Amantadine use in the French prospective NS-Park cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To assess amantadine use and associated factors in the patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). BACKGROUND: Immediate-release amantadine is approved for the treatment of PD and is largely used in clinical practice to treat "levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LIDs). Its use varies according to countries and PD stages. The prospective NS-Park cohort collects features of PD patients followed by 26 French PD Expert Centres. METHODS: Variables used for the analyses included demographics, motor and non-motor PD symptoms and motor complications [motor fluctuations (MFs), LIDs)], antiparkinsonian pharmacological classes and levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD). We evaluated: (i) prevalence of amantadine use and compared clinical features of amantadine users vs. non-users (cross-sectional analysis); (ii) factors associated with amantadine initiation (longitudinal analysis); (iii) amantadine effect on LIDs, MFs, apathy, impulse control disorders and freezing of gait (Fog) (longitudinal analysis). RESULTS: Amantadine use prevalence was 12.6% (1,585/12,542, median dose = 200 mg). Amantadine users were significantly younger, with longer and more severe PD symptoms, greater LEDD and more frequent use of device-aided/surgical treatment. Factors independently associated with amantadine initiation were younger age, longer PD duration, more frequent LIDs, MFs and FoG, higher LEDD and better cognitive function. 9 of the 658 patients on amantadine had stopped it at the following visit, after 12-18 months (1.3%). New users of amantadine presented a higher improvement in LIDs and MF compared to amantadine never users. CONCLUSIONS: About 12% of PD patients within the French NS-Park cohort used amantadine, mostly those with younger age and more severe PD. Amantadine initiation was associated with a subsequent reduction in LIDs and MFs.

Amantadine in unvaccinated patients with early, mild to moderate COVID-19: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Adamantanes were listed as an interesting option as an early intervention against COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of amantadine in preventing the progression of COVID-19 and its neurological sequelae. METHODS: Unvaccinated patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days were enrolled. Subjects were randomized (50:50) to amantadine (AMD; 100 mg twice daily) or placebo (PLB) for 14 days. The Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement of the World Health Organization (OSCI-WHO) was the primary measure. Secondary endpoints included assessment for fatigue; depression, disorders of smell and taste, and sleepiness on Days 1 and 15. RESULTS: We enrolled 99 patients (49 AMD and 50 PLB). Disease progression (OSCI-WHO = 4) was observed in 6% (AMD) and 8% (PLB) patients (p > 0.05) with further deterioration (OSCI-WHO〉4) in 0% (AMD) and 8% (PLB) patients (p > 0.05). Complete recovery on Day 15 was 60% higher in the AMD compared with the PLB group (p = 0.025). There was improvement in taste (AMD: p = 0.003; PLB: p = 0.0001) and smell (AMD: p = 0.005; PLB: p = 0.0004) but not in fatigue in both groups. Improvement was observed in the AMD (p = 0.010) but not in the PLB group (p = 0.058) when assessing depression as well as sleepiness (AMD: p = 0.0002; PLB: p = 0.341). There was one death in the PLB group (2.0%) and none in the AMD group (p > 0.05) until Day 210. Overall, the drug was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The central effects of amantadine on the nervous system with reduction of sleepiness and depression might have had a supportive effect on faster recovery in early COVID-19 patients.

Amantadine and/or transcranial magnetic stimulation for fatigue associated with multiple sclerosis (FETEM): study protocol for a phase 3 randomised, double-blind, cross-over, controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Fatigue is one of the most disabling symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), and effective treatments are lacking. Amantadine is one of the most used treatments, although its efficacy is under debate. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a promising intervention that has shown positive effects in some preliminary investigations. We aim to investigate the effect of 6 weeks of amantadine and/or TMS in fatigue due to MS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a national, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled and sham-controlled clinical trial. Adult patients with relapsing-remitting MS, Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 1.5-4.5 and Fatigue Severity Score>4 are eligible for the trial. Participants will be randomised to one of the sequences of the study. Each sequence consists of four periods of 6 weeks of treatment and three washout periods of 12-18 weeks. All patients will receive all the combinations of therapies. The primary outcome is the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale. The secondary outcomes are the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (cognition), Beck Depression Inventory-II (depressive symptoms) and Short-Survey 12 (quality of life). Safety and cost-effectiveness will also be evaluated. An exploratory substudy including MRI and blood biomarkers will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hospital Clinico San Carlos and the Spanish Agency of Medications and Medical Devices. All study findings will be published in scientific peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2021-004868-95; NCT05809414.

5-EPIFAT trial protocol: a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for fatigue using methylphenidate, bupropion, ginseng, and amantadine in advanced cancer patients on active treatment.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is still undertreated in most patients, as evidence for pharmacological treatments is limited and conflicting. Also, the efficacy of the pharmacological agents relative to each other is still unclear. Therefore, medications that may potentially contribute to improving CRF will be investigated in this head-to-head trial. Our main objective is to compare the efficacy of methylphenidate vs. bupropion vs. ginseng vs. amantadine vs. placebo in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: The 5-EPIFAT study is a 5-arm, randomized, multi-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial that will use a parallel-group design with an equal allocation ratio comparing the efficacy and safety of four medications (Methylphenidate vs. Bupropion vs. Ginseng vs. Amantadine) versus placebo for management of CRF. We will recruit 255 adult patients with advanced cancer who experience fatigue intensity ≥ 4 based on a 0-10 scale. The study period includes a 4-week intervention and a 4-week follow-up with repeated measurements over time. The primary outcome is the cancer-related fatigue level over time, which will be measured by the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue (FACIT-F) scale. To evaluate safety, the secondary outcome is the symptomatic adverse events, which will be assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in cancer clinical trials (PRO-CTCAE). Also, a subgroup analysis based on a decision tree-based machine learning algorithm will be employed for the clinical prediction of different agents in homogeneous subgroups. DISCUSSION: The findings of the 5-EPIFAT trial could be helpful to guide clinical decision-making, personalization treatment approach, design of future trials, as well as the development of CRF management guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT.ir IRCT20150302021307N6. Registered on 13 May 2023.

Does amantadine improve cognitive recovery in severe disorders of consciousness after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage? A double-blind placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Severe disorders of consciousness (sDoC) are a common sequela of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhages (aSAH), and amantadine has been used to improve cognitive recovery after traumatic brain injury. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of amantadine treatment on consciousness in patients with sDoC secondary to aSAH. METHODS: This double-center, randomized, prospective, cohort study included patients ≥ 18 years old with sDoC after aSAH from February 2020 to September 2023. Individual patient data of patients were pooled to determine the effect of amantadine, in comparison to placebo. The primary outcomes at 3 and 6 months after the ictus were evaluated using the modified Rankin scale (mRS) and Glasgow outcome scale (GOS). In addition to all-cause mortality, secondary endpoints were assessed weekly during intervention by scores on Rappaport's Disability Rating Scale (RDRS) and Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRSR). RESULTS: Overall, 37 patients with sDoC and initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) varying between 3 and 11 were recruited and randomized to amantadine (test group, n = 20) or placebo (control group, n = 17). The average age was 59.5 years (28 to 81 year-old), 24 (65%) were women, and the mean GCS at the beginning of intervention was 7.1. Most patients evolved to vasospasm (81%), with ischemia in 73% of them. The intervention was started between 30 to 180 days after the ictus, and administered for 6 weeks, with progressively higher doses. Neither epidemiological characteristics nor considerations regarding the treatment of the aneurysm and its complications differed between both arms. Overall mortality was 10.8% (4 deaths). During the study, four patients had potential adverse drug effects: two presented seizures, one had paralytic ileus, and another evolved with tachycardia; the medication was not suspended, only the dose was not increased. At data opening, 2 were taking amantadine and 2 placebo. CONCLUSION: Despite some good results associated with amantadine in the literature, this study did not find statistically significant positive effects in cognitive recovery in patients with delayed post-aSAH sDoC. Further large randomized clinical trials in patients' subgroups are needed to better define its effectiveness and clarify any therapeutic window where it can be advantageous.

Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor 4 (mGlu4) Positive Allosteric Modulators Lack Efficacy in Rat and Marmoset Models of L-DOPA-Induced Dyskinesia.

Background: Increased activity across corticostriatal glutamatergic synapses may contribute to L-DOPA-induced dyskinesia in Parkinson's disease. Given the weak efficacy and side-effect profile of amantadine, alternative strategies to reduce glutamate transmission are being investigated. Metabotropic glutamate receptor 4 (mGlu4) is a promising target since its activation would reduce glutamate release. Objective: We hypothesized that two mGlu4 positive allosteric modulators, Lu AF21934 ((1 S,2 R)-N1-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxamide) and ADX88178 (5-Methyl-N-(4-methylpyrimidin-2-yl)-4-(1H-pyrazol-4-yl)thiazol-2-amine), would provide relief in rat and primate models of L-DOPA-induced dyskinesia. Methods: The ability of Lu AF21934 or ADX88178 to reverse pre-established dyskinesia was examined in L-DOPA-primed 6-hydroxydopamine-lesioned rats expressing abnormal involuntary movements (AIMs) or in 1-methyl-4-phenyl,1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP)-treated common marmosets expressing L-DOPA-induced dyskinesia. Additionally, the ability of Lu AF21934 to prevent the development of de novo L-DOPA-induced AIMs was explored in the 6-hydroxydopamine-lesioned rats. Results: Neither Lu AF21934 (10 or 30 mg/kg p.o.) nor ADX88178 (10 or 30 mg/kg p.o.) reduced pre-established AIMs in 6-hydroxydopamine-lesioned rats. Similarly, in L-DOPA-primed common marmosets, no reduction in established dyskinesia was observed with Lu AF21934 (3 or 10 mg/kg p.o.). Conversely, amantadine significantly reduced (>40%) the expression of dyskinesia in both models. Lu AF21934 also failed to suppress the development of AIMs in 6-hydroxydopamine-lesioned rats. Conclusions: This study found no benefit of mGlu4 positive allosteric modulators in tackling L-DOPA-induced dyskinesia. These findings are concordant with the recent failure of foliglurax in phase II clinical trials supporting the predictive validity of these pre-clinical dyskinesia models, while raising further doubt on the anti-dyskinetic potential of mGlu4 positive allosteric modulators.

A randomized open-label clinical trial on the effect of Amantadine on post Covid 19 fatigue.

Many COVID-19 survivors experience lingering post-COVID-19 symptoms, notably chronic fatigue persisting for months after the acute phase. Despite its prevalence, limited research has explored effective treatments for post-COVID-19 fatigue. This randomized controlled clinical trial assessed the impact of Amantadine on patients with post-COVID-19 fatigue. The intervention group received Amantadine for two weeks, while the control group received no treatment. Fatigue levels were assessed using the Visual Analog Fatigue Scale (VAFS) and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) questionnaires before and after the trial. At the study's onset, VAFS mean scores were 7.90 ± 0.60 in the intervention group and 7.34 ± 0.58 in the control group (P-value = 0.087). After two weeks, intervention group scores dropped to 3.37 ± 0.44, significantly lower than the control group's 5.97 ± 0.29 (P-value < 0.001). Similarly, FSS mean scores at the trial's commencement were 53.10 ± 5.96 in the intervention group and 50.38 ± 4.88 in the control group (P-value = 0.053). At the trial's end, intervention group scores decreased to 28.40 ± 2.42, markedly lower than the control group's 42.59 ± 1.50 (P-value < 0.001). In this study, we report the safety, tolerability, and substantial fatigue-relieving effects of Amantadine in post-COVID-19 fatigue. The intervention demonstrates a statistically significant reduction in fatigue levels, suggesting Amantadine's potential as an effective treatment for this persistent condition.

Catatonia.

Catatonia is a neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by motor, affective and cognitive-behavioural signs, which lasts from hours to days. Intensive research over the past two decades has led to catatonia being recognized as an independent diagnosis in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11) since 2022. Catatonia is found in 5-18% of inpatients on psychiatric units and 3.3% of inpatients on medical units. However, in an unknown number of patients, catatonia remains unrecognized and these patients are at risk of life-threatening complications. Hence, recognizing the symptoms of catatonia early is crucial to initiate appropriate treatment to achieve a favourable outcome. Benzodiazepines such as lorazepam and diazepam, electroconvulsive therapy, and N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists such as amantadine and memantine, are the cornerstones of catatonia therapy. In addition, dopamine-modulating second-generation antipsychotics (for example, clozapine and aripiprazole) are effective in some patient populations. Early and appropriate treatment combined with new screening assessments has the potential to reduce the high morbidity and mortality associated with catatonia in psychiatric and non-psychiatric settings.

Treating Malignant Catatonia With Liquid Amantadine: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Malignant catatonia (MC) is a complex, life-threatening condition characterized by motor dysregulation and autonomic instability, which requires prompt and effective treatment. There are some limitations to the current recommendations for treating MC, including barriers to receiving ECT, failure to respond to benzodiazepines, or benzodiazepine intolerance. To the authors' knowledge, there are 3 case reports in the literature describing the use of amantadine in the treatment of MC. We present the case of a 51-year-old female with a history of multiple medical and psychiatric conditions who was admitted to the hospital for altered mental status. During her admission, she developed symptoms that raised concern about MC, which was initially managed with lorazepam. However, due to concerns about severe respiratory compromise, lorazepam was discontinued, and the patient was started on liquid amantadine. She showed marked reduction in the symptoms of malignant catatonia, and the autonomic instability resolved after she was started on amantadine. The patient was eventually discharged home with outpatient follow-up scheduled. Our case report shows successful treatment of MC with liquid amantadine in a patient who was unable to tolerate escalating doses of benzodiazepines. The positive response to amantadine suggests that it may be a useful treatment option for MC. While further studies are needed, clinicians should consider the use of amantadine in the treatment of MC, especially in patients who are unable to tolerate benzodiazepines, who have failed to respond to treatment with benzodiazepines, or who are being treated in institutions where the availability of ECT is limited. Amantadine may be more readily accessible given its multiple formulations and wide availability.

The effect of amantadine treatment on neurological outcome and mortality in mechanically ventilated severe head trauma patients in intensive care unit.

This study aims to investigate the effect of amantadine use on neurological outcomes and mortality in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) (Glasgow coma score [GCS] between 3 and 8) who have been followed up on mechanical ventilators in the intensive care unit (ICU). Data from the hospital's electronic records were retrospectively searched. Patients over 18 years of age, with severe brain trauma (GCS between 3-8), who were treated with endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation at admission to the ICU, and who were treated with Amantadine hydrochloride at least once in the first week of follow-up were included in the study. To evaluate the patients' neurological outcomes, the GCS and FOUR scores were used. GCS and FOUR scores were recorded on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th days of the first week. In addition, the score difference between the 1st and 7th day was calculated for both scores. The patients were divided into 2 groups: those receiving amantadine treatment (Group A, n = 44) and the control group (Group C, n = 47). The median age of all patients was 39 (18-81) (P = .425). When Group A and Group C were compared, no statistically significant results were found between the 1st, 3rd, and 7th day GCS values (P = .474, P = .483, and P = 329, respectively). However, the difference in GCS values between day 1 and day 7 (∆ GCS 7-1) was statistically significant (P = .012). Similarly, when Group A and Group C were compared, no statistically significant results were found between the 1st, 3rd, and 7th day FOUR score values (P = .948, P = .471, and P = .057, respectively). However, the FOUR score values between day 1 and day 7 (∆ FOUR score 7-1) were statistically significant (P = .004). There was no statistically significant difference among the groups in terms of ICU length of stay, duration of non-ICU hospital stay, and length of hospital stay (P = .222, P = .175, and P = .067, respectively). Amantadine hydrochloride may help improve neurological outcomes in patients with severe TBI. However, further research is needed to investigate this topic.

Tackling Influenza A virus by M2 ion channel blockers: Latest progress and limitations.

Influenza outbreaks cause pandemics in millions of people. The treatment of influenza remains a challenge due to significant genetic polymorphism in the influenza virus. Also, developing vaccines to protect against seasonal and pandemic influenza infections is constantly impeded. Thus, antibiotics are the only first line of defense against antigenically distinct strains or new subtypes of influenza viruses. Among several anti-influenza targets, the M2 protein of the influenza virus performs several activities. M2 protein is an ion channel that permits proton conductance through the virion envelope and the deacidification of the Golgi apparatus. Both these functions are critical for viral replication. Thus, targeting the M2 protein of the influenza virus is an essential target. Rimantadine and amantadine are two well-known drugs that act on the M2 protein. However, these drugs acquired resistance to influenza and thus are not recommended to treat influenza infections. This review discusses an overview of anti-influenza therapy, M2 ion channel functions, and its working principle. It also discusses the M2 structure and its role, and the change in the structure leads to mutant variants of influenza A virus. We also shed light on the recently identified compounds acting against wild-type and mutated M2 proteins of influenza virus A. These scaffolds could be an alternative to M2 inhibitors and be developed as antibiotics for treating influenza infections.

Assessing the benefits and risks of amantadine for irritability and aggression after traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the benefits versus harms of amantadine in the treatment of irritability and aggression following traumatic brain injury. METHODS: Secondary outcome data from a randomized controlled multisite trial of amantadine 100 mg twice daily were used to calculate number-needed-to-treat (NNT). Given prior findings of positive clinician-perceived effects and low incidence of adverse events, we hypothesized low number-needed-to-treat for benefit (NNTB; high benefit) and high number-needed-to-treat for harm (NNTH; low risk) based on the clinician ratings, supporting the use of amantadine in clinical practice. Specifically, NNTB values were calculated using number of individuals with improvement on the Clinician Global Impressions-Global Improvement scale (GI). NNTH values were computed using number of individuals with worsening on the GI and experiencing serious and any adverse events. RESULTS: Based on clinician ratings, on average for every six patients treated with amantadine rather than placebo, one extra patient would be expected to improve (NNTB = 6.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [3.3-76.8]). More participants in the placebo group worsened than in the amantadine group, but the result was not statistically significant (NNTH = -92.4; 95% CI: [NNTB -32.9 to infinity to NNTH -19.2]). The amantadine and placebo groups did not differ on the numbers of adverse events experienced during the trial. CONCLUSION: Clinician ratings suggest modest benefit of amantadine 100 mg twice daily with low risk to appropriately selected patients with adequate renal clearance. Thus, amantadine should be considered a treatment option for the experienced brain injury clinician. These data may support treatment decisions when a pharmaceutical agent is being considered to control irritability/aggression.

Cholecalciferol (VD3) Attenuates L-DOPA-Induced Dyskinesia in Parkinsonian Mice Via Modulation of Microglia and Oxido-Inflammatory Mechanisms.

L-DOPA, the gold standard for managing Parkinson's disease (PD) is fraught by motor fluctuations termed L-Dopa-Induced Dyskinesia (LID). LID has very few therapeutic options. Hence, the need for preclinical screening of new interventions. Cholecalciferol (VD3) treatment reportedly improves motor deficit in experimental Parkinsonism. Therefore, the novel anti-dyskinetic effect of VD3 and its underlying mechanisms in LID was investigated. Dyskinesia was induced by chronic L-DOPA administration in parkinsonian (6-OHDA- lesioned) mice. The experimental groups: Control, Dyskinesia, Dyskinesia/VD3, and Dyskinesia/Amantadine were challenged with L-DOPA to determine the abnormal involuntary movements (AIMs) score during 14 days of VD3 (30 mg/kg) or Amantadine (40 mg/kg) treatment. Behavioral Axial, Limb & Orolingual (ALO) AIMs were scored for 1 min at every 20 mins interval, over a duration of 100 mins on days 1,3,7,11 and 14. Using western blot, striatum was assessed for expression of dopamine metabolic enzymes: Tyrosine Hydroxylase (TH) and Monoamine Oxidase-B (MAO-B); CD11b, BAX, P47phox, and IL-1ß. Cholecalciferol significantly attenuated AIMs only on days 11 & 14 with maximal reduction of 32.7%. Expression of TH and MAO-B was not altered in VD3 compared with dyskinetic mice. VD3 significantly inhibited oxidative stress (P47phox), apoptosis (BAX), inflammation (IL-1ß) and microglial activation (CD11b). VD3 showed anti-dyskinetic effects behaviorally by attenuating abnormal involuntary movements, modulation of striatal oxidative stress, microglial responses, inflammation, and apoptotic signaling; without affecting dopamine metabolic enzymes. Its use in the management of dyskinesia is promising. More studies are required to further evaluate these findings. Keywords: Cholecalciferol; L-DOPA-Induced Dyskinesia; Parkinson's Disease; Microglial; Oxidative stress; Inflammation.

The role of NMDA receptor antagonists, amantadine and memantine, in schizophrenia treatment: a systematic review

Abstract Objective Schizophrenia is a complex and chronic psychiatric disorder. In recent years, studies have found glutamatergic system participation in its etiopathogenesis, especially through aberrant NMDA receptors functioning. Thus, drugs that modulate this activity, as amantadine and memantine, could theoretically be used in its treatment. To perform a systematic literature review about memantine and amantadine use as adjunct in schizophrenia treatment. Methods A systematic review of papers published in English indexed in the electronic database PubMed ® using the terms "memantine", "amantadine" and "schizophrenia" published until October 2016. Results We found 144 studies, 8 selected for analysis due to meet the objectives of this review. Some of these have shown benefits from such drug use, especially in symptoms measured by PANSS and its subdivisions, while others do not. Discussion: The data in the literature about these drugs use for schizophrenia treatment is still limited and have great heterogeneity. Thus, assay with greater robustness are needed to assess real benefits of these drugs as adjuvant therapy.

Potential antidepressant effect of amantadine: a review of preclinical studies and clinical trials

Objective: Amantadine blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors and has dopaminergic and noradrenergic action, a neurochemical profile that suggests its potential as an antidepressant drug. We conducted a systematic review of preclinical and clinical studies addressing the effects of amantadine in animal models of depression and in patients with depression. Methods: PubMed, Science Direct, and Web of Science were searched up to September 1, 2017 to identify clinical and preclinical studies. The following search terms were used: "amantadine AND depress*"; "amantadine AND mood"; "amantadine AND animal models AND antidepres*"; and "amantadine AND (forced swim, learned helplessness, reserpine, chronic mild stress, anhedonia, sucrose preference)." Results: Amantadine had antidepressant-like effects in animal models and appeared to potentiate the antidepressant effects of other antidepressants. These preclinical findings have received some support from the results of small open-label clinical trials, suggesting that amantadine can reduce depressive symptomatology and potentiate the antidepressant effects of monoaminergic drugs. In addition to its glutamatergic and dopaminergic effects, the potential antidepressant-like effects of amantadine have been linked to molecular and cellular actions, such as increased expression of neurotrophic factors (e.g., brain-derived neurotrophic factor), activation of σ1 receptors, decreased corticosterone levels, and decreased inflammatory response to stress. Conclusion: Amantadine is an interesting candidate as new antidepressant drug for the treatment of depression.

Toxicidad corneal por amantadina / Corneal toxicity due to amantadine

Caso clínico: Mujer de 64 años en tratamiento con amantadina durante 2 años por enfermedad de Parkinson, que presentó edema corneal bilateral de inicio brusco. Inicialmente se trató como una endotelitis herpética sin mejoría, al desconocer la medicación empleada por la enferma. Finalmente el edema se resolvió tras la suspensión del fármaco. Discusión: El hidrocloruro de amantadina puede producir disfunción endotelial. El edema corneal puede ser reversible tras su suspensión, pero la densidad endotelial permanece baja. Sería necesario realizar un control oftalmológico previo al inicio del tratamiento para valorar el riesgo/beneficio del mismo, sobre todo en los pacientes que presenten baja densidad endotelial o un endotelio alterado (AU)

Case report: A 64 year-old female with Parkinson disease treated with amantadine for two years who suddenly suffered bilateral corneal oedema. It was initially treated as herpetic endotheliitis without improvement as we lacked information on her chronic treatment. The corneal oedema finally resolved after withdrawing the drug. Discussion: Amantadine hydrochloride may produce endothelial dysfunction. Once the amantadine treatment is stopped, the corneal oedema may be reversible but endothelial density remains low. An ophthalmologist examination should be performed before the initiation of amantadine treatment in order to establish a risk: benefit ratio, especially in those patients with low endothelial density or any endothelial anomaly (AU)

Tratamiento dopaminérgico en la enfermedad de Parkinson: ¿qué puede ofrecer cada familia terapéutica? / Dopaminergic treatment in Parkinson’s disease: what has each therapeutic family got to offer?

Diferentes familias de fármacos dopaminérgicos han permitido aumentar el suministro de dopamina en el estriado por diferentes mecanismos. Cada familia de fármacos posee un grado de eficacia determinado, así como un perfil de efectos secundarios específico que debe conocerse en detalle para evitar complicaciones sistémicas y neuropsiquiátricas graves. A pesar de estas limitaciones, la disponibilidad de múltiples fármacos ha permitido aumentar la supervivencia media en la enfermedad de Parkinson, con un periodo de funcionalidad en el día a día significativamente más largo al que se conseguía cuando la levodopa era prácticamente el único fármaco disponible. La correcta adición de fármacos dopaminérgicos con diferentes mecanismos de acción permite tratar la enfermedad de Parkinson sin tener que llegar a dosis excesivamente altas de ninguno de ellos, lo que parece, en el momento actual, el mejor algoritmo para el control de los síntomas motores durante un periodo lo más duradero posible (AU)

Different families of dopaminergic agents have allowed to increase the availability of dopamine within the central nervous system by different mechanisms of action. Each drug family has specific efficacious properties, as well as a different profile of adverse events. The knowledge in detail of these specificities is mandatory to avoid severe systemic or neuropsychiatric complications. Despite these limitations, the development of new drugs within the past 20 years has prolonged survival in Parkinson’s disease, increasing the time with preserved daily day functionality compared with the levodopa era, when this drug was the only dopaminergic drug available. The correct combination of dopaminergic drugs with different mechanisms of action allows the management of Parkinson’s disease motor symptoms within safety dose ranges, and up to day, this appears as the best algorithm to maintain functionality for longer periods of time (AU)

Tratamiento y profilaxis de influenza estacional en niños / Treatment and prophylaxis of seasonal influenza in children

Influenza es una enfermedad respiratoria que produce una importante morbi-mortalidad. La prevención más importante es la vacuna anti-influenza. El tratamiento debe indicarse en las formas moderadas a graves, en niños con factores de riesgo e inmunosuprimidos. El tratamiento es efectivo si se inicia antes de las 48 horas del comienzo de los síntomas. Los inhibidores de la neuraminidasa como oseltamivir y zanamivir son efectivos e indicados para su uso en influenza en niños. Oseltamivir esta indicado a partir del año de edad y zanamivir en mayores de 7 años como tratamiento y mayores de 5 años como profilaxis. Ambos acortan los días de enfermedad, evitan la diseminación de la enfermedad y disminuyen complicaciones como la neumonía. En influenza B la eficacia es menor. La resistencia a estos agentes es baja.