CNS drugs最新文献

Background and objectives: Sleep problems and insomnia are common, challenging to treat, and transcend specific diagnoses. Although trazodone is a popular choice, robust meta-analytic evidence is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of trazodone for sleep disturbances, reflecting recent updates in insomnia diagnosis and treatment.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 1 May 2024, for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing trazodone with placebo and reporting sleep-related outcomes. The minimum pharmacotherapy duration was 5 days. Included were all RCTs regardless of blinding (open-label or single- or double-blind), while quasi-randomized studies were excluded. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials assessed bias. Analyses used a random-effects model on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. Risk ratio (RR) was used for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes. When different units or scales were used, Hedge's adjusted g standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated. Subgroup and preplanned sensitivity analyses explored heterogeneity and evaluated findings' strength and consistency.

Results: In total, 44 RCTs with 3935 participants were included. Trazodone did not significantly impact subjective total sleep time (TST) [WMD = 0.73 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 24.62; 26.07, p = 0.96] but improved sleep quality (SQ) (SMD = - 0.58, 95% CI - 0.87; - 0.28, p < 0.01) and secondary outcomes. These included the number of nocturnal awakenings (SMD = - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.85; - 0.30], p < 0.01), nocturnal time awake after sleep onset (WMD = - 13.47 min, 95% CI - 23.09; - 3.86], p < 0.01), objective TST by polysomnography (WMD = 27.98 min, 95% CI 4.02; 51.95, p = 0.02), and sleep efficiency (WMD = 3.32, 95% CI 0.53; 1.57, p = 0.02). Tolerability issues included more dropouts owing to adverse effects (RR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.45; 3.64, p < 0.01), any sleep-related adverse effects (RR = 3.67, 95% CI 1.07; 12.47, p = 0.04), more adverse effects in general (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.03; 1.33, p = 0.02), and more sleep-related adverse effects (RR = 4.31, 95% CI 2.29; 8.13, p < 0.01).

Conclusion: Trazodone extends total sleep time but does not affect perceived sleep duration. It may improve sleep quality and continuity but has minor effects on sleep latency, efficiency, and daytime impairment. Trazodone is associated with adverse effects, necessitating a careful risk-benefit assessment. Limited data restrict generalizability, underscoring the need for more research.

Registration: PROSPERO registration number,CRD42022383121.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is responsible for most epilepsy-related deaths. It is mainly related to unwitnessed nocturnal convulsions, either focal to bilateral or generalised tonic-clonic seizures (TCS). Targeted preventive strategies are currently lacking as underlying mechanisms are largely unknown. Antiseizure medications (ASMs) modulate SUDEP risk through seizure reduction, but it is yet undetermined whether individual ASMs or other medications could also influence the internal SUDEP cascade. Seizure detection devices (SDD) may offer an alternative strategy by preventing TCS from being unwitnessed. Here, we critically evaluated the current evidence on the influence of ASMs, non-epilepsy concomitant drugs and SDD on SUDEP occurrence. We found no robust evidence for the effect of starting ASMs on SUDEP beyond TCS control, but we found some indications of a protective effect for polytherapy. We found no signs that specific ASMs exert a risk for SUDEP. One study suggested a possible protective effect of levetiracetam requiring further investigation. Only a few small studies addressed the association between non-epilepsy concomitant drugs and SUDEP, with no consistent effect for psychotropic medications and one more extensive study suggesting a lower risk among statin users. We only found indirect evidence indicating a protective effect for enhancing nocturnal supervision without explicitly addressing the impact of SDD on SUDEP occurrence. Further work is needed to explore the potential of ASMs and other interventions to modulate SUDEP risk, and they should accurately account for TCS frequency, polypharmacy and markers of non-adherence.

Radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) is the earliest stage in the disease continuum of multiple sclerosis (MS). RIS is discovered incidentally in individuals who are asymptomatic but have typical lesions in the brain and/or spinal cord suggestive of demyelination. The 2009 and revised 2023 RIS criteria were developed for diagnosis. Presymptomatic individuals who fulfill the 2009 RIS criteria by having 3–4 of 4 dissemination in space McDonald 2005 MS criteria are still diagnosed with RIS using the revised 2023 RIS criteria. In presymptomatic individuals who do not fulfill the 2009 RIS criteria, the revised 2023 RIS criteria target to secure an accurate and timely diagnosis: In addition to (a) having one lesion in two of four locations (periventricular, juxtacortical/cortical, infratentorial, spinal cord), (b) two of three features (spinal cord lesion, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-restricted oligoclonal bands, and new T2 or gadolinium-enhancing lesion) should be fulfilled. Among laboratory biomarkers, CSF kappa-free light chain can also increase diagnostic accuracy. Once the diagnosis is confirmed, the established risk factors, including demographics, imaging, and laboratory biomarkers, should be evaluated for symptomatic MS transition and prognosis. Younger age, male sex, increased neurofilament-light chain, CSF abnormality, and the presence of infratentorial, spinal cord, or gadolinium-enhancing lesions on imaging are the main risk factors for transition to symptomatic MS. Two randomized clinical trials showed significant efficacy of disease-modifying treatments in delaying or preventing the development of the first clinical event in RIS. However, because some individuals remain as RIS, it is crucial to identify the individuals with a higher number of risk factors to optimize disease outcomes by early intervention while minimizing adverse events. Discussing each RIS case with an expert MS team is recommended because there is still a lack of clinical guidelines to improve care, counseling, and surveillance.

Over the last decade, as molecular platforms have permitted the characterization of the genomic landscape of pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors, pediatric neuro-oncology has dramatically transformed. NTRK fusions are oncogenic driver alterations that have been found in a multitude of tumor types, including pediatric CNS tumors. In recent years, NTRK inhibitors have emerged as a promising class of targeted therapies for pediatric CNS tumors with NTRK gene fusions. The use of larotrectinib and entrectinib in the relapsed setting for pediatric CNS tumors has resulted in rapid and robust responses in an important fraction of patients. These agents are well tolerated, although close to 20% of patients have spontaneous bone fractures. Given the existing data for patients with relapsed disease, clinical trials using NTRK inhibitors in the upfront setting is the next natural progression of efficacy testing and many are currently underway. There are still several challenges that need to be addressed to optimize the use of NTRK inhibitors and identify the patients with NTRK fusion-positive CNS tumors who are most likely to benefit from them. As these agents are more broadly used, resistance will become a more pervasive issue and strategies will need to be determined for this scenario. This article summarizes the current status of NTRK inhibitors for pediatric CNS tumors and discusses the opportunities and challenges of their expanding use in the future.

Introduction: In recent years, pregabalin has received growing attention due to its abuse liability. The aim of this study was to further characterize patterns of pregabalin users from substance abuse treatment facilities and detect changes in users profile over the study period.

Methods: The data source was the Observation des Produits Psychotropes Illicites ou Détournés de leur Utilisation Médicamenteuse (OPPIDUM) program, an annual, repeated, cross-sectional, nationwide, multicenter survey that collects consumption data from patients with substance use disorders. First, we described the characteristics of pregabalin users and their consumption patterns. We compared these data between 2008 and 2018 (P1) and 2019 and 2022 (P2). Second, we conducted a multiple correspondence analysis to identify profiles of users.

Results: From 2008 to 2022, 291 pregabalin users (0.37% of all users) from 116 substance abuse treatment facilities were identified. The number of pregabalin users was lower than 15 per year in P1 (n = 89) and between 40 and 60 per year in P2 (n = 202). The number of users who reported pregabalin as the first substance leading to dependence increased significantly in P2 compared with P1 (p < 0.005). When comparing P2 with P1, there was a significant increase in precarity (p < 0.001), users in prison (p = 0.002), withdrawal symptoms (p < 0.001), dependence (p < 0.001), use of higher dose of pregabalin (p = 0.029), and acquisition by deal/street market (p < 0.001). The multiple correspondence analysis allowed for the identification of distinct profiles of pregabalin users: (i) a cluster with mainly users from P1, who presented a simple use of pregabalin, and were older (> 45 years), were involved in opioid agonist treatment (OAT), and obtained pregabalin legally; and (ii) a cluster with mainly users from P2, who presented pregabalin dependence, and were younger (< 26 years), reported pregabalin as the first substance leading to dependence, used doses higher than the market authorization, were in severe precarity, and were in prison.

Conclusions: These data showed that the profile of pregabalin users has changed in the last years. Pregabalin use disorders also affect users without history of addiction.

Background and objective: CDKL5 deficiency disorder presents as a challenging condition with early-onset refractory seizures, severe developmental delays, and a range of other neurological symptoms. Our study aimed to explore the benefits and side effects of anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in managing seizures among individuals with CDKL5 deficiency disorder, drawing on data from the International CDKL5 Disorder Database.

Methods: Data for this retrospective cohort study were obtained from the International CDKL5 Disorder Database, which contains responses from a baseline questionnaire administered between 2012 and 2022 and a follow-up questionnaire administered between 2018 and 2019. Families of eligible individuals were asked to provide information on ASMs that were previously and currently taken, the dose prescribed, the age at starting the medications, and the age at discontinuation for past medications. The outcome variables of interest were perceived seizure-related benefits for the current and past use of ASMs and caregiver-reported side effects. Rescue medications and infrequently used ASMs were excluded from the analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the characteristics of the study population.

Results: The study included 399 children and adults with CDKL5 deficiency disorder, descriptively analysing the perceived benefits and side effects of 23 unique ASMs based on caregiver reports. The study identified levetiracetam, topiramate, sodium valproate, vigabatrin, phenobarbital and clobazam as the most used ASMs. Notably, cannabidiol showed highly beneficial outcomes with few side effects, whereas levetiracetam and phenobarbital exhibited less favourable benefit-to-side-effect ratios. Dual therapy involving sodium valproate and levetiracetam was only used a small number (n = 5) of times but appeared effective in reducing seizure activity with relatively few side effects. Compared with monotherapy, polytherapy had a relatively higher likelihood of reported side effects than benefits.

Conclusions: The study, leveraging a large sample size that exceeds that of previous research, emphasises the complex nature of seizure management in CDKL5 deficiency disorder. Our findings underscore the necessity of ongoing research to optimise treatment strategies, considering both the efficacy of seizure control and the potential for adverse effects. The study also points to the need for future investigations into the therapeutic potential of emerging treatments such as ganaxolone and the unresolved efficacy of cannabis products in seizure management.

Clozapine-induced myocarditis (CIM) is among the most important adverse events limiting the use of clozapine as the most effective treatment for schizophrenia. CIM necessitates the immediate termination of clozapine, often resulting in its permanent discontinuation with considerable detrimental effects on patients' psychopathology and long-term outcome. Consequently, a clozapine re-challenge after CIM is increasingly regarded as a viable alternative, with published reports indicating a success rate of approximately 60%. However, published cases of re-challenges after CIM remain limited. Here, we provide a narrative review of the current state of research regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, diagnosis and clinical management of CIM as well as a synthesis of current recommendations for re-challenging patients after CIM. This includes a step-by-step guide for this crucial procedure based on the current evidence regarding the pathophysiology and risk factors for CIM. Slow dose titration regimes and addressing risk factors including concomitant valproate and olanzapine are crucial both to prevent CIM and to ensure a safe and successful re-challenge. Furthermore, we discuss the utility of C-reactive protein, troponin, N-terminal-pro hormone and brain natriuretic peptide, therapeutic drug-monitoring and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for CIM screening and diagnosis as well as for post-CIM re-challenges.

Scientific and public attention on the therapeutic effects of psychedelics and other psychoactive compounds in headache disorders has recently grown. The use and reported therapeutic effects of such treatments have long been reported, though formal clinical trials are only recently taking place. When considering how these substances might be further studied and eventually applied, it is important to consider the specific headache disorder, the particular drug, and the mode of use. No singular protocol will be applicable across all headache disorders and drugs. In this leading article, the nuance required to consider the value of classic psychedelics, ketamine, and cannabinoids as headache medicines is presented.