-
The Lancet. Psychiatry Sep 2018The benefits and safety of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remain controversial, and guidelines are inconsistent on which medications are... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The benefits and safety of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remain controversial, and guidelines are inconsistent on which medications are preferred across different age groups. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of oral medications for ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults.
METHODS
We did a literature search for published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing amphetamines (including lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with each other or placebo. We systematically contacted study authors and drug manufacturers for additional information. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in severity of ADHD core symptoms based on teachers' and clinicians' ratings) and tolerability (proportion of patients who dropped out of studies because of side-effects) at timepoints closest to 12 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and confidence of estimates with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for network meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014008976.
FINDINGS
133 double-blind randomised controlled trials (81 in children and adolescents, 51 in adults, and one in both) were included. The analysis of efficacy closest to 12 weeks was based on 10 068 children and adolescents and 8131 adults; the analysis of tolerability was based on 11 018 children and adolescents and 5362 adults. The confidence of estimates varied from high or moderate (for some comparisons) to low or very low (for most indirect comparisons). For ADHD core symptoms rated by clinicians in children and adolescents closest to 12 weeks, all included drugs were superior to placebo (eg, SMD -1·02, 95% CI -1·19 to -0·85 for amphetamines, -0·78, -0·93 to -0·62 for methylphenidate, -0·56, -0·66 to -0·45 for atomoxetine). By contrast, for available comparisons based on teachers' ratings, only methylphenidate (SMD -0·82, 95% CI -1·16 to -0·48) and modafinil (-0·76, -1·15 to -0·37) were more efficacious than placebo. In adults (clinicians' ratings), amphetamines (SMD -0·79, 95% CI -0·99 to -0·58), methylphenidate (-0·49, -0·64 to -0·35), bupropion (-0·46, -0·85 to -0·07), and atomoxetine (-0·45, -0·58 to -0·32), but not modafinil (0·16, -0·28 to 0·59), were better than placebo. With respect to tolerability, amphetamines were inferior to placebo in both children and adolescents (odds ratio [OR] 2·30, 95% CI 1·36-3·89) and adults (3·26, 1·54-6·92); guanfacine was inferior to placebo in children and adolescents only (2·64, 1·20-5·81); and atomoxetine (2·33, 1·28-4·25), methylphenidate (2·39, 1·40-4·08), and modafinil (4·01, 1·42-11·33) were less well tolerated than placebo in adults only. In head-to-head comparisons, only differences in efficacy (clinicians' ratings) were found, favouring amphetamines over modafinil, atomoxetine, and methylphenidate in both children and adolescents (SMDs -0·46 to -0·24) and adults (-0·94 to -0·29). We did not find sufficient data for the 26-week and 52-week timepoints.
INTERPRETATION
Our findings represent the most comprehensive available evidence base to inform patients, families, clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the choice of ADHD medications across age groups. Taking into account both efficacy and safety, evidence from this meta-analysis supports methylphenidate in children and adolescents, and amphetamines in adults, as preferred first-choice medications for the short-term treatment of ADHD. New research should be funded urgently to assess long-term effects of these drugs.
FUNDING
Stichting Eunethydis (European Network for Hyperkinetic Disorders), and the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Clonidine; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Methylphenidate; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30097390
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30269-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into adulthood and can affects individuals' social and occupational functioning, as well as their quality of life and health. ADHD is frequently associated with other mental disorders such as substance use disorders and anxiety and affective disorders. Amphetamines are used to treat adults with ADHD, but uncertainties about their efficacy and safety remain.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for adults with ADHD.
SEARCH METHODS
In August 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and two trials registers, and we ran citation searches for included studies. We also contacted the corresponding authors of all included studies, other experts in the field, and the pharmaceutical company, Shire, and we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews for other published, unpublished, or ongoing studies. For each included study, we performed a citation search in Web of Science to identify any later studies that may have cited it.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of amphetamines (at any dose) for ADHD in adults aged 18 years and over against placebo or an active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data from each included study. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) to assess continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We conducted a stratified analysis to determine the influence of moderating variables. We assessed trials for risk of bias and drew a funnel plot to investigate the possibility of publication bias. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, which yielded high, moderate, low, or very low quality ratings based on evaluation of within-trial risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity of data; precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 studies that investigated three types of amphetamines: dexamphetamine (10.2 mg/d to 21.8 mg/d), lisdexamfetamine (30 mg/d to 70 mg/d), and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS; 12.5 mg/d to 80 mg/d). These studies enrolled 2521 participants; most were middle-aged (35.3 years), Caucasian males (57.2%), with a combined type of ADHD (78.8%). Eighteen studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was conducted in both Canada and the USA. Ten were multi-site studies. All studies were placebo-controlled, and three also included an active comparator: guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine. Most studies had short-term follow-up and a mean study length of 5.3 weeks.We found no studies that had low risk of bias in all domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, mainly because amphetamines have powerful subjective effects that may reveal the assigned treatment, but also because we noted attrition bias, and because we could not rule out the possibility of a carry-over effect in studies that used a cross-over design.Sixteen studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, one study was publicly funded, and two studies did not report their funding sources.Amphetamines versus placeboSeverity of ADHD symptoms: we found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians (SMD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to -0.75; 13 studies, 2028 participants) and patients (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.28; six studies, 120 participants).Retention: overall, we found low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines did not improve retention in treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; 17 studies, 2323 participants).Adverse events: we found that amphetamines were associated with an increased proportion of patients who withdrew because of adverse events (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 4.45; 17 studies, 2409 participants).Type of amphetamine: we found differences between amphetamines for the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians. Both lisdexamfetamine (SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.85; seven studies, 896 participants; low-quality evidence) and MAS (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.66; five studies, 1083 participants; low-quality evidence) reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms. In contrast, we found no evidence to suggest that dexamphetamine reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.32; one study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence). In addition, all amphetamines were efficacious in reducing the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients (dexamphetamine: SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.40; two studies, 35 participants; low-quality evidence; lisdexamfetamine: SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01; three studies, 67 participants; low-quality evidence; MAS: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.12; one study, 18 participants; very low-quality evidence).Dose at study completion: different doses of amphetamines did not appear to be associated with differences in efficacy.Type of drug-release formulation: we investigated immediate- and sustained-release formulations but found no differences between them for any outcome.Amphetamines versus other drugsWe found no evidence that amphetamines improved ADHD symptom severity compared to other drug interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Amphetamines improved the severity of ADHD symptoms, as assessed by clinicians or patients, in the short term but did not improve retention to treatment. Amphetamines were associated with higher attrition due to adverse events. The short duration of studies coupled with their restrictive inclusion criteria limits the external validity of these findings. Furthermore, none of the included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Overall, the evidence generated by this review is of low or very low quality.
Topics: Adult; Amphetamines; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dextroamphetamine; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30091808
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007813.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Despite the high prevalence of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and its harmful effects, there are currently no therapies proven to treat this symptom. Recently, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the high prevalence of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and its harmful effects, there are currently no therapies proven to treat this symptom. Recently, a number of pharmacological therapies have been investigated as potential treatments for apathy in AD.
OBJECTIVES
Objective 1: To assess the safety and efficacy of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD).Objective 2: To assess the effect on apathy of pharmacotherapies investigated for other primary outcomes in the treatment of AD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (ALOIS), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) portal, ICTRP on 17 May 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Eligible studies were double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) investigating apathy as a primary or secondary outcome in people with AD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors extracted data. We assessed the risks of bias of included studies using Cochrane methods, and the overall quality of evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We calculated mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals on an intention-to-treat basis for all relevant outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 studies involving a total of 6384 participants in the quantitative analyses. Risk of bias is very low to moderate. All studies reported appropriate methods of randomization and blinding. Most studies reported appropriate methods of allocation concealment. Four studies, three with methylphenidate and one with modafinil, had a primary aim of improving apathy. In these studies, all participants had clinically significant apathy at baseline. Methylphenidate may improve apathy compared to placebo. This finding was present when apathy was assessed using the apathy evaluation scale (AES), which was used by all three studies investigating methylphenidate: MD -4.99, 95% CI -9.55 to -0.43, n = 145, 3 studies, low quality of evidence, but not when assessed with the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI)-apathy subscale, which was used by two of the three studies investigating methylphenidate: MD -0.08, 95% CI -3.85 to 3.69, n = 85, 2 studies, low quality of evidence. As well as having potential benefits for apathy, methylphenidate probably also slightly improves cognition (MD 1.98, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.91, n = 145, 3 studies, moderate quality of evidence), and probably improves instrumental activities of daily living (MD 2.30, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.86, P = 0.004, n = 60, 1 study, moderate quality of evidence), compared to placebo. There may be no difference between methylphenidate and placebo in the risk of developing an adverse event: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.42, n = 145, 3 studies, low quality of evidence. There was insufficient evidence from one very small study of modafinil to determine the effect of modafinil on apathy assessed with the FrSBe-apathy subscale: MD 0.27, 95% CI -3.51 to 4.05, n = 22, 1 study, low quality of evidence. In all other included studies, apathy was a secondary outcome and participants were not selected on the basis of clinically significant apathy at baseline. We considered the evidence on apathy from these studies to be indirect and associated with publication bias. There was low or very low quality of evidence on cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) (six studies), ChEI discontinuation (one study), antipsychotics (two studies), antipsychotic discontinuation (one study), antidepressants (two studies), mibampator (one study), valproate (three studies) and semagacestat (one study).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Methylphenidate may demonstrate a benefit for apathy and may have slight benefits for cognition and functional performance in people with AD, but this finding is associated with low-quality evidence. Our meta-analysis is limited by the small number of studies within each drug class, risk of bias, publication bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies. Additional studies should be encouraged targeting people with AD with clinically significant apathy which investigate apathy as a primary outcome measure, and which have a longer duration and a larger sample size. This could increase the quality of evidence for methylphenidate, and may confirm whether or not it is an effective pharmacotherapy for apathy in AD.
Topics: Alanine; Alzheimer Disease; Antidepressive Agents; Apathy; Azepines; Benzhydryl Compounds; Biphenyl Compounds; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Humans; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 29727467
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012197.pub2 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Apr 2018Our objective was to determine whether, compared with control interventions, pharmacologic interventions reduce the severity of fatigue in patients with cancer or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Our objective was to determine whether, compared with control interventions, pharmacologic interventions reduce the severity of fatigue in patients with cancer or recipients of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (hsct).
METHODS
For a systematic review, we searched medline, embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, cinahl, and Psychinfo for randomized trials of systemic pharmacologic interventions for the management of fatigue in patients with cancer or recipients of hsct. Two authors independently identified studies and abstracted data. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcome was fatigue severity measured using various fatigue scales. Data were synthesized using random-effects models.
RESULTS
In the 117 included trials (19,819 patients), the pharmacologic agents used were erythropoietins ( = 31), stimulants ( = 19), l-carnitine ( = 6), corticosteroids ( = 5), antidepressants ( = 5), appetite stimulants ( = 3), and other agents ( = 48). Fatigue was significantly reduced with erythropoietin [standardized mean difference (smd): -0.52; 95% confidence interval (ci): -0.89 to -0.14] and with methylphenidate (smd: -0.36; 95% ci: -0.56 to -0.15); modafinil (or armodafinil) and corticosteroids were not effective.
CONCLUSIONS
Erythropoietin and methylphenidate significantly reduced fatigue severity in patients with cancer and in recipients of hsct. Concerns about the safety of those agents might limit their usefulness. Future research should identify effective interventions for fatigue that have minimal adverse effects.
Topics: Central Nervous System Stimulants; Erythropoietin; Fatigue; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Methylphenidate; Neoplasms; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 29719440
DOI: 10.3747/co.25.3883 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease (MND), is terminal, progressive neurological condition for which there are no curative... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease (MND), is terminal, progressive neurological condition for which there are no curative treatments. Among people with ALS/MND, fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom, which is characterised by reversible motor weakness and whole-body tiredness that is only partially relieved by rest. The effectiveness of pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments for fatigue in ALS/MND is not yet established.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue in ALS/MND.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 5 September 2017: Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and ERIC. We also searched two clinical trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of any intervention which sought to reduce fatigue for people with ALS/MND. We included studies if reduction in fatigue was a primary or secondary outcome of the trial.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one pharmacological (modafinil) study and three non-pharmacological studies (resistance exercise, respiratory exercise, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)), involving a total of 86 participants with ALS/MND. None of the included studies were free from risk of bias. Since there was only one trial for each intervention, no meta-analysis was possible. All studies assessed fatigue using the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS; scale from 9 to 63, higher scores indicate more fatigue). Information for assessing bias was often lacking in study reports, making the risk of bias unclear across several domains in all trials. Blinding of participants was not possible in exercise trials, but the outcome assessment was blinded.We found very low-quality evidence suggesting possible improvements in fatigue for modafinil treatment versus placebo (MD -11.00, 95% CI -23.08 to 1.08), respiratory exercise versus a sham intervention (MD -9.65, 95% CI -22.04 to 2.73), and rTMS versus sham rTMS (data not provided), which warrant further investigation to clarify the efficacy of these treatments for fatigue in ALS/MND. We found no clear improvements in fatigue for resistance exercise versus usual care (MD 0.20, 95% CI -10.98 to 11.38; very low-quality evidence).Three participants in the modafinil group dropped out of the modafinil study, two citing issues with headache and one with chest tightness; other adverse effects were anxiety, nausea, dizziness, and sialorrhoea (probably ALS-related). The trials reported no adverse effects of exercise or rTMS.We cannot be certain about the effects of any of the interventions studied because of imprecision (small numbers of participants, wide CI), and possible study limitations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is impossible to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions to improve fatigue for people with ALS/MND as there are few randomised studies, and the quality of available evidence is very low.
Topics: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Benzhydryl Compounds; Breathing Exercises; Fatigue; Humans; Modafinil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
PubMed: 29293261
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011005.pub2 -
Psychiatrike = Psychiatriki 2016Bipolar disorder (BD) has a complex and variable clinical picture which is characterized by many different phacets and phases and as a result its therapeutical options... (Review)
Review
Bipolar disorder (BD) has a complex and variable clinical picture which is characterized by many different phacets and phases and as a result its therapeutical options are also complex and often unsatisfactory. Typically the so-called "mood stabilizers" are used in the treatment of BD and in this class lithium and specific antiepileptics are included. The present study aimed to systematically review the literature concerning the presence of randomized double blind clinical trials of 'non conventional' pharmaceutical treatment options. The present systematic review utilized the PRISMA method and searched the MEDLINE through January 1st 2015 with the use of appropriate key words. In order to identify randomized controlled trials- RCTs a combination of the words "bipolar", "manic", "mania", "manic depression" and "manic depressive" with "randomized" was used. Webpages with lists of trials were also searched including http://clinicaltrials.gov and http://www.clinicalstudyresults.org as well as the official webpages of all pharma companies with products marketed in the treatment of BD. The reference lists of various review papers were also searched. The MEDLINE was searched with the combination of the words "guidelines" or "algorithms" with "mania", "manic", "bipolar", "manicdepressive" or "manic depression" in order to identify articles with treatment guidelines. The reference list of these articles were also scanned. From 3,284 papers which were initially traced, only 47 papers were included in the present study. From those agents studied in acute mania, tamoxifen is efficacious as monotherapy and as combination therapy with lithium and other mood stabilizers, however its safety profile is relatively poor. Allopurinol manifests efficacy in combination with lithium but not with other agents and its safety profile is satisfactory. Methoxyprogesterone is efficacious in combination with mood stabilizers and its safety profile is very good. In acute bipolar depression the combinations of FEWP with carbamazepine and ketamine, modafinil, pramipexole, pregnenolone and maybe armodafinil with mood stabilizers are efficacious. The safety profile of these combinations is medium. The use of celecoxib, lisdexamfetamine and memantine have negative data. Concerning the maintenance treatment, the data are negative for memantine and for Nacetylcysteine. Although most of the data concerning the usefulness of "non-conventional" pharmacotherapeutic agents in the treatment of bipolar disorder are negative, it is encouraging that those agents who have been proven efficacious probably exert their therapeutic effect through pathways which differ from usual and probably different from those classically considered in most biological models of bipolar illness. In this way there constitute new paradigms and open new horizons in the understanding of the disease.
Topics: Antimanic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28114089
DOI: 10.22365/jpsych.2016.274.253 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Cocaine dependence is a severe disorder for which no medication has been approved. Like opioids for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulants could be... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cocaine dependence is a severe disorder for which no medication has been approved. Like opioids for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulants could be an effective therapy for treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of psychostimulants for cocaine abuse and dependence. Specific outcomes include sustained cocaine abstinence and retention in treatment. We also studied the influence of type of drug and comorbid disorders on psychostimulant efficacy.
SEARCH METHODS
This is an update of the review previously published in 2010. For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO up to 15 February 2016. We handsearched references of obtained articles and consulted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised parallel group controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of a psychostimulant drug versus placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 studies involving 2366 participants. The included studies assessed nine drugs: bupropion, dexamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil, mazindol, methamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts and selegiline. We did not consider any study to be at low risk of bias for all domains included in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Attrition bias was the most frequently suspected potential source of bias of the included studies. We found very low quality evidence that psychostimulants improved sustained cocaine abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.77, P = 0.02), but they did not reduce cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.33) among participants who continued to use it. Furthermore, we found moderate quality evidence that psychostimulants did not improve retention in treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06). The proportion of adverse event-induced dropouts and cardiovascular adverse event-induced dropouts was similar for psychostimulants and placebo (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, respectively). When we included the type of drug as a moderating variable, the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine abstinence was higher with bupropion and dexamphetamine than with placebo. Psychostimulants also appeared to increase the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine and heroin abstinence amongst methadone-maintained, dual heroin-cocaine addicts. Retention to treatment was low, though, so our results may be compromised by attrition bias. We found no evidence of publication bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found mixed results. Psychostimulants improved cocaine abstinence compared to placebo in some analyses but did not improve treatment retention. Since treatment dropout was high, we cannot rule out the possibility that these results were influenced by attrition bias. Existing evidence does not clearly demonstrate the efficacy of any pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence, but substitution treatment with psychostimulants appears promising and deserves further investigation.
PubMed: 27670244
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007380.pub4 -
Chronic Respiratory Disease May 2017Fatigue is a common manifestation of sarcoidosis, often persisting without evidence of disease activity. First-line therapies for sarcoidosis have limited effect on... (Review)
Review
Fatigue is a common manifestation of sarcoidosis, often persisting without evidence of disease activity. First-line therapies for sarcoidosis have limited effect on fatigue. This review aimed to assess the treatment options targeting sarcoidosis-associated fatigue. Medline and Web of Science were searched in November 2015; the bibliographies of these papers, and relevant review papers, were also searched. Studies were included if they reported on the efficacy of interventions (both pharmacological and non-pharmacological) on fatigue scores in sarcoidosis patients. Eight studies were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated six different interventions (infliximab, adalimumab, ARA 290, methylphenidate, armodafinil and exercise programmes). There is evidence to support a treatment effect of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-αtherapies (adalimumab and infliximab) and neurostimulants (methylphenidate and armodafinil), but within five of the studies, the risk of bias was high within most domains and the remaining three studies included only small numbers of participants and were short in duration. Trial evidence for treating fatigue as a manifestation of sarcoidosis is limited and requires further investigation. Anti-TNF-α therapies may be beneficial in patients with organ-threatening disease. Neurostimulants have some trial evidence supporting improvements in fatigue but further investigation is needed before they can be recommended.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antirheumatic Agents; Benzhydryl Compounds; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Exercise Therapy; Fatigue; Humans; Infliximab; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Oligopeptides; Sarcoidosis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 27507833
DOI: 10.1177/1479972316661926 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom in people with a primary brain tumour (PBT). The effectiveness of interventions for treating clinically significant levels of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom in people with a primary brain tumour (PBT). The effectiveness of interventions for treating clinically significant levels of fatigue in this population is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for adults with PBT and high levels of fatigue.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2016, we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL and checked the reference lists of included studies. We also searched relevant conference proceedings, searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and contacted major co-operative groups with trials in this area.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention in adults with PBT and fatigue, where fatigue was the primary outcome measure. We restricted inclusion specifically to studies that enrolled only participants with clinically significant levels of fatigue.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (JD, SYK, DC) independently evaluated search results, extracted data from selected studies and carried out a bias risk assessment. We extracted data on fatigue, cognition, mood, quality of life and adverse events outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified nine studies. We excluded eight of these as they did not restrict participation to people with high fatigue. The single eligible trial investigated the use of modafinil compared to placebo. Although this study found a significant improvement over time in the primary outcome of fatigue, the improvement occurred after both modafinil and placebo with no significant difference in response between the two groups. The included trial did not reach its planned recruitment target and therefore may not, in practice, have been adequately powered to detect a difference. The trial was at a low risk of bias across most areas. There was an unclear risk of bias related to the use of mean imputation because the investigators did not analyse the impact of imputation on the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence to draw reliable and generalisable conclusions regarding potential effectiveness or harm of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments for fatigue in people with PBT. More research is needed on how best to treat people with brain tumours with high fatigue.
Topics: Adult; Benzhydryl Compounds; Brain Neoplasms; Fatigue; Humans; Modafinil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 27074263
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011376.pub2 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Mar 2016In palliative care patients, fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Further... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In palliative care patients, fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Further complicating issues are the multidimensionality, subjective nature and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. The review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for fatigue in palliative care, with a focus on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including patients with cancer and other chronic diseases.
METHODS
We considered randomized controlled trials concerning adult palliative care with a focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue compared with placebo, application of two drugs, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia). We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, and a selection of cancer journals up to 28 April 2014. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data.
RESULTS
We screened 1645 publications of which 45 met the inclusion criteria. In total, we analysed data from 18 drugs and 4696 participants. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials. Meta-analysis of data was possible for modafinil, pemoline, and methylphenidate.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for the treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Some drugs, which may be beneficial for the treatment of fatigue associated with palliative care such as amantadine, methylphenidate, and modafinil, should be further researched.
PubMed: 27066315
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12101