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.

Older age, white race, depressed mood, and unhealthy weight control behaviors were associated with nonmedical use of prescription stimulants.

Abstract The opioid overdose epidemic is typically described as having occurred in 3 waves, with morbidity and mortality accruing over time principally from prescription opioids (1999–2010), heroin (2011–2013), and illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids (2014–present). However, the increasing presence of synthetic opioids mixed into the illicit drug supply, including with stimulants such as cocaine and methamphetamine, as well as rising stimulant-related deaths, reflects the rapidly evolving nature of the overdose epidemic, posing urgent and novel public health challenges. We synthesize the evidence underlying these trends, consider key questions such as where and how concomitant exposure to fentanyl and stimulants is occurring, and identify actions for key stakeholders regarding how these emerging threats, and continued evolution of the overdose epidemic, can best be addressed.

\"Studiers\" may use prescription stimulants to enhance cognitive performance when they have to inhibit actions. [...]future investigations will need to identify which subgroup is at highest risk to develop stimulant dependence due to altered brain processing that presumably pre-exist prior to use.

Cathinone, the main psychoactive compound found in the plant Catha edulis Forsk. (khat), is a β-keto analogue of amphetamine, sharing not only the phenethylamine structure, but also the amphetamine-like stimulant effects. Synthetic cathinones are derivatives of the naturally occurring cathinone that largely entered the recreational drug market at the end of 2000s. The former “legal status”, impressive marketing strategies and their commercial availability, either in the so-called “smartshops” or via the Internet, prompted their large spread, contributing to their increasing popularity in the following years. As their popularity increased, the risks posed for public health became clear, with several reports of intoxications and deaths involving these substances appearing both in the social media and scientific literature. The regulatory measures introduced thereafter to halt these trending drugs of abuse have proved to be of low impact, as a continuous emergence of new non-controlled derivatives keep appearing to replace those prohibited. Users resort to synthetic cathinones due to their psychostimulant properties but are often unaware of the dangers they may incur when using these substances. Therefore, studies aimed at unveiling the pharmacological and toxicological properties of these substances are imperative, as they will provide increased expertise to the clinicians that face this problem on a daily basis. The present work provides a comprehensive review on history and legal status, chemistry, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse effects and lethality in humans, as well as on the current knowledge of the neurotoxic mechanisms of synthetic cathinones.

Cocaine users consistently display cognitive impairments. However, it is still unknown whether these impairments are cocaine-induced and if they are reversible. Therefore, we examined the relation between changing intensity of cocaine use and the development of cognitive functioning within 1 year. The present data were collected as part of the longitudinal Zurich Cocaine Cognition Study (ZuCo(2)St). Forty-eight psychostimulant-naive controls and 57 cocaine users (19 with increased, 19 with decreased, and 19 with unchanged cocaine use) were eligible for analysis. At baseline and after a 1-year follow-up, cognitive performance was measured by a global cognitive index and four neuropsychological domains (attention, working memory, declarative memory, and executive functions), calculated from 13 parameters of a broad neuropsychological test battery. Intensity of cocaine use was objectively determined by quantitative 6-month hair toxicology at both test sessions. Substantially increased cocaine use within 1 year (mean +297%) was associated with reduced cognitive performance primarily in working memory. By contrast, decreased cocaine use (-72%) was linked to small cognitive improvements in all four domains. Importantly, users who ceased taking cocaine seemed to recover completely, attaining a cognitive performance level similar to that of the control group. However, recovery of working memory was correlated with age of onset of cocaine use-early-onset users showed hampered recovery. These longitudinal data suggest that cognitive impairment might be partially cocaine-induced but also reversible within 1 year, at least after moderate exposure. The reversibility indicates that neuroplastic adaptations underlie cognitive changes in cocaine users, which are potentially modifiable in psychotherapeutical or pharmacological interventions.

Among 221,846 young adults who received a stimulant for attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder, the percentage of patients who had an episode of psychosis within 60 days after starting the medication was higher among amphetamine users (0.21%) than among methylphenidate users (0.10%).

Narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) is a sleep disorder caused by a loss of orexinergic neurons. Narcolepsy type 2 (NT2) is heterogeneous; affected individuals typically have normal orexin levels. Following evaluation in mice, the effects of the orexin 2 receptor (OX2R)-selective agonist danavorexton were evaluated in single- and multiple-rising-dose studies in healthy adults, and in individuals with NT1 and NT2. In orexin/ataxin-3 narcolepsy mice, danavorexton reduced sleep/wakefulness fragmentation and cataplexy-like episodes during the active phase. In humans, danavorexton administered intravenously was well tolerated and was associated with marked improvements in sleep latency in both NT1 and NT2. In individuals with NT1, danavorexton dose-dependently increased sleep latency in the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test, up to the ceiling effect of 40 min, in both the single- and multiple-rising-dose studies. These findings indicate that OX2Rs remain functional despite long-term orexin loss in NT1. OX2R-selective agonists are a promising treatment for both NT1 and NT2.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders among school-aged children. It is highly symptomatic and associated with significant impairment. This review examines the role of stimulant medications in the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD. Published clinical studies that compared methylphenidate- and amfetamine-based stimulants in children and adolescents with ADHD support the therapeutic utility of stimulant treatments, and suggest robust efficacy and acceptable safety outcomes in groups treated with either stimulant. Evidence-based guidelines agree that each patient with ADHD is unique and individual treatment strategies that incorporate both drug and non-drug treatment options should be sought. In seeking to optimize individual response and outcomes to stimulant therapy, important considerations include the selection of stimulant class, the choice of long- or short-acting stimulant formulations, addressing effectively any emergent adverse effects and strategies aimed at enhancing adherence to dosing regimen and persistence on therapy.