-
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) May 2022Down Syndrome (DS) is considered the most frequent form of Intellectual Disability, with important expressions of cognitive decline and early dementia. Studies on... (Review)
Review
Down Syndrome (DS) is considered the most frequent form of Intellectual Disability, with important expressions of cognitive decline and early dementia. Studies on potential treatments for dementia in this population are still scarce. Thus, the current review aims to synthesize the different pharmacological approaches that already exist in the literature, which focus on improving the set of symptoms related to dementia in people with DS. A total of six studies were included, evaluating the application of supplemental antioxidant therapies, such as alpha-tocopherol; the use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor drugs, such as donepezil; N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, such as memantine; and the use of vitamin E and a fast-acting intranasal insulin. Two studies observed important positive changes related to some general functions in people with DS (referring to donepezil). In the majority of studies, the use of pharmacological therapies did not lead to improvement in the set of symptoms related to dementia, such as memory and general functionality, in the population with DS.
Topics: Acetylcholinesterase; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Dementia; Donepezil; Down Syndrome; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 35630721
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27103244 -
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and... Jul 2022Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder and the most prevalent cause of dementia. In spite of the urgent need for more effective AD drug therapy...
IMPORTANCE
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder and the most prevalent cause of dementia. In spite of the urgent need for more effective AD drug therapy strategies, evidence of the efficacy of combination therapy with existing drugs remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of combined drug therapy on cognition and progress in patients with AD in comparison to single agent drug therapy.
METHODS
The electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify relevant publications. Only randomized controlled clinical trials were included, but no limits were applied to language or time published. Data were extracted from May 27th until December 29th, 2020.
RESULTS
Three trials found that a combination of ChEI with additional memantine provides a slight benefit for patients with moderate to severe AD over ChEI monotherapy and placebo. However, a further 4 trials could not replicate this effect. One trial reported benefits of add-on in donepezil-treated patients with moderate AD (using a formula containing Gingko and other antioxidants) compared to donepezil with placebo. A further trial found no significant effect of combining EGb 761® and donepezil in patients with probable AD over donepezil with placebo. Approaches with idalopirdine, atorvastatin or vitamin supplementation in combination with ChEI have not proven effective and have not been retried since. Fluoxetine and ST101 have shown partial benefits in combination with ChEI over ChEI monotherapy and placebo. However, these effects must be replicated by further research.
CONCLUSION
Additional memantine in combination with ChEI might be of slight benefit in patients with moderate to severe AD, but evidence is ambiguous. Longer trials are needed. No major cognitive benefit is missed, if solely appropriate ChEI monotherapy is initiated.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Donepezil; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Piperidines
PubMed: 34476990
DOI: 10.1177/08919887211044746 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2019Aggression is a commonly reported problem following traumatic brain injury (TBI). It may present as verbal insults or outbursts, physical assaults, and/or property...
Aggression is a commonly reported problem following traumatic brain injury (TBI). It may present as verbal insults or outbursts, physical assaults, and/or property destruction. Aggressive behavior can fracture relationships and impede participation in treatment as well as a broad range of vocational and social activities, thereby reducing the individual's quality of life. Pharmacological intervention is frequently used to control aggression following TBI. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy of pharmacological interventions for aggression following TBI in adults. We reviewed studies in English, available before December 2018. MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL databases were searched, with additional searching of key journals, clinical trials registries, and international drug regulators. The primary outcomes of interest were reduction in the severity of aggression and occurrence of harms. The secondary outcomes of interest were changes in quality of life, participation, psychological health (e.g., depression, anxiety), and cognitive function. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instruments. Ten studies were identified, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five case series. There were positive, albeit mixed, findings for the RCTs examining the use of amantadine in reducing irritability ( = 2) and aggression ( = 2). There were some positive findings favoring methylphenidate in reducing anger ( = 1). The evidence for propranolol was weak ( = 1). Individual analysis revealed differential drug response across individuals for both methylphenidate and propranolol. The less rigorous studies administered carbamazepine ( = 2), valproic acid ( = 1), quetiapine ( = 1), and sertraline ( = 1), and all reported reductions in aggression. However, given the lack of a control group, it is difficult to discern treatment effects from natural change over time. This review concludes that a recommendation for use of amantadine to treat aggression and irritability in adults following TBI is appropriate. However, there is a need for further well-designed, adequately powered and controlled studies of pharmacological interventions for aggression following TBI.
PubMed: 31849802
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.01169 -
Swiss Medical Weekly Jun 2019The clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy with acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) and memantine compared to AChEI or memantine alone in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy with acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) and memantine compared to AChEI or memantine alone in patients with Alzheimer’s disease is inconclusive.
AIMS OF THE STUDY
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of combination therapy of AChEI and memantine to monotherapy with either substance in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (Mini-Mental State Examination score is <20).
METHODS
We systematically searched EMBASE, Medline and CENTRAL until February 2018 for eligible RCTs. We pooled the outcome data using inverse variance weighting models assuming random effects, and assessed the quality of evidence (QoE) according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS
We included nine RCTs (2604 patients). At short-term follow-up (closest to 6 months), combination therapy compared to AChEI monotherapy had a significantly greater effect on cognition than AChEI monotherapy (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.35, 7 RCTs, low QoE) and clinical global impression (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.01, 4 RCTs, moderate QoE), but not on activities of daily living (SMD 0.09, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.18, 5 RCTs, moderate QoE) or behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (mean difference −3.07, 95% CI −6.53 to 0.38, 6 RCT, low QoE). There was no significant difference in adverse events (relative risk ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12, 4 RCTs, low QoE). Evidence for long-term follow-up (≥ 9 months) or nursing home placement was sparse. Only two studies compared combination therapy with memantine monotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Combination therapy had statistically significant effects on cognition and clinical global impression. The clinical relevance of these effects is uncertain. The overall QoE was very low. With the current evidence, it remains unclear whether combination therapy adds any benefit. Large pragmatic RCTs with long-term follow-up and focus on functional outcomes, delay in nursing home placement and adverse events are needed.  .
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Alzheimer Disease; Antiparkinson Agents; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31269225
DOI: 10.4414/smw.2019.20093 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2014Hepatitis C virus infection affects around 3% of the world population or approximately 160 million people. A variable proportion (5% to 40%) of the infected people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hepatitis C virus infection affects around 3% of the world population or approximately 160 million people. A variable proportion (5% to 40%) of the infected people develop clinical symptoms. Hence, hepatitis C virus is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality with hepatic fibrosis, end-stage liver cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma as the dominant clinical sequelae. Combination therapy with pegylated (peg) interferon-alpha and ribavirin achieves sustained virological response (that is, undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA in serum by sensitivity testing six months after the end of treatment) in approximately 40% to 80% of treated patients, depending on viral genotype. Recently, a new class of drugs have emerged for hepatitis C infection, the direct acting antivirals, which in combination with standard therapy or alone can lead to sustained virological response in 80% or more of treated patients. Aminoadamantanes, mostly amantadine, are antiviral drugs used for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C. We have previously systematically reviewed amantadine versus placebo or no intervention and found no significant effects of the amantadine on all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and on adverse events in patients with hepatitis C. Overall, we did not observe a significant effect of amantadine on sustained virological response. In this review, we systematically review aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection by conducting a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (1996 to December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11 of 12, 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to December 2013), EMBASE (1974 to December 2013), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to December 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), Google Scholar, and Eudrapharm up to December 2013. Furthermore, full text searches were conducted until December 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials assessing aminoadamantanes in participants with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological domains were used to assess the risk of systematic errors ('bias'). We used trial sequential analysis to assess risk of random errors ('play of chance').
MAIN RESULTS
Six randomised clinical trials with 581 participants with chronic hepatitis C were included. All trials had high risk of bias. The included trials compared amantadine versus other antiviral drugs: ribavirin, mycophenolate mofetil, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. Standard antiviral therapy (interferon-alpha, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, or peg interferon alpha) was administered equally to the intervention and the control groups in five trials, depending on when the trial was conducted. Four trials compared amantadine versus ribavirin. There were no deaths or liver-related morbidity in the two intervention groups (0/216 (0%) versus 0/211 (0%); 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). The lower estimated risk for (serious) adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation with amantadine was imprecise (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; based on 10/216 (5%) versus 18/211 (9%) participants in 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). There were more participants with failure of sustained virological response in the amantadine group than in the ribavirin group (206/216 (96%) versus 176/211 (84%); RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22, 4 trials; low quality of the evidence). Amantadine versus ribavirin more often failed to achieve end-of follow-up biochemical response (41/46 (89%) versus 31/46 (67%); RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.63; 2 trials; very low quality of the evidence). One trial compared amantadine versus mycophenolate mofetil. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except that amantadine was inferior to mycophenolate mofetil regarding the outcome failure to achieve end-of treatment virological response (low quality of evidence). One trial each compared amantadine versus interferon-alpha or interferon-gamma. Both comparisons showed no significant differences in the treatment outcomes (very low quality of the evidence). The observed effects could be due to real effects, systematic errors (bias), or random errors (play of chance). This possible influence on the observed effect by play of chance is due to the fact that trial sequential analyses could not confirm our findings. We were not able to perform meta-analyses on failure of histological improvement and quality of life due to lack of valid data in all trial comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review has identified evidence of very low quality for the key outcomes of all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and adverse events in people with chronic hepatitis C when treated with amantadine compared with ribavirin, mycophenolate, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. The timeframe for measuring the composite outcome was insufficient in the included trials. There was low quality evidence that amantadine led to more participants who failed to achieve sustained virological response compared with ribavirin. This observation may be real or caused by systematic errors (bias), but it does not seem to be caused by random error (play of chance). Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are unable to determine definitively whether amantadine is less effective than other antivirals in patients with chronic hepatitis C. As it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine or potentially other aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C would show strong benefits, it is probably better to focus on the assessments of other direct acting antiviral drugs. We found no evidence assessing other aminoadamantanes in randomised clinical trials in order to recommend or refute their use.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Interferon-alpha; Interferon-gamma; Mycophenolic Acid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ribavirin
PubMed: 24937404
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011132.pub2 -
Clinical Interventions in Aging 2018The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) demands more effective drugs, which are still unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of six...
PURPOSE
The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) demands more effective drugs, which are still unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of six drugs, such as donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, memantine, huperzine-A, and tacrine, in senior AD patients and identify the most effective one to improve patients' cognitive function.
METHODS
A system of search strategies was used to identify relevant studies including randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of six drugs in patients with AD. We updated relevant studies that were published before March 2018 as full-text articles. Using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), we ranked cognitive ability objectively based on Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Pairwise and NMAs were sequentially performed for the efficacy of drugs compared to each drug or control group through the trials included.
RESULTS
Among the 35 trials included, no obvious heterogeneity ( =0.0%, =0.583) was revealed according to the pooled data for cognition in NMA and the mean difference (MD) of memantine (MD=1.7, 95% CI: 0.73, 2.8) showed that the memantine was significantly efficacious in the treatment group in terms of MMSE. Followed by galantamine, huperzine-A, rivastigmine, tacrine, and donepezil.
CONCLUSION
As the first NMA comparing the major drugs in market for AD, our study suggests that memantine might have a more significant benefit on cognition than other five drugs available.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Antiparkinson Agents; Bayes Theorem; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Donepezil; Galantamine; Humans; Memantine; Neuroprotective Agents; Nootropic Agents; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 30425461
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S184968 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2006To provide an update review of the best quality evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for mild to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To provide an update review of the best quality evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) and of memantine for moderately severe to severe AD.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases, experts in the field and manufacturer submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review of the literature and an economic evaluation were undertaken. The quality of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using criteria developed by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. An outline assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using a standard checklist. The clinical and cost-effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of included studies. Where appropriate, meta-analysis of data was undertaken.
RESULTS
For mild to moderately severe AD, the results of the study suggested that all three treatments were beneficial when assessed using cognitive outcome measures. Global outcome measures were positive for donepezil and rivastigmine, but mixed for galantamine. Results for measures of function were mixed for donepezil and rivastigmine, but positive for galantamine. Behaviour and mood measures were mixed for donepezil and galantamine, but showed no benefit for rivastigmine. For memantine, two published RCTs were included; in one of these trials the participants were already being treated with donepezil. The results suggest that memantine is beneficial when assessed using functional and global measurements. The effect of memantine on cognitive and behaviour and mood outcomes is, however, less clear. Literature on the cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine was dominated by industry-sponsored studies, and studies varied in methods and results. Of the three UK studies, two report donepezil as not cost-effective, whereas a third study reports an additional cost (1996 pounds sterling) of between 1200 pounds sterling and 7000 pounds sterling per year in a non-severe AD health state (concerns over these estimates are raised, suggesting that they may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of donepezil). Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in this review suggests that donepezil treatment has a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in excess of 80,000 pounds sterling, with donepezil treatment reducing the mean time spent in full-time care (delays progression of AD) by 1.42-1.59 months (over a 5-year period). From four published cost-effectiveness studies, two UK studies report additional costs associated with rivastigmine treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in the current review suggests that rivastigmine treatment has a cost per QALY in excess of 57,000 pounds sterling, with rivastigmine treatment reducing the mean time spent in full-time care (delays progression) by 1.43-1.63 months (over a 5-year period). From five published cost-effectiveness studies, one UK study reports a cost per QALY of 8693 pounds sterling for 16-mg galantamine treatment and 10,051 pounds sterling for 24-mg galantamine treatment (concerns raised suggest that this may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of galantamine). Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in the present review suggests that galantamine treatment has a cost per QALY in excess of 68,000 pounds sterling, with galantamine reducing the time spent in full-time care (delays progression) by 1.42-1.73 months (over a 5-year period). From two published cost-effectiveness studies, one reports analysis for the UK, finding that memantine treatment results in cost savings and benefits in terms of delaying disease progression (concerns raised suggest that this may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of memantine). In the current review, the cost-effectiveness of memantine has not been modelled separately, but where alternative parameter inputs on the cost structure and utility values have been used in a reanalysis using the industry model, the cost-effectiveness is reported at between 37,000 pounds sterling and 52,000 pounds sterling per QALY, with this alternative analysis still based on what is regarded as an optimistic or favourable effectiveness profile for memantine.
CONCLUSIONS
Although results from the clinical effectiveness review suggest that these treatments may be beneficial, a number of issues need to be considered when assessing the results of the present review, such as the characteristics of the participants included in the individual trials, the outcome measures used, the length of study duration, the effects of attrition and the relationship between statistical significance and clinical significance. Many included trials were sponsored by industry. For donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine, the cost savings associated with reducing the mean time spent in full-time care do not offset the cost of treatment sufficiently to bring estimated cost-effectiveness to levels generally considered acceptable by NHS policy makers. It is difficult to draw conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of memantine; it is suggested that further amendments to the potentially optimistic industry model (measure of effect) would offer higher cost per QALY estimates. Future research should include: information on the quality of the outcome measures used; development of quality of life instruments for patients and carers; studies assessing the effects of these interventions of durations longer than 12 months; comparisons of benefits between interventions; and research on the prediction of disease progression.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Donepezil; Dopamine Agents; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Galantamine; Humans; Indans; Male; Memantine; Neuroprotective Agents; Nootropic Agents; Phenylcarbamates; Piperidines; Rivastigmine; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom
PubMed: 16409879
DOI: 10.3310/hta10010 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Sep 2018To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state...
Comprehensive Systematic Review Update Summary: Disorders of Consciousness: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine; and the National Institute on Disability,...
OBJECTIVE
To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state (MCS) by reviewing the literature on the diagnosis, natural history, prognosis, and treatment of disorders of consciousness lasting at least 28 days.
METHODS
Articles were classified per the AAN evidence-based classification system. Evidence synthesis occurred through a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. Recommendations were based on evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended.
RESULTS
No diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use. It is possible that a positive EMG response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish MCS from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS). The natural history of recovery from prolonged VS/UWS is better in traumatic than nontraumatic cases. MCS is generally associated with a better prognosis than VS (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult populations), and traumatic injury is generally associated with a better prognosis than nontraumatic injury (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult and pediatric populations). Findings concerning other prognostic features are stratified by etiology of injury (traumatic vs nontraumatic) and diagnosis (VS/UWS vs MCS) with low to moderate degrees of confidence. Therapeutic evidence is sparse. Amantadine probably hastens functional recovery in patients with MCS or VS/UWS secondary to severe traumatic brain injury over 4 weeks of treatment. Recommendations are presented separately.
Topics: Adult; Child; Consciousness Disorders; Female; Humans; Independent Living; Male; Neurology; Persistent Vegetative State; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prognosis; Rehabilitation Research
PubMed: 30098792
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.07.002 -
Neurology Sep 2018To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state...
Comprehensive systematic review update summary: Disorders of consciousness: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine; and the National Institute on Disability,...
OBJECTIVE
To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state (MCS) by reviewing the literature on the diagnosis, natural history, prognosis, and treatment of disorders of consciousness lasting at least 28 days.
METHODS
Articles were classified per the AAN evidence-based classification system. Evidence synthesis occurred through a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. Recommendations were based on evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended.
RESULTS
No diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use. It is possible that a positive EMG response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish MCS from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS). The natural history of recovery from prolonged VS/UWS is better in traumatic than nontraumatic cases. MCS is generally associated with a better prognosis than VS (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult populations), and traumatic injury is generally associated with a better prognosis than nontraumatic injury (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult and pediatric populations). Findings concerning other prognostic features are stratified by etiology of injury (traumatic vs nontraumatic) and diagnosis (VS/UWS vs MCS) with low to moderate degrees of confidence. Therapeutic evidence is sparse. Amantadine probably hastens functional recovery in patients with MCS or VS/UWS secondary to severe traumatic brain injury over 4 weeks of treatment. Recommendations are presented separately.
Topics: Consciousness Disorders; Humans; Independent Living; Neurology; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Rehabilitation Research; United States
PubMed: 30089617
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005928 -
Psychosomatics 2019Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an increasingly common cause of behavioral and emotional dysregulation among hospitalized patients. While consultation-liaison...
BACKGROUND
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an increasingly common cause of behavioral and emotional dysregulation among hospitalized patients. While consultation-liaison psychiatrists are often called to help manage these behaviors, acute pharmacological management guidelines are limited.
OBJECTIVE
Conduct a systematic review to determine which pharmacological measures are supported by the literature for targeting agitation and aggression in the acute time period following a TBI.
METHODS
In a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library, we identified and then analyzed publications that investigated the pharmacological management of behavioral and emotional dysregulation following a TBI during the acute time period following injury.
RESULTS
There were a limited number of high quality studies that met our inclusion criteria, including only five randomized controlled trials. The majority of the literature identified consisted of case reports or case series. Trends identified in the literature reviewed suggested that amantadine, propranolol, and anti-epileptics were the best supported medications to consider. For many medication classes, the time of medication initiation and duration of treatment, relative to the time of injury, may impact the effect observed.
CONCLUSIONS
The pharmacological management of agitated patients immediately following a TBI is still an area of much-needed research, as there is limited data-driven guidance in the literature.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Aggression; Amantadine; Anticonvulsants; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Dopamine Agents; Emotional Regulation; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Problem Behavior; Propranolol
PubMed: 30665668
DOI: 10.1016/j.psym.2018.11.009