functional outcomes, rates of institutionalisation, adverse events, dropout from trials, mortality, quality of life and carer-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register up to 17 October 2020 using terms appropriate for the retrieval of studies of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine. The Specialised Register contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases, numerous trial registries and grey literature sources.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) which compared withdrawal of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine, or both, with continuation of the same drug or drugs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed citations and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data from included trials and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Where trials were sufficiently similar, we pooled data for outcomes in the short term (up to 2 months after randomisation), medium term (3-11 months) and long term (12 months or more). We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six trials investigating cholinesterase inhibitor withdrawal, and one trial investigating withdrawal of either donepezil or memantine. No trials assessed withdrawal of memantine only. Drugs were withdrawn abruptly in five trials and stepwise in two trials. All participants had dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, with severities ranging from mild to very severe, and were taking cholinesterase inhibitors without known adverse effects at baseline. The included trials randomised 759 participants to treatment groups relevant to this review. Study duration ranged from 6 weeks to 12 months. There were too few included studies to allow planned subgroup analyses. We considered some studies to be at unclear or high risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition or reporting bias. Compared to continuing cholinesterase inhibitors, discontinuing treatment may be associated with worse cognitive function in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.21; 4 studies; low certainty), but the effect in the medium term is very uncertain (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.07; 3 studies; very low certainty). In a sensitivity analysis omitting data from a study which only included participants who had shown a relatively poor prior response to donepezil, inconsistency was reduced and we found that cognitive function may be worse in the discontinuation group in the medium term (SMD -0.62; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.31). Data from one longer-term study suggest that discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor is probably associated with worse cognitive function at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -2.09 Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) points, 95% CI -3.43 to -0.75; moderate certainty). Discontinuation may make little or no difference to functional status in the short term (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.04; 2 studies; low certainty), and its effect in the medium term is uncertain (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.01; 2 studies; very low certainty). After 12 months, discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor probably results in greater functional impairment than continuing treatment (MD -3.38 Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS) points, 95% CI -6.67 to -0.10; one study; moderate certainty). Discontinuation may be associated with a worsening of neuropsychiatric symptoms over the short term and medium term, although we cannot exclude a minimal effect (SMD - 0.48, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.13; 2 studies; low certainty; and SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.08; 3 studies; low certainty, respectively). Data from one study suggest that discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor may result in little to no change in neuropsychiatric status at 12 months (MD -0.87 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points; 95% CI -8.42 to 6.68; moderate certainty). We found no clear evidence of an effect of discontinuation on dropout due to lack of medication efficacy or deterioration in overall medical condition (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.76; 4 studies; low certainty), on number of adverse events (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; 4 studies; low certainty) or serious adverse events (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.39; 4 studies; low certainty), and on mortality (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.55; 5 studies; low certainty). Institutionalisation was reported in one trial, but it was not possible to extract data for the groups relevant to this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that discontinuing cholinesterase inhibitors may result in worse cognitive, neuropsychiatric and functional status than continuing treatment, although this is supported by limited evidence, almost all of low or very low certainty. As all participants had dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, our findings are not transferable to other dementia types. We were unable to determine whether the effects of discontinuing cholinesterase inhibitors differed with baseline dementia severity. There is currently no evidence to guide decisions about discontinuing memantine. There is a need for further well-designed RCTs, across a range of dementia severities and settings. We are aware of two ongoing registered trials. In making decisions about discontinuing these drugs, clinicians should exercise caution, considering the evidence from existing trials along with other factors important to patients and their carers.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Dementia; Donepezil; Humans; Memantine; Parkinson Disease; Quality of Life; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 35608903
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009081.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003Cocaine dependence is a common and serious condition, which has become nowadays a substantial public health problem. There is a wide and well documented range of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cocaine dependence is a common and serious condition, which has become nowadays a substantial public health problem. There is a wide and well documented range of consequences associated to chronic use of this drug, such as medical, psychological and social problems, including the spread of infectious diseases (e.g. AIDS, hepatitis and tuberculosis), crime, violence and neonatal drug exposure. Therapeutic management of the cocaine addicts includes an initial period of abstinence from the drug. During this phase the subjects may experience, besides the intense craving for cocaine, symptoms such as depression, fatigue, irritability, anorexia, and sleep disturbances. It was demonstrated that the acute use of cocaine may enhance dopamine transmission and chronically it decreases dopamine concentrations in the brain. Pharmacological treatment that affects dopamine could theoretically reduce these symptoms and contribute to a more successful therapeutic approach.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of dopamine agonists for treating cocaine dependence.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic searches of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT, Biological Abstracts and LILACS; reference searching; personal communication; conference abstracts; unpublished trials from pharmaceutical industry; book chapters on treatment of cocaine dependence, was performed for the primary version of this review in 2001. Another search of the electronic databases was done in December of 2002 for this update. The specialised register of trials of the Cochrane Group on Drugs and Alcohol was searched until February 2003.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The inclusion criteria for all randomised controlled trials were that they should focus on the use of dopamine agonists on the treatment of cocaine dependence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The reviewers extracted the data independently and Relative Risks, weighted mean difference and number needed to treat were estimated. The reviewers assumed that people who died or dropped out had no improvement and tested the sensitivity of the final results to this assumption.
MAIN RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included, with 1224 participants randomised. Amantadine, bromocriptine, and pergolide were the drugs evaluated. The main outcomes evaluated were positive urine sample for cocaine metabolites, for efficacy, and retention in treatment, as an acceptability measure. There were no significant differences between interventions, and in trials where participants had primary cocaine dependence or had additional diagnosis of opioid dependence and/or were in methadone maintenance treatment.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence does not support the clinical use of dopamine agonists in the treatment of cocaine dependence. Given the high rate of dropouts in this population, clinicians may consider adding other supportive measures aiming to keep patients in treatment.
Topics: Amantadine; Bromocriptine; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Dopamine Agonists; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 12804461
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003352 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but they are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their properties and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but they are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their properties and concerns about possible adverse effects. The objective of this review was to assess the effects and safety of amantadine and rimantadine in healthy adults.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase and 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 clinically defined influenza, with serologically confirmed clinical influenza A and adverse effects were analysed. Analysis for treatment trials was of the mean duration of fever and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
Amantadine prevented 23% of clinical influenza cases (95% confidence interval 11% to 34%), and 63% of serologically confirmed clinical influenza A cases (95% confidence interval 42% to 76%) Amantadine reduced duration of fever by one day (95% confidence interval 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 adverse and study withdrawals were significantly more common with amantadine than rimantadine.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Amantadine and rimantadine have comparable effectiveness in the prevention and treatment of influenza A in healthy adults, although rimantadine induces fewer adverse effects than amantadine.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Middle Aged; Rimantadine
PubMed: 10796612
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001169