-
Scientific Reports Jun 2024Classic psychedelics and MDMA have a colorful history of recreational use, and both have recently been re-evaluated as tools for the treatment of psychiatric disorders.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Classic psychedelics and MDMA have a colorful history of recreational use, and both have recently been re-evaluated as tools for the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Several studies have been carried out to assess potential long-term effects of a regular use on cognition, delivering distinct results for psychedelics and MDMA. However, to date knowledge is scarce on cognitive performance during acute effects of those substances. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigate how cognitive functioning is affected by psychedelics and MDMA during the acute drug effects and the sub-acute ("afterglow") window. Our quantitative analyses suggest that acute cognitive performance is differentially affected by psychedelics when compared to MDMA: psychedelics impair attention and executive function, whereas MDMA primarily affects memory, leaving executive functions and attention unaffected. Our qualitative analyses reveal that executive functioning and creativity may be increased during a window of at least 24 h after the acute effects of psychedelics have subsided, whereas no such results have been observed for MDMA. Our findings may contribute to inform recommendations on harm reduction for recreational settings and to help fostering differential approaches for the use of psychedelics and MDMA within a therapeutic framework.
Topics: Humans; Hallucinogens; N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine; Cognition; Executive Function; Attention; Memory
PubMed: 38926480
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-65391-9 -
Journal of the American Academy of... May 2024We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the effect of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication on quality of life (QoL), and to...
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the effect of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication on quality of life (QoL), and to understand whether this effect differs between stimulants and non-stimulants.
METHOD
From the dataset of a published network meta-analysis (Cortese et al., 2018), updated on 27 February 2023 (https://med-adhd.org/), we identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ADHD medications for individuals aged 6 years or more with a diagnosis of ADHD based on the DSM (from third to fifth editions) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD; ninth or tenth revision), reporting data on QoL (measured with a validated scale). The risk of bias for each RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2. Multi-level meta-analytic models were conducted with R 4.3.1.
RESULTS
We included 17 RCTs (5,388 participants in total; 56% randomized to active medication) in the meta-analyses. We found that amphetamines (Hedges g = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.08, 0.94), methylphenidate (0.38; 0.23, 0.54), and atomoxetine (0.30; 0.19, 0.40) were significantly more efficacious than placebo in improving QoL in people with ADHD, with moderate effect size. For atomoxetine, these effects were not moderated by the length of intervention, and did not differ between children/adolescents and adults.
CONCLUSION
In addition to being efficacious in reducing ADHD core symptom severity, both stimulant and non-stimulant medications are efficacious in improving QoL in people with ADHD, albeit with lower effect sizes. Future research should explore whether, and to what degree, combining pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions is likely to further improve QoL in people with ADHD.
STUDY PREREGISTRATION INFORMATION
Effects of pharmacological treatment for ADHD on quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis; https://osf.io/;qvgps.
PubMed: 38823477
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2024.05.023 -
The International Journal on Drug Policy Jun 2024A better understanding of global patterns of drug use among people who inject drugs can inform interventions to reduce harms related to different use profiles. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A better understanding of global patterns of drug use among people who inject drugs can inform interventions to reduce harms related to different use profiles. This review aimed to comprehensively present the geographical variation in drug consumption patterns among this population.
METHODS
Systematic searches of peer reviewed (PsycINFO, Medline, Embase) and grey literature published from 2008-2022 were conducted. Data on recent (past year) and lifetime drug use among people who inject drugs were included. Data were extracted on use of heroin, amphetamines, cocaine, benzodiazepines, cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco; where possible, estimates were disaggregated by route of administration (injecting, non-injecting, smoking). National estimates were generated and, where possible, regional, and global estimates were derived through meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of 40,427 studies screened, 394 were included from 81 countries. Globally, an estimated 78.1 % (95 %CI:70.2-84.2) and 71.8 % (65.7-77.2) of people who inject drugs had recently used (via any route) and injected heroin, while an estimated 52.8 % (47.0-59.0) and 19.8 % (13.8-26.5) had recently used and injected amphetamines, respectively. Over 90 % reported recent tobacco use (93.5 % [90.8-95.3]) and recent alcohol use was 59.1 % (52.6-65.6). In Australasia recent heroin use was lowest (49.4 % [46.8-52.1]) while recent amphetamine injecting (64.0 % [60.8-67.1]) and recent use of cannabis (72.3 % [69.9-74.6]) were higher than in all other regions. Recent heroin use (86.1 % [78.3-91.4]) and non-injecting amphetamine use (43.3 % [38.4-48.3]) were highest in East and Southeast Asia. Recent amphetamine use (75.8 % [72.7-78.8]) and injecting heroin use (84.8 % (81.4-87.8) were highest in North America while non-injecting heroin use was highest in Western Europe (45.0 % [41.3-48.7]).
CONCLUSION
There is considerable variation in types of drugs and routes of administration used among people who inject drugs. This variation needs to be considered in national and global treatment and harm reduction interventions to target the specific behaviours and harms associated with these regional profiles of use.
Topics: Humans; Substance Abuse, Intravenous; Global Health
PubMed: 38796926
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104455 -
Lancet (London, England) Apr 2024Pharmacotherapy provides an option for adults with overweight and obesity to reduce their bodyweight if lifestyle modifications fail. We summarised the latest evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pharmacotherapy provides an option for adults with overweight and obesity to reduce their bodyweight if lifestyle modifications fail. We summarised the latest evidence for the benefits and harms of weight-lowering drugs.
METHODS
This systematic review and network meta-analysis included searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 23, 2021, for randomised controlled trials of weight-lowering drugs in adults with overweight and obesity. We performed frequentist random-effect network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation frameworks to rate the certainty of evidence, calculate the absolute effects, categorise interventions, and present the findings. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42021245678.
FINDINGS
14 605 citations were identified by our search, of which 132 eligible trials enrolled 48 209 participants. All drugs lowered bodyweight compared with lifestyle modification alone; all subsequent numbers refer to comparisons with lifestyle modification. High to moderate certainty evidence established phentermine-topiramate as the most effective in lowering weight (odds ratio [OR] of ≥5% weight reduction 8·02, 95% CI 5·24 to 12·27; mean difference [MD] of percentage bodyweight change -7·98, 95% CI -9·27 to -6·69) followed by GLP-1 receptor agonists (OR 6·33, 95% CI 5·00 to 8·00; MD -5·79, 95% CI -6·34 to -5·25). Naltrexone-bupropion (OR 2·69, 95% CI 2·10 to 3·44), phentermine-topiramate (2·40, 1·68 to 3·44), GLP-1 receptor agonists (2·22, 1·74 to 2·84), and orlistat (1·71, 1·42 to 2·05) were associated with increased adverse events leading to drug discontinuation. In a post-hoc analysis, semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, showed substantially larger benefits than other drugs with a similar risk of adverse events as other drugs for both likelihood of weight loss of 5% or more (OR 9·82, 95% CI 7·09 to 13·61) and percentage bodyweight change (MD -11·40, 95% CI -12·51 to -10·29).
INTERPRETATION
In adults with overweight and obesity, phentermine-topiramate and GLP-1 receptor agonists proved the best drugs in reducing weight; of the GLP-1 agonists, semaglutide might be the most effective.
FUNDING
1.3.5 Project for Disciplines of Excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Overweight; Network Meta-Analysis; Topiramate; Obesity; Weight Loss; Phentermine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38582569
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00351-9 -
Psychiatry Research May 2024We aim to systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness and safety of psychedelics [psilocybin, ayahuasca (active component DMT), LSD and MDMA] in treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We aim to systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness and safety of psychedelics [psilocybin, ayahuasca (active component DMT), LSD and MDMA] in treating symptoms of various mental disorders. Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and PubMed were searched up to February 2024 and 126 articles were finally included. Results showed that psilocybin has the largest number of articles on treating mood disorders (N = 28), followed by ayahuasca (N = 7) and LSD (N = 6). Overall, psychedelics have therapeutic effects on mental disorders such as depression and anxiety. Specifically, psilocybin (Hedges' g = -1.49, 95% CI [-1.67, -1.30]) showed the strongest therapeutic effect among four psychedelics, followed by ayahuasca (Hedges' g = -1.34, 95% CI [-1.86, -0.82]), MDMA (Hedges' g = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.33, -0.32]), and LSD (Hedges' g = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.27]). A small amount of evidence also supports psychedelics improving tobacco addiction, eating disorders, sleep disorders, borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and body dysmorphic disorder. The most common adverse event with psychedelics was headache. Nearly a third of the articles reported that no participants reported lasting adverse effects. Our analyses suggest that psychedelics reduce negative mood, and have potential efficacy in other mental disorders, such as substance-use disorders and PTSD.
Topics: Humans; Hallucinogens; Psilocybin; N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine; Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; Mental Disorders; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
PubMed: 38574699
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2024.115886 -
Molecular Psychiatry Apr 2024The elucidation of synaptic density changes provides valuable insights into the underlying brain mechanisms of substance use. In preclinical studies, synaptic density...
The elucidation of synaptic density changes provides valuable insights into the underlying brain mechanisms of substance use. In preclinical studies, synaptic density markers, like spine density, are altered by substances of abuse (e.g., alcohol, amphetamine, cannabis, cocaine, opioids, nicotine). These changes could be linked to phenomena including behavioral sensitization and drug self-administration in rodents. However, studies have produced heterogeneous results for spine density across substances and brain regions. Identifying patterns will inform translational studies given tools that now exist to measure in vivo synaptic density in humans. We performed a meta-analysis of preclinical studies to identify consistent findings across studies. PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and EBSCO were searched between September 2022 and September 2023, based on a protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42022354006). We screened 6083 publications and included 70 for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed drug-specific patterns in spine density changes. Hippocampal spine density increased after amphetamine. Amphetamine, cocaine, and nicotine increased spine density in the nucleus accumbens. Alcohol and amphetamine increased, and cannabis reduced, spine density in the prefrontal cortex. There was no convergence of findings for morphine's effects. The effects of cocaine on the prefrontal cortex presented contrasting results compared to human studies, warranting further investigation. Publication bias was small for alcohol or morphine and substantial for the other substances. Heterogeneity was moderate-to-high across all substances. Nonetheless, these findings inform current translational efforts examining spine density in humans with substance use disorders.
PubMed: 38561468
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-024-02519-3 -
Schizophrenia Research May 2024The clinical profiles of methamphetamine-induced psychosis (MIP) and schizophrenia are largely overlapping making differentiation challenging. In this systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
The clinical profiles of methamphetamine-induced psychosis (MIP) and schizophrenia are largely overlapping making differentiation challenging. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to compare the positive and negative symptoms of MIP and schizophrenia to better understand the differences between them.
STUDY DESIGN
In accordance with our pre-registered protocol (CRD42021286619), we conducted a search of English-language studies up to December 16th, 2022, in PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, including stable outpatients with MIP and schizophrenia. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to measure the quality of cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies.
STUDY RESULTS
Of the 2052 articles retrieved, we included 12 studies (6 cross-sectional, 3 case-control, and 2 cohort studies) in our meta-analysis, involving 624 individuals with MIP and 524 individuals with schizophrenia. Our analysis found no significant difference in positive symptoms between the two groups (SMD, -0.01; 95%CI, -0.13 to +0.11; p = 1). However, individuals with MIP showed significantly less negative symptoms compared to those with schizophrenia (SMD, -0.35; 95CI%, -0.54 to -0.16; p = 0.01; I = 54 %). Our sensitivity analysis, which included only studies with a low risk of bias, did not change the results. However, our meta-analysis is limited by its cross-sectional approach, which limits the interpretation of causal associations. Furthermore, differences in population, inclusion criteria, methodology, and drug exposure impact our findings.
CONCLUSIONS
Negative symptoms are less prominent in individuals with MIP. While both groups do not differ regarding positive symptoms, raises the possibility of shared and partly different underlying neurobiological mechanisms related to MIP and schizophrenia.
Topics: Humans; Methamphetamine; Schizophrenia; Psychoses, Substance-Induced; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Amphetamine-Related Disorders
PubMed: 38554698
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2024.03.037 -
Bipolar Disorders May 2024Abnormalities in dopamine and norepinephrine signaling are implicated in cognitive impairments in bipolar disorder (BD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder... (Review)
Review
Efficacy and safety of established and off-label ADHD drug therapies for cognitive impairment or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in bipolar disorder: A systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force.
BACKGROUND
Abnormalities in dopamine and norepinephrine signaling are implicated in cognitive impairments in bipolar disorder (BD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force therefore aimed to investigate the possible benefits on cognition and/or ADHD symptoms and safety of established and off-label ADHD therapies in BD.
METHODS
We included studies of ADHD medications in BD patients, which involved cognitive and/or safety measures. We followed the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO from inception until June 2023. Two authors reviewed the studies independently using the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for Randomized trials.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were identified (N = 2136), investigating armodafinil (k = 4, N = 1581), methylphenidate (k = 4, N = 84), bupropion (k = 4, n = 249), clonidine (k = 1, n = 70), lisdexamphetamine (k = 1, n = 25), mixed amphetamine salts (k = 1, n = 30), or modafinil (k = 2, n = 97). Three studies investigated cognition, four ADHD symptoms, and 10 the safety. Three studies found treatment-related ADHD symptom reduction: two involved methylphenidate and one amphetamine salts. One study found a trend towards pro-cognitive effects of modafinil on some cognitive domains. No increased risk of (hypo)mania was observed. Five studies had low risk of bias, eleven a moderate risk, and one a serious risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Methylphenidate or mixed amphetamine salts may improve ADHD symptoms in BD. However, there is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness on cognition. The medications produced no increased mania risk when used alongside mood stabilizers. Further robust studies are needed to assess cognition in BD patients receiving psychostimulant treatment alongside mood stabilizers.
Topics: Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bipolar Disorder; Cognitive Dysfunction; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Off-Label Use; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 38433530
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.13414 -
Addictive Behaviors Jun 2024Anxiety and depression are prevalent mental health problems in people who use illicit stimulants. Improved understanding of the temporal relationship between... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Anxiety and depression are prevalent mental health problems in people who use illicit stimulants. Improved understanding of the temporal relationship between methamphetamine, ecstasy/MDMA, or cocaine use with anxiety or depression informs public health interventions and treatment options for those experiencing this co-occurrence. This narrative systematic review sought to examine associations and temporality between the use of methamphetamine, ecstasy/MDMA, or cocaine, with anxiety or depressive symptoms. Method Systematic searches of 4 electronic databases were conducted up to August 2023. Study eligibility included the measurement of anxiety and/or depressive symptoms, and frequency of illicit stimulant use (methamphetamine, cocaine, or ecstasy/MDMA) at two separate time points, with data analysis of the association between these variables. The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist was utilised to assess quality. Data was extracted, and a narrative synthesis incorporating an eight-criteria framework to assess associations was conducted. Results 4432 studies were screened for eligibility; 11 studies (3 RCTs and 8 prospective cohort studies) were included. Evidence for an association between depressive symptoms and methamphetamine use was demonstrated in six studies, with temporal evidence in three studies supporting methamphetamine use preceding depressive symptoms. Three studies reported an association between cocaine use and depressive symptoms. Evidence for associations with any of the illicit stimulants and anxiety symptoms was lacking.
CONCLUSIONS
There was some evidence to support a case for temporality, particularly for methamphetamine use and depressive symptoms. Investing in longitudinal studies is pivotal to understanding the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between illicit stimulant use and anxiety or depressive symptoms. A limitation of the study was the variation in the measurement and analysis of outcomes.
Topics: Humans; N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine; Methamphetamine; Depression; Prospective Studies; Anxiety; Cocaine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cocaine-Related Disorders
PubMed: 38394960
DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.107988 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024Stimulant use disorder is a continuously growing medical and social burden without approved medications available for its treatment. Psychosocial interventions could be... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Stimulant use disorder is a continuously growing medical and social burden without approved medications available for its treatment. Psychosocial interventions could be a valid approach to help people reduce or cease stimulant consumption. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers in September 2023. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any psychosocial intervention with no intervention, treatment as usual (TAU), or a different intervention in adults with stimulant use disorder.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 64 RCTs (8241 participants). Seventy-three percent of studies included participants with cocaine or crack cocaine use disorder; 3.1% included participants with amphetamine use disorder; 10.9% included participants with methamphetamine use disorder; and 12.5% included participants with any stimulant use disorder. In 18 studies, all participants were in methadone maintenance treatment. In our primary comparison of any psychosocial treatment to no intervention, we included studies which compared a psychosocial intervention plus TAU to TAU alone. In this comparison, 12 studies evaluated cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), 27 contingency management, three motivational interviewing, one study looked at psychodynamic therapy, and one study evaluated CBT plus contingency management. We also compared any psychosocial intervention to TAU. In this comparison, seven studies evaluated CBT, two contingency management, two motivational interviewing, and one evaluated a combination of CBT plus motivational interviewing. Seven studies compared contingency management reinforcement related to abstinence versus contingency management not related to abstinence. Finally, seven studies compared two different psychosocial approaches. We judged 65.6% of the studies to be at low risk of bias for random sequence generation and 19% at low risk for allocation concealment. Blinding of personnel and participants was not possible for the type of intervention, so we judged all the studies to be at high risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes but at low risk for objective outcomes. We judged 22% of the studies to be at low risk of detection bias for subjective outcomes. We judged most of the studies (69%) to be at low risk of attrition bias. When compared to no intervention, we found that psychosocial treatments: reduce the dropout rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.91; 30 studies, 4078 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.41; 12 studies, 1293 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.62; 9 studies, 1187 participants; high-certainty evidence); probably increase continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.97; 12 studies, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.46; 4 studies, 295 participants; low-certainty evidence); reduce the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.19; 10 studies, 1215 participants; high-certainty evidence); and increase the longest period of abstinence (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; 17 studies, 2118 participants; high-certainty evidence). When compared to TAU, we found that psychosocial treatments reduce the dropout rate (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; 9 studies, 735 participants; high-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.64 to 4.31; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether they make any difference in point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.99; 2 studies, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to TAU, psychosocial treatments may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.53; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably make little to no difference in the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (SMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.81 to 0.47, 4 studies, 479 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and may make little to no difference in the longest period of abstinence (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.21; 1 study, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies for this comparison assessed continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up. Only five studies reported harms related to psychosocial interventions; four of them stated that no adverse events occurred.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review's findings indicate that psychosocial treatments can help people with stimulant use disorder by reducing dropout rates. This conclusion is based on high-certainty evidence from comparisons of psychosocial interventions with both no treatment and TAU. This is an important finding because many people with stimulant use disorders leave treatment prematurely. Stimulant use disorders are chronic, lifelong, relapsing mental disorders, which require substantial therapeutic efforts to achieve abstinence. For those who are not yet able to achieve complete abstinence, retention in treatment may help to reduce the risks associated with stimulant use. In addition, psychosocial interventions reduce stimulant use compared to no treatment, but they may make little to no difference to stimulant use when compared to TAU. The most studied and promising psychosocial approach is contingency management. Relatively few studies explored the other approaches, so we cannot rule out the possibility that the results were imprecise due to small sample sizes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Psychosocial Intervention; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Substance-Related Disorders; Counseling; Motivational Interviewing
PubMed: 38357958
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011866.pub3