-
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Apr 2022The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological interventions to diminish cognitive side effects of ECT. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological interventions to diminish cognitive side effects of ECT.
METHODS
Electronic databases of Pubmed, PsycInfo, Embase and Scopus were searched from inception through 1 April, 2021, using terms for ECT (e.g. electroconvulsive therapy), cognitive outcome (e.g. cogni*) and pharmacological intervention (e.g. calcium channel blocker and general terms, like protein). Original studies with humans receiving ECT were included, which applied pharmacological interventions in comparison with placebo or no additive intervention to diminish cognitive side effects. Data quality was assessed using Risk of Bias and GRADE. Random-effects models were used. PROSPERO registration number was CRD42021212773.
RESULTS
Qualitative synthesis (systematic review) showed 52 studies reporting sixteen pharmacological intervention-types. Quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) included 26 studies (1387 patients) describing twelve pharmacological intervention-types. Low-quality evidence of efficacy was established for memantine (large effect size) and liothyronine (medium effect size). Very low-quality evidence shows effect of acetylcholine inhibitors, piracetam and melatonin in some cognitive domains. Evidence of no efficacy was revealed for ketamine (very low-quality), herbal preparations with anti-inflammatory properties (very low to low-quality) and opioid receptor agonists (low-quality).
CONCLUSION
Memantine and liothyronine are promising for further research and future application. Quality of evidence was low because of differences in ECT techniques, study populations and cognitive measurements. These findings provide a guide for rational choices of potential pharmacological intervention research targets to decrease the burden of cognitive side effects of ECT. Future research should be more uniform in design and attempt to clarify pathophysiological mechanisms of cognitive side effects of ECT.
Topics: Cognition; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Humans; Ketamine; Memantine; Triiodothyronine
PubMed: 35075641
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13397 -
Iranian Journal of Psychiatry Jul 2022Available treatments of depression have limited efficacy and unsatisfactory remission rates. This study aims to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating... (Review)
Review
Available treatments of depression have limited efficacy and unsatisfactory remission rates. This study aims to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating effects of glutamate receptor modulators in treating patients with resistant depression. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021225516). Scopus, ISI Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and three trial registries were searched up to September 2020 to find RCTs evaluating glutamate receptor modulators for resistant depression. The difference between intervention and control groups in changing depression scores from baseline to endpoint was considered the primary outcome. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess the quality of the RCTs. No funding was received. Thirty-eight RCTs were included. Based on the included studies, compelling evidence was found for ketamine (with or without electroconvulsive therapy, intravenous or other forms), nitrous oxide, amantadine, and rislenemdaz (MK-0657); the results for MK-0657, amantadine, and nitrous oxide were only based on one study for each. Lithium, lanicemine, D-cycloserine, and decoglurant showed mixed results for efficacy, and, riluzole, and 7-chlorokynurenic acid were mostly comparable to placebo. A limited number of studies were available that addressed drugs other than ketamine. The study cannot determine the difference between statistical and clinical significance between the agents and placebo due to high heterogeneity among the RCTs. Nevertheless, ketamine could be used as an efficacious drug in TRD; still, additional studies are needed to delineate the optimum dosage, duration of efficacy, and intervals. Further studies are also recommended on the effectiveness of glutamatergic system modulators other than ketamine on treatment-resistant depression.
PubMed: 36474699
DOI: 10.18502/ijps.v17i3.9733 -
Ageing Research Reviews Dec 2022Dementia is a progressive neurodegenerative syndrome that has no cure. Although a significant proportion of people with dementia progress into the severe stages of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a progressive neurodegenerative syndrome that has no cure. Although a significant proportion of people with dementia progress into the severe stages of the disease, evidence on the clinical effectiveness of treatments for people with severe dementia remains limited.
AIMS
To systematically review the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for people living with severe dementia and assess the quality of the evidence.
METHOD
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and online clinical trial registers up to January 2022, for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) in people living with severe dementia. Quality and risk of bias were assessed independently by two authors.
RESULTS
A total of 30 trials met our inclusion criteria of which 14 evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, and 16 evaluated a non-pharmacological intervention. Pharmacological treatments: Meta-analyses indicated that pharmacological treatments (donepezil: 10 mg, 5 mg; galantamine: 24 mg; memantine: 10 mg) are associated with better outcomes compared to placebo for: severity of symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI 0.26-0.48; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.26; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and clinical impression of change (Relative Risk (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.14-1.57; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacological treatments were also more likely to reduce mortality compared to placebo (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.89; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). Non-pharmacological treatments: Five trials were included in the meta-analyses of non-pharmacological interventions (multi-sensory stimulation, needs assessment, and activities-based interventions); results showed that non-pharmacological interventions may reduce neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia compared to usual care (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.06; low certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that pharmacological treatments may decrease disease severity and improve function for people with severe dementia. Non-pharmacological treatments are probably effective in reducing neuropsychiatric symptoms but the quality of evidence remains low. There is an urgent need for high-quality evidence for other outcomes and for developing service-user informed interventions for this under-served group.
Topics: Humans; Dementia; Activities of Daily Living; Memantine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36243355
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101758 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Pharmacologic therapies for management of heroin withdrawal have been studied and reviewed widely. Opium dependence is generally associated with less severe dependence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacologic therapies for management of heroin withdrawal have been studied and reviewed widely. Opium dependence is generally associated with less severe dependence and milder withdrawal symptoms than heroin. The evidence on withdrawal management of heroin might therefore not be exactly applicable for opium.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of various pharmacologic therapies for the management of the acute phase of opium withdrawal.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following sources up to September 2017: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, regional and national databases (IMEMR, Iranmedex, and IranPsych), main electronic sources of ongoing trials, and reference lists of all relevant papers. In addition, we contacted known investigators to obtain missing data or incomplete trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Controlled clinical trials and randomised controlled trials on pharmacological therapies, compared with no intervention, placebo, other pharmacologic treatments, different doses of the same drug, and psychosocial intervention, to manage acute withdrawal from opium in a maximum duration of 30 days.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials involving 1096 participants. No pooled analysis was possible. Studies were carried out in three countries, Iran, India, and Thailand, in outpatient and inpatient settings. The quality of the evidence was generally very low.When the mean of withdrawal symptoms was provided for several days, we mainly focused on day 3. The reason for this was that the highest severity of opium withdrawal is in the second to fourth day.Comparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, clonidine was twice as good as methadone for completion of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.38; 361 participants, 1 study, low-quality evidence). All the other results showed no differences between the considered drugs: baclofen versus clonidine (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.80; 66 participants, 1 study, very low-quality evidence); clonidine versus clonidine plus amantadine (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24; 69 participants, 1 study); clonidine versus buprenorphine in an inpatient setting (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 1 study, 35 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus tramadol (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37; 1 study, 72 participants, very low-quality evidence); methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.43; 1 study, 40 participants, low-quality evidence), and tincture of opium versus methadone (1 study, 74 participants, low-quality evidence).Comparing different pharmacological treatments with each other, adding amantadine to clonidine decreased withdrawal scores rated at day 3 (mean difference (MD) -3.56, 95% CI -5.97 to -1.15; 1 study, 60 participants, very low-quality evidence). Comparing clonidine with buprenorphine in an inpatient setting, we found no difference in withdrawal symptoms rated by a physician (MD -1.40, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.13; 1 study, 34 participants, very low-quality evidence), and results in favour of buprenorpine when rated by participants (MD -11.80, 95% CI -15.56 to -8.04). Buprenorphine was superior to clonidine in controlling severe withdrawal symptoms in an outpatient setting (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1 study, 76 participants). We found no difference in the comparison of methadone versus tramadol (MD 0.04, 95% CI -2.68 to 2.76; 1 study, 72 participants) and in the comparison of methadone versus methadone plus gabapentin (MD -2.20, 95% CI -6.72 to 2.32; 1 study, 40 participants).Comparing clonidine versus buprenorphine in an outpatient setting, more adverse effects were reported in the clonidine group (1 study, 76 participants). Higher numbers of participants in the clonidine group experienced hypotension at days 5 to 8, headache at days 1 to 8, sedation at days 5 to 8, dizziness and dry mouth at days 1 to 10, and nausea at days 1 to 9. Sweating was reported in a significantly higher number of participants in the buprenorphine group at days 1 to 10. We found no difference between groups for all the other comparisons considering this outcome.Comparing different dosages of the same pharmacological detoxification treatment, a high dose of clonidine (1 to 1.2 mg/day) did not differ from a low dose of clonidine (0.5 to 0.6 mg/day) in completion of treatment in an inpatient setting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19; 1 study, 68 participants), however a higher number of participants with hypotension was reported in the high-dose group (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.98). Gradual reduction of methadone was associated with more adverse effects than abrupt withdrawal of methadone (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.94; 1 study, 20 participants, very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Results did not support using any specific pharmacological approach for the management of opium withdrawal due to generally very low-quality evidence and small or no differences between treatments. However, it seems that opium withdrawal symptoms are significant, especially at days 2 to 4 after discontinuation of opium. All of the assessed medications might be useful in alleviating symptoms. Those who receive clonidine might experience hypotension.
Topics: Amantadine; Amines; Baclofen; Buprenorphine; Clonidine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Gabapentin; Humans; Methadone; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Tramadol; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 29929212
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007522.pub2 -
Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery 2010The purpose of the present article is a systematic review of the proposed medical or surgical treatments in patients in chronic vegetative state (VS) or minimally... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIMS
The purpose of the present article is a systematic review of the proposed medical or surgical treatments in patients in chronic vegetative state (VS) or minimally conscious state (MCS), as well as of their mechanisms of action and limitations.
METHODS
For this review, we have agreed to include patients in VS or MCS having persisted for over 6 months in posttraumatic cases, and over 3 months in nontraumatic cases, before the time of intervention. Searches were independently conducted by 2 investigators between May 2009 and September 2009 in the following databases: Medline, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. The electronic search was complemented by cross-checking the references of all relevant articles. Overall, 16 papers were eligible for this systematic review.
RESULTS
According to the 16 eligible studies, medical management by dopaminergic agents (levodopa, amantadine), zolpidem and median nerve stimulation, or surgical management by deep brain stimulation, extradural cortical stimulation, spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal baclofen have shown to improve the level of consciousness in certain cases.
CONCLUSION
The treatments proposed for disorders of consciousness have not yet gained the level of 'evidence-based treatments'; moreover, the studies to date have led to inconclusiveness. The published therapeutic responses must be substantiated by further clinical studies of sound methodology.
Topics: Baclofen; Consciousness; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Humans; Persistent Vegetative State; Pyridines; Treatment Outcome; Zolpidem
PubMed: 20460949
DOI: 10.1159/000314354 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the management of cancer-related fatigue'.In healthy individuals, fatigue is a protective response to physical or mental stress, often relieved by rest. By contrast, in palliative care patients' fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Fatigue frequently occurs in patients with advanced disease (e.g. cancer-related fatigue) and modalities used to treat cancer can often contribute. Further complicating issues are the multidimensionality, subjective nature and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. The pathophysiology is not fully understood and evidence-based treatment approaches are needed.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for fatigue in palliative care, with a focus on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including patients with cancer and other chronic diseases.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, and a selection of cancer journals up to 28 April 2014. We searched the references of identified articles and contacted authors to obtain unreported data. To validate the search strategy we selected sentinel references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) concerning adult palliative care with a focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue compared to placebo, application of two drugs, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia). We did not include studies on fatigue related to antineoplastic treatment (e.g. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgical intervention). We also included secondary outcomes that were assessed in fatigue-related studies (e.g. exhaustion, tiredness).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MM and MC) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We screened the search results and included studies if they met the selection criteria. If we identified two or more studies that investigated a specific drug with the same dose in a population with the same disease and using the same assessment instrument or scale, we conducted meta-analysis. In addition, we compared the type of drug investigated in specific populations, as well as the frequent adverse effects of fatigue treatment, by creating overview tables.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we screened 1645 publications of which 45 met the inclusion criteria (20 additional studies to the previous reviews). In total, we analysed data from 18 drugs and 4696 participants. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials and we discuss the reasons for this in the review. There were some sources of potential bias in the included studies, including a lack of description of the methods of blinding and allocation concealment, and the small size of the study populations. We included studies investigating pemoline and modafinil in participants with multiple sclerosis (MS)-associated fatigue and methylphenidate in patients suffering from advanced cancer and fatigue in meta-analysis. Treatment results pointed to weak and inconclusive evidence for the efficacy of amantadine, pemoline and modafinil in multiple sclerosis and for carnitine and donepezil in cancer-related fatigue. Methylphenidate and pemoline seem to be effective in patients with HIV, but this is based only on one study per intervention, with only a moderate number of participants in each study. Meta-analysis shows an estimated superior effect for methylphenidate in cancer-related fatigue (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.83). Therapeutic effects could not be described for dexamphetamine, paroxetine or testosterone. There were a variety of results for the secondary outcomes in some studies. Most studies had low participant numbers and were heterogeneous. In general, adverse reactions were mild and had little or no impact.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for the treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Fatigue research in palliative care seems to focus on modafinil and methylphenidate, which may be beneficial for the treatment of fatigue associated with palliative care although further research about their efficacy is needed. Dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, acetylsalicylic acid, armodafinil, amantadine and L-carnitine should be further examined. Consensus is needed regarding fatigue outcome parameters for clinical trials.
Topics: Adult; Amantadine; Benzhydryl Compounds; Carnitine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Chronic Disease; Fatigue; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Multiple Sclerosis; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Pemoline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26026155
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006788.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with rule-breaking, criminality, substance use, unemployment, relationship difficulties, and premature death.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with rule-breaking, criminality, substance use, unemployment, relationship difficulties, and premature death. Certain types of medication (drugs) may help people with AsPD. This review updates a previous Cochrane review, published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and adverse effects of pharmacological interventions for adults with AsPD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers up to 5 September 2019. We also checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in which adults (age 18 years and over) with a diagnosis of AsPD or dissocial personality disorder were allocated to a pharmacological intervention or placebo control condition.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings tables' and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. The primary outcomes were: aggression; reconviction; global state/global functioning; social functioning; and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies (three new to this update), involving 416 participants with AsPD. Most studies (10/11) were conducted in North America. Seven studies were conducted exclusively in an outpatient setting, one in an inpatient setting, and one in prison; two studies used multiple settings. The average age of participants ranged from 28.6 years to 45.1 years (overall mean age 39.6 years). Participants were predominantly (90%) male. Study duration ranged from 6 to 24 weeks, with no follow-up period. Data were available from only four studies involving 274 participants with AsPD. All the available data came from unreplicated, single reports, and did not allow independent statistical analysis to be conducted. Many review findings were limited to descriptive summaries based on analyses carried out and reported by the trial investigators. No study set out to recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD; many participants presented primarily with substance abuse problems. The studies reported on four primary outcomes and six secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were aggression (six studies) global/state functioning (three studies), social functioning (one study), and adverse events (seven studies). Secondary outcomes were leaving the study early (eight studies), substance misuse (five studies), employment status (one study), impulsivity (one study), anger (three studies), and mental state (three studies). No study reported data on the primary outcome of reconviction or the secondary outcomes of quality of life, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment, housing/accommodation status, economic outcomes or prison/service outcomes. Eleven different drugs were compared with placebo, but data for AsPD participants were only available for five comparisons. Three classes of drug were represented: antiepileptic; antidepressant; and dopamine agonist (anti-Parkinsonian) drugs. We considered selection bias to be unclear in 8/11 studies, attrition bias to be high in 7/11 studies, and performance bias to be low in 7/11 studies. Using GRADE, we rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome in this review as very low, meaning that we have very little confidence in the effect estimates reported. Phenytoin (antiepileptic) versus placebo One study (60 participants) reported very low-certainty evidence that phenytoin (300 mg/day), compared to placebo, may reduce the mean frequency of aggressive acts per week (phenytoin mean = 0.33, no standard deviation (SD) reported; placebo mean = 0.51, no SD reported) in male prisoners with aggression (skewed data) at endpoint (six weeks). The same study (60 participants) reported no evidence of difference between phenytoin and placebo in the number of participants reporting the adverse event of nausea during week one (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 16.76; very low-certainty evidence). The study authors also reported that no important side effects were detectable via blood cell counts or liver enzyme tests (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure reconviction, global/state functioning or social functioning. Desipramine (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (29 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between desipramine (250 to 300 mg/day) and placebo on mean social functioning scores (desipramine = 0.19; placebo = 0.21), assessed with the family-social domain of the Addiction Severity Index (scores range from zero to one, with higher values indicating worse social functioning), at endpoint (12 weeks) (very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies included in this comparison measured the other primary outcomes: aggression; reconviction; global/state functioning; or adverse events. Nortriptyline (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (20 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between nortriptyline (25 to 75 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (nortriptyline = 0.3; placebo = 0.7), assessed with the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90) Global Severity Index (GSI; mean of subscale scores, ranging from zero to four, with higher scores indicating greater severity of symptoms), at endpoint (six months) in men with alcohol dependency (very low-certainty evidence). The study measured side effects but did not report data on adverse events for the AsPD subgroup. The study did not measure aggression, reconviction or social functioning. Bromocriptine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo One study (18 participants) reported no evidence of difference between bromocriptine (15 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (bromocriptine = 0.4; placebo = 0.7), measured with the GSI of the SCL-90 at endpoint (six months) (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on adverse effects, but reported that 12 patients randomised to the bromocriptine group experienced severe side effects, five of whom dropped out of the study in the first two days due to nausea and severe flu-like symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure aggression, reconviction and social functioning. Amantadine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo The study in this comparison did not measure any of the primary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence summarised in this review is insufficient to draw any conclusion about the use of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of antisocial personality disorder. The evidence comes from single, unreplicated studies of mostly older medications. The studies also have methodological issues that severely limit the confidence we can draw from their results. Future studies should recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD, and use relevant outcome measures, including reconviction.
Topics: Adult; Aggression; Alcohol-Related Disorders; Amantadine; Antisocial Personality Disorder; Anxiety; Bromocriptine; Desipramine; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nortriptyline; Phenytoin; Placebos; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32880105
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007667.pub3 -
The International Journal of... Dec 2014We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of combination therapy with cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with Alzheimer's... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of combination therapy with cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with Alzheimer's disease.
METHODS
We reviewed cognitive function, activities of daily living, behavioral disturbance, global assessment, discontinuation rate, and individual side effects.
RESULTS
Seven studies (total n=2182) were identified. Combination therapy significantly affected behavioral disturbance scores (standardized mean difference=-0.13), activity of daily living scores (standardized mean difference=-0.10), and global assessment scores (standardized mean difference=-0.15). In addition, cognitive function scores (standardized mean difference=-0.13, P=.06) exhibited favorable trends with combination therapy. The effects of combination therapy were more significant in the moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease subgroup in terms of all efficacy outcome scores. The discontinuation rate was similar in both groups, and there were no significant differences in individual side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Combination therapy was beneficial for the treatment of moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease in terms of cognition, behavioral disturbances, activities of daily living, and global assessment was well tolerated.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Antiparkinson Agents; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Combined Modality Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Memantine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25548104
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyu115 -
PloS One 2015We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials testing memantine monotherapy for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials testing memantine monotherapy for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).
METHODS
The meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials of memantine monotherapy for AD, omitting those in which patients were also administered a cholinesterase inhibitor. Cognitive function, activities of daily living, behavioral disturbances, global function, stage of dementia, drug discontinuation rate, and individual side effects were compared between memantine monotherapy and placebo groups. The primary outcomes were cognitive function and behavioral disturbances; the others were secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Nine studies including 2433 patients that met the study's inclusion criteria were identified. Memantine monotherapy significantly improved cognitive function [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-0.39 to -0.14, p=0.0001], behavioral disturbances (SMD=-0.12, 95% CI=-0.22 to -0.01, p=0.03), activities of daily living (SMD=-0.09, 95% CI=-0.19 to -0.00, p=0.05), global function assessment (SMD=-0.18, 95% CI=-0.27 to -0.09, p=0.0001), and stage of dementia (SMD=-0.23, 95% CI=-0.33 to -0.12, p=0.0001) scores. Memantine was superior to placebo in terms of discontinuation because of inefficacy [risk ratio (RR)=0.36, 95% CI=0.17¬ to 0.74, p=0.006, number needed to harm (NNH)=non significant]. Moreover, memantine was associated with less agitation compared with placebo (RR=0.68, 95% CI=0.49 to 0.94, p=0.02, NNH=non significant). There were no significant differences in the rate of discontinuation because of all causes, all adverse events, and individual side effects other than agitation between the memantine monotherapy and placebo groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Memantine monotherapy improved cognition, behavior, activities of daily living, global function, and stage of dementia and was well-tolerated by AD patients. However, the effect size in terms of efficacy outcomes was small and thus there is limited evidence of clinical benefit.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Alzheimer Disease; Humans; Memantine; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25860130
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123289 -
Journal of Parkinson's Disease 2021Many studies on Parkinson's disease (PD) patients affected by Coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19) were recently published. However, the small sample size of infected...
BACKGROUND
Many studies on Parkinson's disease (PD) patients affected by Coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19) were recently published. However, the small sample size of infected patients enrolled in most studies did not allow to draw robust conclusions on the COVID-19 impact in PD.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to assess whether the prevalence and outcome of COVID-19 in PD patients are different from those observed in the general population.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting data on PD patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 (PD-COVID+). We extracted prevalence, clinical-demographic data, outcome, and mortality. We also analyzed risk or protective factors based on comparisons between PD-COVID+ and control populations with PD without COVID-19 or without PD with COVID-19.
RESULTS
We included 16 studies reporting on a total of 11,325 PD patients, 1,061 with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. The median infection prevalence ranged from 0.6% to 8.5%. PD-COVID+ patients had a median age of 74 and a disease duration of 9.4 years. Pooling all PD-COVID+ patients from included studies, 28.6% required hospitalization, 37.1% required levodopa dose increasing, and 18.9% died. The case fatality was higher in PD-COVID+ patients than the general population, with longer PD duration as a possible risk factor for worse outcome. Amantadine and vitamin D were proposed as potential protective factors.
CONCLUSION
Available studies indicate a higher case fatality in PD patients affected by COVID-19 than the general population. Conversely, current literature does not definitively clarify whether PD patients are more susceptible to get infected. The potential protective role of vitamin D and amantadine is intriguing but deserves further investigation.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; COVID-19; Case-Control Studies; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Vitamin D; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33749619
DOI: 10.3233/JPD-202463