-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2014Hepatitis C virus infection affects around 3% of the world population or approximately 160 million people. A variable proportion (5% to 40%) of the infected people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hepatitis C virus infection affects around 3% of the world population or approximately 160 million people. A variable proportion (5% to 40%) of the infected people develop clinical symptoms. Hence, hepatitis C virus is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality with hepatic fibrosis, end-stage liver cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma as the dominant clinical sequelae. Combination therapy with pegylated (peg) interferon-alpha and ribavirin achieves sustained virological response (that is, undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA in serum by sensitivity testing six months after the end of treatment) in approximately 40% to 80% of treated patients, depending on viral genotype. Recently, a new class of drugs have emerged for hepatitis C infection, the direct acting antivirals, which in combination with standard therapy or alone can lead to sustained virological response in 80% or more of treated patients. Aminoadamantanes, mostly amantadine, are antiviral drugs used for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C. We have previously systematically reviewed amantadine versus placebo or no intervention and found no significant effects of the amantadine on all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and on adverse events in patients with hepatitis C. Overall, we did not observe a significant effect of amantadine on sustained virological response. In this review, we systematically review aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection by conducting a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (1996 to December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11 of 12, 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to December 2013), EMBASE (1974 to December 2013), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to December 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), Google Scholar, and Eudrapharm up to December 2013. Furthermore, full text searches were conducted until December 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials assessing aminoadamantanes in participants with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological domains were used to assess the risk of systematic errors ('bias'). We used trial sequential analysis to assess risk of random errors ('play of chance').
MAIN RESULTS
Six randomised clinical trials with 581 participants with chronic hepatitis C were included. All trials had high risk of bias. The included trials compared amantadine versus other antiviral drugs: ribavirin, mycophenolate mofetil, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. Standard antiviral therapy (interferon-alpha, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, or peg interferon alpha) was administered equally to the intervention and the control groups in five trials, depending on when the trial was conducted. Four trials compared amantadine versus ribavirin. There were no deaths or liver-related morbidity in the two intervention groups (0/216 (0%) versus 0/211 (0%); 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). The lower estimated risk for (serious) adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation with amantadine was imprecise (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; based on 10/216 (5%) versus 18/211 (9%) participants in 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). There were more participants with failure of sustained virological response in the amantadine group than in the ribavirin group (206/216 (96%) versus 176/211 (84%); RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22, 4 trials; low quality of the evidence). Amantadine versus ribavirin more often failed to achieve end-of follow-up biochemical response (41/46 (89%) versus 31/46 (67%); RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.63; 2 trials; very low quality of the evidence). One trial compared amantadine versus mycophenolate mofetil. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except that amantadine was inferior to mycophenolate mofetil regarding the outcome failure to achieve end-of treatment virological response (low quality of evidence). One trial each compared amantadine versus interferon-alpha or interferon-gamma. Both comparisons showed no significant differences in the treatment outcomes (very low quality of the evidence). The observed effects could be due to real effects, systematic errors (bias), or random errors (play of chance). This possible influence on the observed effect by play of chance is due to the fact that trial sequential analyses could not confirm our findings. We were not able to perform meta-analyses on failure of histological improvement and quality of life due to lack of valid data in all trial comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review has identified evidence of very low quality for the key outcomes of all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and adverse events in people with chronic hepatitis C when treated with amantadine compared with ribavirin, mycophenolate, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. The timeframe for measuring the composite outcome was insufficient in the included trials. There was low quality evidence that amantadine led to more participants who failed to achieve sustained virological response compared with ribavirin. This observation may be real or caused by systematic errors (bias), but it does not seem to be caused by random error (play of chance). Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are unable to determine definitively whether amantadine is less effective than other antivirals in patients with chronic hepatitis C. As it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine or potentially other aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C would show strong benefits, it is probably better to focus on the assessments of other direct acting antiviral drugs. We found no evidence assessing other aminoadamantanes in randomised clinical trials in order to recommend or refute their use.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Interferon-alpha; Interferon-gamma; Mycophenolic Acid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ribavirin
PubMed: 24937404
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011132.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2014Around 3% of the world's population (approximately 160 million people) are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. The proportion of infected people who develop... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Around 3% of the world's population (approximately 160 million people) are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. The proportion of infected people who develop clinical symptoms varies between 5% and 40%. Combination therapy with pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin eradicates the virus from the blood six months after treatment (sustained virological response) in approximately 40% to 80% of infected patients, depending on the viral genotype. New antiviral agents, such as boceprevir and telaprevir, in combination with standard therapy, can increase sustained virological response in genotype 1 infected patients to at least 70%. There is therefore an unmet need for drugs that can achieve a higher proportion of sustained virological response. Aminoadamantanes are antiviral drugs used for treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C infection by conducting a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials, as well as trial sequential analyses.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (1996 to December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 11 of 12 (1995 to December 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to December 2013), EMBASE (1974 to December 2013), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to December 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), Google Scholar, and Eudrapharm up to December 2013 and checked the reference lists of identified publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials assessing aminoadamantanes in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed for risks of systematic errors ('bias') using the 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and continuous data with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used trial sequential analysis to assess the risk of random errors ('play of chance'). We assessed quality using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 randomised clinical trials with 6193 patients with chronic hepatitis C. All trials had high risk of bias. All included trials compared amantadine versus placebo or no intervention. Standard antiviral therapy was administered equally to the intervention and the control groups in 40 trials. The standard antiviral therapy, which was administered to both intervention groups, was interferon-alpha, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, and peg interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, depending on the time when the trial was conducted.When we meta-analysed all trials together, the overall results demonstrated no significant effects of amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, on our all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity composite outcome (5/2353 (0.2%) versus 6/2264 (0.3%); RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.17; I² = 0%; 32 trials; very low quality). There was also no significant effect on adverse events (288/2869 (10%) versus 293/2777 (11%); RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14; I² = 0%; 35 trials; moderate quality). We used both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, did not significantly influence the number of patients who failed to achieve a sustained virological response (1821/2861 (64%) versus 1737/2721 (64%); RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.02; I² = 35%; 35 trials; moderate quality). However, in the subgroup using interferon plus ribavirin, amantadine decreased the number of patients who failed to achieve a sustained virological response (422/666 (63%) versus 447/628 (71%); RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; I² = 41%; 11 trials; low quality). Similar results were found for failure to achieve an end of treatment virological response. Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, significantly decreased the number of patients without normalisation of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) serum levels at the end of treatment (671/1141 (59%) versus 732/1100 (67%); RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; I² = 47%; 19 trials; low quality). Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, did not significantly influence the end of follow-up biochemical response (1133/1896 (60%) versus 1151/1848 (62%); RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; I² = 49%; 21 trials; low quality).The observed beneficial effects could be true effects but could also be due to both systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). The latter is due to the fact that trial sequential analyses could not confirm or refute our findings. We were not able to perform meta-analyses for failure of histological improvement or quality of life due to a lack of valid data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review does not demonstrate any significant effects of amantadine on all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity composite outcome and on adverse events in patients with hepatitis C; however, the median trial duration was 12 months, with a median follow-up of six months, which is not long enough to assess the composite outcome sufficiently. Overall, we did not see an effect of amantadine on failure to achieve a sustained virological response. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the combination of amantadine plus interferon-alpha and ribavirin seems to increase the number of patients achieving a sustained virological response. This finding may be caused by both systematic errors (bias) and risks of random errors (play of chance), but it could also be real. Based on the results of the overall evidence, it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine for patients with chronic hepatitis C will show strong benefits. Therefore, it is probably advisable to wait for the results of trials assessing other direct-acting antiviral drugs. In the absence of convincing evidence of benefit, the use of amantadine is justified in the context of randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of combination therapy. We found a lack of evidence on other aminoadamantanes than amantadine.
Topics: Adult; Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Interferon-alpha; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Ribavirin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24793264
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010125.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2014Pegylated interferon (peginterferon) plus ribavirin is the recommended treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C, but systematic assessment of the effect of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pegylated interferon (peginterferon) plus ribavirin is the recommended treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C, but systematic assessment of the effect of this treatment compared with interferon plus ribavirin is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically evaluate the benefits and harms of peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for patients with chronic hepatitis C.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index-Expanded, and LILACS. We also searched conference abstracts, journals, and grey literature. The last searches were conducted in September 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials comparing peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin with or without co-intervention(s) (e.g., other antiviral drugs) for chronic hepatitis C. Quasi-randomised and observational studies retrieved through the searches for randomised clinical trials were also considered for reports of harms. Our primary outcomes were liver-related morbidity, all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, other adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcome was sustained virological response in serum, that is, undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA in serum by sensitive tests six months after the end of treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently used a standardised data collection form. We meta-analysed data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) (for liver-related morbidity or all-cause mortality) or the risk ratio (RR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. We used domains of the trials to assess the risk of systematic errors (bias) and trial sequential analyses to assess the risk of random errors (play of chance).For each outcome, we calculated the RR with 95% CI based on intention-to-treat analysis. Effects of interventions on outcomes were assessed according to GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 randomised trials with 5938 participants. All trials had high risk of bias. We considered that the risk of bias did not impact on the quality of evidence for liver-related mortality and adverse event outcomes, but it did for virological response. All trials compared peginterferon alpha-2a or peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for participants with chronic hepatitis C. Three trials administered co-interventions (amantadine hydrochloride 200 mg daily to both intervention groups), and 24 trials were conducted without co-interventions. The effect observed between the two intervention groups regarding liver-related morbidity plus all-cause mortality (5/907 (0.55%) versus 4/882 (0.45%) was imprecise: OR 1.14 ( 95% CI 0.38 to 3.42; five trials; low quality of evidence), as was the risk of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (332/2692 (12.3%) versus 409/2176 (18.8%); RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 15 trials; low quality of evidence) or regarding adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (332/2692 (12.3%) versus 409/2176 (18.8%); RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.12; 17 trials; low quality of evidence). However, peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin significantly increased the risk of neutropenia (332/2202 (15.1%) versus 117/1653 (7.1%); RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.61; 13 trials), thrombocytopenia (65/1113 (5.8%) versus 23/1082 (2.1%); RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.68 to 4.11; 10 trials), arthralgia (517/1740 (29.7%) versus 282/1194 (23.6%); RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; four trials), injection site reaction (627/1168 (53.7%) versus 186/649 (28.7%); RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.93; four trials), and nausea (606/1784 (34.0%) versus 354/1239 (28.6%); RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.26; four trials). The most frequent adverse event was fatigue, which occurred in 57% of participants (2024/3608). No significant difference was noted between peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin in terms of fatigue (1177/2062 (57.1%) versus 847/1546 (54.8%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07; 12 trials). No significant differences were reported between the two treatment groups regarding anaemia, headache, rigours, myalgia, pyrexia, weight loss, asthenia, depression, insomnia, irritability, alopecia, pruritus, skin rash, thyroid malfunction, decreased appetite, or diarrhoea. We were unable to identify any data on quality of life. Peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin seemed to significantly increase the number of participants achieving sustained virological response (1673/3300 participants (50.7%) versus 1081/2804 patients (36.7%); RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.56; I2 = 64%; 27 trials; very low quality of evidence). However, the risk of bias in the 13/27 (48.1%) trials reporting on this outcome was high and was considered only 'lower' in the remainder. Because the conventional meta-analysis did not reach its required information size (n = 14,486 participants), we used trial sequential analysis to control for risks of random errors. Again, in this analysis, the estimated effect was statistically significant in favour of peginterferon. Subgroup analyses according to risk of bias, viral genotype, baseline viral load, past treatment history, and type of intervention yielded similarly significant results favouring peginterferon over interferon on the outcome of sustained virological response.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin seems to significantly increase the proportion of patients with sustained virological response, as well as the risk of certain adverse events. However, we have insufficient evidence to recommend or reject peginterferon plus ribavirin for liver-related morbidity plus all-cause mortality compared with interferon plus ribavirin. The clinical consequences of achieved sustained virological response are unknown, as sustained virological response is still an unvalidated surrogate outcome. We found no evidence of the potential benefits on quality of life in patients with achieved sustained virological response. Further high-quality research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of patient-relevant outcomes and is likely to change our estimates.There is very low quality evidence that peginterferon plus ribavirin increases the proportion of patients with sustained virological response in comparison with interferon plus ribavirin. There is evidence that it also increases the risk of certain adverse events.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Interferon alpha-2; Interferon-alpha; Interferons; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Ribavirin
PubMed: 24585509
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005441.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2013Antiviral therapy for recurrent hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation is controversial due to unresolved balance between benefits and harms. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antiviral therapy for recurrent hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation is controversial due to unresolved balance between benefits and harms.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the therapeutic benefits and harms of different antiviral regimens in patients with hepatitis C re-infected grafts after liver transplantation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing various antiviral therapies (alone or in combination) in the treatment of hepatitis C virus recurrence in liver transplantation for the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available case-analysis. In the presence of only trials for a dichotomous outcome, we performed the Fisher's exact test.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, 17 trials with 736 patients met the inclusion criteria for this review. All trials had high risk of bias. Five hundred and one patients randomised in 11 trials provided information for various comparisons in this systematic review after excluding post-randomisation drop-outs and patients from trials that did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The comparisons for which outcomes were available included pegylated (peg) interferon versus control; peg interferon plus ribavirin versus control; ribavirin plus peg interferon versus peg interferon; peg interferon (1.5 μg/kg/week) plus ribavirin versus peg interferon (0.5 μg/kg/week) plus ribavirin; amantadine plus peg interferon plus ribavirin versus peg interferon plus ribavirin; interferon versus control; interferon plus ribavirin versus control; ribavirin versus interferon; and ribavirin versus placebo. Long-term follow-up was not available in these trials. There were no significant differences in mortality, retransplantation, graft rejections requiring retransplantation or medical treatment, or fibrosis worsening between the groups in any of the comparisons in which these outcomes were reported. Quality of life and liver decompensation were not reported in any of the trials. There was a significantly higher proportion of participants who developed serious adverse events in the ribavirin plus peg interferon combination therapy group than in the peg interferon monotherapy group (1 trial; 56 participants; 17/28 (60.7%) in the intervention group versus 5/28 (17.9%) in the control group; RR 3.40; 95% CI 1.46 to 7.94). There was no significant difference in proportion of participants who developed serious adverse events or in the number of serious adverse events between the intervention and control groups in the other comparisons that reported serious adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Considering the lack of clinical benefit, there is currently no evidence to recommend or refute antiviral treatment for recurrent liver graft infection with hepatitis C virus. Further randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and low risk of random errors with adequate duration of follow-up are necessary.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; Graft Rejection; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C; Humans; Interferon alpha-2; Interferon-alpha; Liver Cirrhosis; Liver Transplantation; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Recurrence; Reoperation; Ribavirin
PubMed: 24307460
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006803.pub4 -
American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease... Mar 2014The objective of this review is to summarize the current data on the pharmacological treatments for frontotemporal dementias from randomized controlled trials. A... (Review)
Review
The objective of this review is to summarize the current data on the pharmacological treatments for frontotemporal dementias from randomized controlled trials. A systematic search of 4 major databases, PubMed, Medline, PsychINFO and Cochrane, found a total of 9 randomized controlled, double-blinded clinical trials. Of these, 2 trials used the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), paroxetine; 1 trial used trazodone; 2 trials used stimulants (methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine); 1 trial used the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, galantamine; 2 trials used the N-methyl-d-aspartate antagonist, memantine; and 1 trial used the neuropeptide oxytocin. The analysis of the available data indicates that SSRIs, trazodone, and the amphetamines may be effective in reducing some behavioral symptoms, but none of these medications had an impact on cognition. Available data indicate that these medications were well tolerated in all the trials.
Topics: Cognition; Dopamine Agents; Frontotemporal Dementia; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24164931
DOI: 10.1177/1533317513507375 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Nov 2013Earlier identification of cognitive impairment may reduce patient and caregiver morbidity. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Earlier identification of cognitive impairment may reduce patient and caregiver morbidity.
PURPOSE
To systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of brief cognitive screening instruments and the benefits and harms of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for early cognitive impairment.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through December 2012; systematic reviews; clinical trial registries; and experts.
STUDY SELECTION
English-language studies of fair to good quality, primary care–feasible screening instruments, and treatments aimed at persons with mild cognitive impairment or mild to moderate dementia.
DATA EXTRACTION
Dual quality assessment and abstraction of relevant study details.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The Mini-Mental State Examination (k = 25) is the most thoroughly studied instrument but is not available for use without cost. Publicly available instruments with adequate test performance to detect dementia include the Clock Drawing Test (k = 7), Mini-Cog (k = 4), Memory Impairment Screen (k = 5), Abbreviated Mental Test (k = 4), Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (k = 4), Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (k = 2), 7-Minute Screen (k = 2), and Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (k = 5). Medications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for Alzheimer disease (k = 58) and caregiver interventions (k = 59) show a small benefit of uncertain clinical importance for patients and their caregivers. Small benefits are also limited by common adverse effects of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and limited availability of complex caregiver interventions. Although promising, cognitive stimulation (k = 6) and exercise (k = 10) have limited evidence to support their use in persons with mild to moderate dementia or mild cognitive impairment.
LIMITATION
Limited studies in persons with dementia other than Alzheimer disease and sparse reporting of important health outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Brief instruments to screen for cognitive impairment can adequately detect dementia, but there is no empirical evidence that screening improves decision making. Whether interventions for patients or their caregivers have a clinically significant effect in persons with earlier detected cognitive impairment is still unclear.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Topics: Aged; Caregivers; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Decision Making; Dementia; Dopamine Agents; Early Diagnosis; Humans; Mass Screening; Memantine; Psychological Tests; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 24145578
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-159-9-201311050-00730 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Nov 2013Cognitive enhancers, including cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, are used to treat dementia, but their effectiveness for mild cognitive impairment is unclear. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive enhancers, including cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, are used to treat dementia, but their effectiveness for mild cognitive impairment is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to examine the efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers for mild cognitive impairment.
METHODS
Our eligibility criteria were studies of the effects of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine or memantine on mild cognitive impairment reporting cognition, function, behaviour, global status, and mortality or harms. We identified relevant material by searching electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase), the references of included studies, trial registries and conference proceedings, and by contacting experts. Two reviewers independently screened the results of the literature search, abstracted data and appraised risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
RESULTS
We screened 15,554 titles and abstracts and 1384 full-text articles. Eight randomized clinical trials and 3 companion reports met our inclusion criteria. We found no significant effects of cognitive enhancers on cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination: 3 randomized clinical trials [RCTs], mean difference [MD] 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.22 to 0.50; Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - cognition subscale: 3 RCTs, standardized MD -0.07, 95% CI-0.16 to 0.01]) or function (Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study activities of daily living inventory: 2 RCTs, MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.86). Cognitive enhancers were associated with higher risks of nausea, diarrhea and vomiting than placebo.
INTERPRETATION
Cognitive enhancers did not improve cognition or function among patients with mild cognitive impairment and were associated with a greater risk of gastrointestinal harms. Our findings do not support the use of cognitive enhancers for mild cognitive impairment.
Topics: Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognitive Dysfunction; Donepezil; Galantamine; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Nootropic Agents; Phenylcarbamates; Piperidines; Rivastigmine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24043661
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.130451 -
Therapeutic Advances in... Aug 2012The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials of amantadine for the treatment of...
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials of amantadine for the treatment of olanzapine-induced weight gain.
METHODS
Studies were identified using online searches of PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane database (CENTRAL), along with websites recording trial information such as ClinicalTrials.gov, Controlled-trials.com, and Clinicalstudyresults.org. Study eligibility criteria included randomized, double-blind clinical trials comparing amantadine with placebo for olanzapine-induced weight gain with body weight as an outcome measure and study duration of at least 12 weeks. The methodological quality of included trials was assessed using the Jadad Scale. Separate meta-analyses were undertaken for each outcome (body weight and frequency of weight loss >7%) and treatment effects were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD) and Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively.
RESULTS
A systematic review of literature revealed six studies that had assessed amantadine for olanzapine-induced weight gain. Of these, two studies (n = 144) met the review inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Meta-analysis was performed to see the effect size of the treatment on body weight and frequency of body weight loss >7%. For body weight change, WMD was -1.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.31 to -0.39) kg with amantadine as compared with placebo; the overall effect was statistically significant (p = 0.01). For frequency of body weight loss >7%, Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for weight loss was 3.72 (95% CI 1.19-11.62), favoring amantadine as compared with placebo, and the overall effect was significant (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Existing data is limited to two studies, which support the efficacy of amantadine for olanzapine-induced weight gain and a significant proportion of patients might lose weight with amantadine compared with placebo.
PubMed: 23983968
DOI: 10.1177/2045125312440441 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013Influenza is a communicable acute respiratory infection which, during epidemics, can cause high morbidity and mortality rates. Traditional Chinese medicinal herbs, often... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Influenza is a communicable acute respiratory infection which, during epidemics, can cause high morbidity and mortality rates. Traditional Chinese medicinal herbs, often administered following a particular Chinese medical theory, may be a potential treatment of choice.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of Chinese medicinal herbs used to prevent and treat influenza and to estimate the frequency of adverse effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November week 2, 2012), EMBASE (January 1988 to November 2012) and CNKI (January 1988 to 29 March 2012). We also searched reference lists of articles and the WHO ICTRP search portal (November 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing traditional Chinese medicinal herbs with placebo, no treatment or conventional medicine normally used in preventing and treating uncomplicated influenza.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies involving 2521 participants. The methodological quality of 17 included studies was poor. Included RCTs separately compared medicinal herbs with different antiviral drugs, precluding any pooling of results. Only three indicated that compared with antiviral drugs, Chinese medicinal herbs may be effective in preventing influenza and alleviating influenza symptoms. 'Ganmao' capsules were found to be more effective than amantadine in decreasing influenza symptoms and speeding recovery in one study (in which adverse reactions were mentioned in the amantadine group although no data were reported). There were no significant differences between 'E Shu You' and ribavirin in treating influenza, nor in the occurrence of adverse reactions. Ten studies reported mild adverse reactions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most Chinese medical herbs in the included studies showed similar effects to antiviral drugs in preventing or treating influenza. Few were shown to be superior to antiviral drugs. No obvious adverse events were reported in the included studies. However, current evidence remains weak due to methodological limitations of the trials. More high-quality RCTs with larger numbers of participants and clear reporting are needed.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Influenza, Human; Phytotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ribavirin
PubMed: 23543533
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004559.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2012Fatigue is reported to occur in up to 92% of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and has been described as the most debilitating of all MS symptoms by 28% to 40% of MS... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fatigue is reported to occur in up to 92% of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and has been described as the most debilitating of all MS symptoms by 28% to 40% of MS patients.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether carnitine (enteral or intravenous) supplementation can improve the quality of life and reduce the symptoms of fatigue in patients with MS-related fatigue and to identify any adverse effects of carnitine when used for this purpose.
SEARCH METHODS
A literature search was performed using Cochrane MS Group Trials Register (09 September 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) "The Cochrane Library 2011, issue 3", MEDLINE (PubMed) (1966-09 September 2011), EMBASE (1974-09 September 2011), and www.clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing trials retrieval. Reference lists of review articles and primary studies were also screened. A hand search of the abstract book of recent relevant conference symposia was also conducted. Personal contact with MS experts and a manufacturer (Source Naturals, United States) of carnitine formulation was contacted to determine if they knew of other clinical trials. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Full reports of published and unpublished randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials of any carnitine intervention in adults affected by multiple sclerosis with a clinical diagnosis of fatigue associated with multiple sclerosis were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data from the eligible trials was extracted and coded using a standardized data extraction form and entered into RevMan 5. Discrepancies were to be resolved by discussion with a third reviewer, however this was not necessary.The quality items to be assessed were method of randomization, allocation concealment, blinding (participants, investigators, outcome assessors and data analysis), intention-to-treat analysis and completeness of follow up.
MAIN RESULTS
The search identified one ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial (expected completion 2013) and one completed randomized, active-comparator, cross-over trial. In the completed study, adult patients with relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive MS were exposed to both acetyl L-carnitine 2 grams daily and amantadine 200 mg daily The effects of carnitine on fatigue are unclear. There was no difference between carnitine and amantadine for the number of patients withdrawing from the study due to an adverse event (relative risk ratio 0.20; 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.55) and no patients experienced a serious adverse event in either treatment group. Mortality and quality of life were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence that carnitine for the treatment of MS-related fatigue offers a therapeutic advantage over placebo or active comparators. Results of the ongoing trial are eagerly anticipated in order to provide clarity.
Topics: Acetylcarnitine; Adult; Amantadine; Fatigue; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 22592719
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007280.pub3