-
Human Psychopharmacology Sep 2022The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved drugs that address only autism-related symptoms rather than the underlying impairments. N-Methyl-D-Aspartate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved drugs that address only autism-related symptoms rather than the underlying impairments. N-Methyl-D-Aspartate receptor antagonists have recently emerged as a promising treatment option for a variety of neurologic and developmental problems, including autism.
AIMS
To review (systematically), for the first time, the medical literature that explores the safety in and efficacy of memantine in autism.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
A comprehensive electronic search for relevant randomized controlled trials was conducted in four databases. Using RevMan software, we extracted and pooled data as a risk ratio (RR) or normalized mean differences in an inverse variance strategy.
RESULTS
This systematic review and meta-analysis includes five trials. There was no difference in enhancing social responsiveness when compared to placebo, though memantine lowered the likelihood of anxiety (RR = 0.25; 95% Confidence interval: [0.07; 0.87], p = 0.03). However, memantine aggravated impulsive behaviors. Additionally, in another trial that compared memantine added to risperidone versus risperidone added to placebo, memantine was found to be effective and safe.
CONCLUSION
Memantine showed safety in reducing acute symptoms of anxiety and other symptoms encountered in pediatric patients with autism spectrum disorders. However, memantine does not improve the core symptoms of autism. Nevertheless, further long-term trials are needed to explore its potential efficacy.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine; Risperidone
PubMed: 35315131
DOI: 10.1002/hup.2841 -
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive... 2018Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) and memantine are commonly used in the management of dementia. In routine clinical practice, dementia is often monitored via the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) and memantine are commonly used in the management of dementia. In routine clinical practice, dementia is often monitored via the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of these drugs on MMSE scores.
SUMMARY
Eighty trials were identified. Pooled effect estimates were in favour of both AChEIs and memantine at 6 months. Meta-regression indicated that dementia subtype was a moderator of AChEI treatment effect, with the effect of treatment versus control twice as high for patients with Parkinson disease dementia/ dementia with Lewy bodies (2.11 MMSE points at 6 months) as for patients with Alzheimer disease/vascular dementia (0.91 MMSE points at 6 months). Key Messages: AChEIs demonstrate a modest effect versus control on MMSE scores which is moderated by dementia subtype. For memantine the effect is smaller.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Dementia, Vascular; Dopamine Agents; Humans; Memantine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29734182
DOI: 10.1159/000486546 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Jun 2016Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AceI) and memantine might prove useful in bipolar disorder (BD) given their neuroprotective and pro-cognitive effects, as highlighted by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in bipolar disorder: A systematic review and best evidence synthesis of the efficacy and safety for multiple disease dimensions.
BACKGROUND
Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AceI) and memantine might prove useful in bipolar disorder (BD) given their neuroprotective and pro-cognitive effects, as highlighted by several case reports. We aimed to systematically review the efficacy and safety of AceI and memantine across multiple outcome dimensions in BD.
METHODS
Systematic PubMed and SCOPUS search until 04/17/2015 without language restrictions. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), open label studies and case series of AceI or memantine in BD patients reporting quantitative data on depression, mania, psychotic symptoms, global functioning, or cognitive performance. We summarized results using a best-evidence based synthesis.
RESULTS
Out of 214 hits, 12 studies (RCTs=5, other designs=7, total n=422) were included. Donepezil (studies=5; treated=102 vs. placebo=21): there was strong evidence for no effect on mania and psychotic symptoms; low evidence indicating no effect on depression. Galantamine (studies=3; treated=21 vs. controls=20) (placebo=10, healthy subjects=10): there was strong evidence for no effect on mania; moderate evidence for no effect on depression; low evidence for no effect on global functioning. Memantine (studies=4; treated=152 vs. placebo=88): there was conflicting evidence regarding efficacy for mania, depression and global functioning.
LIMITATIONS
Paucity of RCTs; small sample size studies; heterogeneous design, outcome and patient characteristics.
CONCLUSION
There is limited but converging evidence of no effect of AceI in BD, and conflicting evidence about memantine in BD. Too few studies of mostly medium/low quality and lacking sufficient numbers of patients in specific mood states, especially mania, contributed data, focusing solely on short-term/medium-term treatment, necessitating additional high-quality research to yield more definite results.
Topics: Adult; Bipolar Disorder; Case-Control Studies; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Clinical Trials as Topic; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Donepezil; Evidence-Based Medicine; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Female; Galantamine; Humans; Indans; Male; Memantine; Middle Aged; Piperidines; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27010579
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.03.034 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that...
BACKGROUND
Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS.
METHODS
We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria. Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181). There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Current non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Bupivacaine; Chronic Pain; Complex Regional Pain Syndromes; Quality of Life; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 37306570
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009416.pub3 -
Age and Ageing Jan 2013in 2007 the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) restricted the use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Evolution of the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for Alzheimer's disease: systematic review and economic model.
INTRODUCTION
in 2007 the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) restricted the use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine.
METHODS
we conducted a health technology assessment (HTA) of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of AD to re-consider and up-date the evidence base used to inform the 2007 NICE decision. The systematic review of effectiveness targeted randomised controlled trials. A comprehensive search, including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library, was conducted from January 2004 to March 2010. All key review steps were done by two reviewers. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted. The cost-effectiveness was assessed using a cohort-based model with three health states: pre-institutionalised, institutionalised and dead. The perspective was NHS and Personal Social Services and the cost year 2009.
RESULTS
confidence about the size and statistical significance of the estimates of effect of galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine improved on function and global impact in particular. Cost-effectiveness also changed. For donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in 2004 was above £50,000; in 2010 the same drugs 'dominated' best supportive care (improved clinical outcome at reduced cost). This was primarily because of changes in the modelled costs of introducing the drugs. For memantine, the cost-effectiveness also improved from a range of £37-53,000 per QALY gained to a base-case of £32,000.
CONCLUSION
there has been a change in the evidence base between 2004 and 2010 consistent with the change in NICE guidance. Further evolution in cost-effectiveness estimates is possible particularly if there are changes in drug prices.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Memantine; Models, Economic; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate; United Kingdom
PubMed: 23179169
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afs165 -
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and... Feb 2015Recently, several large randomised controlled trials about the treatments of cognitive impairment or dementia due to Parkinson's disease (CIND-PD or PDD) and dementia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease, Parkinson's disease dementia, and dementia with Lewy bodies: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Recently, several large randomised controlled trials about the treatments of cognitive impairment or dementia due to Parkinson's disease (CIND-PD or PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) were completed. Here, we systematically reviewed the studies (including the recent reports) to provide updated evidence for the treatments of CIND-PD, PDD and DLB.
METHODS
We searched Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, Pubmed, Embase, and other sources for eligible trials. We selected global impression and cognitive function as primary efficacy outcomes, and dropouts and adverse events as safety outcomes. Furthermore, Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were used here.
RESULTS
Ten trials were included in this study. Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine produced small global efficacy on clinicians' global impression of change (CGIC), from a weighted mean difference of -0.40 (95% CI -0.77 to -0.03) to -0.65 (95% CI -1.28 to -0.01); however, cholinesterase inhibitors but not memantine significantly improved cognition on Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), from 1.04 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.65) to 2.57 (95% CI 0.90 to 4.23). Additionally, both of them had good safety outcomes, although rivastigmine showed an increased risk on adverse events than placebo (risk ratio, RR 1.19, TSA adjusted 95% CI 1.04 to 1.36), these events were usually mild or moderate, and the risk disappeared on serious adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine slightly improve global impression; however, only cholinesterase inhibitors enhance cognitive function. Besides, all the drugs have good safety outcomes. But the limited trials precluded the generalisation of these outcomes.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition Disorders; Humans; Lewy Body Disease; Memantine; Parkinson Disease
PubMed: 24828899
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2014-307659 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Stroke survivors are at significantly increased risk of cognitive impairment, which affects patients' independence of activities of daily living (ADLs), social...
Stroke survivors are at significantly increased risk of cognitive impairment, which affects patients' independence of activities of daily living (ADLs), social engagement, and neurological function deficit. Many studies have been done to evaluate the efficacy and safety of post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) treatment, and due to the largely inconsistent clinical data, there is a need to summarize and analyze the published clinical research data in this area. An umbrella review was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PSCI therapies. Three independent authors searched for meta-analyses and systematic reviews on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science to address this issue. We examined ADL and Barthel index (BI), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), neurological function deficit as efficacy endpoints, and the incidence of adverse events as safety profiles. In all, 312 studies from 19 eligible publications were included in the umbrella review. The results showed that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists, cell therapies, acupuncture, and EGB76 can improve the MoCA and ADL, and the adverse effects were mild for the treatment of PSCI. Moreover, Vinpocetine, Oxiracetam, Citicoline, thrombolytic therapy, Actovegin, DL-3-n-Butylphthalide, and Nimodipine showed adverse events or low article quality in patients with PSCI. However, the research evidence is not exact and further research is needed. Our study demonstrated that ACEI inhibitors (Donepezil) and NMDA antagonists (Memantine), EGB761, and acupuncture are the ADL and BI, MoCA, and neurological function deficit medication/therapy, respectively, for patients with PSCI. https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-11-0139/; Identifier: INPLASY2022110139.
PubMed: 37693907
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1207075 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) May 2021The treatment of bipolar depression is hampered by the inadequate efficacy of antidepressants, moderate effect of mood stabilizers, and the side effects of some... (Review)
Review
The treatment of bipolar depression is hampered by the inadequate efficacy of antidepressants, moderate effect of mood stabilizers, and the side effects of some second-generation antipsychotics. There is limited evidence to date regarding the antidepressant effects of memantine in bipolar depression. The aim of the article was to provide a short review of preclinical and clinical studies on the antidepressant effect of memantine, and to present the case of a bipolar depression patient successfully treated with memantine. The described patient with bipolar disorder was unsuccessfully treated with two mood stabilizers. The addition of memantine at a dose of 20 mg/d to the treatment with lamotrigine and valproic acid resulted in a reduction in the severity of depression measured on the HDRS-17 scale by 35%, and by 47.1% after 7 weeks. The discussion presents experimental evidence for the antidepressant effect of memantine, as well as data from clinical trials in recurrent and bipolar depression. The presented case is the second report in the medical literature showing the antidepressant effect of memantine as an add-on treatment for bipolar depression. The described case and literature analysis indicate that memantine may be an effective and safe method of augmentation of mood stabilizing therapy in bipolar depression.
PubMed: 34070216
DOI: 10.3390/ph14050481 -
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 -
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive... Jan 2012N-methyl-D-aspartic acid antagonists (memantine) and cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) are the only two approved classes of drugs to treat dementia; this paper explores...
BACKGROUND
N-methyl-D-aspartic acid antagonists (memantine) and cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) are the only two approved classes of drugs to treat dementia; this paper explores the evidence for using these two treatments in combination.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the efficacy and safety of using combination therapy with memantine and a ChEI to treat dementia in comparison to monotherapy with either memantine or a ChEI.
METHODS
In March 2012, we systematically searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and grey literature databases. All study types were included, except for case series or reports, which looked at combination therapy versus monotherapy in various dementing disorders. Data was pooled for blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only; mean differences and standardized mean differences were used to determine effect sizes.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included in this review; 3 were blinded RCTs, with a total of 971 Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients, which were included into the meta-analysis. No papers were found that primarily addressed combination therapy in other dementias. In the meta-analysis, small but statistically significant effect sizes were seen in favor of combination therapy among patients with moderate to severe AD on the scales of cognition (0.45-0.52; p < 0.0001), scales of functional outcomes (0.23-0.3; p < 0.01), and the neuropsychiatric inventory (3.7-4.4; p < 0.0001). Among the open-label studies, 3 out of 6 suggested benefits, as did the 4 included cohort studies. However, the high risk of bias encountered in the latter two study designs limits deducing any conclusions about benefit.
CONCLUSION
Although there were statistically significant changes in favor of combination therapy in moderate to severe AD, heterogeneity in scales and patient characteristics exists. However, it is unclear if clinically significant outcomes can be achieved using the combination therapy. More studies are required before a recommendation for combination therapy can be made.
PubMed: 23277787
DOI: 10.1159/000343479