-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Sleep bruxism is an oral activity characterized by involuntary teeth grinding or clenching during sleep. Several forms of treatment have been proposed for this disorder,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sleep bruxism is an oral activity characterized by involuntary teeth grinding or clenching during sleep. Several forms of treatment have been proposed for this disorder, including behavioural, dental and pharmacological strategies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological therapy for the treatment of sleep bruxism compared with other drugs, no treatment or placebo.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2014), EMBASE (1980 to August 2013) and LILACS (1982 to August 2014). We identified additional reports from the reference lists of retrieved reports and from reviews on treatment of sleep bruxism. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared drugs with other drugs, no treatment or placebo in people with sleep bruxism.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors carried out data extraction and quality assessment of the included trials independently and in duplicate. We discussed discrepancies until we reached consensus. We consulted a third review author in cases of persistent disagreement. We contacted authors of primary studies when necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 18 potentially relevant RCTs, but only seven met the inclusion criteria. All studies had a small number of participants, ranging from seven to 16 people per study and had a cross-over design. Three studies were of low risk of bias, while four were of uncertain risk. Amitriptyline (three studies), bromocriptine (one study), clonidine (one study), propranolol (one study), levodopa (Prolopa®) (one study) and tryptophan (one study) were compared with placebo. Studies evaluating bromocriptine, clonidine, propranolol and levodopa reported our primary outcome of indices of bruxism motor activity.Results were imprecise and consistent with benefit, no difference or harm. These were the specific findings for each of the drugs according to specific outcomes: 1. Amitriptyline versus placebo for masseteric electromyography (EMG) activity per minute: standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.91 to 0.34; P value = 0.37), 2. bromocriptine versus placebo for bruxism episodes per hour: mean difference (MD) 0.60 (95% CI -2.93 to 4.13), bruxism bursts per hour: MD -2.00 (95% CI -53.47 to 49.47), bruxism bursts per episode: MD 0.50 (95% CI -1.85 to 2.85) or number of episodes with grinding noise: MD 2.40 (95% CI -24.00 to 28.80), 3. clonidine versus placebo for number of bruxism episodes per hour: MD -2.41 (95% CI -4.84 to 0.02), 4. propranolol versus placebo for the number of bruxism episodes per hour: MD 1.16 (95% CI -1.89 to 4.21), 5. L-tryptophan versus placebo for masseteric EMG activity per second: SMD 0.08 (95% CI -0.90 to 1.06) and 6. levodopa versus placebo for bruxism episodes per hour of sleep: MD -1.47 (95% CI -3.64 to 0.70), for bruxism bursts per episode: MD 0.06 (95% CI -2.47 to 2.59).We combined several secondary outcomes (sleep duration, masseteric EMG activity per minute and pain intensity) in a meta-analysis for comparison of amitriptyline with placebo. The results for most comparisons were uncertain because of statistical imprecision. One study reported that clonidine reduced rapid eye movement (REM) sleep stage and increased the second stage of sleep. However, results for other sleep-related outcomes with clonidine were uncertain. Adverse effects were frequent in people who took amitriptyline (5/10 had drowsiness, difficulty awakening in the morning, insomnia or xerostomia compared with 0/10 in the placebo group), as well as in people who received propranolol (7/16 had moderate-to-severe xerostomia compare with 2/16 in the placebo group). Clonidine was associated with prolonged morning hypotension in three of 16 participants. The use of preventive medication avoided any adverse effects in people treated with levodopa and bromocriptine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for the treatment of sleep bruxism. This systematic review points to the need for more, well-designed, RCTs with larger sample sizes and adequate methods of allocation, outcome assessment and duration of follow-up. Ideally, parallel RCTs should be used in future studies to avoid the bias associated with cross-over studies. There is a need to standardize the outcomes of RCTs on treatments for sleep bruxism.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Bromocriptine; Clonidine; Humans; Levodopa; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Bruxism; Tryptophan
PubMed: 25338726
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005578.pub2 -
European Journal of Heart Failure Sep 2022Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) remains a major contributor to maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide. The disease is associated with various complications... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) remains a major contributor to maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide. The disease is associated with various complications occurring mainly early during its course. Reported adverse outcomes include decompensated heart failure, thromboembolic complications, arrhythmias and death. We sought to systematically and comprehensively review published literature on the management and outcome of women with PPCM across different geographical regions and to identify possible predictors of adverse outcomes.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We performed a comprehensive search of relevant literature (2000 to June 2021) across a number of electronic databases. Cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies, as well as control arms of randomized controlled trials reporting on 6- and/or 12-month outcomes of PPCM were considered eligible (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021255654). Forty-seven studies (4875 patients across 60 countries) met the inclusion criteria. Haemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters were similar across all continents. All-cause mortality was 8.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.5-10.8, I = 79.1%) at 6 months and 9.8% (95% CI 6.2-14.0, I = 80.5%) at 12 months. All-cause mortality was highest in Africa and Asia/Pacific. Overall, 44.1% (95% CI 36.1-52.2, I = 91.7%) of patients recovered their left ventricular (LV) function within 6 months and 58.7% (95% CI 48.1-68.9, I = 75.8%) within 12 months. Europe and North America reported the highest prevalence of LV recovery. Frequent prescription of beta-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and bromocriptine/cabergoline were associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality and better LV recovery.
CONCLUSION
We identified significant global differences in 6- and 12-month outcomes in women with PPCM. Frequent prescription of guideline-directed heart failure therapy was associated with better LV recovery and lower all-cause mortality. Timely initiation and up-titration of heart failure therapy should therefore be strongly encouraged to improve outcome in PPCM.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Bromocriptine; Cabergoline; Cardiomyopathies; Cardiotonic Agents; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Heart Failure; Humans; Peripartum Period; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular; Puerperal Disorders
PubMed: 35778990
DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.2603 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2010In many parts of the world, particularly in industrialised countries, second generation (atypical) antipsychotic drugs have become first line treatment for people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In many parts of the world, particularly in industrialised countries, second generation (atypical) antipsychotic drugs have become first line treatment for people suffering from schizophrenia. The question as to whether the effects of various second generation antipsychotic drugs differ is a matter of debate.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of zotepine compared with other second generation antipsychotic drugs for people suffering from schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2009), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials and contacted authors of trials for additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomised clinical controlled trials that compared zotepine with any forms of amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, sertindole or ziprasidone in people suffering from only schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
SS and KK extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (MD) again based on a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies (total n=289; 2 RCTs zotepine vs clozapine; 1 RCT zotepine vs clozapine vs risperidone (at 4 mg, 8 mg doses) vs remoxipride. All studies were of limited methodological quality. When zotepine was compared with clozapine, it was clozapine that was found to be more effective in terms of global state (n=59, 1 RCT, RR No clinically significant response 8.23 CI 1.14 to 59.17). Mental state scores also favoured clozapine (n=59, 1 RCT, MD average score (BPRS total, high = poor) 6.00 CI 2.17 to 9.83) and there was less use of antiparkinson medication in the clozapine group (n=116, 2 RCTs, RR 20.96 CI 2.89 to 151.90). In the comparison of zotepine and risperidone, mental state scoring found no significant difference between the groups (vs 4 mg: n=40, 1 RCT, MD average endpoint score (BPRS total, high=poor) 1.40 CI -9.82 to 12.62; vs 8 mg: n=40, 1 RCT, MD -1.30 CI -12.95 to 10.35) and use of antiparkinson medication was equivocal (vs 4 mg: n=40, 1 RCT, MD 1.80 CI -0.64 to 4.24; vs 8 mg: n=40, 1 RCT, MD 2.50 CI -0.05 to 5.05). Finally, when zotepine was compared with remoxipride, again no effect was found for mental state (n=58, 1 RCT, MD average endpoint score (BPRS total, high=poor) 5.70 CI -4.13 to 15.53) and there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of use of antiparkinson medication (n=49, 1 RCT, RR 0.97 CI 0.41 to 2.29).Data on important other outcomes such as other adverse events, service use or satisfaction with care, quality of life were not available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence base around zotepine is insufficient to provide firm conclusions on its absolute or relative effects. This is despite it being in use in Austria, France, Germany, Japan and the UK.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Dibenzothiepins; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remoxipride; Risperidone; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 20927748
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006628.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003Although levodopa is the most common drug prescribed to relieve the symptoms of Parkinson's disease it is associated with motor and psychiatric side-effects.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although levodopa is the most common drug prescribed to relieve the symptoms of Parkinson's disease it is associated with motor and psychiatric side-effects. Consequently, interest has turned to alternative drugs with improved side-effect profiles to replace or augment levodopa. Amantadine, originally used as an antiviral drug, has been shown to improve the symptoms of Parkinson's disease.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of amantadine therapy (monotherapy or adjuvant therapy) versus placebo in treating people with Parkinson's disease.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic searches of The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), EMBASE (1974-2001), SCISEARCH (1974-2001), BIOSIS (1993-2001), GEROLIT (1979-2001), OLDMEDLINE (1957-1965), LILACS (1982-2001), MedCarib (17th Century - 2001), PASCAL (1973-2001), JICST-EPLUS (1985-2001), RUSSMED (1973-2001), DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS (2000-2001), SIGLE (1980-2001), ISI-ISTP (1990-2001), Aslib Index to Theses (2001), Clinicaltrials.gov (2001), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (2001), NIDRR (2001) and NRR (2001) were conducted. Grey literature was hand searched and the reference lists of identified studies and reviews examined. The manufacturers of amantadine were contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing amantadine with placebo in the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data was abstracted independently by NC and KD onto standardised forms and disagreements were resolved by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
Six randomised controlled trials were found comparing amantadine monotherapy or adjuvant therapy with placebo in the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Five examined amantadine as adjuvant therapy with optimal levels of levodopa or anticholinergics and one examined amantadine as an adjuvant therapy with minimum tolerated levels of anticholinergics or as a monotherapy. Five were double-blind cross-over studies and one was a double-blind parallel group study. In total they examined 215 patients. The parallel group study allowed the randomisation codes to be broken and allowed patients in the placebo group to then receive amantadine. This could have led to bias. One study did not present the results of the placebo arm of the trial, hence we could not determine the difference between the two treatment groups. Two cross-over studies presented the results of the combined data from both treatment and placebo arms. The risk of carry-over effect into the second arm meant that these results could not be analysed. The final two studies presented at least some of their data from the end of the first arm of the trials. However only means were given, without standard deviations, so we could not determine the statistical significance of any difference between the amantadine and placebo groups. Although the authors did report on the side-effects from amantadine (such as livido recticularis, dry mouth and blurred vision), they state that none of them were severe.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
A considerable amount of evidence on the effectiveness of amantadine has accrued from non-controlled trials, often in patients with Parkinsonian conditions other than idiopathic Parkinson's disease. However, rigorous analysis of the six randomised controlled trials of amantadine reveals insufficient evidence of its efficacy and safety in the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson's disease.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiparkinson Agents; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 12535476
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003468 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2014Perazine is an old phenothiazine derivative used for the treatment of people with schizophrenia and is reputed to have a low level of extrapyramidal adverse effects. As... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Perazine is an old phenothiazine derivative used for the treatment of people with schizophrenia and is reputed to have a low level of extrapyramidal adverse effects. As far as we are aware, its use is limited to Germany, Poland, the former Yugoslavia and the Netherlands.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of perazine for those with schizophrenia or related psychoses in comparison with placebo, no treatment or other antipsychotic medications.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the bibliographic databases Biological Abstracts, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT, LILACS, PSYNDEX, Sociological Abstracts and Sociofile. We searched the references of all included studies for further trials. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials. We updated this search on 16th July 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected all randomised controlled trials that compared perazine with other treatments for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The review authors (SL, BH, BHe) independently inspected the citations and where possible abstracts and ordered papers for re-inspection and quality assessment. We independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We inspected all data for heterogeneity, assessed trials for risk of bias and created summary of findings tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
The review now includes seven trials with a total of 479 participants. In only one trial, with 95 participants, perazine appeared superior to 'active placebo' (trimipramine) at five weeks for the outcome of 'no important global improvement' (n = 95, RR 0.43 CI 0.2 to 0.8, low quality evidence), but there was no statistically significant difference in most measures of mental state. Perazine did not induce more general adverse events than placebo but more participants received at least one dose of antiparkinson medication (n = 95, RR 4.50 CI 1.0 to 19.5, very low quality evidence).Six small trials comparing perazine with other antipsychotics, including 384 participants in total, were incompletely reported and the outcomes were presented in various ways so that meta-analysis was not possible on most occasions. In the six studies, a similar number of participants receiving perazine or comparator antipsychotics (amisulpride, haloperidol, olanzapine, ziprasidone, zotepine) left the studies early (n = 384, RR 0.97 CI 0.68 to 1.38, low quality evidence). The results on efficacy could not be meta-analysed because the authors presented their results in very different ways. No obvious differences in adverse events between perazine and other antipsychotics could be derived from the limited data. Two haloperidol comparisons did not present extrapyramidal side-effects in a way that was suitable for use in meta-analysis, but three small comparisons with the second-generation antipsychotics zotepine and amisulpride showed no higher risk of akathisia (n = 111, RR 0.31 CI 0.1 to 1.1), dyskinesia (n = 111, RR 0.47 CI 0.1 to 3.5), parkinsonism (n = 81, RR 1.21 CI 0.5 2.8) or tremor (n = 40, RR 0.80 CI 0.3 to 2.6) with perazine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The number, size and reporting of randomised controlled perazine trials are insufficient to present firm conclusions about the properties of this antipsychotic. It is possible that perazine is associated with a similar risk of extrapyramidal side-effects as some atypical antipsychotics but this is based on small comparisons. This should be clarified in larger, well-designed trials.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Perazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 24425538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002832.pub3 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2012Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most commonly occurring form of dementia. It is predominantly a disease of later life, affecting 5% of those over 65 in the UK. (Review)
Review
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): a systematic review and economic model.
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most commonly occurring form of dementia. It is predominantly a disease of later life, affecting 5% of those over 65 in the UK.
OBJECTIVES
Review and update guidance to the NHS in England and Wales on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine [acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs)] and memantine within their licensed indications for the treatment of AD, which was issued in November 2006 (amended September 2007 and August 2009).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews and/or metaanalyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ongoing research in November 2009 and updated in March 2010; this updated search revealed no new includable studies. The databases searched included The Cochrane Library (2009 Issue 4, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EconLit, ISI Web of Science Databases--Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and BIOSIS; the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases--NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects.
REVIEW METHODS
The clinical effectiveness systematic review was undertaken following the principles published by the NHS CRD. We included RCTs whose population was people with AD. The intervention and comparators depended on disease severity, measured by the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE).
INTERVENTIONS
mild AD (MMSE 21-26)--donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine; moderate AD (MMSE 10-20)--donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine; severe AD (MMSE < 10)--memantine. Comparators: mild AD (MMSE 21-26)--placebo or best supportive care (BSC); moderate AD (MMSE 10-20)--donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, memantine, placebo or BSC; severe AD (MMSE < 10)--placebo or BSC. The outcomes were clinical, global, functional, behavioural, quality of life, adverse events, costs and cost-effectiveness. Where appropriate, data were pooled using pair-wise meta-analysis, multiple outcome measures, metaregression and mixedtreatment comparisons. The decision model was based broadly on the structure of the three-state Markov model described in the previous technology assessment report, based upon time to institutionalisation, parameterised with updated estimates of effectiveness, costs and utilities.
RESULTS
Notwithstanding the uncertainty of our results, we found in the base case that the AChEIs are probably cost saving at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of £’30,000 per qualityadjusted life-year (QALY) for people with mild-to-moderate AD. For this class of drugs, there is a > 99% probability that the AChEIs are more cost-effective than BSC. These analyses assume that the AChEIs have no effect on survival. For the AChEIs, in people with mild to moderate AD, the probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that donepezil is the most cost-effective, with a 28% probability of being the most cost-effective option at a WTP of £’30,000 per QALY (27% at a WTP of £’20,000 per QALY). In the deterministic results, donepezil dominates the other drugs and BSC, which, along with rivastigmine patches, are associated with greater costs and fewer QALYs. Thus, although galantamine has a slightly cheaper total cost than donepezil (£’69,592 vs £’69,624), the slightly greater QALY gains from donepezil (1.616 vs 1.617) are enough for donepezil to dominate galantamine.The probability that memantine is cost-effective in a moderate to severe cohort compared with BSC at a WTP of £’30,000 per QALY is 38% (and 28% at a WTP of £’20,000 per QALY). The deterministic ICER for memantine is £’32,100 per/QALY and the probabilistic ICER is £’36,700 per/QALY.
LIMITATIONS
Trials were of 6 months maximum follow-up, lacked reporting of key outcomes, provided no subgroup analyses and used insensitive measures. Searches were limited to English language, The model does not include behavioural symptoms and there is uncertainty about the model structure and parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
The additional clinical effectiveness evidence identified continues to suggest clinical benefit from the AChEIs in alleviating AD symptoms, although there is debate about the magnitude of the effect. Although there is also new evidence on the effectiveness of memantine, it remains less supportive of this drug’s use than the evidence for AChEIs. The conclusions concerning cost-effectiveness are quite different from the previous assessment. This is because both the changes in effectiveness and costs between drug use and non-drug use underlying the ICERs are very small. This leads to highly uncertain results, which are very sensitive to change. RESEARCH PRIORITIES: RCTs to include mortality, time to institutionalisation and quality of life, powered for subgroup analysis.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Donepezil; Dopamine Agents; Female; Galantamine; Humans; Indans; Male; Memantine; Middle Aged; Models, Economic; Phenylcarbamates; Piperidines; Rivastigmine; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 22541366
DOI: 10.3310/hta16210 -
Clinical Drug Investigation Apr 2021BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Safinamide is a novel anti-parkinsonian drug with possible anti-dyskinetic properties. Parkinson's disease (PD) is a complex disease. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Safinamide is a novel anti-parkinsonian drug with possible anti-dyskinetic properties. Parkinson's disease (PD) is a complex disease. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of safinamide administration compared to placebo in PD patients on multiple outcomes.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, LILACS, and trial databases were searched up to 23 December 2020 for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing safinamide to placebo, alone or as add-on therapy in PD. Data were extracted from literature and regulatory agencies. Primary outcomes were ON-time without troublesome dyskinesia, OFF-time, and Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) section III (UPDRS-III). Secondary outcomes included any dyskinesia rating scale (DRS), ON-time with troublesome dyskinesia, UPDRS-II, and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39). In order to estimate mean difference (MD) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI), generic inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel methods were used for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Analyses were performed grouping by PD with (PDwMF) or without (PDwoMF) motor fluctuations, safinamide dose, and concomitant dopaminergic treatment. Summary of findings with GRADE were performed.
RESULTS
Six studies with a total of 2792 participants were identified. In PDwMF patients, safinamide 100 mg as add-on to levodopa (L-dopa) significantly increased ON-time without troublesome dyskinesia (MD = 0.95 h; 95% CI from 0.41 to 1.49), reduced OFF-time (MD = - 1.06 h; 95% CI from - 1.60 to - 0.51), and improved UPDRS-III (MD = - 2.77; 95% CI from - 4.27 to - 1.28) with moderate quality of evidence. Similar results were observed for the 50 mg dose. However, the quality of evidence was moderate only for ON-time without troublesome dyskinesia, whereas for OFF-time and UPDRS-III was low. In PDwoMF patients taking a single dopamine agonist, safinamide 100 mg resulted in little to no clinically significant improvement in UPDRS-III (MD = - 1.84; 95% CI from - 3.19 to - 0.49), with moderate quality of evidence. Conversely, in PDwoMF patients, the 200 mg and 50 mg doses showed nonsignificant improvement in UPDRS-III, with very low and moderate quality of evidence, respectively. In PDwMF patients taking safinamide 100 mg or 50 mg, nonsignificant differences were observed for ON-time with troublesome dyskinesia and DRS, with high and low quality of evidence, respectively. In the same patients, UPDRS-II was significantly improved at the 100 mg and 50 mg dose, with high and moderate quality of evidence. In PDwoMF, UPDRS-II showed a little yet significant difference only at 100 mg, with low quality of evidence. PDQ-39 resulted significantly improved only with the 100 mg dose in PDwMF, with low quality of evidence.
CONCLUSION
Overall, safinamide is effective in PDwMF patients taking L-dopa both at 100 and 50 mg daily. Evidence for efficacy in early PD is limited. Further trials are needed to better evaluate the anti-dyskinetic properties of safinamide.
Topics: Alanine; Antiparkinson Agents; Benzylamines; Dopamine Agonists; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33674954
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-021-01011-y -
The British Journal of Psychiatry : the... Sep 2013More people are presenting with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), frequently a precursor to dementia, but we do not know how to reduce deterioration. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
More people are presenting with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), frequently a precursor to dementia, but we do not know how to reduce deterioration.
AIMS
To systematically review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of any intervention for MCI on cognitive, neuropsychiatric, functional, global outcomes, life quality or incident dementia.
METHOD
We reviewed 41 studies fitting predetermined criteria, assessed validity using a checklist, calculated standardised outcomes and prioritised primary outcome findings in placebo-controlled studies.
RESULTS
The strongest evidence was that cholinesterase inhibitors did not reduce incident dementia. Cognition improved in single trials of: a heterogeneous psychological group intervention over 6 months; piribedil, a dopamine agonist over 3 months; and donepezil over 48 weeks. Nicotine improved attention over 6 months. There was equivocal evidence that Huannao Yicong improved cognition and social functioning.
CONCLUSIONS
There was no replicated evidence that any intervention was effective. Cholinesterase inhibitors and rofecoxib are ineffective in preventing dementia. Further good-quality RCTs are needed and preliminary evidence suggests these should include trials of psychological group interventions and piribedil.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Cognitive Dysfunction; Dopamine Agonists; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Exercise Therapy; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Ginkgo biloba; Humans; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Phytotherapy; Piribedil; Psychotherapy, Group; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Therapy, Computer-Assisted; Treatment Outcome; Vitamins
PubMed: 24085737
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.127811 -
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 -
Movement Disorders : Official Journal... Jun 2021In the advanced stages of Parkinson's disease (PD), patients frequently experience disabling motor complications. Treatment options include deep brain stimulation (DBS),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
In the advanced stages of Parkinson's disease (PD), patients frequently experience disabling motor complications. Treatment options include deep brain stimulation (DBS), levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG), and continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion (CSAI). Choosing among these treatments is influenced by scientific evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences. To foster patient engagement in decision-making among the options, scientific evidence should be adjusted to their information needs. We conducted a systematic review from the patient perspective. First, patients selected outcomes for a treatment choice: quality of life, activities of daily living, ON and OFF time, and adverse events. Second, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis for each treatment versus best medical treatment using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Finally, the evidence was transformed into comprehensible and comparable information. We converted the meta-analysis results into the number of patients (per 100) who benefit clinically from an advanced treatment per outcome, based on the minimal clinically important difference and the cumulative distribution function. Although this approach allows for a comparison of outcomes across the three device-aided therapies, they have never been compared directly. The interpretation is hindered by the relatively short follow-up time in the included studies, usually less than 12 months. These limitations should be clarified to patients during the decision-making process. This review can help patients integrate the evidence with their own preferences, and with their clinician's expertise, to reach an informed decision. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Antiparkinson Agents; Apomorphine; Carbidopa; Drug Combinations; Gels; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33797786
DOI: 10.1002/mds.28599