-
Brain Sciences Mar 2021Cognitive enhancers (CEs), also known as "smart drugs", "study aids" or "nootropics" are a cause of concern. Recent research studies investigated the use of CEs being... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Cognitive enhancers (CEs), also known as "smart drugs", "study aids" or "nootropics" are a cause of concern. Recent research studies investigated the use of CEs being taken as study aids by university students. This manuscript provides an overview of popular CEs, focusing on a range of drugs/substances (e.g., prescription CEs including amphetamine salt mixtures, methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam; and non-prescription CEs including caffeine, cobalamin (vitamin B12), guarana, pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and vinpocetine) that have emerged as being misused. The diverted non-prescription use of these molecules and the related potential for dependence and/or addiction is being reported. It has been demonstrated that healthy students (i.e., those without any diagnosed mental disorders) are increasingly using drugs such as methylphenidate, a mixture of dextroamphetamine/amphetamine, and modafinil, for the purpose of increasing their alertness, concentration or memory.
AIM
To investigate the level of knowledge, perception and impact of the use of a range of CEs within Higher Education Institutions.
METHODOLOGY
A systematic review was conducted in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Whilst 1400 studies were identified within this study through a variety of electronic databases (e.g., 520 through PubMed, 490 through Science Direct and 390 through Scopus), 48 papers were deemed relevant and were included in this review.
RESULTS
The most popular molecules identified here included the stimulant CEs, e.g., methylphenidate, modafinil, amphetamine salt mixtures and caffeine-related compounds; stimulant CEs' intake was more prevalent among males than females; drugs were largely obtained from friends and family, as well as via the Internet. It is therefore suggested that CEs are increasingly being used among healthy individuals, mainly students without any diagnosed cognitive disorders, to increase their alertness, concentration, or memory, in the belief that these CEs will improve their performance during examinations or when studying. The impact of stimulant CEs may include tolerance, dependence and/or somatic (e.g., cardiovascular; neurological) complications.
DISCUSSION
The availability of CEs for non-medical indications in different countries is influenced by a range of factors including legal, social and ethical factors. Considering the risk factors and motivations that encourage university students to use CE drugs, it is essential to raise awareness about CE-related harms, counteract myths regarding "safe" CE use and address cognitive enhancement in an early stage during education as a preventative public health measure.
PubMed: 33802176
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11030355 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Sep 2016The best treatment options for binge-eating disorder are unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The best treatment options for binge-eating disorder are unclear.
PURPOSE
To summarize evidence about the benefits and harms of psychological and pharmacologic therapies for adults with binge-eating disorder.
DATA SOURCES
English-language publications in EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Academic OneFile, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through 18 November 2015, and in MEDLINE through 12 May 2016.
STUDY SELECTION
9 waitlist-controlled psychological trials and 25 placebo-controlled trials that evaluated pharmacologic (n = 19) or combination (n = 6) treatment. All were randomized trials with low or medium risk of bias.
DATA EXTRACTION
2 reviewers independently extracted trial data, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Therapist-led cognitive behavioral therapy, lisdexamfetamine, and second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) decreased binge-eating frequency and increased binge-eating abstinence (relative risk, 4.95 [95% CI, 3.06 to 8.00], 2.61 [CI, 2.04 to 3.33], and 1.67 [CI, 1.24 to 2.26], respectively). Lisdexamfetamine (mean difference [MD], -6.50 [CI, -8.82 to -4.18]) and SGAs (MD, -3.84 [CI, -6.55 to -1.13]) reduced binge-eating-related obsessions and compulsions, and SGAs reduced symptoms of depression (MD, -1.97 [CI, -3.67 to -0.28]). Headache, gastrointestinal upset, sleep disturbance, and sympathetic nervous system arousal occurred more frequently with lisdexamfetamine than placebo (relative risk range, 1.63 to 4.28). Other forms of cognitive behavioral therapy and topiramate also increased abstinence and reduced binge-eating frequency and related psychopathology. Topiramate reduced weight and increased sympathetic nervous system arousal, and lisdexamfetamine reduced weight and appetite.
LIMITATIONS
Most study participants were overweight or obese white women aged 20 to 40 years. Many treatments were examined only in single studies. Outcomes were measured inconsistently across trials and rarely assessed beyond end of treatment.
CONCLUSION
Cognitive behavioral therapy, lisdexamfetamine, SGAs, and topiramate reduced binge eating and related psychopathology, and lisdexamfetamine and topiramate reduced weight in adults with binge-eating disorder.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Binge-Eating Disorder; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Fructose; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Topiramate
PubMed: 27367316
DOI: 10.7326/M15-2455 -
PloS One 2020Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD.
METHODS
We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework.
RESULTS
Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049.
Topics: Adult; Amphetamine; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bayes Theorem; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dextroamphetamine; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Guanfacine; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Male; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33085721
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240584 -
CNS Drugs Jun 2014Here we review the safety and tolerability profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), the first long-acting prodrug stimulant for the treatment of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Here we review the safety and tolerability profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), the first long-acting prodrug stimulant for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
METHODS
A PubMed search was conducted for English-language articles published up to 16 September 2013 using the following search terms: (lisdexamfetamine OR lisdexamphetamine OR SPD489 OR Vyvanse OR Venvanse OR NRP104 NOT review [publication type]).
RESULTS
In short-term, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase III trials, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in children, adolescents, and adults receiving LDX were typical for those reported for stimulants in general. Decreased appetite was reported by 25-39 % of patients and insomnia by 11-19 %. The most frequently reported TEAEs in long-term studies were similar to those reported in the short-term trials. Most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Literature relating to four specific safety concerns associated with stimulant medications was evaluated in detail in patients receiving LDX. Gains in weight, height, and body mass index were smaller in children and adolescents receiving LDX than in placebo controls or untreated norms. Insomnia was a frequently reported TEAE in patients with ADHD of all ages receiving LDX, although the available data indicated no overall worsening of sleep quality in adults. Post-marketing survey data suggest that the rate of non-medical use of LDX was lower than that for short-acting stimulants and lower than or equivalent to long-acting stimulant formulations. Small mean increases were seen in blood pressure and pulse rate in patients receiving LDX.
CONCLUSIONS
The safety and tolerability profile of LDX in individuals with ADHD is similar to that of other stimulants.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dextroamphetamine; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Prodrugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 24788672
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-014-0166-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid psychiatric disorders that complicate tic disorders. Medications commonly used to treat ADHD symptoms include stimulants such as methylphenidate and amphetamine; non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine; tricyclic antidepressants; and alpha agonists. Alpha agonists are also used as a treatment for tics. Due to the impact of ADHD symptoms on the child with tic disorder, treatment of ADHD is often of greater priority than the medical management of tics. However, for many decades, clinicians have been reluctant to use stimulants to treat children with ADHD and tics for fear of worsening their tics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for ADHD in children with comorbid tic disorders on symptoms of ADHD and tics.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 12 other databases. We also searched two trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for ADHD used specifically in children with comorbid tic disorders. We included both parallel-group and cross-over study designs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane, in that two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data using standardized forms, assessed risk of bias, and graded the overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight randomized controlled trials (four of which were cross-over trials) with 510 participants (443 boys, 67 girls) in this review. Participants in these studies were children with both ADHD and a chronic tic disorder. All studies took place in the USA and ranged from three to 22 weeks in duration. Five of the eight studies were funded by charitable organizations or government agencies, or both. One study was funded by the drug manufacturer. The other two studies did not specify the source of funding. Risk of bias of included studies was low for blinding; low or unclear for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and attrition bias; and low or high for selective outcome reporting. We were unable to combine any of the studies in a meta-analysis due to important clinical heterogeneity and unit-of-analysis issues.Several of the trials assessed multiple agents. Medications assessed included methylphenidate, clonidine, desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine, atomoxetine, and deprenyl. There was low-quality evidence for methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine, and very low-quality evidence for desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine and deprenyl in the treatment of ADHD in children with tics. All studies, with the exception of a study using deprenyl, reported improvement in symptoms of ADHD. Tic symptoms also improved in children treated with guanfacine, desipramine, methylphenidate, clonidine, and a combination of methylphenidate and clonidine. In one study, tics limited further dosage increases of methylphenidate. High-dose dextroamphetamine appeared to worsen tics in one study, although the length of this study was limited to three weeks. There was appetite suppression or weight loss in association with methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, atomoxetine, and desipramine. There was insomnia associated with methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine, and sedation associated with clonidine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Following an updated search of potentially relevant studies, we found no new studies that matched our inclusion criteria and thus our conclusions have not changed.Methylphenidate, clonidine, guanfacine, desipramine, and atomoxetine appear to reduce ADHD symptoms in children with tics though the quality of the available evidence was low to very low. Although stimulants have not been shown to worsen tics in most people with tic disorders, they may, nonetheless, exacerbate tics in individual cases. In these instances, treatment with alpha agonists or atomoxetine may be an alternative. Although there is evidence that desipramine may improve tics and ADHD in children, safety concerns will likely continue to limit its use in this population.
Topics: Adolescent; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Child, Preschool; Clonidine; Desipramine; Dextroamphetamine; Female; Guanfacine; Humans; Male; Methylphenidate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selegiline; Tic Disorders
PubMed: 29944175
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007990.pub3 -
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Sep 2021This guideline establishes clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children.
INTRODUCTION
This guideline establishes clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children.
METHODS
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine to develop recommendations and assign strengths to each recommendation, based on a systematic review of the literature and an assessment of the evidence using the GRADE process. The task force provided a summary of the relevant literature and the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use considerations that support the recommendations. The AASM Board of Directors approved the final recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are intended to guide clinicians in choosing a specific treatment for central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children. Each recommendation statement is assigned a strength ("strong" or "conditional"). A "strong" recommendation (ie, "We recommend…") is one that clinicians should follow under most circumstances. A "conditional" recommendation (ie, "We suggest…") is one that requires that the clinician use clinical knowledge and experience and strongly consider the individual patient's values and preferences to determine the best course of action. Under each disorder, strong recommendations are listed in alphabetical order followed by the conditional recommendations in alphabetical order. The section on adult patients with hypersomnia because of medical conditions is categorized based on the clinical and pathological subtypes identified in ICSD-3. The interventions in all the recommendation statements were compared to no treatment.
1
We recommend that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (STRONG).
2
We recommend that clinicians use pitolisant for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (STRONG).
3
We recommend that clinicians use sodium oxybate for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (STRONG).
4
We recommend that clinicians use solriamfetol for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (STRONG).
5
We suggest that clinicians use armodafinil for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
6
We suggest that clinicians use dextroamphetamine for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
7
We suggest that clinicians use methylphenidate for the treatment of narcolepsy in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
8
We recommend that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (STRONG).
9
We suggest that clinicians use clarithromycin for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
10
We suggest that clinicians use methylphenidate for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
11
We suggest that clinicians use pitolisant for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
12
We suggest that clinicians use sodium oxybate for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
13
We suggest that clinicians use lithium for the treatment of Kleine-Levin syndrome in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
14
We suggest that clinicians use armodafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to dementia with Lewy bodies in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
15
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to Parkinson's disease in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
16
We suggest that clinicians use sodium oxybate for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to Parkinson's disease in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
17
We suggest that clinicians use armodafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to traumatic brain injury in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
18
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to traumatic brain injury in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
19
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to myotonic dystrophy in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
20
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of hypersomnia secondary to multiple sclerosis in adults. (CONDITIONAL).
21
We suggest that clinicians use modafinil for the treatment of narcolepsy in pediatric patients. (CONDITIONAL).
22
We suggest that clinicians use sodium oxybate for the treatment of narcolepsy in pediatric patients. (CONDITIONAL).
CITATION
Maski K, Trotti LM, Kotagal S, et al. Treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. . 2021;17(9):1881-1893.
Topics: Adult; Child; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Humans; Idiopathic Hypersomnia; Modafinil; Narcolepsy; Sleep; United States
PubMed: 34743789
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.9328 -
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Sep 2021This systematic review provides supporting evidence for the accompanying clinical practice guideline on the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
This systematic review provides supporting evidence for the accompanying clinical practice guideline on the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children. The review focuses on prescription medications with U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval and nonpharmacologic interventions studied for the treatment of symptoms caused by central disorders of hypersomnolence.
METHODS
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine to perform a systematic review. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies addressing pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for central disorders of hypersomnolence were identified. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the clinical significance of all outcomes. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence for the purpose of making specific treatment recommendations.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 678 studies; 144 met the inclusion criteria and 108 provided data suitable for statistical analyses. Evidence for the following interventions is presented: armodafinil, clarithromycin, clomipramine, dextroamphetamine, flumazenil, intravenous immune globulin (IVIG), light therapy, lithium, l-carnitine, liraglutide, methylphenidate, methylprednisolone, modafinil, naps, pitolisant, selegiline, sodium oxybate, solriamfetol, and triazolam. The task force provided a detailed summary of the evidence along with the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use considerations.
CITATION
Maski K, Trotti LM, Kotagal S, et al. Treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment. 2021;17(9):1895-1945.
Topics: Adult; Child; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; GRADE Approach; Humans; Modafinil; Sleep; Sodium Oxybate; United States
PubMed: 34743790
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.9326 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into adulthood and can affects individuals' social and occupational functioning, as well as their quality of life and health. ADHD is frequently associated with other mental disorders such as substance use disorders and anxiety and affective disorders. Amphetamines are used to treat adults with ADHD, but uncertainties about their efficacy and safety remain.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for adults with ADHD.
SEARCH METHODS
In August 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and two trials registers, and we ran citation searches for included studies. We also contacted the corresponding authors of all included studies, other experts in the field, and the pharmaceutical company, Shire, and we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews for other published, unpublished, or ongoing studies. For each included study, we performed a citation search in Web of Science to identify any later studies that may have cited it.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of amphetamines (at any dose) for ADHD in adults aged 18 years and over against placebo or an active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data from each included study. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) to assess continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We conducted a stratified analysis to determine the influence of moderating variables. We assessed trials for risk of bias and drew a funnel plot to investigate the possibility of publication bias. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, which yielded high, moderate, low, or very low quality ratings based on evaluation of within-trial risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity of data; precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 studies that investigated three types of amphetamines: dexamphetamine (10.2 mg/d to 21.8 mg/d), lisdexamfetamine (30 mg/d to 70 mg/d), and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS; 12.5 mg/d to 80 mg/d). These studies enrolled 2521 participants; most were middle-aged (35.3 years), Caucasian males (57.2%), with a combined type of ADHD (78.8%). Eighteen studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was conducted in both Canada and the USA. Ten were multi-site studies. All studies were placebo-controlled, and three also included an active comparator: guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine. Most studies had short-term follow-up and a mean study length of 5.3 weeks.We found no studies that had low risk of bias in all domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, mainly because amphetamines have powerful subjective effects that may reveal the assigned treatment, but also because we noted attrition bias, and because we could not rule out the possibility of a carry-over effect in studies that used a cross-over design.Sixteen studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, one study was publicly funded, and two studies did not report their funding sources.Amphetamines versus placeboSeverity of ADHD symptoms: we found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians (SMD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to -0.75; 13 studies, 2028 participants) and patients (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.28; six studies, 120 participants).Retention: overall, we found low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines did not improve retention in treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; 17 studies, 2323 participants).Adverse events: we found that amphetamines were associated with an increased proportion of patients who withdrew because of adverse events (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 4.45; 17 studies, 2409 participants).Type of amphetamine: we found differences between amphetamines for the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians. Both lisdexamfetamine (SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.85; seven studies, 896 participants; low-quality evidence) and MAS (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.66; five studies, 1083 participants; low-quality evidence) reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms. In contrast, we found no evidence to suggest that dexamphetamine reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.32; one study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence). In addition, all amphetamines were efficacious in reducing the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients (dexamphetamine: SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.40; two studies, 35 participants; low-quality evidence; lisdexamfetamine: SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01; three studies, 67 participants; low-quality evidence; MAS: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.12; one study, 18 participants; very low-quality evidence).Dose at study completion: different doses of amphetamines did not appear to be associated with differences in efficacy.Type of drug-release formulation: we investigated immediate- and sustained-release formulations but found no differences between them for any outcome.Amphetamines versus other drugsWe found no evidence that amphetamines improved ADHD symptom severity compared to other drug interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Amphetamines improved the severity of ADHD symptoms, as assessed by clinicians or patients, in the short term but did not improve retention to treatment. Amphetamines were associated with higher attrition due to adverse events. The short duration of studies coupled with their restrictive inclusion criteria limits the external validity of these findings. Furthermore, none of the included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Overall, the evidence generated by this review is of low or very low quality.
Topics: Adult; Amphetamines; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dextroamphetamine; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30091808
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007813.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Fatigue 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. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for adults with PBT and clinically significant (or high levels) of fatigue.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and checked the reference lists of included studies in April 2022. We also searched relevant conference proceedings, and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials.
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 to improve the clinical utility of the findings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (JD, DC) independently evaluated search results for the updated search. Two review authors (JD, SYK) extracted data from selected studies, and carried out a risk of bias assessment. We extracted data on fatigue, mood, cognition, quality of life and adverse events outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
The original review identified one study and this update identified a further two for inclusion. One study investigated the use of modafinil, one study the use of armodafinil and one study the use of dexamfetamine. We identified three ongoing studies. In the original review, the single eligible trial compared modafinil to placebo for 37 participants with a high- or low-grade PBT. One new study compared two doses of armodafinil (150 mg and 250 mg) to placebo for 297 people with a high-grade glioma. The second new study compared dexamfetamine sulfate to placebo for 46 participants with a low- or high-grade PBT. The evidence was uncertain for both modafinil and dexamfetamine regarding fatigue outcome measures, compared to controls, at study endpoint. Two trials did not reach the planned recruitment target and therefore may not, in practice, have been adequately powered to detect a difference. These trials were at a low risk of bias across most areas. There was an unclear risk of bias related to the use of mean imputation for one study because the investigators did not analyse the impact of imputation on the results and information regarding baseline characteristics and randomisation were not clear. The certainty of the evidence measured using GRADE was very low across all three studies. There was one identified study awaiting classification once data are available, which investigated the feasibility of 'health coaching' for people with a PBT experiencing fatigue. There were three ongoing studies that may be eligible for an update of this review, all investigating a non-pharmacological intervention for fatigue in people with PBT.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently 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; Brain Neoplasms; Dextroamphetamine; Fatigue; Glioma; Humans; Modafinil
PubMed: 36094728
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011376.pub3 -
BMC Neurology Oct 2009Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is considered the most common cause of inherited mental retardation. Affected people have mental impairment that can include Attention Deficit... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is considered the most common cause of inherited mental retardation. Affected people have mental impairment that can include Attention Deficit and/or Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), autism disorder, and speech and behavioural disorders. Several pharmacological interventions have been proposed to treat those impairments.
METHODS
Systematic review of the literature and summary of the evidence from clinical controlled trials that compared at least one pharmacological treatment with placebo or other treatment in individuals with diagnosis of FXS syndrome and assessed the efficacy and/or safety of the treatments. Studies were identified by a search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Databases using the terms fragile X and treatment. Risk of bias of the studies was assessed by using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria.
RESULTS
The search identified 276 potential articles and 14 studies satisfied inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 studies on folic acid (9 with crossover design, only 1 of them with good methodological quality and low risk of bias) did not find in general significant improvements. A small sample size trial assessed dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate in patients with an additional diagnosis of ADHD and found some improvements in those taking methylphenidate, but the length of follow-up was too short. Two studies on L-acetylcarnitine, showed positive effects and no side effects in patients with an additional diagnosis of ADHD. Finally, one study on patients with an additional diagnosis of autism assessed ampakine compound CX516 and found no significant differences between treatment and placebo. Regarding safety, none of the studies that assessed that area found relevant side effects, but the number of patients included was too small to detect side effects with low incidence.
CONCLUSION
Currently there is no robust evidence to support recommendations on pharmacological treatments in patients with FXS in general or in those with an additional diagnosis of ADHD or autism.
Topics: Acetylcarnitine; Dioxoles; Folic Acid; Fragile X Syndrome; Humans; Methylphenidate; Piperidines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19822023
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-9-53