-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Fatigue is the most commonly reported symptom in people with advanced cancer. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is pervasive and debilitating, and can greatly impact quality... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fatigue is the most commonly reported symptom in people with advanced cancer. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is pervasive and debilitating, and can greatly impact quality of life (QoL). CRF has a highly variable clinical presentation, likely due to a complex interaction of multiple factors. Corticosteroids are commonly used to improve CRF, but the benefits are unclear and there are significant adverse effects associated with long-term use. With the increasing survival of people with metastatic cancer, the long-term effects of medications are becoming increasingly relevant. Since the impact of CRF can be immensely debilitating and can negatively affect QoL, its treatment warrants further review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of corticosteroids compared with placebo or an active comparator in adults with advanced cancer and CRF.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Science), LILACS, and two clinical trial registries from inception to 18 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults aged ≥18 years. We included participants with advanced cancer who were suffering from CRF. We included trials that randomised participants to corticosteroids at any dose, by any route, administered for the relief of CRF; compared to placebo or an active comparator, including supportive care or non-pharmacological treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy; two review authors assessed risk of bias; and two extracted data. We extracted the primary outcome of participant-reported fatigue relief using validated scales and secondary outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events and QoL. We calculated the risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between groups for dichotomous outcomes. We measured arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI between groups for continuous outcomes. We used standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs when an outcome was measured with different instruments measuring the same construct. We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse the outcome data. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 297 enroled participants; data were available for only 239 participants. Three studies compared corticosteroid (equivalent ≤ 8 mg dexamethasone) to placebo. One study compared corticosteroid (dexamethasone 4 mg) to an active comparator (modafinil 100 mg). There were insufficient data to evaluate subgroups, such as dose and duration of treatment. One study had a high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding, and one study had a high risk of attrition bias. Otherwise, we assessed risks of bias as low or unclear. Comparison 1: corticosteroids compared with placebo Participant-reported fatigue relief The was no clear difference between corticosteroids and placebo (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.14; 3 RCTs, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence) for relief of fatigue at one week of the intervention. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for study limitations due to unclear risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of lIfe One study reported QoL at one week using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) well-being, and found no clear difference in QoL between groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -1.93 to 0.77). Another study measured QoL using the Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer Patients Treated with Anticancer Drugs (QoL-ACD), and found no clear difference between groups. There was no clear difference between groups for either study, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 2: corticosteroids compared with active comparator (modafinil) Participant-reported fatigue relief There was improvement in fatigue from baseline to two weeks in both groups (modafinil MD 10.15, 95% CI 7.43 to 12.87; dexamethasone MD 9.21, 95% CI 6.73 to 11.69), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD -0.94, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.61; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for very serious study limitations and imprecision. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events There were no serious adverse events reported in either group (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of lIfe One study measured QoL at two weeks, using the ESAS-well-being. There was marked improvement in QoL from baseline in both groups (modafinil MD -2.43, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.98; dexamethasone MD -2.16, 95% CI -2.68 to -1.64), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD 0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.93; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of systemic corticosteroids in adults with cancer and CRF. We included four small studies that provided very low-certainty of evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroids in the management of CRF. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids in this setting.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Adolescent; Quality of Life; Modafinil; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Fatigue
PubMed: 36688471
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013782.pub2 -
Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2022(1) Objective: We performed a systematic review to explore the prevalence of intravenous (IV) rehydration therapy in hospital settings, and we assessed it by patient... (Review)
Review
(1) Objective: We performed a systematic review to explore the prevalence of intravenous (IV) rehydration therapy in hospital settings, and we assessed it by patient groups and populations. (2) Methods: A systematic review of major databases and grey literature was undertaken from inception to 28 March 2022. Studies reporting prevalence of IV rehydration therapy in a hospital setting were identified. The data were synthesised in a narrative approach. (3) Results: Overall, 29 papers met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of IV rehydration therapy in paediatric patients ranged from 4.5% (hospitalised with diarrhoea and dehydration) to 100% (admitted to the emergency department with mild to moderate dehydration caused by viral gastroenteritis), and in adults this ranged from 1.5% (had single substance ingestion of modafinil) to 100% (hospitalised with hypercalcemia). The most common indication for IV rehydration therapy in paediatric patients was dehydration due to fluid loss from the gastrointestinal tract. Other causes included malnutrition, neuromuscular disease, bronchiolitis, and influenza. In adults, indications for IV rehydration therapy were much more diverse: fever, diarrhoea, drug intoxication, hypercalcemia, cancer, and postural tachycardia syndrome; (4) Conclusions: This systematic review showed that IV rehydration therapy in paediatric patients is often used to treat dehydration and diarrhoea, while in adults it has a broader spectrum of use. While IV rehydration therapy is important in correcting fluid problems and electrolyte status, the maintenance fluid prescribing practices vary considerably, and guidelines are scarce.
PubMed: 36648776
DOI: 10.3390/epidemiologia4010002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom in people with a primary brain tumour (PBT). The effectiveness of interventions for treating clinically significant levels of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom in people with a primary brain tumour (PBT). The effectiveness of interventions for treating clinically significant levels of fatigue in this population is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for adults with PBT and high levels of fatigue.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2016, we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL and checked the reference lists of included studies. We also searched relevant conference proceedings, searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and contacted major co-operative groups with trials in this area.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention in adults with PBT and fatigue, where fatigue was the primary outcome measure. We restricted inclusion specifically to studies that enrolled only participants with clinically significant levels of fatigue.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (JD, SYK, DC) independently evaluated search results, extracted data from selected studies and carried out a bias risk assessment. We extracted data on fatigue, cognition, mood, quality of life and adverse events outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified nine studies. We excluded eight of these as they did not restrict participation to people with high fatigue. The single eligible trial investigated the use of modafinil compared to placebo. Although this study found a significant improvement over time in the primary outcome of fatigue, the improvement occurred after both modafinil and placebo with no significant difference in response between the two groups. The included trial did not reach its planned recruitment target and therefore may not, in practice, have been adequately powered to detect a difference. The trial was at a low risk of bias across most areas. There was an unclear risk of bias related to the use of mean imputation because the investigators did not analyse the impact of imputation on the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence to draw reliable and generalisable conclusions regarding potential effectiveness or harm of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments for fatigue in people with PBT. More research is needed on how best to treat people with brain tumours with high fatigue.
Topics: Adult; Benzhydryl Compounds; Brain Neoplasms; Fatigue; Humans; Modafinil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 27074263
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011376.pub2 -
Cureus Jul 2021Narcolepsy is characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and cataplexy. Histamine neurons play an important role in enhancing wakefulness. The objective of our... (Review)
Review
Narcolepsy is characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and cataplexy. Histamine neurons play an important role in enhancing wakefulness. The objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of pitolisant, a histamine 3 (H3)-receptor antagonist/inverse agonist, in patients with a high burden of narcolepsy symptoms. We conducted an advanced PubMed search strategy with inclusion and exclusion criteria. The outcome included the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and adverse effects frequency. Our primary outcome included the mean ESS score at the endpoint and showed that pitolisant was superior to the placebo, but not non-inferior to modafinil. Adverse effects were less common and shorter in duration in the pitolisant group compared to the modafinil-treated patients. Pitolisant was efficacious in reducing excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy compared with placebo, and it was well-tolerated in patients with severe narcolepsy symptoms as compared with modafinil.
PubMed: 34345566
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.16095 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2008Narcolepsy is a disorder of the central nervous system, the main symptoms of which are excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and cataplexy (an abrupt and reversible... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Narcolepsy is a disorder of the central nervous system, the main symptoms of which are excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and cataplexy (an abrupt and reversible decrease in or loss of muscle tone, affecting the limbs or trunk or both, elicited by emotional stimuli). Narcolepsy has an adverse impact on people's quality of life. Together with stimulant drugs (used to control EDS), antidepressants are usually recommended to counteract cataplexy. In addition, some antidepressants are also reported to improve EDS.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of antidepressant drugs on EDS, cataplexy, quality of life, and their side effects in people with narcolepsy.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to 2007), EMBASE (1980 to 2007), PsycINFO (1872 to 2007), and CINAHL (1981 to 2007). Bibliographies of identified articles were reviewed to find additional references. Unpublished randomised trials were searched for by consulting governmental and non-governmental clinical trial registers, disease-specific websites, investigators and experts in the field, pharmaceutical companies/manufacturers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Parallel or cross-over randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials testing the treatment of narcolepsy with any type of antidepressant drug versus no treatment, placebo, or another antidepressant drug.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Three cross-over and two parallel trials were included with a total of 246 participants. The methodological quality of all studies was unclear. As the trials tested different comparisons, or had a different design or dealt with different outcome measures, meta-analysis was not performed. In one cross-over trial (10 participants) femoxetine had no significant effect in eliminating or reducing EDS but significantly reduced cataplexy. Mild and transient side effects were reported in the femoxetine treatment period by two participants. In a second cross-over trial (56 participants) viloxazine significantly reduced EDS and cataplexy. In a third cross-over trial the authors inappropriately treated the trial design as a parallel study and no conclusions can be reached in favour of either drug. Two more trials with parallel design tested ritanserin versus placebo without finding differences of effectiveness in reducing EDS or cataplexy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was no good quality evidence that antidepressants are effective for narcolepsy or improve quality of life. Despite the clinical consensus recommending antidepressants for cataplexy there is scarce evidence that antidepressants have a positive effect on this symptom. There is a clear need for well-designed randomised controlled trials to assess the effect of antidepressants on narcolepsy.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Cataplexy; Clomipramine; Fluvoxamine; Humans; Narcolepsy; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 18254030
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003724.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Despite the high prevalence of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and its harmful effects, there are currently no therapies proven to treat this symptom. Recently, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the high prevalence of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and its harmful effects, there are currently no therapies proven to treat this symptom. Recently, a number of pharmacological therapies have been investigated as potential treatments for apathy in AD.
OBJECTIVES
Objective 1: To assess the safety and efficacy of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD).Objective 2: To assess the effect on apathy of pharmacotherapies investigated for other primary outcomes in the treatment of AD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (ALOIS), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) portal, ICTRP on 17 May 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Eligible studies were double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) investigating apathy as a primary or secondary outcome in people with AD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors extracted data. We assessed the risks of bias of included studies using Cochrane methods, and the overall quality of evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We calculated mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals on an intention-to-treat basis for all relevant outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 studies involving a total of 6384 participants in the quantitative analyses. Risk of bias is very low to moderate. All studies reported appropriate methods of randomization and blinding. Most studies reported appropriate methods of allocation concealment. Four studies, three with methylphenidate and one with modafinil, had a primary aim of improving apathy. In these studies, all participants had clinically significant apathy at baseline. Methylphenidate may improve apathy compared to placebo. This finding was present when apathy was assessed using the apathy evaluation scale (AES), which was used by all three studies investigating methylphenidate: MD -4.99, 95% CI -9.55 to -0.43, n = 145, 3 studies, low quality of evidence, but not when assessed with the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI)-apathy subscale, which was used by two of the three studies investigating methylphenidate: MD -0.08, 95% CI -3.85 to 3.69, n = 85, 2 studies, low quality of evidence. As well as having potential benefits for apathy, methylphenidate probably also slightly improves cognition (MD 1.98, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.91, n = 145, 3 studies, moderate quality of evidence), and probably improves instrumental activities of daily living (MD 2.30, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.86, P = 0.004, n = 60, 1 study, moderate quality of evidence), compared to placebo. There may be no difference between methylphenidate and placebo in the risk of developing an adverse event: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.42, n = 145, 3 studies, low quality of evidence. There was insufficient evidence from one very small study of modafinil to determine the effect of modafinil on apathy assessed with the FrSBe-apathy subscale: MD 0.27, 95% CI -3.51 to 4.05, n = 22, 1 study, low quality of evidence. In all other included studies, apathy was a secondary outcome and participants were not selected on the basis of clinically significant apathy at baseline. We considered the evidence on apathy from these studies to be indirect and associated with publication bias. There was low or very low quality of evidence on cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) (six studies), ChEI discontinuation (one study), antipsychotics (two studies), antipsychotic discontinuation (one study), antidepressants (two studies), mibampator (one study), valproate (three studies) and semagacestat (one study).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Methylphenidate may demonstrate a benefit for apathy and may have slight benefits for cognition and functional performance in people with AD, but this finding is associated with low-quality evidence. Our meta-analysis is limited by the small number of studies within each drug class, risk of bias, publication bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies. Additional studies should be encouraged targeting people with AD with clinically significant apathy which investigate apathy as a primary outcome measure, and which have a longer duration and a larger sample size. This could increase the quality of evidence for methylphenidate, and may confirm whether or not it is an effective pharmacotherapy for apathy in AD.
Topics: Alanine; Alzheimer Disease; Antidepressive Agents; Apathy; Azepines; Benzhydryl Compounds; Biphenyl Compounds; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Humans; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 29727467
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012197.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2008Prevalence estimates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) vary according to the diagnostic criteria used and the population sampled. DSM-IV prevalence... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Prevalence estimates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) vary according to the diagnostic criteria used and the population sampled. DSM-IV prevalence estimates among school children in the US are 3-5%, but other estimates vary from 1.7% to 16.0%. No objective test exists to confirm the diagnosis of ADHD, which remains a clinical diagnosis. Other conditions frequently co-exist with ADHD.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of pharmacological treatments for ADHD in children and adolescents? What are the effects of psychological treatments for ADHD in children and adolescents? What are the effects of combination treatments for ADHD in children and adolescents? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 34 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, dexamfetamine sulphate, homeopathy, methylphenidate, modafinil, omega 3-polyunsaturated fatty acids, and psychological/behavioural treatment (either alone or in combination with a drug treatment).
Topics: Adolescent; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders; Child; Dextroamphetamine; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; Humans; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 19445793
DOI: No ID Found -
CNS Spectrums Aug 2013In this article, we examined evidence for the acute treatment of depression in bipolar I disorder, focusing on double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with a definite... (Review)
Review
In this article, we examined evidence for the acute treatment of depression in bipolar I disorder, focusing on double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with a definite primary outcome measure and published in peer review journals. Quetiapine and olanzapine/fluoxetine are currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of bipolar depression, and a number of additional agents (including other atypical antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, antidepressants, and novel compounds) have been studied with varying degrees of efficacy. The medication with the most evidence for efficacy in bipolar depression is quetiapine, with five studies showing positive efficacy compared to placebo. In contrast, five studies of lamotrigine were negative, although meta-analyses of the pooled have found some treatment effects. Two studies of olanzapine and olanzapine/fluoxetine and three small studies of divalproex showed significant efficacy in treating bipolar depression. Two studies of aripiprazole found no differences compared to placebo. Early research on lithium in bipolar depression had significant methodological flaws, and only one study of lithium met our primary search criteria. To better understand the role of antidepressants, we also examined studies of antidepressants as adjunctive treatment of bipolar depression in participants taking mood stabilizers or atypical antipsychotics. These studies reported mixed results for a variety of antidepressants, but the majority found no differences compared to placebo. Other studies of adjunctive treatment were also discussed. There has been one positive adjunctive study each of lamotrigine, omega-3 fatty acids, modafinil, and armodafinil, while there was one negative trial each of omega-3 fatty acids, ziprasidone, and levetiracetam.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23507138
DOI: 10.1017/S1092852913000102 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2010Sleepiness leads to a deterioration in performance and attention, and is associated with an increased risk of injury. Jet lag and shift work disorder are circadian... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sleepiness leads to a deterioration in performance and attention, and is associated with an increased risk of injury. Jet lag and shift work disorder are circadian rhythm sleep disorders which result in sleepiness and can elevate injury risk. They create a need for individuals to operate at times which are different to those dictated by their circadian rhythms. Consequently there is also a need for interventions to help ensure that these persons can do so safely. Caffeine has a potential role in promoting alertness during times of desired wakefulness in persons with jet lag or shift work disorder, however its effects on injury and error are unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of caffeine for preventing injuries caused by impaired alertness in persons with jet lag or shift work disorder.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, TRANSPORT (to July 2008); and PubMed databases (to April 2010). We also searched the Internet and checked reference lists of relevant papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of caffeine on injury, error or cognitive performance in people with jet lag or shift work disorder.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened search results and assessed full texts for inclusion. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed. Estimates of treatment effect (odds ratio and standardised mean difference (SMD)) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and pooled using the fixed-effect model.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen trials were included. None measured an injury outcome. Two trials measured error, and the remaining trials used neuropsychological tests to assess cognitive performance. The trials assessing the impact on errors found that caffeine significantly reduced the number of errors compared to placebo. The pooled effect estimates on performance by cognitive domain suggest that, when compared to placebo, caffeine improved concept formation and reasoning (SMD -0.41; 95% CI -1.04 to 0.23), memory (SMD -1.08; 95% CI -2.07 to -0.09), orientation and attention (SMD -0.55; 95% CI -0.83 to -0.27) and perception (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.73 to 0.20); although there was no beneficial effect on verbal functioning and language skills (SMD 0.18; 95% CI -0.50 to 0.87). One trial comparing the effects of caffeine with a nap found that there were significantly less errors made in the caffeine group. Other trials comparing caffeine with other active interventions (for example nap, bright light, modafinil) found no significant differences. There is a high risk of bias for the adequacy of allocation concealment and presence of selective outcome reporting amongst the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Caffeine may be an effective intervention for improving performance in shift workers however, there are no trials from which we can assess its effect on injuries. The results largely originate from studies involving young participants under simulated conditions, and the extent to which the findings are generalisable to older workers and real world shift work is unclear. Based on the current evidence, there is no reason for healthy individuals who already use caffeine within recommended levels to improve their alertness to stop doing so. The assessment of the relative effects of caffeine to other potential countermeasures should be a focus of future research.
Topics: Accidents, Occupational; Caffeine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognition Disorders; Humans; Neuropsychological Tests; Psychomotor Performance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Disorders, Circadian Rhythm; Work Schedule Tolerance
PubMed: 20464765
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008508 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Factors contributing to subjective fatigue in people with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD) are not well known. This makes it difficult to manage fatigue effectively... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Factors contributing to subjective fatigue in people with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD) are not well known. This makes it difficult to manage fatigue effectively in PD.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, compared to an inactive control intervention, on subjective fatigue in people with PD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE (via PubMed); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; Ovid PsycINFO; PEDro; and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal up to April 2015. References of included studies and identified review articles were screened for additional studies. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that report on subjective fatigue in people with PD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data collection and risk of bias assessments.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven studies were eligible for this systematic review, with a total of 1817 people. Three studies included only people who experienced clinically relevant fatigue (Fatigue Severity Scale score ≥ 4 out of 7 or Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory total score > 48 out of 100), whereas all other studies did not select participants on the basis of experienced fatigue. Nine studies investigated the effects of medication (i.e. levodopa-carbidopa, memantine, rasagiline, caffeine, methylphenidate, modafinil or doxepin) on subjective fatigue. All studies were placebo controlled. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of doxepin on the impact of fatigue on activities in daily life (ADL) or fatigue severity (one study, N = 12, standardised mean difference (SMD) = -1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.84 to -0.15; low quality evidence). We found high quality evidence that rasagiline reduced or slowed down the progression of physical aspects of fatigue (one study, N = 1176, SMD = -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.16, I(2) = 0%). None of the other pharmacological interventions affected subjective fatigue in PD. With regard to adverse effects, only levodopa-carbidopa showed an increase for the risk of nausea (one study, N = 361, risk ratio (RR) = 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.27; high quality evidence). Two studies investigated the effect of exercise on fatigue compared with usual care. We found low quality evidence for the effect of exercise on reducing the impact of fatigue on ADL or fatigue severity (two studies, N = 57, SMD = -0.45, 95% CI -1.21 to 0.32, I(2) = 44%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current evidence, no clear recommendations for the treatment of subjective fatigue in PD can be provided. Doxepin may reduce the impact of fatigue on ADL and fatigue severity; however, this finding has to be confirmed in high quality studies. Rasagiline may be effective in reducing levels of physical fatigue in PD. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of levodopa-carbidopa, memantine, caffeine, methylphenidate, modafinil or exercise. Studies are needed to investigate the effect of exercise intensity on exercise capacity and subjective fatigue. Future studies should focus on interventions that address the maladaptive behavioural or cognitive aspects of fatigue in people with PD. Characteristics, such as severity and nature of perceived fatigue and underlying mood disorders should be considered to identify responders and non-responders when studying interventions for fatigue. The development of a core-set of self-report fatigue questionnaires with established responsiveness and known minimal important difference values will facilitate the interpretation of change in fatigue scores.
Topics: Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dopamine Agents; Exercise; Fatigue; Humans; Parkinson Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26447539
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010925.pub2