0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Brain dysfunctions and neurotoxicity induced by psychostimulants in experimental models and humans: an overview of recent findings

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Preclinical and clinical studies indicate that psychostimulants, in addition to having abuse potential, may elicit brain dysfunctions and/or neurotoxic effects. Central toxicity induced by psychostimulants may pose serious health risks since the recreational use of these substances is on the rise among young people and adults. The present review provides an overview of recent research, conducted between 2018 and 2023, focusing on brain dysfunctions and neurotoxic effects elicited in experimental models and humans by amphetamine, cocaine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, methylphenidate, caffeine, and nicotine. Detailed elucidation of factors and mechanisms that underlie psychostimulant-induced brain dysfunction and neurotoxicity is crucial for understanding the acute and enduring noxious brain effects that may occur in individuals who use psychostimulants for recreational and/or therapeutic purposes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references224

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          ROS function in redox signaling and oxidative stress.

          Oxidative stress refers to elevated intracellular levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that cause damage to lipids, proteins and DNA. Oxidative stress has been linked to a myriad of pathologies. However, elevated ROS also act as signaling molecules in the maintenance of physiological functions--a process termed redox biology. In this review we discuss the two faces of ROS--redox biology and oxidative stress--and their contribution to both physiological and pathological conditions. Redox biology involves a small increase in ROS levels that activates signaling pathways to initiate biological processes, while oxidative stress denotes high levels of ROS that result in damage to DNA, protein or lipids. Thus, the response to ROS displays hormesis, given that the opposite effect is observed at low levels compared with that seen at high levels. Here, we argue that redox biology, rather than oxidative stress, underlies physiological and pathological conditions. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

            Summary Background The benefits and safety of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remain controversial, and guidelines are inconsistent on which medications are preferred across different age groups. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of oral medications for ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults. Methods We did a literature search for published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing amphetamines (including lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with each other or placebo. We systematically contacted study authors and drug manufacturers for additional information. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in severity of ADHD core symptoms based on teachers' and clinicians' ratings) and tolerability (proportion of patients who dropped out of studies because of side-effects) at timepoints closest to 12 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and confidence of estimates with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for network meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014008976. Findings 133 double-blind randomised controlled trials (81 in children and adolescents, 51 in adults, and one in both) were included. The analysis of efficacy closest to 12 weeks was based on 10 068 children and adolescents and 8131 adults; the analysis of tolerability was based on 11 018 children and adolescents and 5362 adults. The confidence of estimates varied from high or moderate (for some comparisons) to low or very low (for most indirect comparisons). For ADHD core symptoms rated by clinicians in children and adolescents closest to 12 weeks, all included drugs were superior to placebo (eg, SMD −1·02, 95% CI −1·19 to −0·85 for amphetamines, −0·78, −0·93 to −0·62 for methylphenidate, −0·56, −0·66 to −0·45 for atomoxetine). By contrast, for available comparisons based on teachers' ratings, only methylphenidate (SMD −0·82, 95% CI −1·16 to −0·48) and modafinil (−0·76, −1·15 to −0·37) were more efficacious than placebo. In adults (clinicians' ratings), amphetamines (SMD −0·79, 95% CI −0·99 to −0·58), methylphenidate (−0·49, −0·64 to −0·35), bupropion (−0·46, −0·85 to −0·07), and atomoxetine (−0·45, −0·58 to −0·32), but not modafinil (0·16, −0·28 to 0·59), were better than placebo. With respect to tolerability, amphetamines were inferior to placebo in both children and adolescents (odds ratio [OR] 2·30, 95% CI 1·36–3·89) and adults (3·26, 1·54–6·92); guanfacine was inferior to placebo in children and adolescents only (2·64, 1·20–5·81); and atomoxetine (2·33, 1·28–4·25), methylphenidate (2·39, 1·40–4·08), and modafinil (4·01, 1·42–11·33) were less well tolerated than placebo in adults only. In head-to-head comparisons, only differences in efficacy (clinicians' ratings) were found, favouring amphetamines over modafinil, atomoxetine, and methylphenidate in both children and adolescents (SMDs −0·46 to −0·24) and adults (−0·94 to −0·29). We did not find sufficient data for the 26-week and 52-week timepoints. Interpretation Our findings represent the most comprehensive available evidence base to inform patients, families, clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the choice of ADHD medications across age groups. Taking into account both efficacy and safety, evidence from this meta-analysis supports methylphenidate in children and adolescents, and amphetamines in adults, as preferred first-choice medications for the short-term treatment of ADHD. New research should be funded urgently to assess long-term effects of these drugs. Funding Stichting Eunethydis (European Network for Hyperkinetic Disorders), and the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Actions of caffeine in the brain with special reference to factors that contribute to its widespread use.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Neural Regen Res
                Neural Regen Res
                NRR
                Neural Regen Res
                Neural Regeneration Research
                Wolters Kluwer - Medknow (India )
                1673-5374
                1876-7958
                September 2024
                15 December 2023
                : 19
                : 9
                : 1908-1918
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biomedical Sciences, Section of Neuroscience, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
                [2 ]Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts-Boston, Boston, MA, USA
                Author notes
                [* ] Correspondence to: Giulia Costa, gcosta@ 123456unica.it .

                Author contributions: MS wrote the parts on toxicity induced by amphetamine and its derivatives. NS wrote the parts on toxicity induced by methylphenidate and caffeine. GC wrote the parts on toxicity induced by cocaine and nicotine. MS and GC created the tables and figure. All authors critically revised the whole manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript .

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0815-9652
                Article
                NRR-19-1908
                10.4103/1673-5374.390971
                11040293
                38227515
                55d81322-3b23-487b-adfd-2a098421fcb6
                Copyright: © 2024 Neural Regeneration Research

                This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

                History
                : 06 July 2023
                : 18 October 2023
                : 10 November 2023
                Funding
                Funding: This work was supported by PON AIM (PON RICERCA E INNOVAZIONE 2014-2020, - AZIONE I.2. D.D. N.407 DEL 27 FEBBRAIO 2018 - “ATTRACTION AND INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY”) (to GC); Zardi-Gori Foundation (research grant 2021) (to MS); intramural funds from the University of Cagliari (to NS); Fondazione CON IL SUD and The U.S.-Italy Fulbright Commission (to AEP) .
                Categories
                Review

                3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine,amphetamine,caffeine,cell cultures,cocaine,methamphetamine,methylphenidate,neurotoxicity,nicotine

                Comments

                Comment on this article