Archive for category Pharmacological

[Abstract] Pharmacological Optimization for Successful Traumatic Brain Injury Drug Development

The purpose of this review is to highlight the pharmacological barrier to drug development for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to discuss best practice strategies to overcome such barriers. Specifically, this article will review the pharmacological considerations of moving from the disease target “hit” to the “lead” compound with drug-like and central nervous system (CNS) penetrant properties. In vitro assessment of drug-like properties will be detailed, followed by pre-clinical studies to ensure adequate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of response. The importance of biomarker development and utilization in both pre-clinical and clinical studies will be detailed, along with the importance of identifying diagnostic, pharmacodynamic/response, and prognostic biomarkers of injury type or severity, drug target engagement, and disease progression. This review will detail the important considerations in determining in vivo pre-clinical dose selection, as well as cross-species and human equivalent dose selection. Specific use of allometric scaling, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic criteria, as well as incorporation of biomarker assessments in human dose selection for clinical trial design will also be discussed. The overarching goal of this review is to detail the pharmacological considerations in the drug development process as a method to improve both pre-clinical and clinical study design as we evaluate novel therapies to improve outcomes in patients with TBI.

 

via Pharmacological Optimization for Successful Traumatic Brain Injury Drug Development | Journal of Neurotrauma

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[TED Talk] Rebecca Brachman: A new class of drug that could prevent depression and PTSD – TED Talk

Current treatments for depression and PTSD only suppress symptoms, if they work at all. What if we could prevent these diseases from developing altogether? Neuroscientist and TED Fellow Rebecca Brachman shares the story of her team’s accidental discovery of a new class of drug that, for the first time ever, could prevent the negative effects of stress — and boost a person’s ability to recover and grow. Learn how these resilience-enhancing drugs could change the way we treat mental illness.

This talk was presented at an official TED conference, and was featured by our editors on the home page.

via Rebecca Brachman: A new class of drug that could prevent depression and PTSD | TED Talk

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Effectiveness of botulinum toxin treatment for upper limb spasticity after stroke over different ICF domains: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Objective

To provide a comprehensive overview of reported effects and scientific robustness of botulinum toxin (BoNT) treatment regarding the main clinical goals related to post-stroke upper limb spasticity, using the ICF classification.

Data sources

Embase.com, PubMed, Wiley/Cochrane Library, and Ebsco/CINAHL were searched from inception up to 16 May 2018.

Study Selection

Randomized controlled trials comparing upper limb BoNT injections with a control intervention in stroke patients were included. A total of 1212 unique records were screened by two independent reviewers. Forty trials were identified, including 2718 stroke patients.

Data Extraction

Outcome data were pooled according to assessment timing (i.e. 4-8 and 12 weeks after injection), and categorized into six main clinical goals (i.e. spasticity-related pain, involuntary movements, passive joint motion, care ability, arm and hand use, and standing and walking performance). Sensitivity analyses were performed for the influence of study and intervention characteristics, involvement of pharmaceutical industry, and publication bias.

Data Synthesis

Robust evidence is shown for the effectiveness of BoNT in reducing resistance to passive movement, as measured with the (Modified) Ashworth Score, and improving self-care ability for the affected hand and arm after intervention (p<0.005) and at follow-up (p<0.005). In addition, robust evidence is shown for the absence of effect on ‘arm-hand capacity’ at follow-up. BoNT significantly reduced ‘involuntary movements’, ‘spasticity-related pain’, and ‘carer burden’, and improved ‘passive range of motion’, while no evidence was found for ‘arm and hand use’ after intervention.

Conclusions

In view of the robustness of current evidence, no further trials are needed to investigate BoNT for its favourable effects on resistance to passive movement of the spastic wrist and fingers, and on self-care. No trials are needed to further confirm the lack of effects of BoNT on arm-hand capacity, whereas additional trials are needed to establish the suggested favourable effects of BoNT on other ‘body functions’ which may result in clinically meaningful outcomes at ‘activity’ and ‘participation’ levels.

via Effectiveness of botulinum toxin treatment for upper limb spasticity after stroke over different ICF domains: a systematic review and meta-analysis – Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Upper Limb Training on Spasticity, Function and Muscle Activity in Chronic Stroke Patients Treated With Botulinum Toxin: A Randomized Single-Blinded Controlled Trial

Abstract

Background: The combined use of Robot-assisted UL training and Botulinum toxin (BoNT) appear to be a promising therapeutic synergism to improve UL function in chronic stroke patients.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of Robot-assisted UL training on UL spasticity, function, muscle strength and the electromyographic UL muscles activity in chronic stroke patients treated with Botulinum toxin.

Methods: This single-blind, randomized, controlled trial involved 32 chronic stroke outpatients with UL spastic hemiparesis. The experimental group (n = 16) received robot-assisted UL training and BoNT treatment. The control group (n = 16) received conventional treatment combined with BoNT treatment. Training protocols lasted for 5 weeks (45 min/session, two sessions/week). Before and after rehabilitation, a blinded rater evaluated patients. The primary outcome was the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). Secondary outcomes were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale (FMA) and the Medical Research Council Scale (MRC). The electromyographic activity of 5 UL muscles during the “hand-to-mouth” task was explored only in the experimental group and 14 healthy age-matched controls using a surface Electromyography (EMGs).

Results: No significant between-group differences on the MAS and FMA were measured. The experimental group reported significantly greater improvements on UL muscle strength (p = 0.004; Cohen’s d = 0.49), shoulder abduction (p = 0.039; Cohen’s d = 0.42), external rotation (p = 0.019; Cohen’s d = 0.72), and elbow flexion (p = 0.043; Cohen’s d = 1.15) than the control group. Preliminary observation of muscular activity showed a different enhancement of the biceps brachii activation after the robot-assisted training.

Conclusions: Robot-assisted training is as effective as conventional training on muscle tone reduction when combined with Botulinum toxin in chronic stroke patients with UL spasticity. However, only the robot-assisted UL training contributed to improving muscle strength. The single-group analysis and the qualitative inspection of sEMG data performed in the experimental group showed improvement in the agonist muscles activity during the hand-to-mouth task.

Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03590314

Introduction

Upper limb (UL) sensorimotor impairments are one of the major determinants of long-term disability in stroke survivors (). Several disturbances are the manifestation of UL impairments after stroke (i.e., muscle weakness, changes in muscle tone, joint disturbances, impaired motor control). However, spasticity and weakness are the primary reason for rehabilitative intervention in the chronic stages (). Historically, spasticity refers to a velocity-dependent increase in tonic stretch reflexes with exaggerated tendon jerks resulting from hyperexcitability of the stretch reflex () while weakness is the loss of the ability to generate the normal amount of force.

From 7 to 38% of post-stroke patients complain of UL spasticity in the first year (). The pathophysiology of spasticity is complicated, and new knowledge has progressively challenged this definition. Processes involving central and peripheral mechanisms contribute to the spastic movement disorder resulting in abnormal regulation of tonic stretch reflex and increased muscle resistance of the passively stretched muscle and deficits in agonist and antagonist coactivation (). The resulting immobilization of the muscle at a fixed length for a prolonged time induces secondary biomechanical and viscoelastic properties changes in muscles and soft tissues, and pain (). These peripheral mechanisms, in turn, leads to further stiffness, and viscoelastic muscle changes (). Whether the muscular properties changes may be adaptive and secondary to paresis are uncertain. However, the management of UL spasticity should combine treatment of both the neurogenic and peripheral components of spasticity ().

UL weakness after stroke is prevalent in both acute and chronic phases of recovery (). It is a determinant of UL function in ADLs and other negative consequences such as bone mineral content (), atrophy and altered muscle pattern of activation. Literature supports UL strengthening training effectiveness for all levels of impairment and in all stages of recovery (). However, a small number of trials have been performed in chronic subgroup patients, and there is still controversy in including this procedure in UL rehabilitation ().

Botulinum toxin (BoNT) injection in carefully selected muscles is a valuable treatment for spastic muscles in stroke patients improving deficits in agonist and antagonist coactivation, facilitating agonist recruitment and increasing active range of motion (). However, improvements in UL activity or performance is modest (). With a view of improving UL function after stroke, moderate to high-quality evidence support combining BoNT treatment with other rehabilitation procedures (). Specifically, the integration of robotics in the UL rehabilitation holds promise for developing high-intensity, repetitive, task-specific, interactive treatment of upper limb (). The combined use of these procedures to compensate for their limitations has been studied in only one pilot RCT reporting positive results in UL function (Fugl-Meyer UL Assessment scale) and muscular activation pattern (). With the limits of the small sample, the results support the value of combining high-intensity UL training by robotics and BoNT treatment in patients with UL spastic paresis.

Clinical scales are currently used to assess the rehabilitation treatment effects, but these outcome measures may suffer from some drawbacks that can be overcome by instrumental assessment as subjectivity, limited sensitivity, and the lack of information on the underlying training effects on motor control (). Instrumental assessment, such as surface electromyography (sEMG) during a functional task execution allows assessing abnormal activation of spastic muscles and deficits of voluntary movements in patients with stroke.

Moreover, the hand-to-mouth task is representative of Activities of Daily Life (ADL) such as eating and drinking. Kinematic analysis of the hand-to-mouth task has been widely used to assess UL functions in individuals affected by neurological diseases showing adequate to more than adequate test-retest reliability in healthy subjects (). The task involves flexing the elbow a slightly flexing the shoulder against gravity, and it is considered to be a paradigmatic functional task for the assessment of spasticity and strength deficits on the elbow muscles (). Although sEMG has been reported to be a useful assessment procedure to detect muscle activity improvement after rehabilitation, limited results have been reported ().

The primary aim of this study was to explore the therapeutic synergisms of combined robot-assisted upper limb training and BoNT treatment on upper limb spasticity. The secondary aim was to evaluate the treatment effects on UL function, muscle strength, and the electromyographic activity of UL muscles during a functional task.

The combined treatment would contribute to decrease UL spasticity and improve function through a combination of training effects between BoNT neurolysis and the robotic treatment. A reduction of muscle tone would parallel improvement in muscle strength ought to the high-intensity, repetitive and task-specific robotic training. Since spasticity is associated with abnormal activation of shortening muscles and deficits in voluntary movement of the UL, the sEMG assessment would target these impairments ().

Materials and Methods

Trial Design

A single-blind RCT with two parallel group is reported. The primary endpoint was the changes in UL spasticity while the secondary endpoints were changes in UL function, muscle strength and the electromyographic activity of UL muscles during a functional task. The study was conducted according to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki, the guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), approved by the local Ethics Committee “Nucleo ricerca clinica–Research and Biostatistic Support Unit” (prog n.2366), and registered at clinical trial (NCT03590314).

Patients

Chronic post-stroke patients with upper-limb spasticity referred to the Neurorehabilitation Unit (AOUI Verona) and the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Section, “OORR” Hospital (University of Foggia) were assessed for eligibility.

Inclusion criteria were: age > 18 years, diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic first-ever stroke as documented by a computerized tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging, at least 6 months since stroke, Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) score (shoulder and elbow) ≤ 3 and ≥1+ (), BoNT injection within the previous 12 weeks of at least one of muscles of the affected upper limb, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score ≥24 () and Trunk Control Test score = 100/100 ().

Exclusion criteria were: any rehabilitation intervention in the 3 months before recruitment, bilateral cerebrovascular lesion, severe neuropsychologic impairment (global aphasia, severe attention deficit or neglect), joint orthopedic disorders.

All participants were informed regarding the experimental nature of the study. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects. The local ethics committee approved the study.

Interventions

Each patient underwent a BoNT injection in the paretic limb. The dose of BoNT injected into the target muscle was based on the severity of spasticity in each case. Different commercial formulations of BoNT were used according to the pharmaceutical portfolio contracts of our Hospitals (Onabotulinumtoxin A, Abobotulinumtoxin A, and Incobotulinumtoxin A). The dose, volume and number of injection sites were set accordingly. A Logiq ® Book XP portable ultrasound system (GE Healthcare; Chalfont St. Giles, UK) was used to inject BoNT into the target muscle.

Before the start of the study authors designed the experimental (EG) and the control group (CG) protocols. Two physiotherapists, one for each group, carried out the rehabilitation procedures. Patients of both groups received ten individual sessions (45 min/session, two sessions/week, five consecutive weeks). Treatments were performed in the rehabilitative gym of the G. B. Rossi University Hospital Neurological Rehabilitation Unit, or “OORR” Hospital.

Robot-Assisted UL Training

The Robot-assisted UL Training group was treated using the electromechanical device Armotion (Reha Technology, Olten, Switzerland). It is an end-effector device that allows goal-directed arm movements in a bi-dimensional space with visual feedback. It offers different training modalities such as passive, active, passive-active, perturbative, and assistive modes. The robot can move, drive or oppose the patient’s movement and allows creating a personalized treatment, varying parameters such as some repetitions, execution speed, resistance degree of motion. The exercises available from the software are supported by games that facilitate the functional use of the paretic arm (). The robot is equipped with a control system called “impedance control” that modulates the robot movements for adapting to the motor behavior of the patient’s upper limb. The joints involved in the exercises were the shoulder and the elbow, is the wrist fixed to the device.

The Robot-assisted UL Training consisted of passive mobilization and stretching exercises for affected UL (10 min) followed by robot-assisted exercises (35 min). Four types of exercises contained within the Armotion software and amount of repetitions were selected as follows: (i) “Collect the coins” (45–75 coins/10 min), (ii) “Drive the car” (15–25 laps/10 min), (iii) “Wash the dishes” (40–60 repetitions/10 min), and (iv) “Burst the balloons” (100–150 balloons/5 min) (Figure 1). All exercises were oriented to achieving several goals in various directions, emphasizing the elbow flexion-extension and reaching movement. The robot allows participants to execute the exercises through an “assisted as needed” control strategy. For increment the difficulty, we have varied the assisted and non-assisted modality, increasing the number of repetitions over the study period.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fneur-10-00041-g0001.jpg

Figure 1
The upper limb robot-assisted training setting.

Conventional Training

The conventional training consisted of UL passive mobilization and stretching (10 min) followed by UL exercises (35 min) that incorporated single or multi-joint movements for the scapula, shoulder, and elbow, performed in different positions (i.e., supine and standing position). The increase of difficulty and progression of intensity were obtained by increasing ROM, repetitions and performing movements against gravity or slight resistance (). Training parameters were recorded on the patient’s log. […]

 

Continue —>  Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Upper Limb Training on Spasticity, Function and Muscle Activity in Chronic Stroke Patients Treated With Botulinum Toxin: A Randomized Single-Blinded Controlled Trial

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] How effective is physical therapy for gait muscle activity in hemiparetic patients who receive botulinum toxin injections?

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Administration of botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT-A) to the ankle plantar flexors in patients with hemiplegia reduces the strength of knee extension, which may decrease their walking ability. Studies have reported improvements in walking ability with physical therapy following BoNT-A administration. However, no previous studies have evaluated from an exercise physiology perspective the efficacy of physical therapy after BoNT-A administration for adult patients with hemiplegia.

AIM: To investigate the effects of physical therapy following BoNT-A administration on gait electromyography for patients with hemiparesis secondary to stroke.

DESIGN: Non-randomized controlled trial.

SETTING: Single center.

POPULATION: Thirty-five patients with chronic stroke with spasticity were assigned to BoNT-A monotherapy (N.=18) or BoNT-A plus physical therapy (PT) (N.=17).

METHODS: On the paralyzed side of the body, 300 single doses of BoNT-A were administered intramuscularly to the ankle plantar flexors. Physical therapy was performed for 2 weeks, starting from the day after administration. Gait electromyography was performed and gait parameters were measured immediately before and 2 weeks after BoNT-A administration. Relative muscle activity, coactivation indices, and walking time/distance were calculated for each phase.

RESULTS: For patients who received BoNT-A monotherapy, soleus activity during the loading response decreased 2 weeks after the intervention (P<0.01). For those who received BoNT-A+PT, biceps femoris activity and knee coactivation index during the loading response and tibialis anterior activity during the pre-swing phases increased, whereas soleus and rectus femoris activities during the swing phase decreased 2 weeks after the intervention (P<0.05). These rates of change were significantly greater than those for patients who received BoNT-A monotherapy (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Following BoNT-A monotherapy, soleus activity during the stance phase decreased and walking ability either remained unchanged or deteriorated. Following BoNT-A+PT, muscle activity and knee joint stability increased during the stance phase, and abnormal muscle activity during the swing phase was suppressed.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: If botulinum treatment of the ankle plantar flexors in stroke patients is targeted to those with low knee extension strength, or if it aims to improve leg swing on the paralyzed side of the body, then physical therapy following BoNT-A administration could be an essential part of the treatment strategy.

HTML PDF

via How effective is physical therapy for gait muscle activity in hemiparetic patients who receive botulinum toxin injections? – European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2019 February;55(1):8-18 – Minerva Medica – Journals

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] SUPPORTIVE PRINCIPLES IN THE PHARMACOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF THE PATIENTS WITH EPILEPSY

Abstract

Background: Pharmacological management of patients with epilepsy is still a very challenging approach for the best outcome of these patients. When considering the appropriate treatment choice for patients it is necessary to take into account several factors that can influence the effectiveness and quality of life. Cancelling or changing treatment suddenly can lead to uncontrolled seizures. After a short period without seizures, many patients are tempted to abandon treatment. Cessation of treatment can be discussed after a seizure-free period for at least two years. Treatment should be discontinued gradually by reducing the dosage and constant supervision of the physician. This paper analyses briefly the general pharmacological and treatment methods in several forms of adult epilepsy.

Conclusions: Management of epilepsy means more than observing the medication prescribed by the specialist. It is also important for the patient to maintain his general health status, monitor the symptoms of epilepsy and response to treatment and take care of his safety. Involvement in the management of one’s own affection can help the patient to control his condition and to continue his routine in usual manner. The objective of antiepileptic treatment is to reduce epileptic seizures to zero without intolerable side effects. New treatments should focus not only on reducing the frequency and intensity of seizures but also improving the quality of life of patients. Key words: patient, epilepsy, therapy and dynamics.

Introduction

The analysis of the specialized literature reveals that many issues regarding differential treatment of epilepsy require subsequent clarification. As far as we are concerned, we have designed and developed therapeutic recommendations, in our opinion, effective, supporting the results of treating epilepsy in its various stages, from premonition to status variants. In this context, the main element in the choice of preparations, besides the trivial clinical signs, was the use of sub-curative monitoring data, including repeated EEG examinations, which fixed the subjective response of patients. Choosing the best possible medicine or an optimal combination of medicines is sometimes difficult. The perfect antiepileptic should be long, nonsedative, well tolerated, very active in various types of convulsive and with non-harmful effects on vital organs and functions. In addition, it must be effective in various forms of active epilepsy and in treating underlying epileptic seizures and capable of restoring the electroencephalogram between seizures to its normal form [5; 9; 10; 18; 23; 24; 27; 31; 38; 40; 41; 43].

It is still debatable whether such a drug will ever be discovered, and especially one that will control all types of epilepsy. The thorough study of pharmacological properties allows us to appreciate which of the existing antiepileptics will meet the current requirements of our patients under study. Due to the fact that patients differ considerably after clinical response to known anticonvulsants and the possibilities of treatment with associated drugs are insufficiently and superficially researched, testing of more efficient substances including new combinations continues. Due to the modern medication, which benefits from a wide and sufficiently efficient range of specific drugs, a large proportion of the recurrent and the disabling sequelae of the disease can be prevented. The adverse effects of drugs are low, so many of the past patients who have been labelled for life by this suffering can now live a productive life. The actual ability to control this disease effectively prevents more of its severe consequences [12; 13; 15; 22; 29; 46; 50].

General principles of pharmacotherapy of epilepsies

In the treatment of psychiatric disorders of our patients with epilepsy we have taken into account the following principles:

Appropriate selection of the remedy, its dosing, routes of administration and possible side effects. And we took into account the following:

  1. The syndrome of psychic state – the gradual expression of the disorders, the relationship between productive and negative alterations and the type of impairment of psychic processes.
  2. The dynamic characteristics of the psychic state – the duration of the disturbances, the changes in the presence of paroxysmal manifestations.
  3. The somatic and neurological condition of the patient with epilepsy. This parameter is important in the context

of the evidence of side effects of favorable and unfavorable preparations. Somatic mood dictates and the route of administration of drugs: parenteral in gastrointestinal disorders, endonasal or transorbital (by electrophoresis) when parenteral administration is not preferred.

Individual features of the patient with epilepsy (age, weight, response to anticonvulsant therapy and others) are also considered. It is often forgotten that lower doses are indicated for children and older people as the exchange of substances in them is slow and standard dose treatment leads to accumulation of preparations and adverse effects [6; 7; 14; 19].

We recommend the gradual increase of the doses, with the preference of the minimal effective doses of the drugs. All the above-described drugs are initially indicated at minimal doses, then the dose gradually increases until the first positive effects are displayed, the subsequent increase of the doses is made after a certain period of time to stabilize the positive effect.

Complex treatment – it is necessary to prescribe unimoment of anticonvulsant remedies from different classes and groups in combination with non-medication methods. Polipharmacologic treatment has certain priorities in comparison with monotherapy because it addresses different links of the pathological process. It is important to avoid the multidimensional effects of many drugs, the doubling of the mechanisms of action and the predilection of some and the same psychological processes.

Continuous therapy. The treatment of productive disorders is done until their complete jugulation (sometimes with the purpose of preventing relapse and longer), of the deficient ones by alternating the cures, with gradual modifications [28; 30; 34; 39; 42].

Principles of medication of psychosomatic syndromes in epilepsy

Criteria for the effectiveness of psychotropic remedies administered in epilepsy are those of improving the knowledge and behavioral processes. More differentiated treatment is based on syndrome of mental disorders.

  1. Deficient disorder (transient dementia, mental-mental diminution, etc.) The treatment is continuously practiced, alternating the belts. It is rational to indicate the preparations of different subgroups. The following criteria are taken into consideration when drawing up the treatment scheme:

a) Main mechanism of action: nootrop, general metabolism, cerebrovascular or actoprotector;

b) Predominant action on mediating processes: GABA (piracetam, fenibut, gamma-aminobutyric acid); cholin-ergic (gliatiline); dopaminergic (nakom); and combined (meclofenoxate, glycine, glutamic acid);

c) With predominant action on the function of the encephalic structures: the cerebral and subcortical (nakom), on the left hemisphere (gliatilline); on the right hemisphere (cortexil);

d) With action on psychomotor activity: major stimulation (piracetam, nakom vinpocetine), mean enhancement (aminalone, gamma-aminobutyric acid, cerebrolizine, nicergoline, tanakan), diminishment (fenibut, glycine, ci-narizine);

e) Route of administration: parenteral, internal, endo-nasal, transorbital (by electrophoresis), mixed. Duration of treatment: from 7 days to 4 months (nakom, fenibut). On the basis of this therapy it is also possible to indicate prophylactic doses of anticonvulsants.

  1. For different types of excitation (chaotic, twilight, delusional, manic, psychopathic, etc.) the support treatment are the sedative neuroleptics. Major tranquilizers, barbiturates and other anticonvulsants, may also be indicated sedative antidepressants.
  • Hallucinatory delusions. More rational are antipsy-chotic neuroleptics. In the case of neuroleptic syndrome with caution are added corrective remedies. That adjuvant preparations use daytime tranquilizers, in depressive or anxious states are used antidepressants.
  • Emotional productive disruptions. In the states of excitation are indicated predominantly sedative neuroleptics and tranquilizers, antidepressants – in depression, tranquilizers and antiepileptics – in dysphoria, in anxiety states -neuroleptics and tranquilizers.

  • Productive districts nearby. Psychoparticular depressions are typically treated with “inor” euroleptics, preferably “behavioral correctors” or low doses of risperidone and tranquilizers; in neurotic manifestations (asthenia, obsessions, hysteria, hypocondria) are used tranquilizers and low doses of antidepressants [1; 2; 3; 4; 8; 11; 25; 26].
    КиберЛенинка: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/supportive-principles-in-the-pharmacological-management-of-the-patients-with-epilepsy

  • […]

    Continue —> SUPPORTIVE PRINCIPLES IN THE PHARMACOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF THE PATIENTS WITH EPILEPSY – тема научной статьи по медицине и здравоохранению читайте бесплатно текст научно-исследовательской работы в электронной библиотеке КиберЛенинка

    , , , , , ,

    Leave a comment

    [ARTICLE] Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Upper Limb Training on Spasticity, Function and Muscle Activity in Chronic Stroke Patients Treated With Botulinum Toxin: A Randomized Single-Blinded Controlled Trial – Full Text

    Background: The combined use of Robot-assisted UL training and Botulinum toxin (BoNT) appear to be a promising therapeutic synergism to improve UL function in chronic stroke patients.

    Objective: To evaluate the effects of Robot-assisted UL training on UL spasticity, function, muscle strength and the electromyographic UL muscles activity in chronic stroke patients treated with Botulinum toxin.

    Methods: This single-blind, randomized, controlled trial involved 32 chronic stroke outpatients with UL spastic hemiparesis. The experimental group (n = 16) received robot-assisted UL training and BoNT treatment. The control group (n = 16) received conventional treatment combined with BoNT treatment. Training protocols lasted for 5 weeks (45 min/session, two sessions/week). Before and after rehabilitation, a blinded rater evaluated patients. The primary outcome was the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). Secondary outcomes were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale (FMA) and the Medical Research Council Scale (MRC). The electromyographic activity of 5 UL muscles during the “hand-to-mouth” task was explored only in the experimental group and 14 healthy age-matched controls using a surface Electromyography (EMGs).

    Results: No significant between-group differences on the MAS and FMA were measured. The experimental group reported significantly greater improvements on UL muscle strength (p = 0.004; Cohen’s d = 0.49), shoulder abduction (p = 0.039; Cohen’s d = 0.42), external rotation (p = 0.019; Cohen’s d = 0.72), and elbow flexion (p = 0.043; Cohen’s d = 1.15) than the control group. Preliminary observation of muscular activity showed a different enhancement of the biceps brachii activation after the robot-assisted training.

    Conclusions: Robot-assisted training is as effective as conventional training on muscle tone reduction when combined with Botulinum toxin in chronic stroke patients with UL spasticity. However, only the robot-assisted UL training contributed to improving muscle strength. The single-group analysis and the qualitative inspection of sEMG data performed in the experimental group showed improvement in the agonist muscles activity during the hand-to-mouth task.

    Introduction

    Upper limb (UL) sensorimotor impairments are one of the major determinants of long-term disability in stroke survivors (1). Several disturbances are the manifestation of UL impairments after stroke (i.e., muscle weakness, changes in muscle tone, joint disturbances, impaired motor control). However, spasticity and weakness are the primary reason for rehabilitative intervention in the chronic stages (13). Historically, spasticity refers to a velocity-dependent increase in tonic stretch reflexes with exaggerated tendon jerks resulting from hyperexcitability of the stretch reflex (4) while weakness is the loss of the ability to generate the normal amount of force.

    From 7 to 38% of post-stroke patients complain of UL spasticity in the first year (5). The pathophysiology of spasticity is complicated, and new knowledge has progressively challenged this definition. Processes involving central and peripheral mechanisms contribute to the spastic movement disorder resulting in abnormal regulation of tonic stretch reflex and increased muscle resistance of the passively stretched muscle and deficits in agonist and antagonist coactivation (67). The resulting immobilization of the muscle at a fixed length for a prolonged time induces secondary biomechanical and viscoelastic properties changes in muscles and soft tissues, and pain (811). These peripheral mechanisms, in turn, leads to further stiffness, and viscoelastic muscle changes (28). Whether the muscular properties changes may be adaptive and secondary to paresis are uncertain. However, the management of UL spasticity should combine treatment of both the neurogenic and peripheral components of spasticity (910).

    UL weakness after stroke is prevalent in both acute and chronic phases of recovery (3). It is a determinant of UL function in ADLs and other negative consequences such as bone mineral content (3), atrophy and altered muscle pattern of activation. Literature supports UL strengthening training effectiveness for all levels of impairment and in all stages of recovery (3). However, a small number of trials have been performed in chronic subgroup patients, and there is still controversy in including this procedure in UL rehabilitation (3).

    Botulinum toxin (BoNT) injection in carefully selected muscles is a valuable treatment for spastic muscles in stroke patients improving deficits in agonist and antagonist coactivation, facilitating agonist recruitment and increasing active range of motion (681214). However, improvements in UL activity or performance is modest (13). With a view of improving UL function after stroke, moderate to high-quality evidence support combining BoNT treatment with other rehabilitation procedures (1915). Specifically, the integration of robotics in the UL rehabilitation holds promise for developing high-intensity, repetitive, task-specific, interactive treatment of upper limb (15). The combined use of these procedures to compensate for their limitations has been studied in only one pilot RCT reporting positive results in UL function (Fugl-Meyer UL Assessment scale) and muscular activation pattern (16). With the limits of the small sample, the results support the value of combining high-intensity UL training by robotics and BoNT treatment in patients with UL spastic paresis.

    Clinical scales are currently used to assess the rehabilitation treatment effects, but these outcome measures may suffer from some drawbacks that can be overcome by instrumental assessment as subjectivity, limited sensitivity, and the lack of information on the underlying training effects on motor control (17). Instrumental assessment, such as surface electromyography (sEMG) during a functional task execution allows assessing abnormal activation of spastic muscles and deficits of voluntary movements in patients with stroke.

    Moreover, the hand-to-mouth task is representative of Activities of Daily Life (ADL) such as eating and drinking. Kinematic analysis of the hand-to-mouth task has been widely used to assess UL functions in individuals affected by neurological diseases showing adequate to more than adequate test-retest reliability in healthy subjects (1819). The task involves flexing the elbow a slightly flexing the shoulder against gravity, and it is considered to be a paradigmatic functional task for the assessment of spasticity and strength deficits on the elbow muscles (1720). Although sEMG has been reported to be a useful assessment procedure to detect muscle activity improvement after rehabilitation, limited results have been reported (1621).

    The primary aim of this study was to explore the therapeutic synergisms of combined robot-assisted upper limb training and BoNT treatment on upper limb spasticity. The secondary aim was to evaluate the treatment effects on UL function, muscle strength, and the electromyographic activity of UL muscles during a functional task.

    The combined treatment would contribute to decrease UL spasticity and improve function through a combination of training effects between BoNT neurolysis and the robotic treatment. A reduction of muscle tone would parallel improvement in muscle strength ought to the high-intensity, repetitive and task-specific robotic training. Since spasticity is associated with abnormal activation of shortening muscles and deficits in voluntary movement of the UL, the sEMG assessment would target these impairments (281115).

    Materials and Methods

    Trial Design

    A single-blind RCT with two parallel group is reported. The primary endpoint was the changes in UL spasticity while the secondary endpoints were changes in UL function, muscle strength and the electromyographic activity of UL muscles during a functional task. The study was conducted according to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki, the guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), approved by the local Ethics Committee “Nucleo ricerca clinica–Research and Biostatistic Support Unit” (prog n.2366), and registered at clinical trial (NCT03590314).

    Patients

    Chronic post-stroke patients with upper-limb spasticity referred to the Neurorehabilitation Unit (AOUI Verona) and the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Section, “OORR” Hospital (University of Foggia) were assessed for eligibility.

    Inclusion criteria were: age > 18 years, diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic first-ever stroke as documented by a computerized tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging, at least 6 months since stroke, Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) score (shoulder and elbow) ≤ 3 and ≥1+ (22), BoNT injection within the previous 12 weeks of at least one of muscles of the affected upper limb, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score ≥24 (23) and Trunk Control Test score = 100/100 (24).

    Exclusion criteria were: any rehabilitation intervention in the 3 months before recruitment, bilateral cerebrovascular lesion, severe neuropsychologic impairment (global aphasia, severe attention deficit or neglect), joint orthopedic disorders.

    All participants were informed regarding the experimental nature of the study. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects. The local ethics committee approved the study.

    Interventions

    Each patient underwent a BoNT injection in the paretic limb. The dose of BoNT injected into the target muscle was based on the severity of spasticity in each case. Different commercial formulations of BoNT were used according to the pharmaceutical portfolio contracts of our Hospitals (Onabotulinumtoxin A, Abobotulinumtoxin A, and Incobotulinumtoxin A). The dose, volume and number of injection sites were set accordingly. A Logiq ® Book XP portable ultrasound system (GE Healthcare; Chalfont St. Giles, UK) was used to inject BoNT into the target muscle.

    Before the start of the study authors designed the experimental (EG) and the control group (CG) protocols. Two physiotherapists, one for each group, carried out the rehabilitation procedures. Patients of both groups received ten individual sessions (45 min/session, two sessions/week, five consecutive weeks). Treatments were performed in the rehabilitative gym of the G. B. Rossi University Hospital Neurological Rehabilitation Unit, or “OORR” Hospital.

    Robot-Assisted UL Training

    The Robot-assisted UL Training group was treated using the electromechanical device Armotion (Reha Technology, Olten, Switzerland). It is an end-effector device that allows goal-directed arm movements in a bi-dimensional space with visual feedback. It offers different training modalities such as passive, active, passive-active, perturbative, and assistive modes. The robot can move, drive or oppose the patient’s movement and allows creating a personalized treatment, varying parameters such as some repetitions, execution speed, resistance degree of motion. The exercises available from the software are supported by games that facilitate the functional use of the paretic arm (25). The robot is equipped with a control system called “impedance control” that modulates the robot movements for adapting to the motor behavior of the patient’s upper limb. The joints involved in the exercises were the shoulder and the elbow, is the wrist fixed to the device.

    The Robot-assisted UL Training consisted of passive mobilization and stretching exercises for affected UL (10 min) followed by robot-assisted exercises (35 min). Four types of exercises contained within the Armotion software and amount of repetitions were selected as follows: (i) “Collect the coins” (45–75 coins/10 min), (ii) “Drive the car” (15–25 laps/10 min), (iii) “Wash the dishes” (40–60 repetitions/10 min), and (iv) “Burst the balloons” (100–150 balloons/5 min) (Figure 1). All exercises were oriented to achieving several goals in various directions, emphasizing the elbow flexion-extension and reaching movement. The robot allows participants to execute the exercises through an “assisted as needed” control strategy. For increment the difficulty, we have varied the assisted and non-assisted modality, increasing the number of repetitions over the study period.[…]

     

    Figure 1. The upper limb robot-assisted training setting.

    Continue —> Frontiers | Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Upper Limb Training on Spasticity, Function and Muscle Activity in Chronic Stroke Patients Treated With Botulinum Toxin: A Randomized Single-Blinded Controlled Trial | Neurology

    , , , , , , , , , ,

    Leave a comment

    [Abstract + References] How safe is switching antiepileptic drug manufacturers?

    A nationwide German study of prescription data has demonstrated that switching to an antiepileptic drug from a different manufacturer increases the risk of seizure relapse. This finding sparks a debate about the reason for seizure worsening after switching and whether or not it is a pharmacological issue.

    References

    1. 1.

      Lang, J. D. et al. Switching the manufacturer of anti-epileptic drugs is associated with higher risk of seizures. Ann. Neurol.https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.25353 (2018).

    2. 2.

      Davit, B. M. et al. Comparing generic and innovator drugs: a review of 12 years of bioequivalence data from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Ann. Pharmacother. 43, 1583–1597 (2009).

    3. 3.

      Krauss, G. L. et al. Assessing bioequivalence of generic antiepilepsy drugs. Ann. Neurol. 70, 221–228 (2011).

    4. 4.

      Labiner, D. M. et al. Generic antiepileptic drugs and associated medical resource utilization in the United States. Neurology 74, 1566–1574 (2010).

    5. 5.

      Andermann, F. et al. Compulsory generic switching of antiepileptic drugs: high switchback rates to branded compounds compared with other drug classes. Epilepsia 48, 464–469 (2007).

    6. 6.

      Ting, T. J. et al. Generic lamotrigine versus brand-name Lamictal bioequivalence in patients with epilepsy: a field test of the FDA bioequivalence standard. Epilepsia 56, 1415–1424 (2015).

    7. 7.

      Privitera, M. D. et al. Generic-to-generic lamotrigine switches in people with epilepsy: the randomised controlled EQUIGEN trial. Lancet Neurol. 15, 365–372 (2016).

    8. 8.

      Gollwitzer, S. et al. Nonadherence to antiepileptic drugs in Germany: a retrospective, population-based study. Neurology 87, 466–472 (2016).

    9. 9.

      Kesselheim, A. S. et al. Variations in pill appearance of antiepileptic drugs and the risk of nonadherence. JAMA Intern. Med. 173, 202–208 (2013).

    10. 10.

      Holtkamp, M. & Theodore, W. H. Generic antiepileptic drugs — safe or harmful in patients with epilepsy? Epilepsia 59, 1273–1281 (2018).

    via How safe is switching antiepileptic drug manufacturers? | Nature Reviews Neurology

    , , , , ,

    Leave a comment

    [Abstract + References] Efficacy and Safety of Cannabidiol in Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    Abstract

    Background

    Approximately one-third of patients with epilepsy presents seizures despite adequate treatment. Hence, there is the need to search for new therapeutic options. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a major chemical component of the resin of Cannabis sativa plant, most commonly known as marijuana. The anti-seizure properties of CBD do not relate to the direct action on cannabinoid receptors, but are mediated by a multitude of mechanisms that include the agonist and antagonist effects on ionic channels, neurotransmitter transporters, and multiple 7-transmembrane receptors. In contrast to tetra-hydrocannabinol, CBD lacks psychoactive properties, does not produce euphoric or intrusive side effects, and is largely devoid of abuse liability.

    Objective

    The aim of the study was to estimate the efficacy and safety of CBD as adjunctive treatment in patients with epilepsy using meta-analytical techniques.

    Methods

    Randomized, placebo-controlled, single- or double-blinded add-on trials of oral CBD in patients with uncontrolled epilepsy were identified. Main outcomes included the percentage change and the proportion of patients with ≥ 50% reduction in monthly seizure frequency during the treatment period and the incidence of treatment withdrawal and adverse events (AEs).

    Results

    Four trials involving 550 patients with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) and Dravet syndrome (DS) were included. The pooled average difference in change in seizure frequency during the treatment period resulted 19.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.1–31.0; p = 0.001] percentage points between the CBD 10 mg and placebo groups and 19.9 (95% CI 11.8–28.1; p < 0.001) percentage points between the CBD 20 mg and placebo arms, in favor of CBD. The reduction in all-types seizure frequency by at least 50% occurred in 37.2% of the patients in the CBD 20 mg group and 21.2% of the placebo-treated participants [risk ratio (RR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.07–2.88; p = 0.025]. Across the trials, drug withdrawal for any reason occurred in 11.1% and 2.6% of participants receiving CBD and placebo, respectively (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.55–8.12; p = 0.003) [Chi squared = 2.53, degrees of freedom (df) = 3, p = 0.506; I2 = 0.0%]. The RRs to discontinue treatment were 1.45 (95% CI 0.28–7.41; p = 0.657) and 4.20 (95% CI 1.82–9.68; p = 0.001) for CBD at the doses of 10 and 20 mg/kg/day, respectively, in comparison to placebo. Treatment was discontinued due to AEs in 8.9% and 1.8% of patients in the active and control arms, respectively (RR 5.59, 95% CI 1.87–16.73; p = 0.002). The corresponding RRs for CBD at the doses of 10 and 20 mg/kg/day were 1.66 (95% CI 0.22–12.86; p = 0.626) and 6.89 (95% CI 2.28–20.80; p = 0.001). AEs occurred in 87.9% and 72.2% of patients treated with CBD and placebo (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.11–1.33; p < 0.001). AEs significantly associated with CBD were somnolence, decreased appetite, diarrhea, and increased serum aminotransferases.

    Conclusions

    Adjunctive CBD in patients with LGS or DS experiencing seizures uncontrolled by concomitant anti-epileptic treatment regimens is associated with a greater reduction in seizure frequency and a higher rate of AEs than placebo.

    References

    1. 1.
      Hirtz D, Thurman DJ, Gwinn-Hardy K, Mohamed M, Chaudhuri AR, Zalutsky R. How common are the “common” neurologic disorders? Neurology. 2007;68:326–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    2. 2.
      Cagnetti C, Lattanzi S, Foschi N, Provinciali L, Silvestrini M. Seizure course during pregnancy in catamenial epilepsy. Neurology. 2014;83:339–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    3. 3.
      Cockerell OC, Johnson AL, Sander JW, Hart YM, Shorvon SD. Remission of epilepsy: results from the national general practice study of epilepsy. Lancet. 1995;346:140–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    4. 4.
      Lattanzi S, Zaccara G, Giovannelli F, Grillo E, Nardone R, Silvestrini M, et al. Antiepileptic mono-therapy in newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. A network meta-analysis. Acta Neurol Scand.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.13025 (Epub 2018 Sep 8).
    5. 5.
      Lattanzi S, Cagnetti C, Foschi N, Provinciali L, Silvestrini M. Lacosamide monotherapy for partial onset seizures. Seizure. 2015;27:71–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    6. 6.
      Kwan P, Brodie MJ. Early identification of refractory epilepsy. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:314–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    7. 7.
      Lattanzi S, Cagnetti C, Foschi N, Lorusso A, Provinciali L, Silvestrini M. Eslicarbazepine acetate as adjunctive treatment in partial-onset epilepsy. Acta Neurol Scand. 2018;137:29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    8. 8.
      Lattanzi S, Cagnetti C, Matricardi S, Silvestrini M. Palliative non-resective surgery for drug-resistant epilepsy. Brain Dev. 2018;40:512–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    9. 9.
      Devinsky O, Cilio MR, Cross H, Fernandez-Ruiz J, French J, Hill C, et al. Cannabidiol: pharmacology and potential therapeutic role in epilepsy and other neuropsychiatric disorders. Epilepsia. 2014;55:791–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    10. 10.
      Ibeas Bih C, Chen T, Nunn AV, Bazelot M, Dallas M, Whalley BJ. Molecular targets of cannabidiol in neurological disorders. Neurotherapeutics. 2015;12:699–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    11. 11.
      GW Pharmaceuticals plc and its U.S. subsidiary Greenwich Biosciences announce FDA approval of EPIDIOLEX® (cannabidiol) oral solution—the first plant-derived cannabinoid prescription medicine. https://www.gwpharm.com/about-us/news/gw-pharmaceuticals-plc-and-its-us-subsidiary-greenwich-biosciences-announce-fda. Accessed Sep 2018.
    12. 12.
      Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    13. 13.
      Devinsky O, Marsh E, Friedman D, Thiele E, Laux L, Sullivan J, et al. Cannabidiol in patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy: an open-label interventional trial. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15:270–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    14. 14.
      Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed Jun 2018.
    15. 15.
      Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    16. 16.
      Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    17. 17.
      Lattanzi S, Cagnetti C, Foschi N, Provinciali L, Silvestrini M. Brivaracetam add-on for refractory focal epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2016;86:1344–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    18. 18.
      Lattanzi S, Brigo F, Grillo E, Cagnetti C, Verrotti A, Zaccara G, et al. Adjunctive eslicarbazepine acetate in pediatric patients with focal epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CNS Drugs. 2018;32:189–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    19. 19.
      Lattanzi S, Grillo E, Brigo F, Silvestrini M. Efficacy and safety of perampanel in Parkinson’s disease. A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Neurol. 2018;265:733–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    20. 20.
      Lattanzi S, Cagnetti C, Danni M, Provinciali L, Silvestrini M. Oral and intravenous steroids for multiple sclerosis relapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol. 2017;264:1697–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    21. 21.
      Lattanzi S, Brigo F, Cagnetti C, Di Napoli M, Silvestrini M. Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: to close or not to close? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018;45:193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    22. 22.
      Lattanzi S, Brigo F, Di Napoli M, Cagnetti C, Corradetti T, Silvestrini M. Endovascular treatment of symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Sci. 2018;391:48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    23. 23.
      Devinsky O, Patel AD, Thiele EA, Wong MH, Appleton R, Harden CL, et al.; GWPCARE1 Part A Study Group. Randomized, dose-ranging safety trial of cannabidiol in Dravet syndrome. Neurology. 2018;90:e1204–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    24. 24.
      Devinsky O, Cross JH, Laux L, Marsh E, Miller I, Nabbout R, et al.; Cannabidiol in Dravet Syndrome Study Group. Trial of cannabidiol for drug-resistant seizures in the Dravet syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2011–2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    25. 25.
      Devinsky O, Patel AD, Cross JH, Villanueva V, Wirrell EC, Privitera M, et al.; GWPCARE3 Study Group. Effect of cannabidiol on drop seizures in the Lennox–Gastaut syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1888-1897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    26. 26.
      Thiele EA, Marsh ED, French JA, Mazurkiewicz-Beldzinska M, Benbadis SR, Joshi C, et al.; GWPCARE4 Study Group. Cannabidiol in patients with seizures associated with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (GWPCARE4): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018;391:1085–96.Google Scholar
    27. 27.
      Lattanzi S, Brigo F, Cagnetti C, Trinka E, Silvestrini M. Efficacy and safety of adjunctive cannabidiol in patients with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CNS Drugs.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-018-0558-9 (Epub 2018 Aug 21).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    28. 28.
      Morrison G, Sardu M, Rasmussen C, Sommerville K, Roberts C, Blakey GE. Exposure-response analysis of cannabidiol oral solution for the treatment of Lennox–Gastaut syndrome [abstract no. 2.281]. The American Epilepsy Society Annual Meeting; 1–5 Dec 2017; Washington, DC. https://www.aesnet.org/meetings_events/annual_meeting_abstracts/view/344717. Accessed Jul 2018.
    29. 29.
      FDA. Cannabidiol oral solution. Full prescribing information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/210365lbl.pdf. Accessed Jul 2018.
    30. 30.
      Ng YT, Conry JA, Drummond R, Stolle J, Weinberg MA; OV-1012 Study Investigators. Randomized, phase III study results of clobazam in Lennox–Gastaut syndrome. Neurology. 2011;77:1473–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    31. 31.
      Glauser T, Kluger G, Sachdeo R, Krauss G, Perdomo C, Arroyo S. Rufinamide for generalized seizures associated with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome. Neurology. 2008;70:1950–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    32. 32.
      Chiron C, Tonnelier S, Rey E, Brunet ML, Tran A, d’Athis P, et al. Stiripentol in childhood partial epilepsy: randomized placebo-controlled trial with enrichment and withdrawal design. J Child Neurol. 2006;21:496–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    33. 33.
      FDA briefing document. Peripheral and central nervous system drugs. Advisory Committee Meeting. April 19, 2018. NDA 210365. Cannabidiol. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/advisorycommittees/committeesmeetingmaterials/drugs/peripheralandcentralnervoussystemdrugsadvisorycommittee/ucm604736.pdf. Accessed Jul 2018.
    34. 34.
      US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry. Drug-induced liver injury: premarketing clinical evaluation. 2009. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Guidances/UCM174090.pdf. Accessed Jul 2018.
    35. 35.
      Geffrey AL, Pollack SF, Bruno PL, Thiele EA. Drug-drug interaction between clobazam and cannabidiol in children with refractory epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2015;56:1246–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    36. 36.
      Thiele EA, Devinsky O, Checketts D, Knappertz V. Cannabidiol (CBD) treatment responders analysis in patients with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) on and off clobazam (CLB) [abstract no. 1.436]. The American Epilepsy Society Annual Meeting; 1–5 Dec 2017; Washington, DC. https://www.aesnet.org/meetings_events/annual_meeting_abstracts/view/381224. Accessed Jul 2018.
    37. 37.
      Gloss D, Vickrey B. Cannabinoids for epilepsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(3):CD009270.Google Scholar
    38. 38.
      Stockings E, Zagic D, Campbell G, Weier M, Hall WD, Nielsen S, et al. Evidence for cannabis and cannabinoids for epilepsy: a systematic review of con-trolled and observational evidence. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018;89:741–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    39. 39.
      Rhodes KM, Turner RM, Savović J, Jones HE, Mawdsley D, Higgins JPT. Between-trial heterogeneity in meta-analyses may be partially explained by reported design characteristics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;95:45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    40. 40.
      Devinsky O, Nabbout R, Miller I, Laux L, Zolnowska M, Wright S, et al. Maintenance of long-term safety and efficacy of cannabidiol (CBD) treatment in Dravet syndrome (DS): results of the open-label extension (OLE) trial (GWPCARE5) [abstract no. 1.289]. The American Epilepsy Society Annual Meeting; 1–5 Dec 2017; Washington, DC. https://www.aesnet.org/meetings_events/annual_meeting_abstracts/view/343046. Accessed Jul 2018.
    41. 41.
      Marsh ED, Mazurkiewicz-Beldzinska M, Halford JJ, Gunning B, Checketts D, Nichol K, et al. Maintained safety and efficacy of cannabidiol (CBD) in a long-term open-label trial in patients with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) (GWPCARE 5) [abstract no. 2.271]. The American Epilepsy Society Annual Meeting; 1–5 Dec 2017; Washington, DC. https://www.aesnet.org/meetings_events/annual_meeting_abstracts/view/344387. Accessed Jul 2018.
    42. 42.
      Szaflarski JP, Bebin EM, Comi AM, Patel AD, Joshi C, Checketts D, et al.; CBD EAP study group. Long-term safety and treatment effects of cannabidiol in children and adults with treatment-resistant epilepsies: expanded access program results. Epilepsia. 2018;59(8):1540–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.14477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

    via Efficacy and Safety of Cannabidiol in Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | SpringerLink

    , , , ,

    Leave a comment

    [WEB SITE] Memory-enhancing drug reverses effects of traumatic brain injury in mice

    The radial-arm water maze is a common test to assess working memory in rodents.

    Whether caused by a car accident that slams your head into the dashboard or repeated blows to your cranium from high-contact sports, traumatic brain injury can be permanent. There are no drugs to reverse the cognitive decline and memory loss, and any surgical interventions must be carried out within hours to be effective, according to the current medical wisdom. But a compound previously used to enhance memory in mice may offer hope: Rodents who took it up to a month after a concussion had memory capabilities similar to those that had never been injured.

    The study “offers a glimmer of hope for our traumatic brain injury patients,” says Cesario Borlongan, a neuroscientist who studies brain aging and repair at the University of South Florida in Tampa. Borlongan, who reviewed the new paper, notes that its findings are especially important in the clinic, where most rehabilitation focuses on improving motor—not cognitive—function.

    Traumatic brain injuries, which cause cell death and inflammation in the brain, affect 2 million Americans each year. But the condition is difficult to study, in part because every fall, concussion, or blow to the head is different. Some result in bleeding and swelling, which must be treated immediately by drilling into the skull to relieve pressure. But under the microscope, even less severe cases appear to trigger an “integrated stress response,” which throws protein synthesis in neurons out of whack and may make long-term memory formation difficult.

    In 2013, the lab of Peter Walter, a biochemist at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), discovered a compound—called ISRIB—that blocked the stress response in human cells in a dish. Surprisingly, when tested in healthy mice, ISRIB boosted their memory. Wondering whether the drug could also reverse memory impairment, Walter teamed up with UCSF neuroscientist Susanna Rosi to study mouse models of traumatic brain injury. First, they showed that the stress response remains active in the hippocampus, a brain region important for learning and memory, for at least 28 days in injured mice. And they wondered whether administering ISRIB would help.

    Rosi and her team first used mechanical pistons to hit anesthetized mice in precise parts of their surgically exposed brains, resulting in contusive injuries, focused blows that can also result from car accidents or being hit with a heavy object. After 4 weeks of rest, Rosi trained the mice to swim through a water maze, where they used cues to remember the location of a hidden resting platform. Healthy mice got better with practice, but the injured ones didn’t improve. However, when the injured mice were given ISRIB 3 days in a row, they were able to solve the maze just as quickly as healthy mice up to a week later, the researchers report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    “We kept replicating experiments, thinking maybe something went wrong,” Rosi says. So the team decided to study ISRIB in a second model of traumatic brain injury known as a closed head injury, which resembles a concussion from a fall. They again used a mechanical piston, but this time landed a broad blow to the back of the skull. Two weeks later, the mice were trained on a tougher maze, full of bright lights and loud noise. They had to scurry around a tabletop with 40 holes, looking for the one with an escape hatch. Again, while the uninjured mice improved at the task, the concussed mice never got the hang of it. But after four daily doses of ISRIB, the concussed mice performed as well as their healthy counterparts. “This is the most exciting piece of work I’ve ever done, no doubt,” Rosi says.

    “Paradigm shift is not too strong a term to use,” says Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, neurologist and director of clinical traumatic brain injury research at the University of Pennsylvania. “This … shows for the first time that a therapy in the chronic period of traumatic brain injury can have pretty potent effects.” Walter agrees. “Normally you would give up on these mice and say nothing can be done here,” he says. “But ISRIB just magically brings the cognitive ability back.”

    Still, Borlongan cautions that studies in animals often don’t pan out when tested in humans. He says that this drug has a leg up, though, because it was tested in two models and also readily crosses the blood-brain barrier, which prevents many drugs that look good on paper from entering the brain and having an effect.

    If the therapy translates to humans, it could be a boon for soldiers returning from war, who sometimes wait weeks between leaving the battlefield and arriving home for treatment. Brian Head, a neurobiologist at the VA San Diego Healthcare System in California notes that traumatic brain injury is still hard to diagnose, especially with veterans that show up to the clinic long after the injury. “But right now nothing else is working, and giving a compound [that works] a month later is really impressive.”

    In 2015, ISRIB was licensed to the secretive Google spinout company Calico, which studies the biology of aging and life span. Walter says his lab has a research agreement with Calico to pursue “basic mechanistic work” on ISRIB, but that the new study was not funded by Calico. Google declined to comment on the new research.

    Although the protein target of ISRIB is known, the exact manner in which the drug restores memory is hazy. The team hypothesizes that ISRIB may work by allowing normal protein synthesis—essential for making new neuronal connections and thus forming new memories—to resume, which would otherwise be blunted by the integrated stress response. “Even if this drug doesn’t materialize, other ways of manipulating the integrated stress response may lead to an effective treatment in the future,” Walter says.

    via Memory-enhancing drug reverses effects of traumatic brain injury in mice | Science | AAAS

    , , , , ,

    Leave a comment

    %d bloggers like this: