-
Neurocritical Care Aug 2020Amantadine and modafinil are neurostimulants that may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but the existing study results vary, and no comprehensive...
Amantadine and modafinil are neurostimulants that may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but the existing study results vary, and no comprehensive review has been published. This systematic review describes amantadine and modafinil administration practices post-stroke, evaluates timing and impact on clinical effectiveness measures, and identifies the incidence of potential adverse drug effects. A librarian-assisted search of the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE databases identified all English-language publications with "amantadine" or "modafinil" in the title or abstract from inception through February 1, 2020. Publications meeting predefined Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) criteria were included: Patients (≥ 18 years of age post-stroke); Intervention (amantadine or modafinil administration); Comparison (pretreatment baseline or control group); Outcomes (cognitive or functional outcome). Amantadine and modafinil administration practices, cognitive and functional outcomes, and incidence of potential adverse drug effects were collected following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance. Quantitative analyses were not performed due to heterogeneity in the clinical effectiveness measures; descriptive data are presented as number (percent) or median (interquartile range). Of 12,620 publications initially identified, 10 amantadine publications (n = 121 patients) and 12 modafinil publications (n = 120 patients) were included. Amantadine was initiated 39 (16, 385) days post-stroke, with most common initial doses of 100 mg once or twice daily (range 100-200 mg/day), and final daily dose of 200 (188, 200) mg/day. Modafinil was initiated 170 (17, 496) days post-stroke, with initial and final daily doses of 100 (100, 350) mg/day and 200 (100, 350) mg/day, respectively. The most common indication was consciousness disorders for amantadine (n = 3/10 publications; 30%) and fatigue for modafinil (n = 5/12; 42%). Forty unique clinical effectiveness measures (1.8 per study) with 141 domains (6.4 per study) were described across all studies. A positive response in at least one clinical effectiveness measure was reported in 70% of amantadine publications and 83% of modafinil publications. Only one publication each for amantadine (10%; n = 5 patients) and modafinil (8%; n = 21 patients) studied acutely hospitalized or ICU patients; both were randomized studies showing improvements in neurocognitive function for amantadine and fatigue for modafinil. Potential adverse drug effects were reported in approximately 50% of publications, most commonly visual hallucinations with amantadine (2% of patients) and dizziness (5% of patients) and dry eyes or mouth (5% of patients). Amantadine and modafinil may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but higher-quality data are needed to confirm this conclusion, especially in the acute care setting.
Topics: Amantadine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dopamine Agents; Humans; Modafinil; Recovery of Function; Stroke
PubMed: 32394130
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-020-00977-5 -
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Jul 2020We conducted an updated systematic review on the safety and efficacy of amantadine in cognitive recovery after traumatic brain injury (TBI), in order to determine if the...
We conducted an updated systematic review on the safety and efficacy of amantadine in cognitive recovery after traumatic brain injury (TBI), in order to determine if the current literature justifies its use in this clinical condition. A comprehensive search strategy was applied to three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane). Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of amantadine and placebo in adults within 3 months of TBI were included in the review. Study characteristics, outcomes, and methodological quality were synthesized. This systematic review was conducted and presented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) was not feasible due to the large heterogeneity of studies identified. Three parallel RCTs and one cross-over RCT, with a total of 325 patients were included. All of the studies evaluated only severe TBI in adults. Amantadine was found to be well tolerated across the studies. Two RCTs reported improvement in the intermediate-term cognitive recovery (four to six weeks after end of treatment), using DRS (in both studies) and MMSE, GOS, and FIM-Cog (in one study). The effect of amantadine on the short-term (seven days to discharge) and long-term (six months from the injury) cognitive outcome was found not superior to placebo in two RCTs. The rate of severe adverse events was found to be consistently very low across the studies (the incidence of seizures, elevation in liver enzymes and cardiac death was 0.7 %, 1.9 %, and 0.3 %, respectively). In conclusion, amantadine seems to be well tolerated and might hasten the rate of cognitive recovery in the intermediate-term outcome. However, the long-term effect of amantadine in cognitive recovery is not well defined and further large randomized clinical trials in refined subgroups of patients are needed to better define its application.
Topics: Amantadine; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Cognition Disorders; Humans; Nootropic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 32244036
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105815 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Mar 2020Demand for treatments for severe opioid use disorder is increasing worldwide. The current pharmacotherapy is mainly focused on opioid and adrenergic receptors. The...
BACKGROUND
Demand for treatments for severe opioid use disorder is increasing worldwide. The current pharmacotherapy is mainly focused on opioid and adrenergic receptors. The N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) is among other receptors that can also be targeted to treat the disease. Findings from randomized controlled trials (RTCs) on NMDAR antagonists to treat severe opioid use disorder amply varied. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits and assess the potential risks for adverse events or side effects of NMDAR antagonists that were investigated for the treatment of severe opioid use disorder.
METHODS
Articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Proquest. Cochrane Review Database, Medline Ovid, and EMBASE from their inception to March 2019. RTCs on NMDAR antagonists for the treatment of severe opioid use disorder were independently screened and assessed by two authors. The results were synthesized qualitatively.
RESULTS
Nineteen RTCs of 1459 participants met the inclusion criteria. There is moderate evidence suggesting that ketamine, memantine, amantadine, and dextromethorphan may be able to manage opioid withdrawal symptoms. There is little evidence suggesting that memantine may be able to reduce methadone maintenance dose in participants on methadone, reduce opioid use, and reduce craving. Dropout is noticeable among dextromethorphan's participants. Safety concerns are more likely associated with dextromethorphan and ketamine.
CONCLUSIONS
NMDAR antagonists have the potentiality to treat severe opioid use disorder. There is insufficient evidence to recommend them for the treatment of severe opioid use disorder due to several limitations inherent to the RCTs reviewed. Further exploration is needed.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Ketamine; Memantine; Methadone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate; Risk Assessment; Severity of Illness Index; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31978670
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.107845 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2019Aggression is a commonly reported problem following traumatic brain injury (TBI). It may present as verbal insults or outbursts, physical assaults, and/or property...
Aggression is a commonly reported problem following traumatic brain injury (TBI). It may present as verbal insults or outbursts, physical assaults, and/or property destruction. Aggressive behavior can fracture relationships and impede participation in treatment as well as a broad range of vocational and social activities, thereby reducing the individual's quality of life. Pharmacological intervention is frequently used to control aggression following TBI. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy of pharmacological interventions for aggression following TBI in adults. We reviewed studies in English, available before December 2018. MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL databases were searched, with additional searching of key journals, clinical trials registries, and international drug regulators. The primary outcomes of interest were reduction in the severity of aggression and occurrence of harms. The secondary outcomes of interest were changes in quality of life, participation, psychological health (e.g., depression, anxiety), and cognitive function. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instruments. Ten studies were identified, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five case series. There were positive, albeit mixed, findings for the RCTs examining the use of amantadine in reducing irritability ( = 2) and aggression ( = 2). There were some positive findings favoring methylphenidate in reducing anger ( = 1). The evidence for propranolol was weak ( = 1). Individual analysis revealed differential drug response across individuals for both methylphenidate and propranolol. The less rigorous studies administered carbamazepine ( = 2), valproic acid ( = 1), quetiapine ( = 1), and sertraline ( = 1), and all reported reductions in aggression. However, given the lack of a control group, it is difficult to discern treatment effects from natural change over time. This review concludes that a recommendation for use of amantadine to treat aggression and irritability in adults following TBI is appropriate. However, there is a need for further well-designed, adequately powered and controlled studies of pharmacological interventions for aggression following TBI.
PubMed: 31849802
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.01169 -
Parkinson's Disease 2019Since the discovery of levodopa (L-dopa) in 1967, the range of medications available to treat Parkinson's disease has increased significantly and guidance on the use,... (Review)
Review
Since the discovery of levodopa (L-dopa) in 1967, the range of medications available to treat Parkinson's disease has increased significantly and guidance on the use, efficacy, and safety of these medications has evolved. To assess levels of adherence to national prescribing guidelines and awareness of changes in the efficacy and safety data published in the profiles of medications for the treatment of PD, we have reviewed studies on patterns and determinants of prescribing PD medications conducted in the last 50 years (since the discovery of L-dopa). A systematic literature review was conducted using EMBASE (1967 to March, 2018), Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL (1967 to March 16, 2018), PsycINFO (1967 to the 2 week of March, 2018), and PubMed to identify all studies measuring prescribing patterns of PD medication between 1967 and 2017. Study design, source of data, country, year of study, number of patients and/or prescriptions, unit of analysis, prescribing determinants, and percentage utilisation of PD medications were extracted where possible. 44 studies examining prescribing patterns and/or prescribing determinants across 17 countries were identified. Unsurprisingly, L-dopa was the most commonly prescribed medication in all studies, accounting for 46.50% to 100% of all prescriptions for PD. In several studies, the prescribing rate of ergot-derived dopamine agonists (DAs) decreased over time in concordance with guidance. In contrast, the prescribing rates of non-ergot DAs increased over the last ten years in most of the included studies. In examining prescribing factors, two major categories were exemplified, patients' factors and prescribers' factors, with patients' age being the most common factor that affected the prescription in most studies. In conclusion, L-dopa is now the most commonly prescribed medication for cases of PD but there is large variation in the prescribing rates of catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitors, monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors, amantadine, and anticholinergics between countries. New studies examining the effects of recent clinical trials and measuring the prescribing rates of newly approved medications are warranted.
PubMed: 31781365
DOI: 10.1155/2019/9237181 -
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment Dec 2019Memantine is commonly used for the treatment of moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease. Due to its antagonism of the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor, which has been...
Memantine is commonly used for the treatment of moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease. Due to its antagonism of the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor, which has been shown to block rewarding and reinforcing effects of morphine, memantine has been investigated for potential utilization in opioid use disorder (OUD). The objective of this systematic review is to assess the evidence available to determine the safety and efficacy of memantine as treatment for OUD. Pubmed (1946-August 2019) and Embase (1947-August 2019) were queried using the following search terms: opioid-related disorders, opioids, substance withdrawal syndrome, withdrawal syndrome, opiate addiction, opiate, opiate dependence, opiate substitution treatment, managed opioid withdrawal, or drug withdrawal and memantine. After assessing studies appropriate for the objective, one single-blind and five double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were included. Of the included studies, four demonstrated beneficial effects of memantine either as monotherapy or adjunct to methadone or buprenorphine on reducing opioid cravings and methadone dose, increasing retention rates, and improving cognitive performance in patients with OUD. Two studies did not show benefit on patient retention rates with memantine adjunct to naltrexone. Study durations ranged from 3 to 13 weeks, and memantine dosing ranged from 5 to 60 mg/day. Memantine was well tolerated with similar rates of adverse effects between treatment groups. Based on the reviewed literature, memantine appears most beneficial as an adjunctive treatment for OUD when combined with methadone or buprenorphine, but not naltrexone. Larger studies with longer periods of treatment and follow-up are needed to support the use of memantine in the management of OUD.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine; Methadone; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 31757263
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2019.10.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Lidocaine, mexiletine, tocainide, and flecainide are local anesthetics which give an analgesic effect when administered orally or parenterally. Early reports described... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lidocaine, mexiletine, tocainide, and flecainide are local anesthetics which give an analgesic effect when administered orally or parenterally. Early reports described the use of intravenous lidocaine or procaine to relieve cancer and postoperative pain. Interest reappeared decades later when patient series and clinical trials reported that parenteral lidocaine and its oral analogs tocainide, mexiletine, and flecainide relieved neuropathic pain in some patients. With the recent publication of clinical trials with high quality standards, we have reviewed the use of systemic lidocaine and its oral analogs in neuropathic pain to update our knowledge, to measure their benefit and harm, and to better define their role in therapy.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate pain relief and adverse effect rates between systemic local anesthetic-type drugs and other control interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (1966 through 15 May 2004), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2002), Cancer Lit (through 15 December 2002), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2nd Quarter, 2004), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE), and LILACS, from January 1966 through March 2001. We also hand searched conference proceedings, textbooks, original articles and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials with random allocation, that were double blinded, with a parallel or crossover design. The control intervention was a placebo or an analgesic drug for neuropathic pain from any cause.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We collected efficacy and safety data from all published and unpublished trials. We calculated combined effect sizes using continuous and binary data for pain relief and adverse effects as primary and secondary outcome measurements, respectively.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-two controlled clinical trials met the selection criteria; two were duplicate articles. The treatment drugs were intravenous lidocaine (16 trials), mexiletine (12 trials), lidocaine plus mexiletine sequentially (one trial), and tocainide (one trial). Twenty-one trials were crossover studies, and nine were parallel. Lidocaine and mexiletine were superior to placebo [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -11; 95% CI: -15 to -7; P < 0.00001], and limited data showed no difference in efficacy (WMD = -0.6; 95% CI: -7 to 6), or adverse effects versus carbamazepine, amantadine, gabapentin or morphine. In these trials, systemic local anesthetics were safe, with no deaths or life-threatening toxicities. Sensitivity analysis identified data distribution in three trials as a probable source of heterogeneity. There was no publication bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Lidocaine and oral analogs were safe drugs in controlled clinical trials for neuropathic pain, were better than placebo, and were as effective as other analgesics. Future trials should enroll specific diseases and test novel lidocaine analogs with better toxicity profiles. More emphasis is necessary on outcomes measuring patient satisfaction to assess if statistically significant pain relief is clinically meaningful.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Neuralgia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31684682
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003345.pub2 -
Psychiatry Research Dec 2019A considerable proportion of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients receiving first-line pharmacological therapy, fail to fully respond to treatment and continue... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A considerable proportion of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients receiving first-line pharmacological therapy, fail to fully respond to treatment and continue to exhibit significant symptoms. In this systematic review, we evaluate the efficacy of memantine, as a glutamate-modulating agent, in moderate to severe OCD. Single and double blinded as well as open-label trials of memantine augmentation in adults with OCD were considered. Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores were the primary outcome measure. The electronic databases of PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar were searched for relevant trials using keywords 'obsessive-compulsive disorder OR OCD' AND 'memantine'. The meta-analysis of eight studies involving 125 OCD subjects receiving memantine augmentation exhibited a significant overall mean reduction of 11.73 points in Y-BOCS scores. The categorical analysis of treatment response (a minimum of 35% reduction in Y-BOCS) in four double-blind placebo-controlled studies indicated that OCD patients receiving memantine augmentation were 3.61 times more likely to respond to treatment than those receiving placebo. We found that 20 mg/day memantine augmentation to first-line pharmacological treatment for a period of at least 8 weeks is a safe and effective intervention for moderate to severe OCD.
Topics: Adult; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Female; Humans; Male; Memantine; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Single-Blind Method; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31630042
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112602 -
European Journal of Clinical... Dec 2019To study the strength of the evidence on efficacy, safety and acceptability of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEI) and memantine for Alzheimer's disease (AD); and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Study of the strength of the evidence and the redundancy of the research on pharmacological treatment for Alzheimer's disease: a cumulative meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
PURPOSE
To study the strength of the evidence on efficacy, safety and acceptability of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEI) and memantine for Alzheimer's disease (AD); and to determine the number of redundant post-authorisation trials.
METHODS
A cumulative meta-analysis with a trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed. Primary outcomes were cognitive function assessed with ADAS-cog or SIB scales, discontinuation due to adverse events (AE) and discontinuation for any reason. The redundancy of post-authorisation clinical trials was studied by determining the novel aspects of each study on patient, intervention, comparator and trial outcome characteristics. Two criteria of futile trial (lenient and strict) were used.
RESULTS
A total of 63 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) (16,576 patients) were included. It was conclusive that neither ChEI nor memantine achieved clinically significant improvement in cognitive function. In relation to safety, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that donepezil caused a clinically relevant increase on dropouts due to AE whereas the evidence was inconclusive for the remaining interventions. Regarding acceptability, it was conclusive that no ChEI improved treatment discontinuation while it was uncertain for memantine. The proportion of redundant trials was 5.6% with the lenient criteria and 42.6% with the strict one.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is conclusive that ChEI and memantine do not achieve clinically significant symptomatic improvement in AD while the acceptability of ChEI is unsatisfactory. Although evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions for AD and acceptability of memantine is inconclusive, no further RCTs are needed as their efficacy is not clinically relevant. Redundant trials were identified but their number depends on the criteria of futility used.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31435707
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-019-02742-w -
BMJ Open Jul 2019The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the management of agitated behaviours following traumatic brain...
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the management of agitated behaviours following traumatic brain injury (TBI).
METHODS
We performed a search strategy in PubMed, OvidMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Directory of Open Access Journals, LILACS, Web of Science and Prospero (up to 10 December 2018) for published and unpublished evidence on the risks and benefits of 9 prespecified medications classes used to control agitated behaviours following TBI. We included all randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies examining the effects of medications administered to control agitated behaviours in TBI patients. Included studies were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: (1) agitated behaviour was the presenting symptom; (2) agitated behaviour was not the presenting symptom, but was measured as an outcome variable; and (3) safety of pharmacological interventions administered to control agitated behaviours was measured.
RESULTS
Among the 181 articles assessed for eligibility, 21 studies were included. Of the studies suggesting possible benefits, propranolol reduced maximum intensities of agitation per week and physical restraint use, methylphenidate improved anger measures following 6 weeks of treatment, valproic acid reduced weekly agitated behaviour scale ratings and olanzapine reduced irritability, aggressiveness and insomnia between weeks 1 and 3 of treatment. Amantadine showed variable effects and may increase the risk of agitation in the critically ill. In three studies evaluating safety outcomes, antipsychotics were associated with an increased duration of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) in unadjusted analyses. Small sample sizes, heterogeneity and an unclear risk of bias were limits.
CONCLUSIONS
Propranolol, methylphenidate, valproic acid and olanzapine may offer some benefit; however, they need to be further studied. Antipsychotics may increase the length of PTA. More studies on tailored interventions and continuous evaluation of safety and efficacy throughout acute, rehabilitation and outpatient settings are needed.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42016033140.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychoses, Substance-Induced; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31289093
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029604