piperidines and Sleepiness

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the safety and efficacy of medical treatments for narcolepsy were analyzed using network meta-analysis.. The RCTs in narcolepsy were searched. Network meta-analysis compared efficacy and safety of multiple treatments, multi-arm studies, and multi-criteria treatment decisions, based on a random model that assumed heterogeneity between studies, with corrections for multi-arm studies.. Fourteen RCTs, three drug treatments, and six doses were identified: sodium oxybate (6 and 9 g/d), modafinil (between 200 and 400 mg/d), and pitolisant (up to 20 and up to 40 mg/d). Significant heterogeneity (>50%) between studies was found in 12/14 studies for almost all endpoints, but between-design consistency was present. For ESS and MWT, sodium oxybate 9 g/d, modafinil, and pitolisant up to 40 mg/d had similar efficacy. Pitolisant 40 mg/d and sodium oxybate 9 g/d in two nightly doses had similar efficacy in reducing cataplexy. A good safety profile characterized by a TEAE incidence risk ratio (IRR) <1.5 was found for all the compared treatments, except for sodium oxybate 9 g/d. Although no significant difference was found, Pitolisant 40 mg was shown with the best P scores for the benefit/risk (BR) ratio.. Modafinil (200-400 mg/d), sodium oxybate 9 g/d, and pitolisant up to 40 mg/d had similar efficacy in reducing excessive day time sleepiness. Only sodium oxybate 9 g/d and pitolisant up to 40 mg/d were shown with a comparable beneficial effect on cataplexy. Overall, Pitolisant was found with the best P score on the BR ratio.. PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017054686. Efficacy, safety, and benefit-risk comparison of alternative treatments in narcolepsy: a network multiple comparisons of treatment meta-analysis. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017054686.

Topics: Adult; Cataplexy; Humans; Modafinil; Narcolepsy; Network Meta-Analysis; Odds Ratio; Piperidines; Risk Assessment; Sleepiness; Sodium Oxybate

The second-generation antihistamines at licensed doses are first-line treatment in urticaria and up-dosing is recommended as second-line treatment. To assess the efficacy and safety of escalated doses of ebastine in patients with chronic urticaria (CU), we designed this study. Recruited patients with CU were treated with increasing doses of ebstine. Treatment started at the daily dose of 10 mg. The symptom is assessed weekly, and if there is no significant improvement, the dose is increased from 10 mg to 20 mg, and if still no significant improvement, up to 40 mg. Pruritus, number, diameter, duration and frequency of wheals, and adverse reactions were assessed. One hundred and forty (76.50%) patients achieved marked effect with ebastine 10 mg/day, 27 (14.75%) patients with ebastine 20 mg/day and 13 (7.10%) patients with ebastine 40 mg/day, while 3(1.64%) patients did not get marked effect. There was no significant difference of effect between factitious urticaria, CSU, cholinergic urticaria and CSU with factitious urticaria in different dose (all p > 0.05). Common adverse reactions of ebstine treatment, included dry mouth, somnolence, tiredness and headache, were mild or moderate. There was no significant difference between the degree score of dry mouth with different doses of ebastine, and the same to somnolence, tiredness and headache (all p > 0.05). Doses escalation of ebastine should be effective in treatment of factitious urticaria, CSU and cholinergic urticaria with poorly treated by standard of double doses. Increasing ebastine dose did not increase the incidence of adverse reactions.

Topics: Butyrophenones; Cholinergic Agents; Chronic Disease; Chronic Urticaria; Headache; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Piperidines; Prospective Studies; Sleepiness; Urticaria; Xerostomia