The Experts below are selected from a list of 165 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Roger Grimson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fatigue therapy in multiple sclerosis results of a double blind randomized parallel trial of amantadine Pemoline and placebo
Neurology, 1995Co-Authors: Lauren B Krupp, P K Coyle, Carol Doscher, Anne H Cross, Lina Jandorf, June Halper, Britt A Johnson, Linda Morgante, A. Miller, Roger GrimsonAbstract:Objective To determine the relative efficacy of amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo in treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS)-related fatigue. Background Fatigue is a complication of MS. Both Pemoline and amantadine have been used to treat MS fatigue, but their relative efficacy is not known. Methods Amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo were compared in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a parallel-group design. Ninety-three ambulatory MS patients completed the study. Primary outcome measures were the fatigue seventy scale (FSS); the MS-specific fatigue scale (MS-FS); and subjective response determined by verbal self-report. Secondary outcome measures consisted of assessments of sleep, depression, and vitality. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with planned post-hoc contrasts and Fisher9s exact test were used to compare treatment response. Results Amantadine-treated patients showed a significantly greater reduction in fatigue, as measured by the MS-FS, than did patients treated with placebo ( p = 0.04). By verbal report at the end of the study, 79% of patients treated with amantadine versus 52% treated with placebo and 32% treated with Pemoline preferred drug therapy compared with no treatment ( p = 0.03). No significant differences in any primary outcome measures were noted between Pemoline and placebo. Neither amantadine nor Pemoline affected sleep or depression relative to placebo. Conclusion Amantadine was significantly better than placebo in treating fatigue in MS patients, whereas Pemoline was not. The benefit of amantadine was not due to changes in sleep, depression, or neurologic disability.
-
Fatigue therapy in multiple sclerosis Results of a double‐blind, randomized, parallel trial of amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo
Neurology, 1995Co-Authors: Lauren B Krupp, P K Coyle, Carol Doscher, Anne H Cross, Lina Jandorf, June Halper, Britt A Johnson, Linda Morgante, A. Miller, Roger GrimsonAbstract:Objective To determine the relative efficacy of amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo in treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS)-related fatigue. Background Fatigue is a complication of MS. Both Pemoline and amantadine have been used to treat MS fatigue, but their relative efficacy is not known. Methods Amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo were compared in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a parallel-group design. Ninety-three ambulatory MS patients completed the study. Primary outcome measures were the fatigue seventy scale (FSS); the MS-specific fatigue scale (MS-FS); and subjective response determined by verbal self-report. Secondary outcome measures consisted of assessments of sleep, depression, and vitality. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with planned post-hoc contrasts and Fisher9s exact test were used to compare treatment response. Results Amantadine-treated patients showed a significantly greater reduction in fatigue, as measured by the MS-FS, than did patients treated with placebo ( p = 0.04). By verbal report at the end of the study, 79% of patients treated with amantadine versus 52% treated with placebo and 32% treated with Pemoline preferred drug therapy compared with no treatment ( p = 0.03). No significant differences in any primary outcome measures were noted between Pemoline and placebo. Neither amantadine nor Pemoline affected sleep or depression relative to placebo. Conclusion Amantadine was significantly better than placebo in treating fatigue in MS patients, whereas Pemoline was not. The benefit of amantadine was not due to changes in sleep, depression, or neurologic disability.
Lauren B Krupp - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Effects of Amantadine and Pemoline on Cognitive Functioning in Multiple Sclerosis
Archives of neurology, 1996Co-Authors: Mark W. Geisler, P K Coyle, Carol Doscher, Martin J. Sliwinski, David Masur, Lauren B KruppAbstract:Background: Amantadine hydrochloride and Pemoline, both frequently used to treat the fatigue of mutiple sclerosis (MS), may also improve attention and other cognitive functions in MS. To our knowledge, these agents have never been compared in a placebo-controlled trial of patients with MS. Objective: To evaluate the effects of amantadine and Pemoline on cognitive functioning in MS. Methods: A total of 45 ambulatory patients with MS and severe fatigue were treated for 6 weeks with amantadine, Pemoline, or placebo using a parallel group design. They underwent comprehensive neuropsychological testing to determine treatment effects on cognitive functioning. Primary outcome measures were tests of attention (Digit Span, Trail Making Test, and Symbol Digit Modalities Test), verbal memory (Selective Reminding Test), nonverbal memory (Benton Visual Retention Test), and motor speed (Finger Tapping Test). Results: Fatigue did not significantly correlate with any of the neuropsychological outcome measures at baseline or after treatment. All three treatment groups improved on tests of attention ( P P P Conclusions: Cognitive functioning in MS is independent of fatigue. Neither amantadine nor Pemoline enhances cognitive performance in MS compared with placebo.
-
fatigue therapy in multiple sclerosis results of a double blind randomized parallel trial of amantadine Pemoline and placebo
Neurology, 1995Co-Authors: Lauren B Krupp, P K Coyle, Carol Doscher, Anne H Cross, Lina Jandorf, June Halper, Britt A Johnson, Linda Morgante, A. Miller, Roger GrimsonAbstract:Objective To determine the relative efficacy of amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo in treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS)-related fatigue. Background Fatigue is a complication of MS. Both Pemoline and amantadine have been used to treat MS fatigue, but their relative efficacy is not known. Methods Amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo were compared in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a parallel-group design. Ninety-three ambulatory MS patients completed the study. Primary outcome measures were the fatigue seventy scale (FSS); the MS-specific fatigue scale (MS-FS); and subjective response determined by verbal self-report. Secondary outcome measures consisted of assessments of sleep, depression, and vitality. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with planned post-hoc contrasts and Fisher9s exact test were used to compare treatment response. Results Amantadine-treated patients showed a significantly greater reduction in fatigue, as measured by the MS-FS, than did patients treated with placebo ( p = 0.04). By verbal report at the end of the study, 79% of patients treated with amantadine versus 52% treated with placebo and 32% treated with Pemoline preferred drug therapy compared with no treatment ( p = 0.03). No significant differences in any primary outcome measures were noted between Pemoline and placebo. Neither amantadine nor Pemoline affected sleep or depression relative to placebo. Conclusion Amantadine was significantly better than placebo in treating fatigue in MS patients, whereas Pemoline was not. The benefit of amantadine was not due to changes in sleep, depression, or neurologic disability.
-
Fatigue therapy in multiple sclerosis Results of a double‐blind, randomized, parallel trial of amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo
Neurology, 1995Co-Authors: Lauren B Krupp, P K Coyle, Carol Doscher, Anne H Cross, Lina Jandorf, June Halper, Britt A Johnson, Linda Morgante, A. Miller, Roger GrimsonAbstract:Objective To determine the relative efficacy of amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo in treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS)-related fatigue. Background Fatigue is a complication of MS. Both Pemoline and amantadine have been used to treat MS fatigue, but their relative efficacy is not known. Methods Amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo were compared in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a parallel-group design. Ninety-three ambulatory MS patients completed the study. Primary outcome measures were the fatigue seventy scale (FSS); the MS-specific fatigue scale (MS-FS); and subjective response determined by verbal self-report. Secondary outcome measures consisted of assessments of sleep, depression, and vitality. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with planned post-hoc contrasts and Fisher9s exact test were used to compare treatment response. Results Amantadine-treated patients showed a significantly greater reduction in fatigue, as measured by the MS-FS, than did patients treated with placebo ( p = 0.04). By verbal report at the end of the study, 79% of patients treated with amantadine versus 52% treated with placebo and 32% treated with Pemoline preferred drug therapy compared with no treatment ( p = 0.03). No significant differences in any primary outcome measures were noted between Pemoline and placebo. Neither amantadine nor Pemoline affected sleep or depression relative to placebo. Conclusion Amantadine was significantly better than placebo in treating fatigue in MS patients, whereas Pemoline was not. The benefit of amantadine was not due to changes in sleep, depression, or neurologic disability.
Carol Doscher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Effects of Amantadine and Pemoline on Cognitive Functioning in Multiple Sclerosis
Archives of neurology, 1996Co-Authors: Mark W. Geisler, P K Coyle, Carol Doscher, Martin J. Sliwinski, David Masur, Lauren B KruppAbstract:Background: Amantadine hydrochloride and Pemoline, both frequently used to treat the fatigue of mutiple sclerosis (MS), may also improve attention and other cognitive functions in MS. To our knowledge, these agents have never been compared in a placebo-controlled trial of patients with MS. Objective: To evaluate the effects of amantadine and Pemoline on cognitive functioning in MS. Methods: A total of 45 ambulatory patients with MS and severe fatigue were treated for 6 weeks with amantadine, Pemoline, or placebo using a parallel group design. They underwent comprehensive neuropsychological testing to determine treatment effects on cognitive functioning. Primary outcome measures were tests of attention (Digit Span, Trail Making Test, and Symbol Digit Modalities Test), verbal memory (Selective Reminding Test), nonverbal memory (Benton Visual Retention Test), and motor speed (Finger Tapping Test). Results: Fatigue did not significantly correlate with any of the neuropsychological outcome measures at baseline or after treatment. All three treatment groups improved on tests of attention ( P P P Conclusions: Cognitive functioning in MS is independent of fatigue. Neither amantadine nor Pemoline enhances cognitive performance in MS compared with placebo.
-
fatigue therapy in multiple sclerosis results of a double blind randomized parallel trial of amantadine Pemoline and placebo
Neurology, 1995Co-Authors: Lauren B Krupp, P K Coyle, Carol Doscher, Anne H Cross, Lina Jandorf, June Halper, Britt A Johnson, Linda Morgante, A. Miller, Roger GrimsonAbstract:Objective To determine the relative efficacy of amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo in treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS)-related fatigue. Background Fatigue is a complication of MS. Both Pemoline and amantadine have been used to treat MS fatigue, but their relative efficacy is not known. Methods Amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo were compared in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a parallel-group design. Ninety-three ambulatory MS patients completed the study. Primary outcome measures were the fatigue seventy scale (FSS); the MS-specific fatigue scale (MS-FS); and subjective response determined by verbal self-report. Secondary outcome measures consisted of assessments of sleep, depression, and vitality. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with planned post-hoc contrasts and Fisher9s exact test were used to compare treatment response. Results Amantadine-treated patients showed a significantly greater reduction in fatigue, as measured by the MS-FS, than did patients treated with placebo ( p = 0.04). By verbal report at the end of the study, 79% of patients treated with amantadine versus 52% treated with placebo and 32% treated with Pemoline preferred drug therapy compared with no treatment ( p = 0.03). No significant differences in any primary outcome measures were noted between Pemoline and placebo. Neither amantadine nor Pemoline affected sleep or depression relative to placebo. Conclusion Amantadine was significantly better than placebo in treating fatigue in MS patients, whereas Pemoline was not. The benefit of amantadine was not due to changes in sleep, depression, or neurologic disability.
-
Fatigue therapy in multiple sclerosis Results of a double‐blind, randomized, parallel trial of amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo
Neurology, 1995Co-Authors: Lauren B Krupp, P K Coyle, Carol Doscher, Anne H Cross, Lina Jandorf, June Halper, Britt A Johnson, Linda Morgante, A. Miller, Roger GrimsonAbstract:Objective To determine the relative efficacy of amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo in treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS)-related fatigue. Background Fatigue is a complication of MS. Both Pemoline and amantadine have been used to treat MS fatigue, but their relative efficacy is not known. Methods Amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo were compared in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a parallel-group design. Ninety-three ambulatory MS patients completed the study. Primary outcome measures were the fatigue seventy scale (FSS); the MS-specific fatigue scale (MS-FS); and subjective response determined by verbal self-report. Secondary outcome measures consisted of assessments of sleep, depression, and vitality. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with planned post-hoc contrasts and Fisher9s exact test were used to compare treatment response. Results Amantadine-treated patients showed a significantly greater reduction in fatigue, as measured by the MS-FS, than did patients treated with placebo ( p = 0.04). By verbal report at the end of the study, 79% of patients treated with amantadine versus 52% treated with placebo and 32% treated with Pemoline preferred drug therapy compared with no treatment ( p = 0.03). No significant differences in any primary outcome measures were noted between Pemoline and placebo. Neither amantadine nor Pemoline affected sleep or depression relative to placebo. Conclusion Amantadine was significantly better than placebo in treating fatigue in MS patients, whereas Pemoline was not. The benefit of amantadine was not due to changes in sleep, depression, or neurologic disability.
P K Coyle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Effects of Amantadine and Pemoline on Cognitive Functioning in Multiple Sclerosis
Archives of neurology, 1996Co-Authors: Mark W. Geisler, P K Coyle, Carol Doscher, Martin J. Sliwinski, David Masur, Lauren B KruppAbstract:Background: Amantadine hydrochloride and Pemoline, both frequently used to treat the fatigue of mutiple sclerosis (MS), may also improve attention and other cognitive functions in MS. To our knowledge, these agents have never been compared in a placebo-controlled trial of patients with MS. Objective: To evaluate the effects of amantadine and Pemoline on cognitive functioning in MS. Methods: A total of 45 ambulatory patients with MS and severe fatigue were treated for 6 weeks with amantadine, Pemoline, or placebo using a parallel group design. They underwent comprehensive neuropsychological testing to determine treatment effects on cognitive functioning. Primary outcome measures were tests of attention (Digit Span, Trail Making Test, and Symbol Digit Modalities Test), verbal memory (Selective Reminding Test), nonverbal memory (Benton Visual Retention Test), and motor speed (Finger Tapping Test). Results: Fatigue did not significantly correlate with any of the neuropsychological outcome measures at baseline or after treatment. All three treatment groups improved on tests of attention ( P P P Conclusions: Cognitive functioning in MS is independent of fatigue. Neither amantadine nor Pemoline enhances cognitive performance in MS compared with placebo.
-
fatigue therapy in multiple sclerosis results of a double blind randomized parallel trial of amantadine Pemoline and placebo
Neurology, 1995Co-Authors: Lauren B Krupp, P K Coyle, Carol Doscher, Anne H Cross, Lina Jandorf, June Halper, Britt A Johnson, Linda Morgante, A. Miller, Roger GrimsonAbstract:Objective To determine the relative efficacy of amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo in treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS)-related fatigue. Background Fatigue is a complication of MS. Both Pemoline and amantadine have been used to treat MS fatigue, but their relative efficacy is not known. Methods Amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo were compared in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a parallel-group design. Ninety-three ambulatory MS patients completed the study. Primary outcome measures were the fatigue seventy scale (FSS); the MS-specific fatigue scale (MS-FS); and subjective response determined by verbal self-report. Secondary outcome measures consisted of assessments of sleep, depression, and vitality. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with planned post-hoc contrasts and Fisher9s exact test were used to compare treatment response. Results Amantadine-treated patients showed a significantly greater reduction in fatigue, as measured by the MS-FS, than did patients treated with placebo ( p = 0.04). By verbal report at the end of the study, 79% of patients treated with amantadine versus 52% treated with placebo and 32% treated with Pemoline preferred drug therapy compared with no treatment ( p = 0.03). No significant differences in any primary outcome measures were noted between Pemoline and placebo. Neither amantadine nor Pemoline affected sleep or depression relative to placebo. Conclusion Amantadine was significantly better than placebo in treating fatigue in MS patients, whereas Pemoline was not. The benefit of amantadine was not due to changes in sleep, depression, or neurologic disability.
-
Fatigue therapy in multiple sclerosis Results of a double‐blind, randomized, parallel trial of amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo
Neurology, 1995Co-Authors: Lauren B Krupp, P K Coyle, Carol Doscher, Anne H Cross, Lina Jandorf, June Halper, Britt A Johnson, Linda Morgante, A. Miller, Roger GrimsonAbstract:Objective To determine the relative efficacy of amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo in treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS)-related fatigue. Background Fatigue is a complication of MS. Both Pemoline and amantadine have been used to treat MS fatigue, but their relative efficacy is not known. Methods Amantadine, Pemoline, and placebo were compared in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a parallel-group design. Ninety-three ambulatory MS patients completed the study. Primary outcome measures were the fatigue seventy scale (FSS); the MS-specific fatigue scale (MS-FS); and subjective response determined by verbal self-report. Secondary outcome measures consisted of assessments of sleep, depression, and vitality. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with planned post-hoc contrasts and Fisher9s exact test were used to compare treatment response. Results Amantadine-treated patients showed a significantly greater reduction in fatigue, as measured by the MS-FS, than did patients treated with placebo ( p = 0.04). By verbal report at the end of the study, 79% of patients treated with amantadine versus 52% treated with placebo and 32% treated with Pemoline preferred drug therapy compared with no treatment ( p = 0.03). No significant differences in any primary outcome measures were noted between Pemoline and placebo. Neither amantadine nor Pemoline affected sleep or depression relative to placebo. Conclusion Amantadine was significantly better than placebo in treating fatigue in MS patients, whereas Pemoline was not. The benefit of amantadine was not due to changes in sleep, depression, or neurologic disability.
Paula D. Riggs - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a randomized controlled trial of Pemoline for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in substance abusing adolescents
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2004Co-Authors: Paula D. Riggs, Shannon K. Hall, Michelle Lohman, Susan K Mikulichgilbertson, Ashley KayserAbstract:ABSTRACT Objective In adolescents with substance use disorder (SUD), comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with greater severity of substance abuse, conduct problems, and worse treatment outcomes. Although many controlled trials have established the efficacy of psychostimulants, including Pemoline, for ADHD in children and adolescents, none have been conducted in adolescents with SUD. This randomized, placebo-controlled trial, conducted between 1996 and 2000, evaluated the safety and efficacy of Pemoline on substance abuse and conduct problems. Method Sixty-nine adolescents (aged 13–19) with conduct disorder (CD), SUD, and ADHD were recruited from the community and randomly assigned to a 12-week clinical trial of Pemoline ( n = 35) or placebo ( n = 34), titrated over 4 weeks to a single morning dose of 75 to 112.5 mg as tolerated. Results Pemoline had greater efficacy than placebo for ADHD as determined by significantly more Clinician's Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) ratings of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) at the study endpoint ( n = 69; p n = 17; placebo, n = 16; p n = 68; p Conclusions Pemoline was efficacious for ADHD but did not have an impact on CD or substance abuse in the absence of specific treatment for SUD.
-
A randomized controlled trial of Pemoline for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in substance-abusing adolescents.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2004Co-Authors: Paula D. Riggs, Shannon K. Hall, Susan K. Mikulich-gilbertson, Michelle Lohman, Ashley KayserAbstract:ABSTRACT Objective In adolescents with substance use disorder (SUD), comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with greater severity of substance abuse, conduct problems, and worse treatment outcomes. Although many controlled trials have established the efficacy of psychostimulants, including Pemoline, for ADHD in children and adolescents, none have been conducted in adolescents with SUD. This randomized, placebo-controlled trial, conducted between 1996 and 2000, evaluated the safety and efficacy of Pemoline on substance abuse and conduct problems. Method Sixty-nine adolescents (aged 13–19) with conduct disorder (CD), SUD, and ADHD were recruited from the community and randomly assigned to a 12-week clinical trial of Pemoline ( n = 35) or placebo ( n = 34), titrated over 4 weeks to a single morning dose of 75 to 112.5 mg as tolerated. Results Pemoline had greater efficacy than placebo for ADHD as determined by significantly more Clinician's Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) ratings of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) at the study endpoint ( n = 69; p n = 17; placebo, n = 16; p n = 68; p Conclusions Pemoline was efficacious for ADHD but did not have an impact on CD or substance abuse in the absence of specific treatment for SUD.
-
An Open Trial of Pemoline in Drug-Dependent Delinquents with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1996Co-Authors: Paula D. Riggs, Laetitia L. Thompson, Susan K. Mikulich, Elizabeth A. Whitmore, Thomas J. CrowleyAbstract:ABSTRACT Objective Adolescents with conduct disorder and substance use disorders have high rates of comorbid attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); ADHD may contribute to the severity and persistence of substance use disorders and antisocial behaviors. Treatment of ADHD may help patients utilize substance and other behaviorally focused treatment. Yet little is known about the response of ADHD symptoms to psychopharmacological intervention in substance-dependent delinquents. Method Pilot data are presented for 13 male adolescents with conduct disorder, substance use disorders, and ADHD, in a residential substance use treatment program. Patients were treated with Pemoline. Scores from the Conners Hyperactivity Index and continuous performance tasks were obtained at baseline and after about 1 month of treatment with Pemoline. Physical activity measurements were also assessed at baseline and 1 month. Postmedication assessments were obtained after at least 1 week at maximal dosage (1.2 to 3.3 mg/kg). Results Mean Conners Hyperactivity Index scores declined 13.9% ( p p Conclusions Preliminary data indicate that Pemoline may be a useful treatment for ADHD in substance-dependent delinquents; the authors propose a controlled trial of Pemoline in such youths.