-
PloS One 2013Modafinil is a novel wake-promoting agent approved by the FDA ameliorating excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in three disorders: narcolepsy, shift work sleep disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Modafinil is a novel wake-promoting agent approved by the FDA ameliorating excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in three disorders: narcolepsy, shift work sleep disorder and obstructive sleep apnea. Existing trials of modafinil for fatigue and EDS associated with neurological disorders provided inconsistent results. This meta-analysis was aimed to assess drug safety and effects of modafinil on fatigue and EDS associated with neurological disorders.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature review was conducted in order to identify published studies assessing the effects of modafinil on fatigue and EDS associated with neurological disorders. Primary outcomes included fatigue and EDS. Secondary outcomes included depression and adverse effects.
FINDINGS
Ten randomized controlled trials were identified including 4 studies of Parkinson's disease (PD), 3 of multiple sclerosis (MS), 2 of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and 1 of post-polio syndrome (PPS). A total of 535 patients were enrolled. Our results suggested a therapeutic effect of modafinil on fatigue in TBI (MD -0.82 95% CI -1.54 - -0.11 p=0.02, I(2)=0%), while a beneficial effect of modafinil on fatigue was not confirmed in the pooled studies of PD or MS. Treatment results demonstrated a clear beneficial effect of modafinil on EDS in patients with PD (MD -2.45 95% CI -4.00 - -0.91 p=0.002 I(2)=14%), but not with MS and TBI. No difference was seen between modafinil and placebo treatments in patients with PPS. Modafinil seemed to have no therapeutic effect on depression. Adverse events were similar between modafinil and placebo groups except that more patients were found with insomnia and nausea in modafinil group.
CONCLUSIONS
Existing trials of modafinil for fatigue and EDS associated with PD, MS, TBI and PPS provided inconsistent results. The majority of the studies had small sample sizes. Modafinil is not yet sufficient to be recommended for these medical conditions until solid data are available.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Depression; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Fatigue; Humans; Modafinil
PubMed: 24312590
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081802 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the management of cancer-related fatigue'.In healthy individuals, fatigue is a protective response to physical or mental stress, often relieved by rest. By contrast, in palliative care patients' fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Fatigue frequently occurs in patients with advanced disease (e.g. cancer-related fatigue) and modalities used to treat cancer can often contribute. Further complicating issues are the multidimensionality, subjective nature and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. The pathophysiology is not fully understood and evidence-based treatment approaches are needed.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for fatigue in palliative care, with a focus on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including patients with cancer and other chronic diseases.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, and a selection of cancer journals up to 28 April 2014. We searched the references of identified articles and contacted authors to obtain unreported data. To validate the search strategy we selected sentinel references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) concerning adult palliative care with a focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue compared to placebo, application of two drugs, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia). We did not include studies on fatigue related to antineoplastic treatment (e.g. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgical intervention). We also included secondary outcomes that were assessed in fatigue-related studies (e.g. exhaustion, tiredness).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MM and MC) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We screened the search results and included studies if they met the selection criteria. If we identified two or more studies that investigated a specific drug with the same dose in a population with the same disease and using the same assessment instrument or scale, we conducted meta-analysis. In addition, we compared the type of drug investigated in specific populations, as well as the frequent adverse effects of fatigue treatment, by creating overview tables.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we screened 1645 publications of which 45 met the inclusion criteria (20 additional studies to the previous reviews). In total, we analysed data from 18 drugs and 4696 participants. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials and we discuss the reasons for this in the review. There were some sources of potential bias in the included studies, including a lack of description of the methods of blinding and allocation concealment, and the small size of the study populations. We included studies investigating pemoline and modafinil in participants with multiple sclerosis (MS)-associated fatigue and methylphenidate in patients suffering from advanced cancer and fatigue in meta-analysis. Treatment results pointed to weak and inconclusive evidence for the efficacy of amantadine, pemoline and modafinil in multiple sclerosis and for carnitine and donepezil in cancer-related fatigue. Methylphenidate and pemoline seem to be effective in patients with HIV, but this is based only on one study per intervention, with only a moderate number of participants in each study. Meta-analysis shows an estimated superior effect for methylphenidate in cancer-related fatigue (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.83). Therapeutic effects could not be described for dexamphetamine, paroxetine or testosterone. There were a variety of results for the secondary outcomes in some studies. Most studies had low participant numbers and were heterogeneous. In general, adverse reactions were mild and had little or no impact.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for the treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Fatigue research in palliative care seems to focus on modafinil and methylphenidate, which may be beneficial for the treatment of fatigue associated with palliative care although further research about their efficacy is needed. Dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, acetylsalicylic acid, armodafinil, amantadine and L-carnitine should be further examined. Consensus is needed regarding fatigue outcome parameters for clinical trials.
Topics: Adult; Amantadine; Benzhydryl Compounds; Carnitine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Chronic Disease; Fatigue; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Multiple Sclerosis; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Pemoline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26026155
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006788.pub3 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2022Narcolepsy is a neurological disease characterized by a core symptom of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Although effective pharmacological interventions for...
Narcolepsy is a neurological disease characterized by a core symptom of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). Although effective pharmacological interventions for narcolepsy have been developed, a lack of comparative evidence supporting the relative efficacy among these medications leads to clinical treatment challenge. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to overcome this lack of head-to-head comparisons. Databases were searched systematically for randomized controlled trials that compared pharmacological interventions for narcolepsy. The primary outcomes were changes in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT). A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted. A total of 19 RCTs involving 2504 patients were included. Solriamfetol achieved the highest ranking based on the P-scores, and was superior to pitolisant (MD -2.88, 95% CI -4.89--0.88) and sodium oxybate (MD -2.56, 95% CI -4.62--0.51) for ESS change. Consistently, solriamfetol achieved the highest ranking according to MWT change, and was superior to pitolisant (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.02-0.88) and modafinil (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.05-0.79). Although solriamfetol demonstrated superior efficacy in EDS improvement, evidence from the clustered ranking plot supported that efficacy-safety profiles of pitolisant, sodium oxybate, and modafinil are more balanced than solriamfetol. Therefore, the choice of medication for EDS in narcolepsy should be made on an individual basis.
PubMed: 36362535
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11216302 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Shift work results in sleep-wake disturbances, which cause sleepiness during night shifts and reduce sleep length and quality in daytime sleep after the night shift. In... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Shift work results in sleep-wake disturbances, which cause sleepiness during night shifts and reduce sleep length and quality in daytime sleep after the night shift. In its serious form it is also called shift work sleep disorder. Various pharmacological products are used to ameliorate symptoms of sleepiness or poor sleep length and quality.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of pharmacological interventions to reduce sleepiness or to improve alertness at work and decrease sleep disturbances whilst off work, or both, in workers undertaking shift work in their present job and to assess their cost-effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and PsycINFO up to 20 September 2013 and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 2013. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over RCTs, of pharmacological products among workers who were engaged in shift work (including night shifts) in their present jobs and who may or may not have had sleep problems. Primary outcomes were sleep length and sleep quality while off work, alertness and sleepiness, or fatigue at work.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 randomised placebo-controlled trials with 718 participants. Nine trials evaluated the effect of melatonin and two the effect of hypnotics for improving sleep problems. One trial assessed the effect of modafinil, two of armodafinil and one examined caffeine plus naps to decrease sleepiness or to increase alertness.Melatonin (1 to 10 mg) after the night shift may increase sleep length during daytime sleep (mean difference (MD) 24 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.8 to 38.9; seven trials, 263 participants, low quality evidence) and night-time sleep (MD 17 minutes, 95% CI 3.71 to 30.22; three trials, 234 participants, low quality evidence) compared to placebo. We did not find a dose-response effect. Melatonin may lead to similar sleep latency times as placebo (MD 0.37minutes, 95% CI - 1.55 to 2.29; five trials, 74 participants, low quality evidence).Hypnotic medication, zopiclone, did not result in significantly longer daytime sleep length compared to placebo in one low quality trial and we could not use the data from the study on lormetazepam.Armodafinil taken before the night shift probably reduces sleepiness by one point on the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS) (MD -0.99, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.67; range 1 to 10; two trials, 572 participants, moderate quality evidence) and increases alertness by 50 ms in a simple reaction time test (MD -50.0, 95% CI -85.5 to -15.5) at three months' follow-up in shift work sleep disorder patients. Modafinil probably has similar effects on sleepiness (KSS) (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.35; one trial, 183 participants, moderate quality evidence) and alertness in the psychomotor vigilance test in the same patient group. Post-marketing, severe skin reactions have been reported. Adverse effects reported by trial participants were headache, nausea and a rise in blood pressure. There were no trials in non-patient shift workers.Based on one trial, caffeine plus pre-shift naps taken before the night shift decreased sleepiness (KSS) (MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.17).We judged most trials to have a low risk of bias even though the randomisation method and allocation concealment were often not described.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low quality evidence that melatonin improves sleep length after a night shift but not other sleep quality parameters. Both modafinil and armodafinil increase alertness and reduce sleepiness to some extent in employees who suffer from shift work sleep disorder but they are associated with adverse events. Caffeine plus naps reduces sleepiness during the night shift, but the quality of evidence is low. Based on one low quality trial, hypnotics did not improve sleep length and quality after a night shift.We need more and better quality trials on the beneficial and adverse effects and costs of all pharmacological agents that induce sleep or promote alertness in shift workers both with and without a diagnosis of shift work sleep disorder. We also need systematic reviews of their adverse effects.
Topics: Azabicyclo Compounds; Benzhydryl Compounds; Caffeine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Melatonin; Modafinil; Piperazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep; Sleep Disorders, Circadian Rhythm; Wakefulness; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 25113164
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009776.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of chronic disability. Worldwide, it is the leading cause of disability in the under 40s, resulting in severe disability in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of chronic disability. Worldwide, it is the leading cause of disability in the under 40s, resulting in severe disability in some 150 to 200 million people per annum. In addition to mood and behavioural problems, cognition-particularly memory, attention and executive function-are commonly impaired by TBI. Cognitive problems following TBI are one of the most important factors in determining people's subjective well-being and their quality of life. Drugs are widely used in an attempt to improve cognitive functions. Whilst cholinergic agents in TBI have been reviewed, there has not yet been a systematic review or meta-analysis of the effect on chronic cognitive problems of all centrally acting pharmacological agents.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of centrally acting pharmacological agents for treatment of chronic cognitive impairment subsequent to traumatic brain injury in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS-the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register-on 16 November 2013, 23 February 2013, 20 January 2014, and 30 December 2014 using the terms: traumatic OR TBI OR "brain injury" OR "brain injuries" OR TBIs OR "axonal injury" OR "axonal injuries". ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases, numerous trial registries and grey literature sources. Supplementary searches were also performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, LILACs, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) Portal (ICTRP) and Web of Science with conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of any one centrally acting pharmacological agent that affects one or more of the main neurotransmitter systems in people with chronic traumatic brain injury; and there had to be a minimum of 12 months between the injury and entry into the trial.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors examined titles and abstracts of citations obtained from the search. Relevant articles were retrieved for further assessment. A bibliographic search of relevant papers was conducted. We extracted data using a standardised tool, which included data on the incidence of adverse effects. Where necessary we requested additional unpublished data from study authors. Risk of bias was assessed by a single author.
MAIN RESULTS
Only four studies met the criteria for inclusion, with a total of 274 participants. Four pharmacological agents were investigated: modafinil (51 participants); (-)-OSU6162, a monoamine stabiliser (12 participants of which six had a TBI); atomoxetine (60 participants); and rivastigmine (157 participants). A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the small number and heterogeneity of the studies.All studies examined cognitive performance, with the majority of the psychometric sub-tests showing no difference between treatment and placebo (n = 274, very low quality evidence). For (-)-OSU6162 modest superiority over placebo was demonstrated on three measures, but markedly inferior performance on another. Rivastigmine was better than placebo on one primary measure, and a single cognitive outcome in a secondary analysis of a subgroup with more severe memory impairment at baseline. The study of modafinil assessed clinical global improvement (n = 51, low quality evidence), and did not find any difference between treatment and placebo. Safety, as measured by adverse events, was reported by all studies (n = 274, very low quality evidence), with significantly more nausea reported by participants who received rivastigmine compared to placebo. There were no other differences in safety between treatment and placebo. No studies reported any deaths.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to determine whether pharmacological treatment is effective in chronic cognitive impairment in TBI. Whilst there is a positive finding for rivastigmine on one primary measure, all other primary measures were not better than placebo. The positive findings for (-)-OSU6162 are interpreted cautiously as the study was small (n = 6). For modafinil and atomoxetine no positive effects were found. All four drugs appear to be relatively well tolerated, although evidence is sparse.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Benzhydryl Compounds; Brain Injuries; Chronic Disease; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Humans; Middle Aged; Modafinil; Nootropic Agents; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 26624881
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009221.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2006Excessive daytime sleepiness is a common symptom of myotonic dystrophy. Psychostimulants are drugs increasingly used to treat hypersomnia in myotonic dystrophy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Excessive daytime sleepiness is a common symptom of myotonic dystrophy. Psychostimulants are drugs increasingly used to treat hypersomnia in myotonic dystrophy.
OBJECTIVES
To search systematically for, and combine all evidence from, randomised trials relating to the effects of psychostimulants in myotonic dystrophy patients with hypersomnia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Trials Register (January 2006), MEDLINE (from January 1966 to January 2006) and EMBASE (from January 1980 to January 2006) for randomised trials concerning psychostimulants in myotonic dystrophy, checked the bibliographies of identified papers and made enquiries of the authors of the papers. The search for relevant studies was updated in January 2006.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomised or quasi randomised trials that have evaluated any type of psychostimulants (versus a placebo or no treatment) in children or adults with proven myotonic dystrophy and hypersomnia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Potentially relevant papers were scrutinised by two authors and the selection of eligible studies was agreed by them and a third author. Data were extracted by one author and checked by a second author.
MAIN RESULTS
Primary outcome. One trial using a modified maintenance of wakefulness test showed an improvement by 5.70 (95% confidence intervals 0.1 to 11.3) minutes more in the modafinil than the control group. Secondary outcomes. In a double-blind crossover study of 10 participants with myotonic dystrophy, there was no difference between the selegiline and placebo periods in mean improvement in the multiple sleep latency test. Two trials, involving 60 participants in total, evaluated the efficacy and safety of modafinil in adults with myotonic dystrophy-related daytime sleepiness. The weighted mean difference on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale was -1.59 (95% confidence intervals, -2.77 to -0.42) in favour of modafinil.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to support the routine use of psychostimulants to treat hypersomnia in myotonic dystrophy. There is some evidence from two studies that modafinil may improve daytime sleepiness. More randomised trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of psychostimulants.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Humans; Modafinil; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Myotonic Dystrophy; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selegiline
PubMed: 16855999
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003218.pub2 -
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Jul 2020To review the efficacy of antidepressants and other therapeutic agents for the treatment of cognitive impairment in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).
OBJECTIVE
To review the efficacy of antidepressants and other therapeutic agents for the treatment of cognitive impairment in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).
DATA SOURCES
We conducted a database search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase through Ovid on May 7, 2019. The year of publication was not restricted. The search terms "Major Depressive Disorder," "depress*," "cognit*," and "therapeutics" were used.
STUDY SELECTION
The studies included in this review were clinical trials of antidepressants and other therapeutic agents in MDD populations. Participants were aged between 18 and 65 years and had a DSM-III, -IV, or -5 diagnosis of MDD. In total, 2,045 research papers were screened, 53 full-text articles were assessed, and 26 articles were eligible to be included in this systematic review.
DATA EXTRACTION
The data and quality of research papers were assessed and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved through a third reviewer.
RESULTS
Overall, studies demonstrated that tricyclic antidepressants do not have procognitive effects, while vortioxetine and bupropion have demonstrated procognitive effects in MDD populations relative to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. Several non-antidepressant agents, such as modafinil, amphetamines, and erythropoietin, have also demonstrated significant positive effects on cognition in depression.
CONCLUSIONS
Present-day antidepressants and other agents have demonstrated procognitive effects in MDD, but the findings between various agents are mixed. Further research looking at objective measures of cognitive performance would be helpful to obtain more definitive results regarding the efficacy of therapeutics for cognitive impairment in MDD.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Cognitive Dysfunction; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 32726521
DOI: 10.4088/JCP.19r13200 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Apr 2014Increasing prescription stimulant abuse among youth without diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is of concern. The most frequently cited motive... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Increasing prescription stimulant abuse among youth without diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is of concern. The most frequently cited motive for abuse is improved academic achievement via neurocognitive enhancement. Our aim in reviewing the literature was to identify neurocognitive effects of prescription stimulants in non-ADHD youth.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted for youth aged 12–25 years using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Fourteen papers were included.
RESULTS
Modafinil appears to improve reaction time (P ≤ 0.04), logical reasoning (P ≤ 0.05) and problem-solving. Methylphenidate appears to improve performance in novel tasks and attention-based tasks (P ≤ 0.05), and reduces planning latency in more complex tasks (P ≤ 0.05). Amphetamine has been shown to improve consolidation of information (0.02 ≥ P ≤ 0.05), leading to improved recall. Across all three types of prescription stimulants, research shows improved attention with lack of consensus on whether these improvements are limited to simple versus complex tasks in varying youth populations.
CONCLUSIONS
The heterogeneity of the non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth population, the variation in cognitive task characteristics and lack of replication of studies makes assessing the potential global neurocognitive benefits of stimulants among non-attention deficit hyperactivity disorder youth difficult; however, some youth may derive benefit in specific cognitive domains.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Amphetamine; Attention; Benzhydryl Compounds; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognition; Humans; Mental Recall; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Nootropic Agents; Problem Solving; Young Adult
PubMed: 24749160
DOI: 10.1111/add.12460 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Mar 2016In palliative care patients, fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Further... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In palliative care patients, fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Further complicating issues are the multidimensionality, subjective nature and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. The review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for fatigue in palliative care, with a focus on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including patients with cancer and other chronic diseases.
METHODS
We considered randomized controlled trials concerning adult palliative care with a focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue compared with placebo, application of two drugs, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia). We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, and a selection of cancer journals up to 28 April 2014. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data.
RESULTS
We screened 1645 publications of which 45 met the inclusion criteria. In total, we analysed data from 18 drugs and 4696 participants. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials. Meta-analysis of data was possible for modafinil, pemoline, and methylphenidate.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for the treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Some drugs, which may be beneficial for the treatment of fatigue associated with palliative care such as amantadine, methylphenidate, and modafinil, should be further researched.
PubMed: 27066315
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12101 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of cognitive deficits in this population is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing or ameliorating cognitive deficits in adult patients treated with cranial irradiation.
SEARCH METHODS
In August 2014. we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO and checked the reference lists of included studies. We also searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov, the Physicians Data Query and the Meta Register of Controlled Trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in cranial irradiated adults, with objective cognitive functioning as a primary or secondary outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (JD, KZ) independently extracted data from selected studies and carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment. Cognitive function, fatigue and mood outcomes were reported. No data were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixteen studies were identified for possible inclusion in the review, six of which were included. Three studies investigated prevention and three studies investigated amelioration. Due to differences between studies in the interventions being evaluated, a meta-analysis was not possible. Two studies investigated a pharmacological intervention for the prevention of cognitive deficits; memantine compared with placebo, and d-threo-methylphenidate HCL compared with placebo. In the first study the primary cognitive outcome of memory at six months did not reach significance, but there was significant improvement in overall cognitive function compared to placebo, with similar adverse events across groups. The second study found no statistically significant difference between arms, with few adverse events. The third study investigated a rehabilitation program for the prevention of cognitive deficits but did not carry out a statistical comparison of cognitive performance between groups.Three studies investigated the use of a pharmacological intervention for the treatment of cognitive deficits; methylphenidate compared with modafinil, two different doses of modafinil, and donepezil compared with placebo. The first study found improvements in cognitive function in both the methylphenidate and modafinil arms; few adverse events were reported. The second study combined treatment arms and found improvements across all cognitive tests, however, a number of adverse events were reported. Both studies were limited by a small sample size. The third study did not find an improvement in the primary cognitive outcome of overall performance, but did find improvement in an individual test of memory, compared to placebo; adverse events were not reported. No non-pharmacological studies for the amelioration of cognitive deficits were eligible. There were a number of limitations across studies but few without high risks of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is supportive evidence that memantine may help prevent cognitive deficits for adults with brain metastases receiving cranial irradiation. There is supportive evidence that donepezil may have a role in treating cognitive deficits in adults with primary or metastatic brain tumours who have been treated with cranial irradiation. Patient withdrawal affected the statistical power of both studies. Further research that tries to minimise the withdrawal of consent, and subsequently reduce the requirement for imputation procedures, may offer a higher quality of evidence.There is no strong evidence to support any non-pharmacological interventions (medical or cognitive/behavioural) in the prevention or amelioration of cognitive deficits. Non-randomised studies appear promising but are as yet to be conclusive via translation into high quality evidence. Further research is required.
Topics: Adult; Benzhydryl Compounds; Cognition Disorders; Cranial Irradiation; Donepezil; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Nootropic Agents; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25519950
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011335.pub2