Premium
Efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive modafinil/armodafinil in bipolar depression: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Author(s) -
Nunez Nicolas A.,
Singh Balwinder,
RomoNava Francisco,
Joseph Boney,
Veldic Marin,
CuellarBarboza Alfredo,
Cabello Arreola Alejandra,
Vande Voort Jennifer L.,
Croarkin Paul,
Moore Katherine M.,
Biernacka Joanna,
McElroy Susan L.,
Frye Mark A.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
bipolar disorders
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.285
H-Index - 129
eISSN - 1399-5618
pISSN - 1398-5647
DOI - 10.1111/bdi.12859
Subject(s) - modafinil , tolerability , bipolar disorder , medicine , discontinuation , depression (economics) , randomized controlled trial , placebo , adjunctive treatment , mood , psychiatry , adverse effect , pathology , alternative medicine , economics , macroeconomics
Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dopaminergic‐enhancing agent modafinil/armodafinil (MoArm) as adjunctive treatment for bipolar depression. Methods A comprehensive search of major electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjunctive MoArm that included patients with bipolar I (BP‐I) or bipolar II (BP‐II) depression. Data for response/remission and all‐cause discontinuation were analyzed. Effect size was summarized by relative risk (RR) using a random effect model. Results Of 58 studies, five RCTs (N = 795 drug, N = 792 placebo) met inclusion criteria. Four armodafinil studies included only BP‐I patients and one modafinil study included both bipolar subtypes with limited heterogeneity ( I 2 = 34%, P = .19; I 2 = 18%, P = .30). Compared to placebo, augmentation with MoArm was associated with significantly greater rates of treatment response (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01‐1.37; P = .03) and remission (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10‐1.73; P = .005). All‐cause discontinuation was not different than placebo (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89‐1.30; P = .45) with no evidence of increased risk of mood switch or suicide attempts with MoArm (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.39‐2.5; P = .98; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.37‐2.85; P = .97). Conclusion This narrower scope meta‐analysis of one drug for one disease suggests that adjunctive MoArm may represent a novel therapeutic intervention. Further studies delineating the subtypes of bipolar depression responsive to these novel dopaminergic‐enhancing agents are encouraged.