Explore the vast range of titles available.

Methylphenidate, modafinil, and amantadine are commonly prescribed medications for alleviating fatigue in multiple sclerosis; however, the evidence supporting their efficacy is sparse and conflicting. Our goal was to compare the efficacy of these three medications with each other and placebo in patients with multiple sclerosis fatigue. In this randomised, placebo-controlled, four-sequence, four-period, crossover, double-blind trial, patients with multiple sclerosis who reported fatigue and had a Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) score of more than 33 were recruited at two academic multiple sclerosis centres in the USA. Participants received oral amantadine (up to 100 mg twice daily), modafinil (up to 100 mg twice daily), methylphenidate (up to 10 mg twice daily), or placebo, each given for up to 6 weeks. All patients were intended to receive all four study medications, in turn, in one of four different sequences with 2-week washout periods between medications. A biostatistician prepared a concealed allocation schedule, stratified by site, randomly assigning a sequence of medications in approximately a 1:1:1:1 ratio, in blocks of eight, to a consecutive series of numbers. The statistician and pharmacists had no role in assessing the participants or collecting data, and the participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to allocation. The primary outcome measure was the MFIS measured while taking the highest tolerated dose at week 5 of each medication period, analysed by use of a linear mixed-effect regression model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03185065 and is closed. Between Oct 4, 2017, and Feb 27, 2019, of 169 patients screened, 141 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of four medication administration sequences: 35 (25%) patients to the amantadine, placebo, modafinil, and methylphenidate sequence; 34 (24%) patients to the placebo, methylphenidate, amantadine, and modafinil sequence; 35 (25%) patients to the modafinil, amantadine, methylphenidate, and placebo sequence; and 37 (26%) patients to the methylphenidate, modafinil, placebo, and amantadine sequence. Data from 136 participants were available for the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome. The estimated mean values of MFIS total scores at baseline and the maximal tolerated dose were as follows: 51·3 (95% CI 49·0–53·6) at baseline, 40·6 (38·2–43·1) with placebo, 41·3 (38·8–43·7) with amantadine, 39·0 (36·6–41·4) with modafinil, and 38·6 (36·2–41·0) with methylphenidate (p=0·20 for the overall medication effect in the linear mixed-effect regression model). As compared with placebo (38 [31%] of 124 patients), higher proportions of participants reported adverse events while taking amantadine (49 [39%] of 127 patients), modafinil (50 [40%] of 125 patients), and methylphenidate (51 [40%] of 129 patients). Three serious adverse events occurred during the study (pulmonary embolism and myocarditis while taking amantadine, and a multiple sclerosis exacerbation requiring hospital admission while taking modafinil). Amantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate were not superior to placebo in improving multiple sclerosis fatigue and caused more frequent adverse events. The results of this study do not support an indiscriminate use of amantadine, modafinil, or methylphenidate for the treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

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. .

•Modafinil shapes the thalamo-cortical functional connectivity in a specific manner.•The medial pulvinar increased connectivity with Sensorimotor/Attention Networks.•The anterior + inferior pulvinar enhanced connectivity with the Attention Network.•Ventral complex increased connectivity with the Default Mode/FrontoParietal Networks.•Connectivity changes overlap with the expression of 5-HT, mGluR5 receptors, and NET. Modafinil promotes wakefulness and enhances cognitive function through mechanisms and neural effects that are still partially unknown. Several studies have shown that the compound alters the functional cortical architecture. In contrast, its influence on subcortical regions and thalamocortical connections, which are crucial for modulating neocortical connectivity, remains unexplored. The acute modulation of thalamo-cortical connectivity was assessed in two groups of participants who received either a single 100 mg dose of modafinil (N = 25) or a placebo (N = 25). Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was used to parcel the thalamus into its constituent nuclei, which served as seeds for voxel-wise resting state functional connectivity analyses. Additionally, maps of nuclei-specific functional reorganization were compared to those of receptor/transporter expression to assess their spatial overlaps. Modafinil, but not placebo, altered the connectivity of three thalamic nuclei. Specifically, the medial pulvinar nuclei showed increased connectivity with cortical regions of the Sensorimotor and Salience/Ventral Attention (SVAN) Networks. These functional changes spatially overlapped with the distribution of the norepinephrine transporter (NET). Additionally, the anterior and inferior pulvinar complex exhibited enhanced connectivity with the insular and supramarginal regions of the SVAN and superior frontal area of the Default Mode Network (DMN). However, unlike the medial pulvinar, these effects were not spatially linked to the expression of any specific receptor or transporter. Finally, the ventro-lateral anterior complex exhibited increased connectivity with the posterior region of the DMN and the Fronto-Parietal Control Network, along with decreased connectivity to the premotor cortex. The topography of these functional modifications mainly overlaps with the distribution of glutamatergic and serotonergic receptors. In summary, our findings highlight modafinil's influence on thalamocortical circuits, emphasizing the role of higher-order pulvinar nuclei and ventro-lateral anterior complex.

Abstract Background Stimulants such as methylphenidate and modafinil are frequently used as cognitive enhancers in healthy people, whereas 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy) is proposed to enhance mood and empathy in healthy subjects. However, comparative data on the effects of methylphenidate and modafinil on negative emotions in healthy subjects have been partially missing. The aim of this study was to compare the acute effects of methylphenidate and modafinil on the neural correlates of fearful face processing using 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine as a positive control. Methods Using a double-blind, within-subject, placebo-controlled, cross-over design, 60 mg methylphenidate, 600 mg modafinil, and 125 mg 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine were administrated to 22 healthy subjects while performing an event-related fMRI task to assess brain activation in response to fearful faces. Negative mood states were assessed with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and subjective ratings. Results Relative to placebo, modafinil, but not methylphenidate or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, increased brain activation within a limbic-cortical-striatal-pallidal-thalamic circuit during fearful face processing. Modafinil but not methylphenidate also increased amygdala responses to fearful faces compared with 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine. Furthermore, activation in the middle and inferior frontal gyrus in response to fearful faces correlated positively with subjective feelings of fearfulness and depressiveness after modafinil administration. Conclusions Despite the cognitive enhancement effects of 600 mg modafinil in healthy people, potential adverse effects on emotion processing should be considered.

Background Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is a leading cause of hospitalization and disability in young and middle-aged adults. This study aims to survey the efficacy of oral modafinil, a low-side-effect central nervous system stimulant, in the enhancement of consciousness recovery in moderate to severe TBI patients in the ICUs of a referral trauma center. Materials and Methods All ICU patients meeting inclusion criteria between April 2021 and April 2023 were screened. Eligible patients had a motor Glasgow Coma Score(GCS) of 4 or 5 and did not receive continuous intravenous sedatives within 24 h before screening. They were randomly assigned to receive 200mg of enteral modafinil or placebo daily for 7 days. Motor GCS and total GCS scores, ICU/hospital stay duration, mechanical ventilation requirement, tracheal tube removal time, and tracheostomy needs were recorded. Results Among the included 85 eligible patients, there was no significant difference between the modafinil and placebo groups in the median days between the intervention and the time of a 2-unit increase in total GCS (P = 0.25) or a 1-unit increase in motor GCS (P-value = 0.31). The group assignment also had no impact on the mean GCS (P-value = 0.533) and mean motor GCS (P-value = 0.167) over time. The only significant difference was in the proportion of patients with an increase in total GCS by 2 units, which was 54% for the modafinil vs. 32% for the placebo group (P-value = 0.04), and an increase in motor GCS by 1 unit, with 56% in the modafinil vs. 34% in the placebo group (P-value = 0.04). Conclusion The administration of modafinil appears to be safe and beneficial for patients with severe TBI during their stay in the ICU.

RationaleAtypical dopamine (DA) transport blockers such as modafinil and its analogs may be useful for treating motivational symptoms of depression and other disorders. Previous research has shown that the DA depleting agent tetrabenazine can reliably induce motivational deficits in rats, as evidenced by a shift towards a low-effort bias in effort-based choice tasks. This is consistent with human studies showing that people with major depression show a bias towards low-effort activities.ObjectivesRecent studies demonstrated that the atypical DA transport (DAT) inhibitor (S)-CE-123 reversed tetrabenazine-induced motivational deficits, increased progressive ratio (PROG) lever pressing, and increased extracellular DA in the nucleus accumbens. In the present studies, a recently synthesized modafinil analog, (S, S)-CE-158, was assessed in a series of neurochemical and behavioral studies in rats.Results(S, S)-CE-158 demonstrated the ability to reverse the effort-related effects of tetrabenazine and increase selection of high-effort PROG lever pressing in rats tested on PROG/chow feeding choice task. (S, S)-CE-158 showed a high selectivity for inhibiting DAT compared with other monoamine transporters, and systemic administration of (S, S)-CE-158 increased extracellular DA in the nucleus accumbens during the behaviorally active time course, which is consistent with the effects of (S)-CE-123 and other DAT inhibitors that enhance high-effort responding.ConclusionsThese studies provide an initial neurochemical characterization of a novel atypical DAT inhibitor, and demonstrate that this compound is active in models of effort-related choice. This research could contribute to the development of novel compounds for the treatment of motivational dysfunctions in humans.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD. We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework. Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration. Overall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs. PROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049.

RationalAt all times humans have made attempts to improve their cognitive abilities by different means, among others, with the use of stimulants. Widely available stimulants such as caffeine, but also prescription substances such as methylphenidate and modafinil, are being used by healthy individuals to enhance cognitive performance.ObjectivesThere is a lack of knowledge on the effects of prescription stimulants when taken by healthy individuals (as compared with patients) and especially on the effects of different substances across different cognitive domains.MethodsWe conducted a pilot study with three arms in which male participants received placebo and one of three stimulants (caffeine, methylphenidate, modafinil) and assessed cognitive performance with a test battery that captures various cognitive domains.ResultsOur study showed some moderate effects of the three stimulants tested. Methylphenidate had positive effects on self-reported fatigue as well as on declarative memory 24 hours after learning; caffeine had a positive effect on sustained attention; there was no significant effect of modafinil in any of the instruments of our test battery. All stimulants were well tolerated, and no trade-off negative effects on other cognitive domains were found.ConclusionsThe few observed significant positive effects of the tested stimulants were domain-specific and of rather low magnitude. The results can inform the use of stimulants for cognitive enhancement purposes as well as direct further research to investigate the effects of stimulants on specific cognitive domains that seem most promising, possibly by using tasks that are more demanding.

Abstract Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a highly prevalent condition characterized by episodes of partial or complete breath cessation during sleep that induces sleep fragmentation (SF). One of the frequent manifestations of OSA is the presence of excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) associated with cognitive deficits. Solriamfetol (SOL) and modafinil (MOD) are wake-promoting agents commonly prescribed to improve wakefulness in OSA patients with EDS. This study aimed to assess the effects of SOL and MOD in a murine model of OSA characterized by periodic SF. Male C57Bl/6J mice were exposed to either control sleep (SC) or SF (mimicking OSA) during the light period (06:00 h to 18:00 h) for 4 weeks, which consistently induces sustained excessive sleepiness during the dark phase. Both groups were then randomly assigned to receive once-daily intraperitoneal injections of SOL (200 mg/kg), MOD (200 mg/kg), or vehicle for 1 week while continuing exposures to SF or SC. Sleep/wake activity and sleep propensity were assessed during the dark phase. Novel Object Recognition test, Elevated-Plus Maze Test, and Forced Swim Test were performed before and after treatment. SOL or MOD decreased sleep propensity in SF, but only SOL induced improvements in explicit memory, while MOD exhibited increased anxiety behaviors. Chronic SF, a major hallmark of OSA, induces EDS in young adult mice that is mitigated by both SOL and MOD. SOL, but not MOD, significantly improves SF-induced cognitive deficits. Increased anxiety behaviors are apparent in MOD-treated mice. Further studies aiming to elucidate the beneficial cognitive effects of SOL are warranted. Graphical Abstract Graphical Abstract

Rationale 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is used recreationally and investigated as an adjunct to psychotherapy. Methylphenidate and modafinil are psychostimulants that are used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy, respectively, but they are also misused as cognitive enhancers. Little is known about differences in the acute effects of equally cardiostimulant doses of these stimulant-type substances compared directly within the same subjects. Methods We investigated the acute autonomic, subjective, endocrine, and emotional effects of single doses of MDMA (125 mg), methylphenidate (60 mg), modafinil (600 mg), and placebo in a double-blind, cross-over study in 24 healthy participants. Acute drug effects were tested using psychometric scales, the Facial Emotion Recognition Task (FERT), and the Sexual Arousal and Desire Inventory (SADI). Results All active drugs produced comparable hemodynamic and adverse effects. MDMA produced greater increases in pupil dilation, subjective good drug effects, drug liking, happiness, trust, well-being, and alterations in consciousness than methylphenidate or modafinil. Only MDMA reduced subjective anxiety and impaired fear recognition and led to misclassifications of emotions as happy on the FERT. On the SADI, only MDMA produced sexual arousal-like effects. Only MDMA produced marked increases in cortisol, prolactin, and oxytocin. In contrast to MDMA, methylphenidate increased subjective anxiety, and methylphenidate and modafinil increased misclassifications of emotions as angry on the FERT. Modafinil had no significant subjective drug effects but significant sympathomimetic and adverse effects. Conclusions MDMA induced subjective, emotional, sexual, and endocrine effects that were clearly distinct from those of methylphenidate and modafinil at the doses used.