Department of Neurosurgery, UT Health, San Antonio, TX.
Neurosciences Research Center (NSRC), Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Clin Neuropharmacol. 2023;46(6):229-238. doi: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000577. Epub 2023 Oct 19.
Acute traumatic brain injury is one of the most common causes of death and disability. Reduction in the level of consciousness is a significant complication that can impact morbidity. Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the most widely used method of assessing the level of consciousness. Neurostimulants such as amantadine and modafinil are common pharmacologic agents that increase GCS in patients with brain trauma. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these 2 drugs.
This systematic review obtained articles from Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and MEDLINE databases. Extensive searches were conducted separately by 4 individuals in 3 stages. Ultimately, 16 clinical trials, cohort studies, case reports, and case series articles were obtained after reading the title, abstract, and full text and considering the exclusion criteria. The data of the final article were entered into the analysis table. This study was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022334409) and conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
Amantadine seems to be associated with a higher overall response rate. In contrast, modafinil is associated with the most remarkable change in GCS score during treatment. However, the number of clinical trials with high quality and sample size has not been satisfactory to compare the effectiveness of these 2 drugs and their potential side effects.
The authors recommend additional double-blind clinical trials are needed to be conducted with a larger sample size, comparing amantadine with modafinil to delineate the efficacy and adverse effects, both short and long term.
急性创伤性脑损伤是导致死亡和残疾的最常见原因之一。意识水平降低是一种严重的并发症,会影响发病率。格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)是评估意识水平最广泛使用的方法。金刚烷胺和莫达非尼等神经兴奋剂是增加颅脑创伤患者 GCS 的常用药物。本研究旨在比较这两种药物的疗效。
本系统评价通过 Google Scholar、PubMed、Scopus、Embase 和 MEDLINE 数据库获取文章。由 4 人分 3 个阶段分别进行广泛搜索。最终,在阅读标题、摘要和全文并考虑排除标准后,获得了 16 篇临床试验、队列研究、病例报告和病例系列文章。将最终文章的数据输入分析表。本研究已在 PROSPERO(注册号 CRD42022334409)上注册,并按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南进行。
金刚烷胺似乎与更高的总体反应率相关。相比之下,莫达非尼与治疗期间 GCS 评分的最大变化相关。然而,高质量和大样本量的临床试验数量并不足以比较这两种药物及其潜在副作用的疗效。
作者建议进行更多的双盲临床试验,样本量更大,比较金刚烷胺和莫达非尼,以阐明两者的短期和长期疗效和不良反应。