-
Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2022(1) Objective: We performed a systematic review to explore the prevalence of intravenous (IV) rehydration therapy in hospital settings, and we assessed it by patient... (Review)
Review
(1) Objective: We performed a systematic review to explore the prevalence of intravenous (IV) rehydration therapy in hospital settings, and we assessed it by patient groups and populations. (2) Methods: A systematic review of major databases and grey literature was undertaken from inception to 28 March 2022. Studies reporting prevalence of IV rehydration therapy in a hospital setting were identified. The data were synthesised in a narrative approach. (3) Results: Overall, 29 papers met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of IV rehydration therapy in paediatric patients ranged from 4.5% (hospitalised with diarrhoea and dehydration) to 100% (admitted to the emergency department with mild to moderate dehydration caused by viral gastroenteritis), and in adults this ranged from 1.5% (had single substance ingestion of modafinil) to 100% (hospitalised with hypercalcemia). The most common indication for IV rehydration therapy in paediatric patients was dehydration due to fluid loss from the gastrointestinal tract. Other causes included malnutrition, neuromuscular disease, bronchiolitis, and influenza. In adults, indications for IV rehydration therapy were much more diverse: fever, diarrhoea, drug intoxication, hypercalcemia, cancer, and postural tachycardia syndrome; (4) Conclusions: This systematic review showed that IV rehydration therapy in paediatric patients is often used to treat dehydration and diarrhoea, while in adults it has a broader spectrum of use. While IV rehydration therapy is important in correcting fluid problems and electrolyte status, the maintenance fluid prescribing practices vary considerably, and guidelines are scarce.
PubMed: 36648776
DOI: 10.3390/epidemiologia4010002 -
Substance Use & Misuse Aug 2017Currently, there is none FDA-approved medication to treat cocaine dependency. Studies conducted with various medications, including antipsychotics, antidepressants,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Currently, there is none FDA-approved medication to treat cocaine dependency. Studies conducted with various medications, including antipsychotics, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and others, revealed inconsistent results.
OBJECTIVES
To meta-analytically investigate the efficacy and safety of modafinil in the treatment of cocaine-dependent patients.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials with ≥20 subjects comparing the numerical therapeutic outcomes of modafinil with placebo were identified in databases, such as PUBMED, psycINFO, EMBASE, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Relevant data on efficacy and safety were extracted. Relative risk (RR) and standardized mean difference were applied for reporting dichotomous and continuous outcomes respectively. Random effects, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses were conducted to further explore the results and evaluate for any moderators.
RESULTS
In total, 11 studies (participants = 896, duration = 6.7 ± 1.9 weeks) comparing modafinil with placebo were systematically analyzed, which indicated that modafinil was not superior to placebo in improving the treatment retention rate (studies = 11, participants = 891, RR = 1.030, 95% CI = 0.918-1.156, p = .613). Similarly, data from 7/11 studies did not evidence superiority of modafinil in achieving cocaine abstinence (participants = 696, RR = 1.259, 95% CI = 0.813-1.949, p = .302). However, subgroup analysis of six studies conducted in the United States demonstrated superiority of modafinil in cocaine abstinence rate (studies = 6, participants = 669, 95% CI = 1.027-2.020, p = 0.035). In addition, no evidence suggested modafinil-related discontinuation or specific adverse events than placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is no evidence to conclude superiority of modafinil in increasing cocaine abstinence and treatment retention rate. However, promising result in subgroup analysis of cocaine abstinence, secondary outcomes, and good safety profile urged the need of larger studies to derive more conclusive results.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Humans; Modafinil
PubMed: 28350194
DOI: 10.1080/10826084.2016.1276597 -
Medical Science Monitor : International... Aug 2010To assess the effectiveness and safety of modafinil vs. no active treatment or other drugs in the treatment of narcolepsy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
To assess the effectiveness and safety of modafinil vs. no active treatment or other drugs in the treatment of narcolepsy.
MATERIAL/METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched throughout January 2009: MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Additional references were obtained from reviewed articles. Only randomized controlled trials were included.
RESULTS
We included 9 trials involving 1,054 patients in the study. Modafinil in comparison with placebo brings significant benefit in terms of elimination of excessive daytime sleepiness assessed by: ESS scale--weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.73 points (95%CI -3.39, -2.08), MSLT test--WMD 1.11 minutes (95%CI 0.55, 1.66) and MWT test--WMD 2.82 minutes (95%CI 2.40, 3.24), as well as the number and duration of somnolence, sleep attacks and naps per day, but was not different from placebo in the number of attacks of cataplexy per day. Modafinil in comparison with placebo improved quality of life of narcoleptic patients according to SF-36 questionnaire, but was associated with more common nausea. It had similar effect on excessive daytime sleepiness as sodium oxybate and was associated with less common nausea.
CONCLUSIONS
In narcoleptic patients, modafinil in comparison with placebo is effective in the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness, but not cataplexy.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Benzhydryl Compounds; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Modafinil; Narcolepsy; Neuroprotective Agents; Placebos; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 20671626
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Affective Disorders Sep 2021Globally, depression impacts nearly 300 million people, and roughly half do not achieve remission with standard first-line therapies. For such individuals, augmentation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Globally, depression impacts nearly 300 million people, and roughly half do not achieve remission with standard first-line therapies. For such individuals, augmentation strategies are often helpful at reducing the severity of depression. While there are many potential adjunctive medication choices, psychostimulants are among the more controversial options.
OBJECTIVES
The present review sought to clarify the comparative efficacy and safety of different stimulant-like medications to treat depression.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) using psychostimulant medications to treat adults with depression. Outcomes were pooled using rate ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes (e.g., response, adverse events) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes (e.g., change in depression scores).
RESULTS
We identified 37 eligible studies (ranging from 1958 to 2016). We assessed nine psychostimulants: methylphenidate (n=14), dextroamphetamine (n=9), modafinil (n=6), lisdexamphetamine (n=3), methylamphetamine (n=3), pemoline (n=2), atomoxetine (n=1), desipramine (n=1), and imipramine (n=1). Overall, psychostimulants demonstrated efficacy for depression, reduced fatigue and sleepiness, and appeared well-tolerated. However, there was inconsistent evidence across particular psychostimulants. For example, the only psychostimulant which demonstrated efficacy for depression-in terms of both symptom severity and response rates-was methylphenidate.
CONCLUSIONS
While our review suggests that some psychostimulants-particularly methylphenidate-appear well-tolerated and demonstrate some efficacy for depression, as well as fatigue and sleepiness, the strength of evidence in our estimates was low to very low for most agents given the small sample sizes, few RCTs, and imprecision in most estimates. A lack of consistent evidence precludes a definitive hierarchy of treatments and points to a need for additional, high-quality RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Depression; Fatigue; Humans; Methylphenidate; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 34144366
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.05.119 -
Neurocritical Care Aug 2020Amantadine and modafinil are neurostimulants that may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but the existing study results vary, and no comprehensive...
Amantadine and modafinil are neurostimulants that may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but the existing study results vary, and no comprehensive review has been published. This systematic review describes amantadine and modafinil administration practices post-stroke, evaluates timing and impact on clinical effectiveness measures, and identifies the incidence of potential adverse drug effects. A librarian-assisted search of the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE databases identified all English-language publications with "amantadine" or "modafinil" in the title or abstract from inception through February 1, 2020. Publications meeting predefined Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) criteria were included: Patients (≥ 18 years of age post-stroke); Intervention (amantadine or modafinil administration); Comparison (pretreatment baseline or control group); Outcomes (cognitive or functional outcome). Amantadine and modafinil administration practices, cognitive and functional outcomes, and incidence of potential adverse drug effects were collected following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance. Quantitative analyses were not performed due to heterogeneity in the clinical effectiveness measures; descriptive data are presented as number (percent) or median (interquartile range). Of 12,620 publications initially identified, 10 amantadine publications (n = 121 patients) and 12 modafinil publications (n = 120 patients) were included. Amantadine was initiated 39 (16, 385) days post-stroke, with most common initial doses of 100 mg once or twice daily (range 100-200 mg/day), and final daily dose of 200 (188, 200) mg/day. Modafinil was initiated 170 (17, 496) days post-stroke, with initial and final daily doses of 100 (100, 350) mg/day and 200 (100, 350) mg/day, respectively. The most common indication was consciousness disorders for amantadine (n = 3/10 publications; 30%) and fatigue for modafinil (n = 5/12; 42%). Forty unique clinical effectiveness measures (1.8 per study) with 141 domains (6.4 per study) were described across all studies. A positive response in at least one clinical effectiveness measure was reported in 70% of amantadine publications and 83% of modafinil publications. Only one publication each for amantadine (10%; n = 5 patients) and modafinil (8%; n = 21 patients) studied acutely hospitalized or ICU patients; both were randomized studies showing improvements in neurocognitive function for amantadine and fatigue for modafinil. Potential adverse drug effects were reported in approximately 50% of publications, most commonly visual hallucinations with amantadine (2% of patients) and dizziness (5% of patients) and dry eyes or mouth (5% of patients). Amantadine and modafinil may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but higher-quality data are needed to confirm this conclusion, especially in the acute care setting.
Topics: Amantadine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dopamine Agents; Humans; Modafinil; Recovery of Function; Stroke
PubMed: 32394130
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-020-00977-5 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Apr 2022Dopaminergic dysfunction is thought to be central to schizophrenia symptomatology. Previous meta-analyses of prodopaminergic drugs in schizophrenia have important... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dopaminergic dysfunction is thought to be central to schizophrenia symptomatology. Previous meta-analyses of prodopaminergic drugs in schizophrenia have important limitations, and also did not include dopamine D2/D3 partial agonists. We investigated the effect of medications which increase dopamine signalling on schizophrenia symptoms by meta-analysing double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. 59 RCTs were included: 29 of prodopaminergic treatments, 30 of partial agonists. Partial agonists were significantly superior to placebo against positive (SMD=-0.33,p = 1.2 ×10), negative (SMD=-0.29,p = 2.2 × 10-) and total symptoms (SMD =-0.39,p = 1.7 × 10) in schizophrenia. There were no significant differences between pooled pro-dopaminergic drugs and placebo in any symptom domain. In subgroup analysis of five studies where patients were selected for negative symptom severity, ar/modafinil was superior to placebo against negative symptoms (SMD=-0.34,p = 0.037). These data favour the clinical use of partial agonists for negative symptoms in schizophrenia, with clinically meaningful effect sizes. Our findings also suggest a benefit for ar/modafinil in patients with predominant negative symptoms. Future trials of other prodopaminergic therapies and dopamine partial agonists in patients with predominant negative symptoms are warranted.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Dopamine; Dopamine Agonists; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 35131396
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104568 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Sep 2023Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a very common symptom in patients with cancer, and one of the five areas of highest priority in cancer research. There is currently no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a very common symptom in patients with cancer, and one of the five areas of highest priority in cancer research. There is currently no consensus on pharmacologic interventions for treating CRF. The aim of this systematic review is to provide more clarity on which pharmacologic interventions may be most promising, for future clinical trials. The network meta-analysis provides the ability to compare multiple agents when no direct head-to-head trials of all agents have been performed.
METHODS
Medline (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up until 5 March 2021. Studies were included if they reported on a pharmacologic intervention for CRF. Standardised mean differences and corresponding 95% CIs were computed using a random-effects maximum-likelihood model.
RESULTS
This review reports on 18 studies and 2604 patients, the most comprehensive review of pharmacologic interventions for CRF at the time of this publication. Methylphenidate, modafinil and paroxetine were superior to placebo. Methylphenidate and modafinil were equivalent to one another. Paroxetine was superior to modafinil.
CONCLUSION
Paroxetine should be further studied in future trials. As well, more safety data are needed on pharmacologic interventions.
Topics: Humans; Modafinil; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Paroxetine; Network Meta-Analysis; Methylphenidate; Fatigue; Neoplasms
PubMed: 34593386
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003244 -
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Nov 2013Current pharmacologic treatments for a depressive episode in unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar depression are limited by low rates of remission.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Current pharmacologic treatments for a depressive episode in unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar depression are limited by low rates of remission. Residual symptoms include a persistent low mood and neurovegetative symptoms such as fatigue. The objective of this study was to examine the efficacy and tolerability of augmentation of first-line therapies with the novel stimulant-like agent modafinil in MDD and bipolar depression.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, 1980-April 2013 were searched using the following terms: (modafinil or armodafinil) and (depressi* or depressed or major depressive disorder or major depression or unipolar or bipolar or dysthymi*). Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, sample comprising adult patients (18-65 years) with unipolar or bipolar depression, diagnosis according to DSM-IV, ICD-10, or other well-recognized criteria, modafinil or armodafinil given as augmentation therapy in at least 1 arm of the trial, and publication in English in a peer-reviewed journal.
STUDY SELECTION
Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of adjunctive treatment with modafinil or armodafinil of standard treatment for depressive episodes in MDD and bipolar depression were selected.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two independent appraisers assessed the eligibility of the trials. A random-effects meta-analysis with DerSimonian-Laird method was used. Moderator effects were evaluated by meta-regression.
RESULTS
Data from 6 RCTs, with a total of 910 patients with MDD or bipolar depression, consisting of 4 MDD RCTs (n = 568) and 2 bipolar depression RCTs (n = 342) were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed significant effects of modafinil on improvements in overall depression scores (point estimate = -0.35; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.10) and remission rates (odds ratio = 1.61; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.49). The treatment effects were evident in both MDD and bipolar depression, with no difference between disorders. Modafinil showed a significant positive effect on fatigue symptoms (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.05). The adverse events were no different from placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Modafinil is an effective augmentation strategy for acute depressive episodes, including for symptoms of fatigue, in both unipolar and bipolar disorders.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antimanic Agents; Benzhydryl Compounds; Bipolar Disorder; Depressive Disorder, Major; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Modafinil; Personality Inventory; Psychometrics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 24330897
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.13r08560 -
Pharmacological Research Sep 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 methylphenidate and modafinil. Both drugs are presumed to be in widespread use as cognitive enhancers for non-medical reasons. Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis we show that expectations regarding the effectiveness of these drugs exceed their actual effects, as has been demonstrated in single- or double-blind randomised controlled trials. Only studies with sufficient extractable data were included in the statistical analyses. For methylphenidate an improvement of memory was found, but no consistent evidence for other enhancing effects was uncovered. Modafinil on the other hand, was found to improve attention for well-rested individuals, while maintaining wakefulness, memory and executive functions to a significantly higher degree in sleep deprived individuals than did a placebo. However, repeated doses of modafinil were unable to prevent deterioration of cognitive performance over a longer period of sleep deprivation though maintaining wakefulness and possibly even inducing overconfidence in a person's own cognitive performance.
Topics: Animals; Benzhydryl Compounds; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognition; Emotions; Humans; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Motivation
PubMed: 20416377
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2010.04.002 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Apr 2024Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Pharmacotherapy offers a potential treatment approach for EDS in OSA patients. This... (Review)
Review
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Pharmacotherapy offers a potential treatment approach for EDS in OSA patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for alleviating EDS in patients with OSA. Following PRISMA guidelines, we included randomized controlled trials investigating pharmacological treatments for EDS in adult OSA until August 2023. We conducted meta-analysis, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses using a random effects model. Finally, a network meta-analysis synthesized direct and indirect evidence, followed by a comprehensive safety analysis. We included 32 articles in the meta-analysis (n = 3357). Pharmacotherapy showed a significant improvement in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score (Mean Difference (MD) -2.73, (95 % Confidence Interval (CI) [-3.25, -2.20], p < 0.01) and Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT) score (MD 6.00 (95 % CI [2.66, 9.33] p < 0.01). Solriamfetol, followed by Pitolisant and modafinil, exhibited the greatest ESS reduction, while Danavorexton, followed by Solriamfetol and MK-7288, had the strongest impact on MWT. MK-7288 had the most total adverse events (AEs), followed by Danavorexton and armodafinil. Pharmacological Interventions significantly alleviate EDS in OSA patients but with heterogeneity across medications. Treatment decisions should involve a personalized assessment of patient factors and desired outcomes.
PubMed: 38754208
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2024.101934