-
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Full reports of published and unpublished randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials of any carnitine intervention in adults affected by multiple sclerosis with a clinical diagnosis of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 -
Journal of Neural Transmission (Vienna,... Sep 2022The trajectory of the use of dopamine replacement therapy (DRT) in Parkinson's disease (PD) is variable and doses may need to be increased, but also tapered. The plan... (Review)
Review
The trajectory of the use of dopamine replacement therapy (DRT) in Parkinson's disease (PD) is variable and doses may need to be increased, but also tapered. The plan for dose adjustment is usually done as per drug information recommendations from the licensing bodies, but there are no clear guidelines with regards to the best practice regarding the tapering off schedule given sudden dose reductions of drugs such as dopamine agonists may have serious adverse consequences. A systematic literature search was, therefore, performed to derive recommendations and the data show that there are no controlled studies or evidence-based recommendations how to taper or discontinue PD medication in a systematic manner. Most of the data were available on the dopamine agonist withdrawal syndrome (DAWS) and we found only two instructions on how to reduce pramipexole and rotigotine published by the EMA. We suggest that based on the available data, levodopa, dopamine agonists (DA), and amantadine should not be discontinued abruptly. Abrupt or sudden reduction of DA or amantadine in particular can lead to severe life-threatening withdrawal symptoms. Tapering off levodopa, COMT inhibitors, and MAO-B inhibitors may worsen motor and non-motor symptoms. Based on our clinical experience, we have proposed how to reduce PD medication and this work will form the basis of a future Delphi panel to define the recommendations in a consensus.
Topics: Amantadine; Dopamine; Dopamine Agonists; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 34324057
DOI: 10.1007/s00702-021-02389-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2006Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but they are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but they are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value and concerns about possible adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and safety ("effects") of amantadine and rimantadine in healthy adults.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (2003 to August Week 4, 2005), EMBASE (October 2003 to July 2005) and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with placebo, control medication or no intervention, or comparing doses or schedules of amantadine and/or rimantadine in healthy adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For prophylaxis (prevention) trials the numbers of participants with clinical influenza (influenza-like-illness or ILI) or with confirmed influenza A and adverse effects were analysed. Analysis for treatment trials was of the mean duration of fever, length of hospital stay and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
Amantadine prevented 25% of ILI cases (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 36%), and 61% of influenza A cases (95% CI 35% to 76%). Amantadine reduced duration of fever by one day (95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). Rimantadine demonstrated comparable effectiveness, but there were fewer trials and the results for prophylaxis were not statistically significant. Both amantadine and rimantadine induced significant gastrointestinal adverse effects. Adverse effects of the central nervous system and study withdrawals were significantly more common with amantadine than rimantadine. Neither drug affected the rate of viral shedding from the nose and the course of asymptomatic influenza.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Amantadine and rimantadine have comparable efficacy and effectiveness in relieving or treating symptoms of influenza A in healthy adults, although rimantadine induces fewer adverse effects than amantadine. The effectiveness of both drugs in interrupting transmission is probably low. Routine use of both drugs should be discouraged and both drugs should only be used when all other measures fail.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Emergencies; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rimantadine; Virus Shedding
PubMed: 16625539
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001169.pub3 -
Cureus Apr 2023Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a neuropsychiatric disorder that affects approximately 2% of the human population. Traditional treatment of OCD includes selective... (Review)
Review
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a neuropsychiatric disorder that affects approximately 2% of the human population. Traditional treatment of OCD includes selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) treatment along with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Nearly 25%-30% of OCD patients do not respond to SSRIs. Glutamatergic agents are currently being studied for the treatment of OCD due to the glutamatergic pathway in the brain, related to OCD, and the role of the cortico-striato-thalamic circuit (CSTC). This review assesses the clinical effectiveness of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists, ketamine/esketamine, memantine, and amantadine, for adult patients with OCD. Inclusion criteria include human studies published within the last 15 years, with patients diagnosed with OCD, aged over 18 years, with only psychiatric comorbidities, and full-text articles. Papers that included interventions other than CBT, exposure with response prevention (ERP), and SSRI/SRI were excluded. Articles were searched for using PubMed, PubMed Central, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, GeorgiA LIbrary LEarning Online, EBSCO Information Services, OpenAthens, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, and Google Scholar databases, last searched on December 2, 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias tools, the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) checklist for literature reviews, and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for quasi-experimental studies. Results were presented and synthesized by Excel spreadsheet analysis. The database search yielded 4,221 articles, which was cut down to 18 articles by inclusion/exclusion criteria, including duplications. 80% of the ketamine studies resulted in a significant reduction of obsessions and compulsions based on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), and each of the memantine and amantadine studies displayed clinical effectiveness, also. Limitations include the small number of amantadine studies and the limited availability of other NMDA receptor (NMDAR) antagonist-focused studies. This systematic review shows that ketamine is an effective drug for the treatment of non-refractory, mild to moderate OCD, and memantine and amantadine are effective augmentation agents for the treatment of mild to severe OCD.
PubMed: 37213965
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.37833 -
Medicine Apr 2024Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. Dementia severity was assessed mainly through cognitive function, psychobehavioral symptoms, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. Dementia severity was assessed mainly through cognitive function, psychobehavioral symptoms, and daily living ability. Currently, there are not many drugs that can be selected to treat mild to moderate AD, and the value of drugs remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs), memantine, and sodium oligomannate (GV-971) in the treatment of patients with AD. Additionally, molecular docking analysis will be used to investigate the binding affinities of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine with key receptor proteins associated with AD, including beta-amyloid (Abeta), microtubule-associated protein (MAP), apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4), and Mitofusin-2 (MFN2), to further validate the results of the meta-analysis.
METHODS
We obtained clinical trials characterized by randomization, placebo control, and double-blinded methodologies concerning ChEIs, memantine, and GV-971. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.4 software. Molecular docking was also conducted to evaluate the results.
RESULTS
All drugs improved the cognitive function, with the effect value ranging from -1.23 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.30) for 20 mg memantine to -3.29 (95% CI -4.14 to -2.45) for 32 mg galantamine. Although 32 mg galanthamine and GV-971 did not improve the clinicians' Global Impression of Change scale, other drugs showed significant results compared with placebo. On NPI, only 10 mg of donepezil and 24 mg of galantamine had improvement effects. On ADCS/ADL, only 20 mg memantine and 900 mg GV-971 had no significant difference from the placebo. Donepezil 5 mg and GV-971 900 mg did not increase the drug withdrawal rates due to various reasons or adverse reactions when compared to the placebo. Donepezil demonstrated superior binding to the protein and exhibited greater efficacy compared to other drugs.
CONCLUSION
ChEIs, memantine, and GV-971 all can slow the progression of AD but have different effects on respective assessments. Donepezil and GV-971 were relatively well tolerated.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Donepezil; Galantamine; Memantine; Molecular Docking Simulation; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 38640313
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037799 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2003To establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir compared to standard care for the treatment and prevention of influenza. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir compared to standard care for the treatment and prevention of influenza.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases. Reference lists of identified articles and key publications. Relevant trials.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomised evidence was undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir compared to standard care for treatment and prophylaxis use for influenza A and B. An additional systematic review of the effectiveness of amantadine for treatment and prophylaxis use for influenza A in children and the elderly was also undertaken. Economic decision models were constructed to examine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the alternative strategies for treating and preventing influenza A and/or B. This was informed by the systematic reviews outlined above and additional sources of information where required.
RESULTS
The systematic review of the treatment of influenza found that oseltamivir reduced the median duration of symptoms in the influenza positive group by 1.38 days for the otherwise healthy adult population, 0.5 day for the high-risk population, and 1.5 days for the children population. This compared to 1.26 days, 1.99 days, and 1.3 for the similar groups for inhaled zanamivir. The systematic review of the prevention of influenza found that the relative risk reduction for oseltamivir was between approximately 75 and 90% and approximately 70 and 90% for inhaled zanamivir depending on the strategy adopted and the population under consideration. For the economic model a base case was constructed that focussed primarily on the health benefits generated by shortening the period of influenza illness. This base case found that, compared to standard care, the estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year ranged from pound 6190 to pound 31,529 for healthy adults, from pound 4535 to pound 22,502 for the 'high-risk' group, from pound 6117 to pound 30,825 for children, and from pound 5057 to pound 21,781 for the residential care elderly population. The base case model included valuations of the health effects of pneumonia (and otitis media in the children's model) based on observed rates in the trials. However it does not include the cost of hospitalisations as only very limited data was available for the effects of antivirals on hospitalisation rates. As for mortality rates, deaths from influenza were rare in trials of neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs). Therefore, suitable data on mortality were not available from these sources. As avoided hospitalisation costs and avoided mortality are potentially important we also carried out sensitivity analysis that involved extrapolating the observed reductions in pneumonias in the NI trials to hospitalisations and deaths. In all four models the cost-effectiveness of NIs is substantially improved by this extrapolation. For prophylaxis, antiviral drugs were compared with vaccination as preventative strategies. In all cases the cost-effectiveness ratios for vaccination were either low or cost-saving. In the base case the cost-effectiveness of antivirals was relatively unfavourable, there were scenarios relating to the elderly residential care model where antivirals as an additional strategy could be cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS
The cost-effectiveness varies markedly between the intervention strategies and target populations. The estimate of cost effectiveness is also sensitive to variations in certain key parameters of the model, for example the proportion of all influenza-like illnesses that are influenza. The effectiveness literature that was used to inform the economic decision model spans many decades and hence great caution should be exercised when interpreting the results of indirect intervention comparisons from the model. Further randomised trials making direct comparisons would be valuable to verify the model's findings.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Decision Support Techniques; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 14609480
DOI: 10.3310/hta7350 -
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria (Sao... 2018Amantadine blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors and has dopaminergic and noradrenergic action, a neurochemical profile that suggests its potential as an... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Amantadine blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors and has dopaminergic and noradrenergic action, a neurochemical profile that suggests its potential as an antidepressant drug. We conducted a systematic review of preclinical and clinical studies addressing the effects of amantadine in animal models of depression and in patients with depression.
METHODS
PubMed, Science Direct, and Web of Science were searched up to September 1, 2017 to identify clinical and preclinical studies. The following search terms were used: "amantadine AND depress*"; "amantadine AND mood"; "amantadine AND animal models AND antidepres*"; and "amantadine AND (forced swim, learned helplessness, reserpine, chronic mild stress, anhedonia, sucrose preference)."
RESULTS
Amantadine had antidepressant-like effects in animal models and appeared to potentiate the antidepressant effects of other antidepressants. These preclinical findings have received some support from the results of small open-label clinical trials, suggesting that amantadine can reduce depressive symptomatology and potentiate the antidepressant effects of monoaminergic drugs. In addition to its glutamatergic and dopaminergic effects, the potential antidepressant-like effects of amantadine have been linked to molecular and cellular actions, such as increased expression of neurotrophic factors (e.g., brain-derived neurotrophic factor), activation of σ1 receptors, decreased corticosterone levels, and decreased inflammatory response to stress.
CONCLUSION
Amantadine is an interesting candidate as new antidepressant drug for the treatment of depression.
Topics: Amantadine; Animals; Antidepressive Agents; Biogenic Monoamines; Clinical Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder; Disease Models, Animal; Drug Evaluation, Preclinical; Humans
PubMed: 29898194
DOI: 10.1590/1516-4446-2017-2393 -
Canadian Respiratory Journal Oct 2003To evaluate the efficacy and safety of amantadine and rimantadine, the first generation antivirals, for the prophylaxis of influenza virus. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of amantadine and rimantadine, the first generation antivirals, for the prophylaxis of influenza virus.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search of the English language literature using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents and the Cochrane database from 1966 to April 2002, as well as a manual search of references from retrieved articles, were performed.
STUDY SELECTION
Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials evaluating amantadine and rimantadine for prophylaxis of naturally occurring influenza A illness were considered. The control arm used either a placebo or an antiviral agent.
DATA EXTRACTION
Each trial was assessed by two authors to determine the adequacy of randomization and description of withdrawals. Efficacy data were extracted according to a predefined protocol. Discrepancies in data extraction among the investigators were solved by consensus. Nine prophylaxis studies of amantadine and rimantadine met the criteria for this systematic review.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Seven amantadine versus placebo trials (n=1797), three rimantadine versus placebo trials (n=688) and two amantadine versus rimantadine studies (n=455) were included for the meta-analysis on the prevention of influenza A illness. The summary of results for the relative odds of illness indicated a 64% reduction in the amantadine group compared with placebo (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.55, P< or =0.001), a 75% reduction in illness for the rimantadine group compared with placebo (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.97, P=0.05) and no significant differences in the odds of illness for the amantadine versus rimantadine groups (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.32, P=0.32). The summary of results examining adverse events showed significantly higher odds of central nervous system adverse reactions and premature withdrawal from the clinical trials in the amantadine-treated group than in the placebo-treated group. Compared with the placebo-treated group, the rimantadine-treated group did not have a significantly higher rate of withdrawal or central nervous system events. However, there was a significant increase in the odds of gastrointestinal adverse events for those treated with rimantadine compared with those treated with placebo (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.17 to 9.55, P=0.03). In the comparative trials of amantadine to rimantadine, rimantadine was associated with an 82% reduction in the odds of central nervous system events (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.00, P=0.05) and a 60% reduction in the odds of discontinuing treatment (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.79, P=0.009).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrates that amantadine and rimantadine are superior to placebo in the prevention of influenza A illness. Both antiviral agents have an increased number of adverse events compared with placebo; however, the use of amantadine is associated with significantly higher numbers of central nervous system events and treatment withdrawals compared with rimantadine. Thus, rimantadine should be the preferred agent in this class for the prevention of influenza A virus infection and should be made available in Canada.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Canada; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rimantadine
PubMed: 14571290
DOI: 10.1155/2003/453183 -
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive... 2018Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) and memantine are commonly used in the management of dementia. In routine clinical practice, dementia is often monitored via the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) and memantine are commonly used in the management of dementia. In routine clinical practice, dementia is often monitored via the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of these drugs on MMSE scores.
SUMMARY
Eighty trials were identified. Pooled effect estimates were in favour of both AChEIs and memantine at 6 months. Meta-regression indicated that dementia subtype was a moderator of AChEI treatment effect, with the effect of treatment versus control twice as high for patients with Parkinson disease dementia/ dementia with Lewy bodies (2.11 MMSE points at 6 months) as for patients with Alzheimer disease/vascular dementia (0.91 MMSE points at 6 months). Key Messages: AChEIs demonstrate a modest effect versus control on MMSE scores which is moderated by dementia subtype. For memantine the effect is smaller.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Dementia, Vascular; Dopamine Agents; Humans; Memantine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29734182
DOI: 10.1159/000486546 -
Therapeutic Advances in Rare Disease 2022The rare inherited autosomal recessive disease Friedreich ataxia (FA) causes progressive neurodegenerative changes and disability in patients. A systematic literature... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The rare inherited autosomal recessive disease Friedreich ataxia (FA) causes progressive neurodegenerative changes and disability in patients. A systematic literature review (SLR) was carried out to understand and summarize the published efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions in this disease.
METHODS
Database searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane by two independent reviewers. In addition, trial registries and conference proceedings were hand-searched.
RESULTS
Thirty-two publications were deemed eligible according to PICOS criteria. Twenty-four publications detail randomized controlled trials. The most frequently identified therapeutic intervention was idebenone ( = 11), followed by recombinant erythropoietin ( = 6), omaveloxolone ( = 3), and amantadine hydrochloride ( = 2). Other therapeutic interventions were investigated in one publication: A0001, CoQ10, creatine, deferiprone, interferon-γ-1b, the L-carnitine levorotatory form of 5-hydroxytryptophan, luvadaxistat, resveratrol, RT001, and vatiquinone (EPI-743). These studies included patients from 8 to 73 years old, and disease duration varied from 4.7 to 19 years. Disease severity as per the mean GAA1 and GAA2 allele repeat length ranged from 350 to 930 and 620 to 987 nucleotides, respectively. Most frequently reported efficacy outcomes were the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS, = 10), the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (modified FARS and FARS-neuro, = 12), the Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA, = 7), and the Activities of Daily Living scale (ADL, = 8). Each of these assesses the severity of disability in FA patients. In many studies, patients with FA deteriorated according to these severity scales regardless of treatment, or inconclusive results were found. Generally, these therapeutic interventions were well-tolerated and safe. Serious adverse events were atrial fibrillation ( = 1), craniocerebral injury ( = 1), and ventricular tachycardia ( = 1).
CONCLUSION
Identified literature showed a considerable unmet need for therapeutic interventions that halt or slow the deteriorating nature of FA. Novel efficacious drugs should be investigated that aim to improve symptoms or slow disease progression.
PubMed: 37180421
DOI: 10.1177/26330040221139872