-
Brain Sciences Nov 2022cocaine craving is a core feature of cocaine use disorder and remains a critical challenge for abstinence and relapse prevention. This review summarizes the anti-craving... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
cocaine craving is a core feature of cocaine use disorder and remains a critical challenge for abstinence and relapse prevention. This review summarizes the anti-craving efficacy of pharmacotherapies tested for cocaine use disorder, in the context of randomized-controlled clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES
we assessed the databases of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO, without date restrictions up to August 2022, to identify relevant studies.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS
we included double-blinded randomized-controlled trials investigating pharmacotherapies for cocaine craving and/or cocaine use disorder whose outcomes included cocaine craving.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Two authors screened studies' titles and abstracts for inclusion, and both read all the included studies. We systematically gathered information on the following aspects of each study: title; author(s); year of publication; sample size; mean age; sample characteristics; study set-ting; whether participants were treatment-seeking; study design; craving measures; study interventions; drop-out rates; and other relevant outcomes.
RESULTS
Overall, we appraised 130 clinical trials, including 8137 participants. We further considered the drugs from the studies that scored equal to or greater than six points in the quality assessment. There was a correlation between craving and cocaine use outcomes (self-reports, timeline follow-back or urinary benzoylecgonine) in the vast majority of studies. In the short-term treatment, acute phenylalanine-tyrosine depletion, clonidine, fenfluramine, meta-chlorophenylpiperazine (m-CPP) and mecamylamine presented promising effects. In the long term, amphetamine, biperiden, carbamazepine, lisdexamfetamine, lorcaserin, methamphetamine, mirtazapine, pioglitazone, progesterone, guanfacine, levodopa, nefazodone presented promising anti-craving effects. Unfortunately, the highly tested medications were not successful in most of the trials, as follows: propranolol in the short term; amantadine, aripiprazole, bromocriptine, citicoline, ketamine, modafinil, olanzapine, topiramate in the long term. The remaining 52 medications had no positive anti-craving outcomes.
LIMITATIONS
Our review was limited by high heterogeneity of craving assessments across the studies and by a great range of pharmacotherapies. Further, the majority of the studies considered abstinence and retention in treatment as the main outcomes, whereas craving was a secondary outcome and some of the studies evaluated patients with cocaine use disorder with comorbidities such as opioid or alcohol use disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity. Lastly, most of the studies also included non-pharmacological treatments, such as counseling or psychotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a direct association between craving and cocaine use, underscoring craving as an important treatment target for promoting abstinence among persons with cocaine use disorder. Clonidine, fenfluramine and m-CPP showed to be promising medications for cocaine craving in the short-term treatment, and amphetamine, biperiden, carbamazepine, lisdexamfetamine, lorcaserin, methamphetamine, mirtazapine, pioglitazone, progesterone, guanfacine, levodopa, nefazodone in the long-term treatment.
PubMed: 36421870
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12111546 -
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : JAD 2023Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia, causing progressive decline of memory, thinking, and behavior, impairing daily functioning. Early AD (eAD)...
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia, causing progressive decline of memory, thinking, and behavior, impairing daily functioning. Early AD (eAD) includes mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD and mild AD dementia.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to investigate symptomatic treatment prevalence and treatment patterns in eAD.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews were searched in November 2021 for observational studies reporting symptomatic treatment patterns in eAD. The range of patients receiving treatment was collated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) prevalence tool. Two independent reviewers screened the records, one performed data extraction and quality assessment while a second checked.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies (prospective and retrospective cohorts, cross-sectional studies, and a survey) were included. Population size ranged from 23 to 2,028. Worldwide, 18 to 35% of patients diagnosed with MCI due to AD received any AChE inhibitor (three studies; n = 631), 7 to 8% memantine (two studies; n = 229), and 9% combination therapy (one study; n = 402). Patients receiving no treatment ranged from 41 to 54% (two studies; n = 733). Worldwide, in mild AD dementia patients, 13 to 89% received any AChE inhibitor (six studies; n = 3,715), 1 to 21% memantine (five studies, n = 3,527), and 0.4 to 39% combination therapy (four studies, n = 3,018). Patients receiving no treatment ranged from 9 to 26% (five studies, n = 4,073).
CONCLUSION
Limitations in reporting led to unclear risk of bias. The results reveal a pattern of use of symptomatic treatment in eAD beyond approved labels and highlights the opportunity for new consensus guidelines to inform clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Memantine; Prospective Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Retrospective Studies; Dementia; Cognitive Dysfunction; Disease Progression
PubMed: 36404542
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-220471 -
Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and... Dec 2023An important drug used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease is amantadine. We are the first to perform a comprehensive study based on various glycation and oxidation...
An important drug used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease is amantadine. We are the first to perform a comprehensive study based on various glycation and oxidation factors, determining the impact of amantadine on protein glycoxidation. Sugars (glucose, fructose, galactose) and aldehydes (glyoxal, methylglyoxal) were used as glycation agents, and chloramine T was used as an oxidant. Glycoxidation biomarkers in albumin treated with amantadine were generally not different from the control group (glycation/oxidation factors), indicating that the drug did not affect oxidation and glycation processes. Molecular docking analysis did not reveal strong binding sites of amantadine on the bovine serum albumin structure. Although amantadine poorly scavenged hydroxyl radical and hydrogen peroxide, it had significantly lower antioxidant and antiglycation effect than all protein oxidation and glycation inhibitors. In some cases, amantadine even demonstrated glycoxidant, proglycation, and prooxidant properties. In summary, amantadine exhibited weak antioxidant properties and a lack of antiglycation activity.
Topics: Antioxidants; Glycation End Products, Advanced; Molecular Docking Simulation; Serum Albumin, Bovine; Amantadine
PubMed: 36325591
DOI: 10.1080/14756366.2022.2137161 -
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 -
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 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) May 2022Down Syndrome (DS) is considered the most frequent form of Intellectual Disability, with important expressions of cognitive decline and early dementia. Studies on... (Review)
Review
Down Syndrome (DS) is considered the most frequent form of Intellectual Disability, with important expressions of cognitive decline and early dementia. Studies on potential treatments for dementia in this population are still scarce. Thus, the current review aims to synthesize the different pharmacological approaches that already exist in the literature, which focus on improving the set of symptoms related to dementia in people with DS. A total of six studies were included, evaluating the application of supplemental antioxidant therapies, such as alpha-tocopherol; the use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor drugs, such as donepezil; N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, such as memantine; and the use of vitamin E and a fast-acting intranasal insulin. Two studies observed important positive changes related to some general functions in people with DS (referring to donepezil). In the majority of studies, the use of pharmacological therapies did not lead to improvement in the set of symptoms related to dementia, such as memory and general functionality, in the population with DS.
Topics: Acetylcholinesterase; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Dementia; Donepezil; Down Syndrome; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 35630721
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27103244 -
BMJ Open Apr 2022To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer's dementia (AD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer's dementia (AD).
DESIGN
Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) based on our previously published systematic review and aggregate data NMA.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, AgeLine and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2016.
PARTICIPANTS
80 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including 21 138 adults with AD, and 12 RCTs with IPD including 6906 patients.
INTERVENTIONS
Cognitive enhancers (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine) alone or in any combination against other cognitive enhancers or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We requested IPD from authors, sponsors and data sharing platforms. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We appraised study quality with the Cochrane risk-of-bias. We conducted a two-stage random-effects IPD-NMA, and assessed their findings using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis).
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES
We included trials assessing cognition with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and adverse events.
RESULTS
Our IPD-NMA compared nine treatments (including placebo). Donepezil (mean difference (MD)=1.41, 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.32) and donepezil +memantine (MD=2.57, 95% CI: 0.07 to 5.07) improved MMSE score (56 RCTs, 11 619 participants; CINeMA score: moderate) compared with placebo. According to P-score, oral rivastigmine (OR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.94, P-score=16%) and donepezil (OR=1.08, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.35, P-score=30%) had the least favourable safety profile, but none of the estimated treatment effects were sufficiently precise when compared with placebo (45 RCTs, 15 649 patients; CINeMA score: moderate to high). For moderate-to-severe impairment, donepezil, memantine and their combination performed best, but for mild-to-moderate impairment donepezil and transdermal rivastigmine ranked best. Adjusting for MMSE baseline differences, oral rivastigmine and galantamine improved MMSE score, whereas when adjusting for comorbidities only oral rivastigmine was effective.
CONCLUSIONS
The choice among the different cognitive enhancers may depend on patient's characteristics. The MDs of all cognitive enhancer regimens except for single-agent oral rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine, against placebo were clinically important for cognition (MD larger than 1.40 MMSE points), but results were quite imprecise. However, two-thirds of the published RCTs were associated with high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, and IPD were only available for 15% of the included RCTs.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42015023507.
Topics: Adult; Alzheimer Disease; Donepezil; Galantamine; Humans; Memantine; Network Meta-Analysis; Nootropic Agents; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 35473731
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053012 -
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 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Apr 2022The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological interventions to diminish cognitive side effects of ECT. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological interventions to diminish cognitive side effects of ECT.
METHODS
Electronic databases of Pubmed, PsycInfo, Embase and Scopus were searched from inception through 1 April, 2021, using terms for ECT (e.g. electroconvulsive therapy), cognitive outcome (e.g. cogni*) and pharmacological intervention (e.g. calcium channel blocker and general terms, like protein). Original studies with humans receiving ECT were included, which applied pharmacological interventions in comparison with placebo or no additive intervention to diminish cognitive side effects. Data quality was assessed using Risk of Bias and GRADE. Random-effects models were used. PROSPERO registration number was CRD42021212773.
RESULTS
Qualitative synthesis (systematic review) showed 52 studies reporting sixteen pharmacological intervention-types. Quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) included 26 studies (1387 patients) describing twelve pharmacological intervention-types. Low-quality evidence of efficacy was established for memantine (large effect size) and liothyronine (medium effect size). Very low-quality evidence shows effect of acetylcholine inhibitors, piracetam and melatonin in some cognitive domains. Evidence of no efficacy was revealed for ketamine (very low-quality), herbal preparations with anti-inflammatory properties (very low to low-quality) and opioid receptor agonists (low-quality).
CONCLUSION
Memantine and liothyronine are promising for further research and future application. Quality of evidence was low because of differences in ECT techniques, study populations and cognitive measurements. These findings provide a guide for rational choices of potential pharmacological intervention research targets to decrease the burden of cognitive side effects of ECT. Future research should be more uniform in design and attempt to clarify pathophysiological mechanisms of cognitive side effects of ECT.
Topics: Cognition; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Humans; Ketamine; Memantine; Triiodothyronine
PubMed: 35075641
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13397 -
Current Neuropharmacology 2022Despite increasing worldwide incidence of Parkinson's disease, the therapy is still suboptimal due to the diversified clinical manifestations, lack of sufficient...
BACKGROUND
Despite increasing worldwide incidence of Parkinson's disease, the therapy is still suboptimal due to the diversified clinical manifestations, lack of sufficient treatment, the poor adherence in advanced patients, and varied response. Proper intake of medications regarding food and managing drug-food interactions may optimize Parkinson's disease treatment.
OBJECTIVES
We investigated potential effects that food, beverages, and dietary supplements may have on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs used by parkinsonian patients; identified the most probable interactions; and shaped recommendations for the optimal intake of drugs regarding food.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review in adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and included a total of 81 studies in the qualitative synthesis.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
We found evidence for levodopa positive interaction with coffee, fiber and vitamin C, as well as for the potential beneficial impact of low-fat and protein redistribution diet. Contrastingly, high-protein diet and ferrous sulfate supplements can negatively affect levodopa pharmacokinetics and effectiveness. For other drugs, the data of food impact are scarce. Based on the available limited evidence, all dopamine agonists (bromocriptine, cabergoline, ropinirole), tolcapone, rasagiline, selegiline in tablets, safinamide, amantadine and pimavanserin can be taken with or without a meal. Opicapone and orally disintegrating selegiline tablets should be administered on an empty stomach. Of monoamine oxidase B inhibitors, safinamide is the least susceptible for interaction with the tyramine-rich food, whereas selegiline and rasagiline may lose selectivity to monoamine oxidase B when administered in supratherapeutic doses. The level of presented evidence is low due to the poor studies design, their insufficient actuality, and missing data.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Levodopa; Monoamine Oxidase; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Parkinson Disease; Selegiline
PubMed: 34784871
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X19666211116142806