CNS drugs最新文献

Background: Many studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ischemic stroke; none of these trials included North African participants, and all of these trials comprised only participants who experienced transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke.

Objectives: We compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with first-ever noncardioembolic moderate or moderate-to-severe ischemic stroke.

Methods: Our trial involved 900 first-ever noncardioembolic patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) who randomly received either loading and maintenance doses of ticagrelor or clopidogrel within the first 24 h of stroke onset.

Results: We involved 900 patients in the intention-to-treat analysis. A total of 39 (8.7%) patients in ticagrelor arm and 62 (13.8%) in clopidogrel arm experienced a new stroke [hazard ratio (HR) 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.83; P value = 0.006]. A total of 57 (12.7%) patients in ticagrelor group and 80 (17.8%) patients in clopidogrel group experienced composite of new stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death due to vascular insults (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.43-0.82; P value = 0.004). Participants who received ticagrelor experienced less frequent unfavorable outcomes. We found no significant variation between our study's two arms concerning the hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic complications.

Conclusion: Patients with noncardioembolic moderate or moderate-to-severe ischemic stroke who received ticagrelor within the first 24 h after ischemic stroke had better clinical outcomes based on recurrent stroke rates and unfavorable modified Rankin Scale (mRS) rates compared with those who received clopidogrel. There were no significant variations between ticagrelor and clopidogrel regarding hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic complications.

Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number NCT05553613.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a chronic, burdensome, highly prevalent disease that is characterized by depressed mood and anhedonia. MDD is especially burdensome as approved monoamine antidepressant treatments have weeks-long delays before clinical benefit and low remission rates. In the past 2 decades, a promising target emerged to improve patient outcomes in depression treatment: glutamatergic signaling. This narrative review provides a high-level overview of glutamate signaling in synaptogenesis and neural plasticity and the implications of glutamate dysregulation in depression. Based on this preclinical evidence implicating glutamate in depression and the rapid improvement of depression with ketamine treatment in a proof-of-concept trial, a range of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)-targeted therapies have been investigated. While an array of treatments has been investigated in registered phase 2 or 3 clinical trials, the development of most of these agents has been discontinued. Multiple glutamate-targeted antidepressants are actively in development, and two are approved. Nasal administration of esketamine (Spravato^®) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 to treat adults with treatment-resistant depression and in 2020 for adults with MDD with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. Oral combination dextromethorphan-bupropion (AXS-05, Auvelity^® extended-release tablet) was FDA approved in 2022 for the treatment of MDD in adults. These approvals bolster the importance of glutamate in depression and represent an exciting breakthrough in contemporary psychiatry, providing new avenues of treatment for patients as first-line therapy or with either poor response or unacceptable side effects to monoaminergic antidepressants.

Background and objective: Although there are several treatments for narcolepsy type 2 and idiopathic hypersomnia, studies that assess amphetamines, symptoms beyond sleepiness, and comparative effectiveness are needed. We performed a randomized, fully blinded, noninferiority trial of modafinil versus amphetamine-dextroamphetamine in these disorders.

Methods: Forty-four adults were randomized to modafinil or amphetamine-dextroamphetamine, individually titrated to a maximum of modafinil 200 mg twice daily or amphetamine-dextroamphetamine 20 mg twice daily, for 12 weeks. Primary outcome was change in Epworth from baseline to week 12, with a noninferiority threshold of 2 points. Secondary outcomes were (1) patient global impression of change measures of disease severity, sleepiness, sleep inertia, and cognition; (2) change from baseline in Hypersomnia Severity Index; and (3) change from baseline in Sleep Inertia Questionnaire. Adverse events were compared between groups.

Results: Epworth improved 5.0 [± standard deviation (SD) 2.7] points with modafinil and 4.4 (± SD 4.7) with amphetamine-dextroamphetamine; noninferiority of amphetamine-dextroamphetamine was not demonstrated (P = 0.11). Noninferiority of amphetamine-dextroamphetamine was demonstrated for change scores of severity, sleepiness, sleep inertia, Hypersomnia Severity Index, and Sleep Inertia Questionnaire. Dropouts due to adverse events were 31.8% for modafinil (including two severe events) and 9.1% for amphetamine-dextroamphetamine, P = 0.13. Anxiety was more common with modafinil and appetite suppression with amphetamine-dextroamphetamine.

Conclusion: Noninferiority of amphetamine-dextroamphetamine to modafinil was not demonstrated for the primary outcome. However, amphetamine-dextroamphetamine was noninferior on multiple secondary measures of disease severity and symptomatology. These data may inform shared decision-making regarding treatment for idiopathic hypersomnia and narcolepsy type 2.

Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Registration (NCT03772314) 12/10/18. .

Ozanimod (Zeposia^®), an orally administered sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator (S1PRM) that is selective for the S1P₁ and S1P₅ receptor subtypes, is approved in the USA for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS). In pivotal phase III clinical trials in patients with RMS, ozanimod significantly reduced annualised relapse rates and the number of new or enlarging T2 lesions and gadolinium-enhancing lesions, and was associated with reduced brain volume loss, compared with interferon (IFN)-β1a. However, there were no significant differences in 3- and 6-month disability progression between the groups. Ozanimod was generally well tolerated, with the most common adverse reactions including upper respiratory tract infection and hepatic transaminase elevation. Efficacy and tolerability were sustained over more than 6 years with continued treatment. S1PRM-related adverse events seen with ozanimod are generally manageable with screening and/or monitoring. Notably, ozanimod does not require first-dose cardiac monitoring in the USA. In conclusion, ozanimod is a valuable once-daily oral disease-modifying therapy that extends the available treatment options for patients with RMS.

Background and objective: Viloxazine ER (extended-release capsules; Qelbree^®) is a nonstimulant medication that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children (> 6 years old) and adults. This phase 3 open-label extension to a pivotal phase 3, double-blind trial evaluated the long-term safety and continued efficacy of viloxazine ER in adults with ADHD.

Methods: This was a multicenter, flexible-dose, open-label extension to a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT04016779). Viloxazine ER was initiated at 200 mg/day and adjusted (between 200 and 600 mg/day) to achieve optimal efficacy and tolerability. Trial enrollment was halted temporarily (24 March 2020 to 23 July 2020) due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Participants completing double-blind treatment during that time were offered delayed enrollment upon trial requalification. Safety outcomes were the primary objectives. Secondary objectives were efficacy outcomes, including the ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS), and were assessed relative to double-blind baseline (or trial re-entry baseline for those whose enrollment was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic).

Results: Overall, 159 participants (133 immediate and 26 delayed rollover) received viloxazine ER, with a mean exposure of 265 ± 254.9 days. Adverse events (AEs) included (> 10% incidence) insomnia (13.8%), nausea (13.8%), headache (10.7%), and fatigue (10.1%). AEs led to discontinuation for 17.6% of participants [most commonly insomnia (2.5%), nausea (2.5%), and fatigue (1.9%)]. AISRS total score [baseline mean ± standard deviation (SD): 37.9 ± 6.3] improved by the first follow-up visit (-11.4 ± 9.5; week 2) with continued improvement at subsequent visits (last on-study visit: -18.2 ± 11.54). Similar patterns of improvement were seen for other measures of efficacy, including quality of life and executive function. Following initial dose optimization, most participants (73%) used viloxazine ER doses ≥ 400 mg/day, with 36% using doses of 600 mg/day.

Conclusions: Long-term viloxazine ER use was well tolerated, with no new long-term safety findings. Improvements in ADHD symptoms and associated measures were sustained throughout trial participation. In total, 73% percent of adult participants in this long-term study used viloxazine ER doses of 400 mg or more during maintenance treatment.

Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04143217.

Background: Spinal cord lesions in multiple sclerosis (MS) have considerable impact on disability. High-efficacy disease-modifying treatments (hDMTs) are associated with greater reduction of relapses and new brain lesions compared to low-efficacy treatments (lDMTs). Knowledge on the impact of DMTs on cord lesion formation is limited as these outcome measures were not included in MS treatment trials. This study aims to investigate whether hDMTs reduce the formation of cord lesions more effectively than lDMTs.

Methods: Patients with relapse-onset MS, a cord magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 6 months before/after initiation of their first DMT and ≥1 cord MRI at follow-up (interval > 6 months) were extracted from the MSBase registry (ACTRN12605000455662). Patients treated with hDMTs ≥90% or lDMTs ≥90% of follow-up duration were considered the hDMT and lDMT groups, respectively. Matching was performed using propensity scores. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazards of new cord lesions, brain lesions and relapses.

Results: Ninety-four and 783 satisfied hDMT and lDMT group criteria, respectively. Seventy-seven hDMT patients were matched to 184 lDMT patients. In the hDMT group there was no evidence of reduction of new cord lesions (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99 [95% CI 0.51, 1.92], p = 0.97), while there were fewer new brain lesions (HR 0.22 [95% CI 0.10, 0.49], p < 0.001) and fewer relapses (HR 0.45 [95% CI 0.28, 0.72], p = 0.004).

Conclusion: A potential discrepancy exists in the effect of hDMTs over lDMTs in preventing spinal cord lesions versus brain lesions and relapses. While hDMTs provided a significant reduction for the latter when compared to lDMTs, there was no significant reduction in new spinal cord lesions.

Background and objective: Alcohol pharmacotherapies pose unknown teratogenic risks in pregnancy and are therefore recommended to be avoided. This limits treatment options for pregnant individuals with alcohol use disorders (AUD). The information on the safety of these medications during pregnancy is uncertain, prompting a scoping review. The objective of this review was to investigate available information on the safety of alcohol pharmacotherapies in pregnancy.

Methods: Studies published between January 1990 and July 2023 were identified through searches in BIOSIS, Embase, PsycINFO and MEDLINE databases, using terms related to pregnancy and alcohol pharmacotherapies. The alcohol pharmacotherapies investigated were naltrexone, acamprosate, disulfiram, nalmefene, baclofen, gabapentin and topiramate. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers. Covidence software facilitated the management, screening and extraction of studies.

Results: A total of 105 studies were included in the review (naltrexone: 21, acamprosate: 4, disulfiram: 3, baclofen: 3, nalmefene: 0, topiramate: 55, gabapentin: 32) with some studies investigating multiple medications. Studies investigating naltrexone's safety in pregnancy focussed on opioid use disorders, with limited evidence regarding its safety in the context of AUD. Despite concerns about higher rates of some pregnancy complications, studies generally indicate naltrexone as a safer option compared with opioid agonists or alcohol during pregnancy. Acamprosate was not clearly associated with adverse effects of exposure in pregnancy, with two pre-clinical studies suggesting potential neuroprotective properties. Disulfiram has a high risk of congenital anomalies when used in pregnancy, believed to be due to its mechanism of action. Prenatal topiramate has also been associated with an increased risk of congenital anomalies, particularly oral clefts. There were mixed results concerning the safety of prenatal gabapentin and little to no literature investigating the safety of baclofen or nalmefene during pregnancy.

Conclusions: There is insufficient research on the safety of alcohol pharmacotherapies in pregnancy. Despite this, given alcohol's teratogenic effects, naltrexone could be considered to help maintain abstinence in pregnant individuals with AUD, particularly when psychosocial treatments have failed.

Mental health disorders and substance use disorders (SUDs) in particular, contribute greatly to the global burden of disease. Psychedelics, including entactogens and dissociative substances, are currently being explored for the treatment of SUDs, yet with less empirical clinical evidence than for other mental health disorders, such as depression or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In this narrative review, we discuss the current clinical research evidence, therapeutic potential and safety of psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), ketamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and ibogaine, particularly in the context of the SUD treatment. Our aim was to provide a balanced overview of the current research and findings on potential benefits and harms of psychedelics in clinical settings for SUD treatment. We highlight the need for more clinical research in this particular treatment area and point out some limitations and challenges to be addressed in future research.