-
Journal of Viral Hepatitis Sep 2005Treatment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) continues to be an important and growing challenge. As the response rate to FDA-approved treatment improved over the past decade,... (Review)
Review
Treatment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) continues to be an important and growing challenge. As the response rate to FDA-approved treatment improved over the past decade, we are facing increasing number of difficult-to-treat patients such as those who have failed prior anti-viral therapy. The role of amantadine in the treatment of CHC remains unclear. Studies thus far have produced conflicting results, and type II error could not be excluded. This review summarized results published in the literature from 1997 to 2003, and reviewed the existing questions and controversies regarding the use of amantadine. Current literature suggests that amantadine is ineffective as monotherapy. Amantadine increased the sustained virologic response of certain treatment naïve patients when used in combination with interferon, and may be effective as an adjunct to interferon-based combination therapy in some patients who have failed or relapsed on prior therapy. Factors such as small sample size, patient characteristics, and differences in treatment protocols including amantadine preparation and duration of therapy might explain the conflicting observations of various studies. Further investigations are needed to define optimal dosing and formulation of amantadine, and its appropriate role in management of CHC infection.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans
PubMed: 16108758
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2893.2005.00622.x -
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 2015Livedo reticularis is a spastic-anatomical condition of the small vessels which translates morphologically by a reticular pattern, interspersing cyanosis, pallor and...
Livedo reticularis is a spastic-anatomical condition of the small vessels which translates morphologically by a reticular pattern, interspersing cyanosis, pallor and erythema. The same can be congenital or acquired. Among the acquired, we highlight the physiological livedo reticularis and the idiopathic livedo by vasospasm; the latter configures the most common cause. The drug-induced type is less common. The drugs amantadine and norepinephrine are often implicated. Cyanosis is usually reversible if the causative factor is removed, however, with chronicity, the vessels may become permanently dilated and telangiectatic. We report a case of a patient diagnosed with Parkinson's disease with chronic livedo reticularis associated with the use of amantadine and improvement after discontinuation of the drug.
Topics: Aged; Amantadine; Antiparkinson Agents; Humans; Livedo Reticularis; Male; Parkinson Disease; Skin
PubMed: 26560223
DOI: 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20153394 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003Abnormal involuntary movements known as dyskinesias are amongst the most disabling side-effects of levodopa therapy. It is thought that amantadine, an NMDA-receptor... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Abnormal involuntary movements known as dyskinesias are amongst the most disabling side-effects of levodopa therapy. It is thought that amantadine, an NMDA-receptor antagonist, may reduce dyskinesias in patients with Parkinson's disease without worsening Parkinsonian symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant amantadine therapy versus placebo in treating dyskinesia in patients with Parkinson's disease, already established on levodopa, and suffering from motor complications.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic searches of The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), EMBASE (1974-2001), SCISEARCH (1974-2001), BIOSIS (1993-2001), GEROLIT (1979-2001), OLDMEDLINE (1957-1965), LILACS (1982-2001), MedCarib (17th Century - 2001), PASCAL (1973-2001), JICST-EPLUS (1985-2001), RUSSMED (1973-2001), DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS (2000-2001), SIGLE (1980-2001), ISI-ISTP (1990-2001), Aslib Index to Theses (2001), Clinicaltrials.gov (2001), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (2001), NIDRR (2001) and NRR (2001) were conducted. Grey literature was hand searched and the reference lists of identified studies and reviews examined. The manufacturers of amantadine were contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing amantadine with placebo in the treatment of dyskinesia in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data was abstracted independently by NC and KD onto standardised forms and disagreements were resolved by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
Three randomised controlled trials were found comparing amantadine with placebo in the treatment of dyskinesia in patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Three trials were excluded on the basis that they had no control group and a further three did not state whether they randomised the treatment that participants received. The included trials were double-blind cross-over studies involving a total of 53 patients. All three studies failed to present data from the first arm, instead presenting results as combined data from both treatment arms and both placebo arms. Two trials had no wash-out interval between the treatment periods. In view of the risk of a carry-over effect into the second arm, the results of these trials were not analysed. The final trial had a one week wash-out interval but only examined 11 participants. One study reported side-effects of amantadine in 8 of the 18 participants, including confusion and worsening of hallucinations. Another reported reversible edema of both feet in one of eleven participants.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Due to lack of evidence it is impossible to determine whether amantadine is a safe and effective form of treatment for levodopa-induced dyskinesias in patients with Parkinson's disease.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiparkinson Agents; Dyskinesias; Humans; Parkinson Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 12804468
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003467 -
Viruses Oct 2021We report the in vitro efficacy of ion-channel inhibitors amantadine, memantine and rimantadine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In...
We report the in vitro efficacy of ion-channel inhibitors amantadine, memantine and rimantadine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In VeroE6 cells, rimantadine was most potent followed by memantine and amantadine (50% effective concentrations: 36, 80 and 116 µM, respectively). Rimantadine also showed the highest selectivity index, followed by amantadine and memantine (17.3, 12.2 and 7.6, respectively). Similar results were observed in human hepatoma Huh7.5 and lung carcinoma A549-hACE2 cells. Inhibitors interacted in a similar antagonistic manner with remdesivir and had a similar barrier to viral escape. Rimantadine acted mainly at the viral post-entry level and partially at the viral entry level. Based on these results, rimantadine showed the most promise for treatment of SARS-CoV-2.
Topics: A549 Cells; Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Amantadine; Animals; Antiviral Agents; Cell Line, Tumor; Chlorocebus aethiops; Denmark; Drug Repositioning; Humans; Ion Channels; Memantine; Rimantadine; SARS-CoV-2; Vero Cells; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34696509
DOI: 10.3390/v13102082 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2007Fatigue is one of the most common and disabling symptoms of people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). The effective management of fatigue has an important impact on the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fatigue is one of the most common and disabling symptoms of people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). The effective management of fatigue has an important impact on the patient's functioning, abilities, and quality of life. Although a number of strategies have been devised for reducing fatigue, treatment recommendations are based on a limited amount of scientific evidence. Many textbooks report amantadine as a first-choice drug for MS-related fatigue because of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showing some benefit.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of amantadine in treating fatigue in people with MS.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane MS Group Trials Register (July 2006), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2006), EMBASE (January 1974 to July 2006), bibliographies of relevant articles and handsearched relevant journals. We also contacted drug companies and researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, placebo or other drugs-controlled, double-blind trials of amantadine in MS people with fatigue.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three reviewers selected studies for inclusion in the review and they extracted the data reported in the original articles. We requested missing and unclear data by correspondence with the trial's principal investigator. A meta-analysis was not performed due to the inadequacy of available data and heterogeneity of outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
Out of 13 pertinent publications, 5 trials met the criteria for inclusion in this review: one study was a parallel arms study, and 4 were crossover trials. The number of randomised participants ranged between 10 and 115, and a total of 272 MS patients were studied. Overall the quality of the studies considered was poor and all trials were open to bias. All studies reported small and inconsistent improvements in fatigue, whereas the clinical relevance of these findings and the impact on patient's functioning and health related quality of life remained undetermined. The number of participants reporting side effects during amantadine therapy ranged from 10% to 57%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of amantadine in reducing fatigue in people with MS is poorly documented, as well as its tolerability. It is advisable to: (1) improve knowledge on the underlying mechanisms of MS-related fatigue; (2) achieve anagreement on accurate, reliable and responsive outcome measures of fatigue; (3) perform good quality RCTs.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Cross-Over Studies; Dopamine Agents; Fatigue; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 17253480
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002818.pub2 -
Seizure Aug 2017Review and discuss medications efficacious for seizure control, despite primary indications for other diseases, as treatment options in patients who have failed therapy... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Review and discuss medications efficacious for seizure control, despite primary indications for other diseases, as treatment options in patients who have failed therapy with traditional antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).
METHODS
Literature searches were conducted utilizing PubMed and MEDLINE databases employing combinations of search terms including, but not limited to, "epilepsy", "refractory", "seizure", and the following medications: acetazolamide, amantadine, bumetanide, imipramine, lidocaine, verapamil, and various stimulants.
RESULTS
Data from relevant case studies, retrospective reviews, and available clinical trials were gathered, analyzed, and reported. Experience with acetazolamide, amantadine, bumetanide, imipramine, lidocaine, verapamil, and various stimulants show promise for cases of refractory epilepsy in both adults and children. Many medications lack large scale, randomized clinical trials, but the available data is informative when choosing treatment for patients that have failed traditional epilepsy therapies.
CONCLUSIONS
All neurologists have encountered a patient that failed nearly every AED, diet, and surgical option. For these patients, we often seek fortuitous discoveries within small series and case reports, hoping to find a treatment that might help the patient. In the present review, we describe medications for which antiepileptic effect has been ascribed after they were introduced for other indications.
Topics: Amantadine; Anticonvulsants; Bumetanide; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Epilepsy; Humans; Imipramine; Lidocaine; Treatment Failure; Verapamil
PubMed: 28704741
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2017.06.022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Cocaine misuse is a disorder for which no pharmacological treatment of proven efficacy exists. Advances in neurobiology could guide future medication development. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cocaine misuse is a disorder for which no pharmacological treatment of proven efficacy exists. Advances in neurobiology could guide future medication development.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the efficacy and acceptability of dopamine agonists alone or in combination with any psychosocial intervention for the treatment of of people who misuse cocaine.
SEARCH METHODS
We run the search on 12 January 2015. We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ICTRP, clinicaltrials.gov and screened reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing dopamine agonists alone or associated with psychosocial intervention with placebo, no treatment or other pharmacological interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty four studies, including 2147 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Comparing any dopamine agonist versus placebo, we found no differences for any of the outcomes considered: dropout (moderate quality of evidence), abstinence (low quality of evidence), severity of dependence (low quality of evidence), adverse events (moderate quality of evidence). This was also observed when single dopamine agonists were compared against placebo. Comparing amantadine versus antidepressants, we found low quality of evidence that antidepressants performed better for abstinence (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53) based on two studies with 44 participants. No differences were found for dropout or adverse events, for both moderate quality of evidence.The major flaws of the included studies concerned selection bias because most studies did not report information about sequence generation (80%) and allocation concealment methods (86%): half of the included studies were judged at unclear risk of performance bias and 62.5% at unclear risk of detection bias for what concerns subjective outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence from RCTs does not support the use of dopamine agonists for treating cocaine misuse. This absence of evidence may leave to clinicians the alternative of balancing the possible benefits against the potential adverse effects of the treatment. Even the potential benefit of combining a dopamine agonist with a more potent psychosocial intervention, which was suggested by the previous Cochrane Review (Soares 2003), is not supported by the results of this Cochrane Review update.
Topics: Amantadine; Antidepressive Agents; Bromocriptine; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Depression; Dopamine Agonists; Humans; Levodopa; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selection Bias
PubMed: 26014366
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003352.pub4 -
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Jan 1999Both amantadine and rimantadine are effective for preventing and treating influenza A, particularly in high-risk patients. However, they should be used judiciously due... (Review)
Review
Both amantadine and rimantadine are effective for preventing and treating influenza A, particularly in high-risk patients. However, they should be used judiciously due to the risk of central nervous system side effects and drug interactions. Zanamivir, a new agent for treating influenza, offers promise but needs further study and approval by the Food and Drug Administration before it can be recommended for routine use. Influenza vaccine, the most effective preventive measure, is widely underused.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Amantadine; Antiviral Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Drug Administration Routes; Female; Guanidines; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Male; Middle Aged; Orthomyxoviridae; Pyrans; Ribavirin; Rimantadine; Sialic Acids; Zanamivir
PubMed: 9926627
DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.66.1.19 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2010Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with a wide range of disturbance including persistent rule-breaking, criminality, substance misuse, unemployment,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with a wide range of disturbance including persistent rule-breaking, criminality, substance misuse, unemployment, homelessness and relationship difficulties.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the potential beneficial and adverse effects of pharmacological interventions for people with AsPD.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to September 2009), EMBASE (1980 to 2009, week 37), CINAHL (1982 to September 2009), PsycINFO (1872 to September 2009) , ASSIA (1987 to September 2009) , BIOSIS (1985 to September 2009), COPAC (September 2009), National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts (1970 to July 2008), Sociological Abstracts (1963 to September 2009), ISI-Proceedings (1981 to September 2009), Science Citation Index (1981 to September 2009), Social Science Citation Index (1981 to September 2009), SIGLE (1980 to April 2006), Dissertation Abstracts (September 2009), ZETOC (September 2009) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (September 2009).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Controlled trials in which participants with AsPD were randomly allocated to a pharmacological intervention and a placebo control condition. Two trials comparing one drug against another without a placebo control are reported separately.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently selected studies. Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated mean differences, with odds ratios for dichotomous data.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria involving 394 participants with AsPD. Data were available from four studies involving 274 participants with AsPD. No study set out to recruit participants solely on the basis of having AsPD, and in only one study was the sample entirely of AsPD participants. Eight different drugs were examined in eight studies. Study quality was relatively poor. Inadequate reporting meant the data available were generally insufficient to allow any independent statistical analysis. The findings are limited to descriptive summaries based on analyses carried out and reported by the trial investigators. All the available data were derived from unreplicated single reports. Only three drugs (nortriptyline, bromocriptine, phenytoin) were effective compared to placebo in terms of improvement in at least one outcome. Nortriptyline was reported in one study as superior for men with alcohol dependency on mean number of drinking days and on alcohol dependence, but not for severity of alcohol misuse or on the patient's or clinician's rating of drinking. In the same study, both nortriptyline and bromocriptine were reported as superior to placebo on anxiety on one scale but not on another. In one study, phenytoin was reported as superior to placebo on the frequency and intensity of aggressive acts in male prisoners with impulsive (but not premeditated) aggression. In the remaining two studies, both amantadine and desipramine were not superior to placebo for adults with opioid and cocaine dependence, and desipramine was not superior to placebo for men with cocaine dependence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The body of evidence summarised in this review is insufficient to allow any conclusion to be drawn about the use of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of antisocial personality disorder.
Topics: Adult; Aggression; Alcohol-Related Disorders; Amantadine; Antisocial Personality Disorder; Anxiety; Bromocriptine; Desipramine; Female; Humans; Male; Nortriptyline; Phenytoin; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 20687091
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007667.pub2 -
Romanian Journal of Morphology and... 2020Patients with serious mental illness are a high-risk category of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Patients with schizophrenia are... (Review)
Review
Patients with serious mental illness are a high-risk category of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Patients with schizophrenia are not participatory and have increased mortality and morbidity, patients with dementia cannot be cared for while depression, anxiety, bipolar tubing are associated with low immune status. Social stress is amplified by social isolation, amplifying depression and the mechanisms of decreased immunity. Hygiene measures and prophylactic behavior are impossible to put into practice in conditions of chronic mental illness. In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the risk for severe development is associated with the presence of comorbidities and immune system deficiency. Prothrombotic status, cytokine storm and alveolar destruction are mechanisms that aggravate the evolution of patients, especially in the context in which they have dysfunction of the autonomic system. The activity of proinflammatory cytokines is accentuated by hyperglutamatergia, which potentiates oxidative stress and triggers the mechanisms of neural apoptosis by stimulating microglial activation. Activation of M1-type microglia has an important role in pathogenesis of major psychiatric disorders, such as major depression, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, and may associate hippocampal atrophy and disconnection of cognitive structures. Memantine and Amantadine, N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptor inhibitors, have demonstrated, through their pharmacological profile, psychotropic effects but also antiviral properties. In the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on these arguments, we suggest that they can be associated with the therapy with the basic psychotropics, Memantine or Amantadine, for the control of neuropsychiatric symptoms but also as adjuvants with antiviral action.
Topics: Amantadine; Antiparkinson Agents; COVID-19; Comorbidity; Humans; Memantine; Mental Disorders; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34171050
DOI: 10.47162/RJME.61.4.03