-
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2018Recent randomized controlled trials indicated that aripiprazole was the effective treatment for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
BACKGROUND
Recent randomized controlled trials indicated that aripiprazole was the effective treatment for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
OBJECTIVE
This study systematically reviewed the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of aripiprazole in treatment of ASD children and adolescents.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic search of databases including, Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was performed in July 2017.
METHODS
The full-text versions of included trials were meticulously evaluated and extracted. The main efficacious outcomes consisted of pooled mean change scores of the standardized rating scales for ASD and the pooled response rate.
RESULTS
A total of 408 randomized patients from eligible trials were included for synthesizing in this meta-analysis. The pooled mean change scores in aripiprazole-treated group for the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC)-Irritability, ABC-Hyperactivity/noncompliance, ABC-Inappropriate speech and ABC-Stereotypic behavior were significantly greater than those of the placebo-treated group. Unfortunately, the significant difference between two groups was not found for ABC-Lethargy/social withdrawal. The overall pooled response rate of the aripiprazole-treated group was significantly higher than that of the placebo-treated group. The pooled overall discontinuation rate in aripiprazole-treated group was significantly better than that of placebo-treated group. The pooled discontinuation rates due to adverse events in aripiprazole-treated group significantly differed from the placebo-treated group (RR [95% CI] of 1.43 [0.65, 3.18], =0%).
LIMITATION
A small number of studies were gathered in this review.
CONCLUSION
Aripiprazole has efficacy in the treatment of behavioral disturbances, including irritability, hyperactivity/noncompliance, inappropriate speech and stereotypic behavior found in ASD children and adolescents; however, it could not improve the lethargy/social withdrawal in such patients. The present evidence also indicates that it is safe, acceptable and tolerable in such treatment. As a small sample size, further well-defined and large sample size studies should be conducted to warrant those findings.
PubMed: 30519027
DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S174622 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists have been shown to have a neuroprotectant effect in reducing infarct size and improving functional outcome in animal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists have been shown to have a neuroprotectant effect in reducing infarct size and improving functional outcome in animal models of cerebrovascular disease. However, the sedative effects of GABA receptor agonists have limited their wider application in people with acute stroke, due to the potential risk of stupor. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013, and previously updated in 2014 and 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of GABA receptor agonists in the treatment of acute stroke.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (accessed May 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2018, Issue 4 (accessed May 2018), MEDLINE (from 1949 to May 2018), Embase (from 1980 to May 2018), CINAHL (from 1982 to May 2018), AMED (from 1985 to May 2018), and 11 Chinese databases (accessed May 2018). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we searched ongoing trial registers, reference lists, and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating GABA receptor agonists versus placebo for people with acute stroke (within 12 hours after stroke onset), with the primary outcomes of efficacy and safety.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy, and assessed the risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials with 3838 participants (acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke patients, 3758 analyzed). Most of the participants recruited had acute ischaemic stroke, with limited data available from participants with other stroke subtypes, including total anterior circulation syndrome (TACS). The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, with an unclear risk for selection bias only. For death and dependency at three months, pooled results did not find a significant difference for chlormethiazole versus placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.11; four trials; 2909 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and for diazepam versus placebo (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; one trial; 849 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The most frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole were somnolence (RR 4.56, 95% CI 3.50 to 5.95; two trials; 2527 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and rhinitis (RR 4.75, 95% CI 2.67 to 8.46; two trials; 2527 participants; moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides moderate-quality evidence that fails to support the use of GABA receptor agonists (chlormethiazole or diazepam) for the treatment of people with acute stroke. More well-designed RCTs with large samples of participants with total anterior circulation syndrome are required to determine if there are benefits for this subgroup. Somnolence and rhinitis are frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole.
Topics: Acute Disease; Chlormethiazole; Diazepam; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; GABA Agonists; Humans; Neuroprotective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Stroke; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 30376593
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009622.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Infantile haemangiomas (previously known as strawberry birthmarks) are soft, raised swellings of the skin that occur in 3% to 10% of infants. These benign vascular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Infantile haemangiomas (previously known as strawberry birthmarks) are soft, raised swellings of the skin that occur in 3% to 10% of infants. These benign vascular tumours are usually uncomplicated and tend to regress spontaneously. However, when haemangiomas occur in high-risk areas, such as near the eyes, throat, or nose, impairing their function, or when complications develop, intervention may be necessary. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for the management of infantile haemangiomas in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to February 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and CINAHL. We also searched five trials registries and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of all types of interventions, versus placebo, active monitoring, or other interventions, in any child with single or multiple infantile haemangiomas (IHs) located on the skin.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were clearance, a subjective measure of improvement, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were other measures of resolution; proportion of parents or children who consider there is still a problem; aesthetic appearance; and requirement for surgical correction. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 28 RCTs, with a total of 1728 participants, assessing 12 different interventions, including lasers, beta blockers (e.g. propranolol, timolol maleate), radiation therapy, and steroids. Comparators included placebo, an active monitoring approach, sham radiation, and interventions given alone or in combination.Studies were conducted in a number of countries, including China, Egypt, France, and Australia. Participant age ranged from 12 weeks to 13.4 years. Most studies (23/28) included a majority of females and different types of IHs. Duration of follow-up ranged from 7 days to 72 months.We considered most of the trials as at low risk of random sequence generation, attrition bias, and selective reporting bias. Domains such as allocation concealment and blinding were not clearly reported in general. We downgraded evidence for issues related to risk of bias and imprecision.We report results for the three most important comparisons, which we chose on the basis of current use. Outcome measurement of these comparisons was at 24 weeks' follow-up.Oral propranolol versus placeboCompared with placebo, oral propranolol 3 mg/kg/day probably improves clinician-assessed clearance (risk ratio (RR) 16.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.22 to 65.34; 1 study; 156 children; moderate-quality evidence) and probably leads to a clinician-assessed reduction in mean haemangioma volume of 45.9% (95% CI 11.60 to 80.20; 1 study; 40 children; moderate-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in terms of short- or long-term serious adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.39; 3 studies; 509 children; low-quality evidence), nor in terms of bronchospasm, hypoglycaemia, or serious cardiovascular adverse events. The results relating to clearance and resolution for this comparison were based on one industry-sponsored study.Topical timolol maleate versus placeboThe chance of reduction of redness, as a measure of clinician-assessed resolution, may be improved with topical timolol maleate 0.5% gel applied twice daily when compared with placebo (RR 8.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 60.09; 1 study; 41 children;low-quality evidence). Regarding short- or long-term serious cardiovascular events, we found no instances of bradycardia (slower than normal heart rate) or hypotension in either group (1 study; 41 children; low-quality evidence). No other safety data were assessed, and clearance was not measured.Oral propranolol versus topical timolol maleateWhen topical timolol maleate (0.5% eye drops applied twice daily) was compared with oral propranolol (via a tablet taken once per day, at a 1.0 mg/kg dose), there was no evidence of a difference in haemangioma size (as a measure of resolution) when measured by the proportion of patients with a clinician-assessed reduction of 50% or greater (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.97; 1 study; 26 participants; low-quality evidence). Although there were more short- or long-term general adverse effects (such as severe diarrhoea, lethargy, and loss of appetite) in the oral propranolol group, there was no evidence of a difference between groups (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 123.35; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-quality evidence). This comparison did not measure clearance.None of our key comparisons evaluated, at any follow-up, a subjective measure of improvement assessed by the parent or child; proportion of parents or children who consider there is still a problem; or physician-, child-, or parent-assessed aesthetic appearance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found there to be a limited evidence base for the treatment of infantile haemangiomas: a large number of interventions and outcomes have not been assessed in RCTs.Our key results indicate that in the management of IH in children, oral propranolol and topical timolol maleate are more beneficial than placebo in terms of clearance or other measures of resolution, or both, without an increase in harms. We found no evidence of a difference between oral propranolol and topical timolol maleate with regard to reducing haemangioma size, but we are uncertain if there is a difference in safety. Oral propranolol is currently the standard treatment for this condition, and our review has not found evidence to challenge this. However, these results are based on moderate- to very low-quality evidence.The included studies were limited by small sample sizes and risk of bias in some domains. Future trials should blind personnel and participants; describe trials thoroughly in publications; and recruit a sufficient number of children to deduce meaningful results. Future trials should assess patient-reported outcomes, as well as objective outcomes of benefit, and should report adverse events comprehensively. Propranolol and timolol maleate require further assessment in RCTs of all types of IH, including those considered problematic, as do other lesser-used interventions and new interventions. All treatments should be compared against propranolol and timolol maleate, as beta blockers are approved as standard care.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Antineoplastic Agents; Bleomycin; Child, Preschool; Hemangioma, Capillary; Humans; Infant; Lasers, Dye; Methylprednisolone; Photochemotherapy; Prednisolone; Propranolol; Radiotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Skin Neoplasms; Timolol
PubMed: 29667726
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006545.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Schizophrenia and related disorders such as schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorder are serious mental illnesses characterised by profound disruptions in thinking... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia and related disorders such as schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorder are serious mental illnesses characterised by profound disruptions in thinking and speech, emotional processes, behaviour and sense of self. Clozapine is useful in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders, particularly when other antipsychotic medications have failed. It improves positive symptoms (such as delusions and hallucinations) and negative symptoms (such as withdrawal and poverty of speech). However, it is unclear what dose of clozapine is most effective with the least side effects.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and tolerability of clozapine at different doses and to identify the optimal dose of clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenia, schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorders.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (August 2011 and 8 December 2016).
SELECTION CRITERIA
All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding status or language, that compared the effects of clozapine at different doses in people with schizophrenia and related disorders, diagnosed by any criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected citations from the searches, identified relevant abstracts, obtained full articles of relevant abstracts, and classified trials as included or excluded. We included trials that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) again based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five studies that could be included. Each compared the effects of clozapine at very low dose (up to 149 mg/day), low dose (150 mg/day to 300 mg/day) and standard dose (301 mg/day to 600 mg/day). Four of the five included studies were based on a small number of participants. We rated all the evidence reported for the main outcomes of interest as low or very low quality. No data were available for the main outcomes of global state, service use or quality of life. Very low dose compared to low doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between low and very low doses of clozapine in terms of average Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored (BPRS-A) endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 3.55, 95% CI -4.50 to 11.60, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in body mass index (BMI) in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.75, low-quality evidence). Very low dose compared to standard doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between very low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of average BPRS-A endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 6.67, 95% CI -2.09 to 15.43, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 58, MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.96, low-quality evidence) Low dose compared to standard doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of both clinician-assessed clinical improvement (2 RCTs, n = 141, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.61, medium-quality evidence) and clinically important response as more than 30% change in BPRS score (1 RCT, n = 176, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10, medium-quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).We found some evidence of effect for other adverse effect outcomes; however, the data were again limited. Very low dose compared to low doseThere was limited evidence that serum triglycerides were lower at low-dose clozapine compared to very low dose in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49). Low dose compared to standard doseWeight gain was lower at very low dose compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 27, MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.38 to -0.02). Glucose level one hour after meal was also lower at very lose dose (1 RCT, n = 58, MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.90 to -0.30). Total cholesterol levels were higher at very low compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 58, n = 58, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.80). Low dose compared to standard doseThere was evidence of fewer adverse effects, measured as lower TESS scores, in the low-dose group in the short term (2 RCTs, n = 266, MD -3.99, 95% CI -5.75 to -2.24); and in one study there was evidence that the incidence of lethargy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97), hypersalivation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84), dizziness (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81) and tachycardia (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.71) was less at low dose compared to standard dose.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence of effect on mental state between standard, low and very low dose regimes, but we did not identify any trials on high or very high doses of clozapine. BMI measurements were similar between groups in the short term, although weight gain was less at very low dose compared to standard dose in one study. There was limited evidence that the incidence of some adverse effects was greater at standard dose compared to lower dose regimes. We found very little useful data and the evidence available is generally of low or very low quality. More studies are needed to validate our findings and report on outcomes such as relapse, remission, social functioning, service utilisation, cost-effectiveness, satisfaction with care, and quality of life. There is a particular lack of medium- or long-term outcome data, and on dose regimes above the standard rate.
Topics: Agranulocytosis; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 28613395
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009555.pub2 -
The Journal of Nutrition Mar 2017Effective treatments for the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are still lacking. We aimed to update the data on the effectiveness of ω-3 (n-3) fatty... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effective treatments for the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are still lacking. We aimed to update the data on the effectiveness of ω-3 (n-3) fatty acid (FA) supplementation as a treatment for ASD. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched up until August 2016 with no language restrictions for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ω-3 FA supplementation with placebo or with no supplementation. Participants were children diagnosed with ASD. All functional outcome measures reported were considered. For dichotomous outcomes, the results for individual studies and pooled statistics were reported as RRs. Mean differences (MDs) were calculated for continuous outcomes. Five RCTs (183 participants) were included. With 4 exceptions, there were no statistically significant differences in ASD symptoms between groups measured by validated scales. Among studies that used the Aberrant Behavior Checklist, parents' ratings indicated significant improvement in lethargy symptoms in the ω-3 FA group compared with the placebo group (2 RCTs) (pooled MD: 1.98; 95% CI: 0.32, 3.63). Among studies that used the Behavioral Assessment System for Children, parents' ratings indicated significant worsening of both externalizing behavior (2 RCTs) (pooled MD: -6.22; 95% CI: -10.9, -1.59) and social skills (1 RCT) (MD: -7; 95% CI: -13.62, -0.38) in the ω-3 FA group compared with the placebo group. One RCT reported a significant improvement in the ω-3 FA group for the daily-living component of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (MD: 6.2; 95% CI: 0.37, 12.03). Adverse effects were similar in both groups. Because of the limited number of included studies and small sample sizes, no firm conclusions can be drawn. However, the limited data currently available suggest that ω-3 FA supplementation does not enhance the performance of children with ASD.
Topics: Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child; Dietary Supplements; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Humans
PubMed: 28077731
DOI: 10.3945/jn.116.242354 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is defined as the spontaneous movement of the limbs (mainly legs) associated with unpleasant, sometimes painful sensation which is relieved... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is defined as the spontaneous movement of the limbs (mainly legs) associated with unpleasant, sometimes painful sensation which is relieved by moving the affected limb. Prevalence of RLS among people on dialysis has been estimated between 6.6% and 80%. RLS symptoms contribute to impaired quality of life and people with RLS are shown to have increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.Various pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been used to treat primary RLS. However, the evidence for use of these interventions in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is not well established. The agents used in the treatment of primary RLS may be limited by the side effects in people with CKD due to increased comorbidity and altered drug pharmacokinetics.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to critically look at the benefits, efficacy and safety of various treatment options used in the treatment of RLS in people with CKD and those undergoing renal replacement therapy (RRT). We aimed to define different group characteristics based on CKD stage to assess the applicability of a particular intervention to an individual patient.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 12 January 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs that assessed the efficacy of an intervention for RLS in adults with CKD were eligible for inclusion. Studies investigating idiopathic RLS or RLS secondary to other causes were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and conducted risk of bias evaluation. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies enrolling 220 dialysis participants. Seven studies were deemed to have moderate to high risk of bias. All studies were small in size and had a short follow-up period (two to six months). Studies evaluated the effects of six different interventions against placebo or standard treatment. The interventions studied included aerobic resistance exercise, gabapentin, ropinirole, levodopa, iron dextran, and vitamins C and E (individually and in combination).Aerobic resistance exercise showed a significant reduction in severity of RLS compared to no exercise (2 studies, 48 participants: MD -7.56, 95% CI -14.20 to -0.93; I = 65%), and when compared to exercise with no resistance (1 study, 24 participants: MD -11.10, 95% CI -17.11 to -5.09), however there was no significant reduction when compared to ropinirole (1 study, 22 participants): MD -0.55, 95% CI -6.41 to 5.31). There were no significant differences between aerobic resistance exercise and either no exercise or ropinirole in the physical or mental component summary scores (using the SF-36 form). Improvement in sleep quality varied. There was no significant difference in subjective sleep quality between exercise and no exercise; however one study reported a significant improvement with ropinirole compared to resistance exercise (MD 3.71, 95% CI 0.89 to 6.53). Using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale there were no significant differences between resistance exercise and no exercise, ropinirole, or exercise with no resistance. Two studies reported there were no adverse events and one study did not mention if there were any adverse events. In one study, one patient in each group dropped out but the reason for dropout was not reported. Two studies reported no adverse events and one study did not report adverse events.Gabapentin was associated with reduced RLS severity when compared to placebo or levodopa, and there was a significant improvement in sleep quality, latency and disturbance reported in one study when compared to levodopa. Three patients dropped out due to lethargy (2 patients), and drowsiness, syncope and fatigue (1 patient).Because of a short duration of action, rebound and augmentation were noted with levodopa treatment even though it conferred some benefit in reducing the symptoms of RLS. Reported adverse events were severe vomiting, agitation after caffeine intake, headaches, dry mouth, and gastrointestinal symptoms.One study (25 participants) reported iron dextran reduced the severity of RLS at weeks one and two, but not at week four. Vitamins C, E and C plus E (1 study, 60 participants) helped the symptoms of RLS with minimal side effects (nausea and dyspepsia) but more evidence is needed before any conclusions can be drawn.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given the small size of the studies and short follow-up, it can only be concluded that pharmacological interventions and intra-dialytic exercise programs have uncertain effects on RLS in haemodialysis patients. There have been no studies performed in non-dialysis CKD, peritoneal dialysis patients, or kidney transplant recipients. Further studies are warranted before any conclusions can be drawn. Aerobic resistance exercise and ropinirole may be suitable interventions for further evaluation.
Topics: Amines; Anticonvulsants; Ascorbic Acid; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Dopamine Agonists; Exercise Therapy; Gabapentin; Humans; Indoles; Iron-Dextran Complex; Levodopa; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Renal Replacement Therapy; Resistance Training; Restless Legs Syndrome; Vitamin E; Vitamins; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 27819409
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010690.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists have been shown to have a neuroprotectant effect in reducing infarct size and improving functional outcome in animal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists have been shown to have a neuroprotectant effect in reducing infarct size and improving functional outcome in animal models of cerebrovascular disease. However, the sedative effects of GABA receptor agonists have limited their wider application in people with acute stroke, due to the potential risk of stupor. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013, and previously updated in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of GABA receptor agonists in the treatment of acute stroke.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (accessed March 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2016, Issue 3, part of the Cochrane Library (accessed March 2016), MEDLINE (from 1949 to March 2016), Embase (from 1980 to March 2016), CINAHL (from 1982 to March 2016), AMED (from 1985 to March 2016), and 11 Chinese databases (accessed March 2016). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists, and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating GABA receptor agonists versus placebo for people with acute stroke (within 12 hours after stroke onset), with the primary outcomes of efficacy and safety.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy, and assessed the risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials with 3838 participants (3758 analyzed). The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, with an unclear risk for selection bias only. Four trials (N = 2909) measured death and dependency at three months for chlormethiazole versus placebo; pooled results did not find a significant difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.11). One trial (N = 849) measured this outcome for diazepam versus placebo (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07). The most frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole were somnolence (RR 4.56, 95% CI 3.50 to 5.95; two trials; N = 2527) and rhinitis (RR 4.75, 95% CI 2.67 to 8.46; two trials; N = 2527).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides moderate-quality evidence that fails to support the use of GABA receptor agonists (chlormethiazole or diazepam) for the treatment of people with acute stroke. More well-designed RCTs with large samples of participants with total anterior circulation syndrome are required to determine if there are benefits for this subgroup. Somnolence and rhinitis are frequent adverse events related to chlormethiazole.
Topics: Acute Disease; Chlormethiazole; Diazepam; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; GABA Agonists; Humans; Neuroprotective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Stroke
PubMed: 27701753
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009622.pub4 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Mar 2015Hyperornithinemia-hyperammonemia-homocitrullinuria (HHH) syndrome is a rare autosomal recessive disorder of the urea cycle. HHH has a panethnic distribution, with a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hyperornithinemia-hyperammonemia-homocitrullinuria (HHH) syndrome is a rare autosomal recessive disorder of the urea cycle. HHH has a panethnic distribution, with a major prevalence in Canada, Italy and Japan. Acute clinical signs include intermittent episodes of vomiting, confusion or coma and hepatitis-like attacks. Alternatively, patients show a chronic course with aversion for protein rich foods, developmental delay/intellectual disability, myoclonic seizures, ataxia and pyramidal dysfunction. HHH syndrome is caused by impaired ornithine transport across the inner mitochondrial membrane due to mutations in SLC25A15 gene, which encodes for the mitochondrial ornithine carrier ORC1. The diagnosis relies on clinical signs and the peculiar metabolic triad of hyperammonemia, hyperornithinemia, and urinary excretion of homocitrulline. HHH syndrome enters in the differential diagnosis with other inherited or acquired conditions presenting with hyperammonemia.
METHODS
A systematic review of publications reporting patients with HHH syndrome was performed.
RESULTS
We retrospectively evaluated the clinical, biochemical and genetic profile of 111 HHH syndrome patients, 109 reported in 61 published articles, and two unpublished cases. Lethargy and coma are frequent at disease onset, whereas pyramidal dysfunction and cognitive/behavioural abnormalities represent the most common clinical features in late-onset cases or during the disease course. Two common mutations, F188del and R179* account respectively for about 30% and 15% of patients with the HHH syndrome. Interestingly, the majority of mutations are located in residues that have side chains protruding into the internal pore of ORC1, suggesting their possible interference with substrate translocation. Acute and chronic management consists in the control of hyperammonemia with protein-restricted diet supplemented with citrulline/arginine and ammonia scavengers. Prognosis of HHH syndrome is variable, ranging from a severe course with disabling manifestations to milder variants compatible with an almost normal life.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper provides detailed information on the clinical, metabolic and genetic profiles of all HHH syndrome patients published to date. The clinical phenotype is extremely variable and its severity does not correlate with the genotype or with recorded ammonium/ornithine plasma levels. Early intervention allows almost normal life span but the prognosis is variable, suggesting the need for a better understanding of the still unsolved pathophysiology of the disease.
Topics: Aging; Humans; Hyperammonemia; Mutation; Origin Recognition Complex; Ornithine; Protein Conformation; Urea Cycle Disorders, Inborn
PubMed: 25874378
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-015-0242-9 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2014Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects 1 in 68 children in the United States. Even though it is a common disorder, only two... (Review)
Review
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects 1 in 68 children in the United States. Even though it is a common disorder, only two medications (risperidone and aripiprazole) are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat symptoms associated with ASD. However, these medications are approved to treat irritability, which is not a core symptom of ASD. A number of novel medications, which have not been approved by the FDA to treat ASD have been used off-label in some studies to treat ASD symptoms, including medications approved for Alzheimer's disease. Interestingly, some of these studies are high-quality, double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) studies. This article systematically reviews studies published through April, 2014, which examined the use of Alzheimer's medications in ASD, including donepezil (seven studies, two were DBPC, five out of seven reported improvements), galantamine (four studies, two were DBPC, all reported improvements), rivastigmine (one study reporting improvements), tacrine (one study reporting improvements), and memantine (nine studies, one was DBPC, eight reported improvements). An evidence-based scale was used to rank each medication. Collectively, these studies reported improvements in expressive language and communication, receptive language, social interaction, irritability, hyperactivity, attention, eye contact, emotional lability, repetitive or self-stimulatory behaviors, motor planning, disruptive behaviors, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, lethargy, overall ASD behaviors, and increased REM sleep. Reported side effects are reviewed and include irritability, gastrointestinal problems, verbal or behavioral regression, headaches, irritability, rash, tremor, sedation, vomiting, and speech problems. Both galantamine and memantine had sufficient evidence ranking for improving both core and associated symptoms of ASD. Given the lack of medications approved to treat ASD, further studies on novel medications, including Alzheimer's disease medications, are needed.
PubMed: 25202686
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2014.00087