-
Journal of Neural Transmission (Vienna,... Sep 2022The trajectory of the use of dopamine replacement therapy (DRT) in Parkinson's disease (PD) is variable and doses may need to be increased, but also tapered. The plan... (Review)
Review
The trajectory of the use of dopamine replacement therapy (DRT) in Parkinson's disease (PD) is variable and doses may need to be increased, but also tapered. The plan for dose adjustment is usually done as per drug information recommendations from the licensing bodies, but there are no clear guidelines with regards to the best practice regarding the tapering off schedule given sudden dose reductions of drugs such as dopamine agonists may have serious adverse consequences. A systematic literature search was, therefore, performed to derive recommendations and the data show that there are no controlled studies or evidence-based recommendations how to taper or discontinue PD medication in a systematic manner. Most of the data were available on the dopamine agonist withdrawal syndrome (DAWS) and we found only two instructions on how to reduce pramipexole and rotigotine published by the EMA. We suggest that based on the available data, levodopa, dopamine agonists (DA), and amantadine should not be discontinued abruptly. Abrupt or sudden reduction of DA or amantadine in particular can lead to severe life-threatening withdrawal symptoms. Tapering off levodopa, COMT inhibitors, and MAO-B inhibitors may worsen motor and non-motor symptoms. Based on our clinical experience, we have proposed how to reduce PD medication and this work will form the basis of a future Delphi panel to define the recommendations in a consensus.
Topics: Amantadine; Dopamine; Dopamine Agonists; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 34324057
DOI: 10.1007/s00702-021-02389-x -
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 -
Clinical NeuropharmacologyThe efficacy of memantine for migraine remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of memantine versus placebo on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The efficacy of memantine for migraine remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of memantine versus placebo on treatment in migraine patients.
METHODS
We search PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through February 2020 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of memantine versus placebo on treatment efficacy in migraine patients. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Three randomized controlled trials are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group in migraine patients, memantine treatment is associated with substantially reduced monthly attack frequency (mean difference [MD], -2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.83 to -1.46; P < 0.00001), number of migraine days (MD, -4.17; 95% CI, -6.40 to -1.93; P = 0.0003) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MD, -5.63; 95% CI, -6.46 to -4.79; P < 0.00001), but demonstrates no obvious influence on acute pain medications (MD, -1.23; 95% CI, -4.63 to 2.17; P = 0.48).
CONCLUSIONS
Memantine treatment may benefit to the control of migraine.
Topics: Disability Evaluation; Humans; Memantine; Migraine Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33961371
DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000425 -
Journal of Parkinson's Disease 2021Many studies on Parkinson's disease (PD) patients affected by Coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19) were recently published. However, the small sample size of infected...
BACKGROUND
Many studies on Parkinson's disease (PD) patients affected by Coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19) were recently published. However, the small sample size of infected patients enrolled in most studies did not allow to draw robust conclusions on the COVID-19 impact in PD.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to assess whether the prevalence and outcome of COVID-19 in PD patients are different from those observed in the general population.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting data on PD patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 (PD-COVID+). We extracted prevalence, clinical-demographic data, outcome, and mortality. We also analyzed risk or protective factors based on comparisons between PD-COVID+ and control populations with PD without COVID-19 or without PD with COVID-19.
RESULTS
We included 16 studies reporting on a total of 11,325 PD patients, 1,061 with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. The median infection prevalence ranged from 0.6% to 8.5%. PD-COVID+ patients had a median age of 74 and a disease duration of 9.4 years. Pooling all PD-COVID+ patients from included studies, 28.6% required hospitalization, 37.1% required levodopa dose increasing, and 18.9% died. The case fatality was higher in PD-COVID+ patients than the general population, with longer PD duration as a possible risk factor for worse outcome. Amantadine and vitamin D were proposed as potential protective factors.
CONCLUSION
Available studies indicate a higher case fatality in PD patients affected by COVID-19 than the general population. Conversely, current literature does not definitively clarify whether PD patients are more susceptible to get infected. The potential protective role of vitamin D and amantadine is intriguing but deserves further investigation.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; COVID-19; Case-Control Studies; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Vitamin D; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33749619
DOI: 10.3233/JPD-202463 -
The Journal of Head Trauma...To systematically review the available literature on the pharmacological management of agitation and/or aggression in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI),...
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the available literature on the pharmacological management of agitation and/or aggression in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), synthesize the available data, and provide guidelines.
DESIGN
Systematic review of systematic reviews.
MAIN MEASURES
A literature review of the following websites was performed looking for systematic reviews on the treatment of agitation and/or aggression among patients with TBI: PubMed, CINAHL, DynaMed, Health Business Elite, and EBSCO (Psychology and behavioral sciences collection). Two researchers independently assessed articles for meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data were extracted on year of publication, reviewed databases, dates of coverage, search limitations, pharmacological agents of interest, and a list of all controlled studies included. The included controlled studies were then examined to determine potential reasons for any difference in recommendations.
RESULTS
The literature review led to 187 citations and 67 unique publications after removing the duplicates. Following review of the title/abstracts and full texts, a total of 11 systematic reviews were included. The systematic reviews evaluated the evidence for safety and efficacy of the following medications: amantadine, amphetamines, methylphenidate, antiepileptics, atypical and typical antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, β-blockers, and sertraline.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the results of this literature review, the authors recommend avoiding benzodiazepines and haloperidol for treating agitation and/or aggression in the context of TBI. Atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine in particular) can be considered as practical alternatives for the as-needed management of agitation and/or aggression in lieu of benzodiazepines and haloperidol. Amantadine, β-blockers (propranolol and pindolol), antiepileptics, and methylphenidate can be considered for scheduled treatment of agitation and/or aggression in patients with TBI.
Topics: Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 33656478
DOI: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000656 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Dementia is a progressive syndrome characterised by deterioration in memory, thinking and behaviour, and by impaired ability to perform daily activities. Two classes of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a progressive syndrome characterised by deterioration in memory, thinking and behaviour, and by impaired ability to perform daily activities. Two classes of drug - cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine) and memantine - are widely licensed for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, and rivastigmine is also licensed for Parkinson's disease dementia. These drugs are prescribed to alleviate symptoms and delay disease progression in these and sometimes in other forms of dementia. There are uncertainties about the benefits and adverse effects of these drugs in the long term and in severe dementia, about effects of withdrawal, and about the most appropriate time to discontinue treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of withdrawal or continuation of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine, or both, in people with dementia on: cognitive, neuropsychiatric and functional outcomes, rates of institutionalisation, adverse events, dropout from trials, mortality, quality of life and carer-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register up to 17 October 2020 using terms appropriate for the retrieval of studies of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine. The Specialised Register contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases, numerous trial registries and grey literature sources.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) which compared withdrawal of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine, or both, with continuation of the same drug or drugs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed citations and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data from included trials and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Where trials were sufficiently similar, we pooled data for outcomes in the short term (up to 2 months after randomisation), medium term (3-11 months) and long term (12 months or more). We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six trials investigating cholinesterase inhibitor withdrawal, and one trial investigating withdrawal of either donepezil or memantine. No trials assessed withdrawal of memantine only. Drugs were withdrawn abruptly in five trials and stepwise in two trials. All participants had dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, with severities ranging from mild to very severe, and were taking cholinesterase inhibitors without known adverse effects at baseline. The included trials randomised 759 participants to treatment groups relevant to this review. Study duration ranged from 6 weeks to 12 months. There were too few included studies to allow planned subgroup analyses. We considered some studies to be at unclear or high risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition or reporting bias. Compared to continuing cholinesterase inhibitors, discontinuing treatment may be associated with worse cognitive function in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.21; 4 studies; low certainty), but the effect in the medium term is very uncertain (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.07; 3 studies; very low certainty). In a sensitivity analysis omitting data from a study which only included participants who had shown a relatively poor prior response to donepezil, inconsistency was reduced and we found that cognitive function may be worse in the discontinuation group in the medium term (SMD -0.62; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.31). Data from one longer-term study suggest that discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor is probably associated with worse cognitive function at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -2.09 Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) points, 95% CI -3.43 to -0.75; moderate certainty). Discontinuation may make little or no difference to functional status in the short term (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.04; 2 studies; low certainty), and its effect in the medium term is uncertain (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.01; 2 studies; very low certainty). After 12 months, discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor probably results in greater functional impairment than continuing treatment (MD -3.38 Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS) points, 95% CI -6.67 to -0.10; one study; moderate certainty). Discontinuation may be associated with a worsening of neuropsychiatric symptoms over the short term and medium term, although we cannot exclude a minimal effect (SMD - 0.48, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.13; 2 studies; low certainty; and SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.08; 3 studies; low certainty, respectively). Data from one study suggest that discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor may result in little to no change in neuropsychiatric status at 12 months (MD -0.87 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points; 95% CI -8.42 to 6.68; moderate certainty). We found no clear evidence of an effect of discontinuation on dropout due to lack of medication efficacy or deterioration in overall medical condition (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.76; 4 studies; low certainty), on number of adverse events (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; 4 studies; low certainty) or serious adverse events (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.39; 4 studies; low certainty), and on mortality (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.55; 5 studies; low certainty). Institutionalisation was reported in one trial, but it was not possible to extract data for the groups relevant to this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that discontinuing cholinesterase inhibitors may result in worse cognitive, neuropsychiatric and functional status than continuing treatment, although this is supported by limited evidence, almost all of low or very low certainty. As all participants had dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, our findings are not transferable to other dementia types. We were unable to determine whether the effects of discontinuing cholinesterase inhibitors differed with baseline dementia severity. There is currently no evidence to guide decisions about discontinuing memantine. There is a need for further well-designed RCTs, across a range of dementia severities and settings. We are aware of two ongoing registered trials. In making decisions about discontinuing these drugs, clinicians should exercise caution, considering the evidence from existing trials along with other factors important to patients and their carers.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Dementia; Donepezil; Humans; Memantine; Parkinson Disease; Quality of Life; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 35608903
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009081.pub2 -
Neurodegenerative Disease Management Dec 2020Fatigue is a debilitating symptom of multiple sclerosis (MS) affecting at least 75% of patients. Amantadine has been tested for MS-related fatigue treatment but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Fatigue is a debilitating symptom of multiple sclerosis (MS) affecting at least 75% of patients. Amantadine has been tested for MS-related fatigue treatment but efficacy and safety remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of qualified literatures searched until 30 April 2020. A total of 11 clinical trials were included. The meta-analysis revealed improvement of MS-related fatigue with amantadine treatment using the patients' subjective responses and validated fatigue scales. Amantadine is the most studied drug that has shown improvement of MS-related fatigue, with mild side effects and good tolerability. Larger studies using a standard measurement for MS-related fatigue are recommended to improve the quality of evidence. Safety and efficacy on long-term use needs further investigation.
Topics: Amantadine; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Male; Multiple Sclerosis
PubMed: 33012266
DOI: 10.2217/nmt-2020-0030 -
Expert Opinion on Emerging Drugs Dec 2020Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting up to 5.3% of children and 2.5% of adults depending on the country considered....
INTRODUCTION
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting up to 5.3% of children and 2.5% of adults depending on the country considered. Current pharmacological treatments for ADHD are based on stimulant or non-stimulant medications, targeting dopaminergic and noradrenergic systems in the frontal cortex and dopaminergic system in the basal ganglia. These drugs are effective and safe for the majority of patients, whereas about 20% of treated patients do not tolerate current therapies or experience insufficient efficacy. The adequate treatment of ADHD is necessary to allow a proper social placement and prevent the acquisition of additional, more severe, comorbidities.
AREAS COVERED
We conducted a review of the scientific literature and of unpublished/ongoing clinical trials to summarize the advances made in the last 10 years (2010-2020) for the pharmacological treatment of ADHD. We found many pharmacological mechanisms beyond dopaminergic and noradrenergic ones have been investigated in patients.
EXPERT OPINION
Some emerging drugs for ADHD may be promising as add-on treatment especially in children, amantadine to enhance cognitive functions and tipepidine for hyperactivity/impulsivity. Stand-alone emerging treatments for ADHD include viloxazine and dasotraline, which will soon have more clinical data available to support market access requests.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Cognition; Drug Design; Drug Development; Humans
PubMed: 32938246
DOI: 10.1080/14728214.2020.1820481 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with rule-breaking, criminality, substance use, unemployment, relationship difficulties, and premature death.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with rule-breaking, criminality, substance use, unemployment, relationship difficulties, and premature death. Certain types of medication (drugs) may help people with AsPD. This review updates a previous Cochrane review, published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and adverse effects of pharmacological interventions for adults with AsPD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers up to 5 September 2019. We also checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in which adults (age 18 years and over) with a diagnosis of AsPD or dissocial personality disorder were allocated to a pharmacological intervention or placebo control condition.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings tables' and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. The primary outcomes were: aggression; reconviction; global state/global functioning; social functioning; and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies (three new to this update), involving 416 participants with AsPD. Most studies (10/11) were conducted in North America. Seven studies were conducted exclusively in an outpatient setting, one in an inpatient setting, and one in prison; two studies used multiple settings. The average age of participants ranged from 28.6 years to 45.1 years (overall mean age 39.6 years). Participants were predominantly (90%) male. Study duration ranged from 6 to 24 weeks, with no follow-up period. Data were available from only four studies involving 274 participants with AsPD. All the available data came from unreplicated, single reports, and did not allow independent statistical analysis to be conducted. Many review findings were limited to descriptive summaries based on analyses carried out and reported by the trial investigators. No study set out to recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD; many participants presented primarily with substance abuse problems. The studies reported on four primary outcomes and six secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were aggression (six studies) global/state functioning (three studies), social functioning (one study), and adverse events (seven studies). Secondary outcomes were leaving the study early (eight studies), substance misuse (five studies), employment status (one study), impulsivity (one study), anger (three studies), and mental state (three studies). No study reported data on the primary outcome of reconviction or the secondary outcomes of quality of life, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment, housing/accommodation status, economic outcomes or prison/service outcomes. Eleven different drugs were compared with placebo, but data for AsPD participants were only available for five comparisons. Three classes of drug were represented: antiepileptic; antidepressant; and dopamine agonist (anti-Parkinsonian) drugs. We considered selection bias to be unclear in 8/11 studies, attrition bias to be high in 7/11 studies, and performance bias to be low in 7/11 studies. Using GRADE, we rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome in this review as very low, meaning that we have very little confidence in the effect estimates reported. Phenytoin (antiepileptic) versus placebo One study (60 participants) reported very low-certainty evidence that phenytoin (300 mg/day), compared to placebo, may reduce the mean frequency of aggressive acts per week (phenytoin mean = 0.33, no standard deviation (SD) reported; placebo mean = 0.51, no SD reported) in male prisoners with aggression (skewed data) at endpoint (six weeks). The same study (60 participants) reported no evidence of difference between phenytoin and placebo in the number of participants reporting the adverse event of nausea during week one (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 16.76; very low-certainty evidence). The study authors also reported that no important side effects were detectable via blood cell counts or liver enzyme tests (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure reconviction, global/state functioning or social functioning. Desipramine (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (29 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between desipramine (250 to 300 mg/day) and placebo on mean social functioning scores (desipramine = 0.19; placebo = 0.21), assessed with the family-social domain of the Addiction Severity Index (scores range from zero to one, with higher values indicating worse social functioning), at endpoint (12 weeks) (very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies included in this comparison measured the other primary outcomes: aggression; reconviction; global/state functioning; or adverse events. Nortriptyline (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (20 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between nortriptyline (25 to 75 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (nortriptyline = 0.3; placebo = 0.7), assessed with the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90) Global Severity Index (GSI; mean of subscale scores, ranging from zero to four, with higher scores indicating greater severity of symptoms), at endpoint (six months) in men with alcohol dependency (very low-certainty evidence). The study measured side effects but did not report data on adverse events for the AsPD subgroup. The study did not measure aggression, reconviction or social functioning. Bromocriptine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo One study (18 participants) reported no evidence of difference between bromocriptine (15 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (bromocriptine = 0.4; placebo = 0.7), measured with the GSI of the SCL-90 at endpoint (six months) (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on adverse effects, but reported that 12 patients randomised to the bromocriptine group experienced severe side effects, five of whom dropped out of the study in the first two days due to nausea and severe flu-like symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure aggression, reconviction and social functioning. Amantadine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo The study in this comparison did not measure any of the primary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence summarised in this review is insufficient to draw any conclusion about the use of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of antisocial personality disorder. The evidence comes from single, unreplicated studies of mostly older medications. The studies also have methodological issues that severely limit the confidence we can draw from their results. Future studies should recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD, and use relevant outcome measures, including reconviction.
Topics: Adult; Aggression; Alcohol-Related Disorders; Amantadine; Antisocial Personality Disorder; Anxiety; Bromocriptine; Desipramine; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nortriptyline; Phenytoin; Placebos; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32880105
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007667.pub3 -
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry May 2020To examine the efficacy of pharmacologic treatments for tardive dyskinesia (TD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To examine the efficacy of pharmacologic treatments for tardive dyskinesia (TD).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed was searched on December 12, 2017, for randomized, placebo-controlled trials examining the treatment of TD using the search terms (drug-induced dyskinesia OR tardive dyskinesia) AND (psychotic disorders OR schizophrenia).
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included if they examined tardive dyskinesia treatment as the primary outcome and were randomized and placebo-controlled trials.
DATA EXTRACTION
The effect size (standard mean difference) of improvement (compared to placebo) stratified by medication class is reported for each of the trials included in this systematic review. A meta-analysis was conducted utilizing a fixed-effects model.
RESULTS
Vitamin E was associated with significantly greater reduction in TD symptoms compared to placebo (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.31 ± 0.08; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.46; z = 4.1; P < .001). There was significant evidence of publication bias in vitamin E studies (Egger test: P = .02). Shorter duration of treatment and lower dose of vitamin E were significantly associated with greater measured treatment benefit. Vitamin B₆ was associated with significantly greater reduction in TD symptoms compared to placebo (SMD = 1.41 ± 0.22; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.85; z = 6.4; P < .001) in 2 trials conducted by the same research group. Vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors demonstrated significant benefit on tardive dyskinesia symptoms compared to placebo (SMD = 0.63 ± 0.11; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.85; z = 5.58; P < .005). Amantadine was associated with significantly greater score reduction compared to placebo (SMD = 0.46 ± 0.21; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.87; z = 2.20; P < .05). Calcium channel blockers were not associated with significantly greater score reduction compared to placebo (SMD = 0.31 ± 0.33; 95% CI, -0.34 to 0.96; z = 0.93; P = .35).
CONCLUSIONS
Data from multiple trials suggests that VMAT2 inhibitors, vitamin E, vitamin B₆, and amantadine may be effective for the treatment of TD. Evidence of publication bias and a significant negative association of dose and duration of treatment with measured efficacy suggest that the benefits of vitamin E in TD may be overstated. Head-to-head trials are needed to compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic agents for TD.
Topics: Humans; Psychotropic Drugs; Tardive Dyskinesia
PubMed: 32459404
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.19r12798