Efficacy and safety of herbal medicines for idiopathic Parkinson's disease: a systematic review.

The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of herbal medicines (HMs), as a monotherapy or adjunct therapy, compared to placebo or conventional approaches in the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD). We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from both conventional and alternative medicine sources. Outcome measures were overall improvement, quality of life, reduction of levodopa dose, and adverse events. Nine studies were included, each testing a different HM. Six of the trials had limited internal validity due to major flaws in design, including the lack of proper randomization; insufficient blinding; unclear inclusive criteria in terms of diagnostic criteria, baseline staging, and duration of disease; lack of proper sample size calculation; and insufficient data analysis. Imbalances in gender and ethnicity among the patients in the included trials were observed. No major adverse events emerged, and no specific pattern was detected from the trials describing such data. In addition to major methodological defects, heterogeneity in (1) HM tested, (2) control treatment, and (3) outcome measure hindered in-depth data analysis and synthesis. Current evidence is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various HMs. Further studies with improved trial design and reporting, with assessment on cost-effectiveness, quality of life, and qualitative data are warranted.     

Role of pontomedullary reticular formation neurons in horizontal head movements: an ibotenic acid lesion study in the cat

Single-cell recording, electrolytic lesion and electrical stimulation studies have indicated that the pontomedullary reticular formation (PMRF) plays a role in head movement (HM) control. However, recent studies utilizing excitotoxin lesions of the PMRF have reported no effect on HM. In the present study, we have examined the acute and chronic motor effects of injecting ibotenic acid (IBO) into the nucleus reticularis pontis oralis, nucleus reticularis pontis caudalis and rostral medullary nucleus gigantocellularis of the feline PMRF. IBO injections in all of these regions induced tonic flexion of the head toward the ipsilateral side. This effect lasted 4-16 h. It was followed by a second phase in which head flexion and whole body circling were directed toward the contralateral side. Although this forced contralateral head turning disappeared within two days, the tendency to turn contralaterally and the impaired ability to make rapid ipsilateral HMs were present throughout survival periods lasting more than 4 months. Unilateral IBO PMRF lesions reduced the amplitude of vestibular induced quick phase (anti-compensatory) HMs toward the ipsilateral side and resulted in abnormally large and persistent slow compensatory HMs toward the contralateral side. Following IBO injections, the threshold intensity for HMs evoked by electrical stimulation at the injection site was elevated, and the amplitude and velocity of evoked HMs reduced. Histological data indicated that the reticular area involved in HM control was relatively large and probably extended beyond the PMRF region examined here. However, lesions including the nucleus reticularis pontis caudalis (NRPC) produced more severe and persistent HM deficits than those including the nucleus reticularis gigantocellularis. These data together with available anatomical and electrophysiological evidence indicate that PMRF neurons play a critical role in the generation of fast horizontal HMs toward the ipsilateral side.     

A long-term follow-up of zonisamide monotherapy

OBJECTIVES: Several studies have reported the safety and efficacy of zonisamide monotherapy, but studies on its long-term outcomes are limited. This chart review was conducted to evaluate the long-term outcomes of zonisamide monotherapy. METHODS: The charts were reviewed for 77 patients treated with zonisamide as monotherapy for 6-180 months between May 1985 and December 2003. Outcomes were analyzed by the following subcategories: patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy or with antiepileptic drug-resistant epilepsy, the type of epilepsy, patient age, and treatment period. RESULTS: Of a total of 77 patients, 49 patients (64%) attained 50% or more reduction of seizure frequency and of those patients 38 (49%) attained 75% or more reduction, with 18 patients (24%) becoming seizure-free from 6 to 180 (median 80.6 +/- 43.6) months of follow-up. Thirty-eight patients (49%) continued zonisamide monotherapy as of December 2003. Proportions of patients having 75% or more reduction in seizure frequency in subcategories were as follows; 56% in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and 48% in patients whose treatment was switched to zonisamide monotherapy owing to lack of efficacy of or adverse reaction to previous antiepileptic drugs; 60% in patients with localization-related epilepsies and 38% in patients with generalized epilepsies; and 49% in pediatric patients and 50% in adult patients. CONCLUSION: Long-term zonisamide monotherapy was efficacious in a wide range of patients with epilepsy. Zonisamide did not seem to exhibit a reduction in efficacy during long-term use of up to 180 months.     

Aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review

Aducanumab is a novel disease-modifying anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) human monoclonal antibody specifically targeted to the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD). It was granted for treating AD in June 2021 by the United States Food and Drug Administration. We systematically analyzed available trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aducanumab treating AD. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. We conducted an extensive literature search using the electronic databases MEDLINE through PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus for suitable studies on aducanumab. We considered human clinical trials of aducanumab, assessing its efficacy and adverse effects in treating AD, excluding any experimental animal studies. We included three randomised controlled trials. Studies reported that aducanumab reduced brain amyloid-beta plaques in a time- and dose-dependent manner (dose–response, P < 0.05) and a slowed decline in cognition (22% reduction) in the high-dose treated group, difference of −0.39 versus placebo in Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum Boxes (95% CI, −0.69 to −0.09; P = 0.012) along with a reduced amyloid positron emission tomography standard uptake value ratio score (P < 0.001) and plasma p181-tau (phosphorylated tau) level. Amyloid-related imaging abnormality was reported as a serious adverse event and was profound in high-dose treated group (425/1029 in 10 mg/kg). Aducanumab has been reported to affect two main pathophysiologic hallmarks (Aβ and tau) of AD. We suggest future studies addressing aducanumab's efficacy and safety to confirm that the benefit of this drug outweighs the risk.     

Efficacy and adverse effects of atypical antipsychotics for dementia: meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Atypical antipsychotic medications are widely used to treat delusions, aggression, and agitation in people with Alzheimer disease (AD) and other dementia. Several clinical trials have not shown efficacy, and there have been concerns about adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess the evidence for efficacy and adverse events of atypicals for people with dementia. METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, meetings, presentations, and information obtained from sponsors were used in this study. Published and unpublished randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trials in patients with AD or dementia of atypical antipsychotics marketed in the United States were studied. Clinical and trials characteristics, outcomes, and adverse events were extracted. Data were checked by a second reviewer. Fifteen trials including 16 contrasts of atypical antipsychotics with placebo met selection criteria: aripiprazole (k = 3), olanzapine (k = 5), quetiapine (k = 3), and risperidone (k = 5). A total of 3,353 patients were randomized to drug and 1,757 to placebo. Standard meta-analysis methods were used to summarize outcomes. RESULTS: Quality of the reporting of trials varied. Efficacy on rating scales was observed by meta-analysis for aripiprazole and risperidone, but not for olanzapine. Response rates were frequently not reported. There were smaller effects for less severe dementia, outpatients, and patients selected for psychosis. Approximately one-third dropped out without overall differences between drug and placebo. Adverse events were mainly somnolence and urinary tract infection or incontinence across drugs, and extrapyramidal symptoms or abnormal gait with risperidone or olanzapine. Cognitive test scores worsened with drugs. There was no evidence for increased injury, falls, or syncope. There was a significant risk for cerebrovascular events, especially with risperidone; increased risk for death overall was reported elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Small statistical effect sizes on symptom rating scales support the evidence for the efficacy of aripiprazole and risperidone. Incomplete reporting restricts estimates of response rates and clinical significance. Dropouts and adverse events further limit effectiveness. Atypicals should be considered within the context of medical need and the efficacy and safety of alternatives. Individual patient meta-analyses are needed to better assess clinical significance and effectiveness.     

A Head-to-Head Comparison of Aripiprazole and Risperidone for Safety and Treating Autistic Disorders,a Randomized Double Blind Clinical Trial

Aripiprazole and risperidone are the only FDA approved medications for treating irritability in autistic disorder, however there are no head-to-head data comparing these agents. This is the first prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of these two medications in patients with autism spectrum disorders. Fifty nine children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders were randomized to receive either aripiprazole or risperidone for 2 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC) scores. Adverse events were assessed. Aripiprazole as well as risperidone lowered ABC scores during 2 months. The rates of adverse effects were not significantly different between the two groups. The safety and efficacy of aripiprazole (mean dose 5.5 mg/day) and risperidone (mean dose 1.12 mg/day) were comparable. The choice between these two medications should be on the basis of clinical equipoise considering the patient’s preference and clinical profile.     

A naturalistic evaluation of intramuscular ziprasidone versus intramuscular olanzapine for the management of acute agitation and aggression in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intramuscular ziprasidone versus intramuscular (i.m.) olanzapine in treating aggression in youth. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 100 hospitalized patients less than 18 years of age treated with either i.m. ziprasidone or i.m. olanzapine for agitation or aggression was conducted. Comparisons were performed using statistical analysis of data collected from medical records. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar in the i.m. olanzapine and ziprasidone treatment groups regarding age and ethnicity; however, gender differences did reach statistical significance (p < 0.001). Dosing between children and adolescents significantly differed in the olanzapine group, whereas dosing was comparable in the ziprasidone group. No significant differences between the olanzapine and ziprasidone treatment groups were noted regarding length of stay, efficacy of the study medications, number of restraints, and duration of restraints. Ziprasidone subjects received significantly more doses of emergency medication during their hospital stay and significantly more doses of ziprasidone were administered with concomitant lorazepam or antihistamines. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest i.m. ziprasidone and intramuscular olanzapine may be equally effective in treating aggression in youth. These agents may also be similar with regard to safety because no clinically significant adverse events were reported for either treatment group. The possibility of poor documentation of adverse events and side effects prevents formulating definitive conclusions regarding safety from this study.     

Risperidone for bipolar disorders

Atypical antipsychotic medications are a relatively new, increasingly prominent component of the treatment armamentarium for bipolar disorder -- a development that provides more options for potentially improved outcomes for patients and families affected by bipolar disorder. The US Food and Drug Administration-approved bipolar indications for risperidone include monotherapy for the short-term treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder and combination therapy with lithium or valproate for the short-term treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. Risperidone is also approved in over 30 countries worldwide for bipolar mania either as monotherapy, adjunct therapy, or both monotherapy and adjunct therapy. A number of controlled and open-label treatment trials have shown risperidone's efficacy and tolerability in the manic phase of bipolar disorder. Risperidone has also been reported to be useful in the longer-term treatment of bipolar disorder. This drug profile of risperidone for bipolar disorder will address the chemistry, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and metabolism of risperidone, clinical trials in bipolar disorder, postmarketing surveillance, safety, tolerability and regulatory issues. Finally, a discussion of potential future directions, a summary of key issues and information resources are provided.     

A one-year open-label trial of risperidone augmentation in lithium nonresponder youth with preschool-onset bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of risperidone augmentation of lithium in preschool-onset bipolar disorder (BD) among youth who insufficiently respond to lithium monotherapy. METHOD: Thirty-eight subjects between the ages of 4 and 17 years (mean age = 11.37 +/- 3.8 years) with onset of BD in preschool years (manic or mixed episode) entered this 12-month trial. All subjects received lithium monotherapy. Patients who failed to adequately respond to lithium monotherapy after 8 weeks and those who relapsed after an initial response were given risperidone augmentation for up to 11 months. The Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) was the primary outcome measure. Response was defined as a > or =50% decrease from baseline. Additional data were collected on diagnostic comorbidity, family history, number of hospitalizations, perinatal risk factors, history of physical or sexual abuse, Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale for BD (CGI-BP), Children's Global Assessment Scale (C-GAS), and adverse medication effects. RESULTS: Of the 38 subjects treated with lithium monotherapy, 17 responded, whereas 21 required augmentation with risperidone. Response rate in the youths treated with lithium + risperidone was 85.7% (n = 18/21). Significant predictors of inadequate response to lithium monotherapy requiring augmentation were: (1) attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), (2) severity at baseline, (3) history of sexual or physical abuse, and (4) preschool age. Combination treatment of lithium and risperidone was found to be safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of youth with a history of preschool-onset BD treated with lithium were either nonresponders or partial responders. Subsequent augmentation of lithium with risperidone in these cases was well tolerated and efficacious. Potential predictors of lithium nonresponse identified in this study may guide the choice of medications earlier in the treatment process.     

托吡酯单药治疗各型癫癎的临床研究

目的观察托吡酯单药治疗成人和儿童各型癫癎的临床效果与安全性.方法用开放性试验的方法对34例癫癎患者进行了添加转单药以及首诊单药的托吡酯治疗;以加用托吡酯前3个月的月均发作频率为基准,与单用或转换单用托吡酯进入稳定期后3个月的月均发作频率进行比较,按常规计算发作减少百分比的中位值和有效率百分比.结果托吡酯无论在添加转单药还是单药的治疗上均有明显疗效,且抗谱广,可用于单纯部分性发作有或全面性发作、复杂部分性发作有或全面性发作、婴儿痉挛症,无耐药现象.14岁以上者托吡酯单药治疗的剂量明显低于添加治疗组.托吡酯的副反应以中枢神经系统最常见,但导致治疗中断的副反应尚未见到.结论托吡酯是一个广谱抗癫癎药,疗效肯定,无耐药性,无严重副反应,可用于单药治疗.     

Are clozapine blood dyscrasias associated with concomitant medications?

Clozapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent used for refractory schizophrenia. It has a relatively low affinity for D2 receptors and thus is associated with a lower incidence of extrapyramidal side effects when compared with typical antipsychotics. Clozapine as monotherapy can induce a rare, but serious, blood dyscrasia called agranulocytosis; however, some concomitant medications may contribute to the risk. Examples of these medications are mood-stabilizing antiepileptic drugs, such as carbamazepine, and sulfonamide antibiotics, such as sulfamethoxazole. There were no studies at the writing of this article examining the effect of concomitant medications on clozapine blood dyscrasias, and few published reports describing enhanced bone marrow suppression in those taking clozapine. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of concomitant medications used in a state psychiatric hospital on clozapine-induced blood dyscrasias. This was a retrospective record review of adverse drug reactions reported at an adult inpatient state psychiatric center. The records for a pilot sample of 26 patients with reported clozapine-related adverse drug reactions between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2009, were reviewed. Fundamental to this study were reported adverse drug reactions defined as 1) substantial drops in white blood cell or absolute neutrophil count (a substantial drop in white blood cell is >3,000 or absolute neutrophil count is >1,500 over a 3-week period); 2) mild leukopenia/granulocytopenia; and 3) moderate-severe leukopenia/granulocytopenia. Concomitant medications were examined for contributions to an increased potential for clozapine-induced blood dyscrasias. Other data collected included demographic information (age, gender, ethnicity), medical and psychiatric diagnoses, dose and duration of medications, and changes in medications. Medications that had a statistically significant impact on the incidence of clozapine-induced blood dyscrasias are reported in this article, as well as the possible duration of medication use prior to induction of an adverse drug reaction.     

Combination therapy for multiple sclerosis

To improve the partial benefit of approved monotherapies in multiple sclerosis (MS), over 25 combined therapies have been tested in recent years, either as fixed-dose or sequential combination regimes. The main therapeutic targets for combination therapy in MS are the same as for monotherapy: the immune-mediated inflammatory cascade, oxidative toxicity and excitotoxicity. There are numerous reasons to consider combination therapy in MS, including to improve the benefit and/or tolerance in patients responding to approved treatments, stop frequent disabling relapses and/or rapid progression in patients who do not respond to approved therapies, and maintain the benefit of immunosuppressive treatments. Preliminary clinical trials suggest that combination therapy in MS does not increase the side-effects of approved monotherapy; its efficacy over monotherapy should therefore be tested. Statistically robust trials would need to involve many patients for each combination, so the first step in determining the efficacy of combination therapy should be to perform safety studies, followed by proof-of-concept efficacy studies.     

Levetiracetam monotherapy for adults with localization-related epilepsy

We identified 37 patients with a history of partial seizures, with and without secondarily generalization, who received levetiracetam (LEV) (Keppra) monotherapy. Patients began LEV either as first line therapy (n=9) or were converted to LEV monotherapy (n=28) after failing prior antiepileptic medications (AEDs). Thirty-four patients continued on LEV for at least six months; of these, 13 patients became seizure free and 15 patients had >50% reduction in their seizures. Three patients discontinued LEV because of adverse effects. LEV monotherapy can be effective and well tolerated in adults with new onset and difficult-to-control partial epilepsy. A prospective, large, double blind monotherapy study is needed to confirm this finding.     

Alzheimer's patients should be included in phase I clinical trials to evaluate compounds for Alzheimer's disease.

Dosage and tolerance are critical issues in successful drug therapy for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). A clear distinction among patient populations and AD patient subpopulations is necessary to ensure a thorough assessment of new central nervous system-active compounds. Phase I inpatient trials, in which tolerance and safety are evaluated under double-blind conditions in the target population, provide valuable information for use in planning multicenter outpatient trials. In similar studies, even those involving the elderly, tolerance and safety outcomes in healthy volunteers are not always predictable. An early trial of the effects of velnacrine in healthy, elderly, male volunteers was followed by a trial in the target population. A group of volunteers, aged 60 to 74 years who did not have AD, received 300 mg of velnacrine each day. This dosage was well tolerated for 28 days. Diarrhea, generally of moderate severity, was the only reported adverse effect. No subjects were required to discontinue taking velnacrine. In contrast, a similar trial showed a dosage of 300 mg of velnacrine each day intolerable among patients with AD. Adverse reactions to dosages greater than 225 mg/day included dizziness, fainting, nausea and/or vomiting, headache, and severe diarrhea. A velnacrine dosage of 225 mg/day appeared to be safe and well tolerated in a small population of healthy patients with AD. Based on the inpatient experience with AD subjects, a maximum dose of 225 mg/day was adopted for outpatient studies. Although factors that may contribute to drug sensitivity in patients with AD vary beyond conclusive parameters, the observed sensitivity within the target AD group may indicate a safety/tolerance study as a worthwhile antecedent to multicenter efficacy trials.     

Citalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's disease: design and methods

BackgroundAgitation is one of the most common neuropsychiatric symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and is associated with serious adverse consequences for patients and caregivers. Evidence-supported treatment options for agitation are limited. The citalopram for agitation in Alzheimer’s disease (CitAD) study was designed to evaluate the potential of citalopram to ameliorate these symptoms.MethodsCitAD is a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial, with two parallel treatment groups assigned in a 1:1 ratio and randomization stratified by clinical center. The study included eight recruiting clinical centers, a chair’s office, and a coordinating center located in university settings in the United States and Canada. A total of 200 individuals having probable AD with clinically significant agitation and without major depression were recruited for this study. Patients were randomized to receive citalopram (target dose of 30 mg/d) or matching placebo. Caregivers of patients in both treatment groups received a structured psychosocial therapy. Agitation was compared between treatment groups using the NeuroBehavioral Rating Scale and the AD Cooperative Study- Clinical Global Impression of Change, which are the primary outcomes. Functional performance, cognition, caregiver distress, and rates of adverse and serious adverse events were also measured.ConclusionThe authors believe the design elements in CitAD are important features to be included in trials assessing the safety and efficacy of psychotropic medications for clinically significant agitation in AD.     

Dopamine agonists in the treatment of early Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis

Our objective was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of dopamine agonists (DA) as monotherapy as well as adjunctive therapy for the early treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD). A systematic literature search was conducted through April 2007. Both efficacy and safety endpoints were evaluated. DA monotherapy showed superior efficacy but more frequent adverse events compared to placebo. In addition, DA demonstrated inferior efficacy to levodopa, but was associated with fewer motor complications. However, DAs were associated with a greater incidence of nuisance side effects, such as hallucinations, somnolence and dizziness. The use of DA is an effective treatment option for the treatment of early PD and appears especially useful among PD patients with wearing-off phenomenon or dyskinesias on levodopa; however it may result in more adverse events and higher withdrawal rates.     

Long-term treatment of bipolar disorder in children

Bipolar disorder has been shown to have a chronic course of illness, and children with this disorder are likely to need long-term treatment. Although limited data exist on the efficacy of long-term pharmacotherapy for pediatric bipolar disorder, 5 medications are approved as monotherapy for mixed or manic episodes and 2 are approved as adjunctive treatment. Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring adverse events in children and adolescents taking psychotropic medications and should consider implementing psychotherapeutic interventions, which can improve youths' symptomatic and functional outcomes.     

Safety, efficacy, and biomarker findings of PBT2 in targeting Abeta as a modifying therapy for Alzheimer's disease: a phase IIa, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: PBT2 is a metal-protein attenuating compound (MPAC) that affects the Cu2(+)-mediated and Zn2(+)-mediated toxic oligomerisation of Abeta seen in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Strong preclinical efficacy data and the completion of early, clinical safety studies have preceded this phase IIa study, the aim of which was to assess the effects of PBT2 on safety, efficacy, and biomarkers of AD. METHODS: Between December 6, 2006, and September 21, 2007, community-dwelling patients over age 55 years were recruited to this 12-week, double-blind, randomised trial of PBT2. Patients were randomly allocated to receive 50 mg PBT2, 250 mg PBT2, or placebo. Inclusion criteria were early AD (mini-mental state examination [MMSE] score between 20 and 26 points or Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) score between 10 and 25 points), taking a stable dose of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (donepezil, galantamine, or rivastigmine) for at least 4 months, a modified Hachinski score of 4 points or less, and CT or MRI results that were consistent with AD. The principal outcomes were safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes were plasma and CSF biomarkers and cognition. Analysis was intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00471211. FINDINGS: 78 patients were randomly assigned (29 to placebo, 20 to PBT2 50 mg, and 29 to PBT2 250 mg) and 74 (95%) completed the study. 42 (54%) patients had at least one treatment emergent adverse event (10 [50%] on PBT2 50 mg, 18 [62%] on PBT2 250 mg, and 14 [48%] on placebo). No serious adverse events were reported by patients on PBT2. Patients treated with PBT2 250 mg had a dose-dependent (p=0.023) and significant reduction in CSF Abeta(42) concentration compared with those treated with placebo (difference in least squares mean change from baseline was -56.0 pg/mL, 95% CI -101.5 to -11.0; p=0.006). PBT2 had no effect on plasma biomarkers of AD or serum Zn(2+) and Cu(2+) concentrations. Cognition testing included ADAS-cog, MMSE, and a neuropsychological test battery (NTB). Of these tests, two executive function component tests of the NTB showed significant improvement over placebo in the PBT2 250 mg group: category fluency test (2.8 words, 0.1 to 5.4; p=0.041) and trail making part B (-48.0 s, -83.0 to -13.0; p=0.009). INTERPRETATION: The safety profile is favourable for the ongoing development of PBT2. The effect on putative biomarkers for AD in CSF but not in plasma is suggestive of a central effect of the drug on Abeta metabolism. Cognitive efficacy was restricted to two measures of executive function. Future trials that are larger and longer will establish if the effects of PBT2 on biomarkers and cognition that are reported here translate into clinical effectiveness.     

The efficacy and safety of montelukast in children with obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveThe efficacy and safety of montelukast in children with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) remain controversial. Therefore, the aims of this systemic review and meta-analysis are to verify this issue and further provide reference for clinical practice.MethodsSeven databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 30, 2019. The literature screening and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers. Adverse reactions from trials were also recorded. Meta-analysis was performed and analyzed heterogeneity. Methodological and evidence quality were followed by to evaluate according to Cochrane handbook.ResultsA total of 4 RCTs including 305 children with mild to moderate OSA were involved. Compared with placebo, we found that oral montelukast (OM) significantly improved polysomnography (PSG) monitoring parameters, typical and relevant symptoms including snoring and mouth breathing, and adenoid morphology in children with OSA. When compared with routine drugs, not only PSG monitoring parameters and adenoid morphology, but also sleep-disordered breathing (SDB)-related questionnaire scores were improved in patients with OSA treated by combination of OM and routine drugs. In addition, compared with single nasal spray of mometasone furoate, the present study also showed that OM combined with nasal spray of mometasone furoate significantly improved PSG monitoring parameters, symptoms of snoring and mouth breathing and reduced tonsil morphology in pediatric OSA. In terms of treatment safety, one study reported adverse reactions of OM such as headache, nausea and vomiting, while no adverse events were reported after OM treatment in another study.ConclusionAs a classic leukotriene receptor antagonist, montelukast can be used to treat children with mild to moderate OSA in the short term and improve clinical characteristics. The promotion and application of OM in clinic is considered to be a noninvasive option to avoid surgical treatment.