Atomoxetine Does Not Improve Complex Attention in Idiopathic Parkinson’s Disease Patients with Cognitive Deficits: A Meta-Analysis

Ghosh, Abhinaba; Das, Saibal; Behera, Sapan Kumar; Ramakrishnan, Kirubakaran; Selvarajan, Sandhiya; Kandasamy, Preeti; Nair, N Sreekumaran

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4853590

Parkinson’s Disease

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in Parkinson’s Disease

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 4853590 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4853590

Atomoxetine Does Not Improve Complex Attention in Idiopathic Parkinson’s Disease Patients with Cognitive Deficits: A Meta-Analysis

Abhinaba Ghosh,¹Saibal Das,²Sapan Kumar Behera,²Kirubakaran Ramakrishnan,²Sandhiya Selvarajan,²Preeti Kandasamy,³and N Sreekumaran Nair⁴

Guest Editor: Ji Hyun Ko

Received03 May 2019

Accepted23 Dec 2019

Published18 Feb 2020

Abstract

Objectives. To evaluate the effects of atomoxetine on complex attention and other neurocognitive domains in idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (PD). Methods. Interventional trials reporting changes in complex attention and other neurocognitive functions (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5) following administration of atomoxetine for at least 8 weeks in adults with idiopathic PD were included. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d), the standardized mean difference in the scores of each cognitive domain, were compared using a random-effects model (MetaXL version 5.3). Results. Three studies were included in the final analysis. For a change in complex attention in PD with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), the estimated effect size was small and nonsignificant (0.16 (95% CI: −0.09, 0.42), n = 42). For changes in executive function, perceptual-motor function, language, social cognition, and learning and memory, the estimated effect sizes were small and medium, but nonsignificant. A deteriorative trend in executive function was observed after atomoxetine treatment in PD with MCI. For a change in global cognitive function in PD without MCI, the estimated effect size was large and significant. Conclusion. In idiopathic PD with MCI, atomoxetine does not improve complex attention. Also, a deteriorative trend in the executive function was noted.

1. Introduction

Locus coeruleus (LC) is a small pontine nucleus of about 15,000 noradrenergic neurons innervating a large number of cortical and subcortical areas in the brain, for many of which, it is the only source of norepinephrine [1]. It serves as the major noradrenergic supply to the forebrain including the prefrontal cortex and is critically important for cognitive functions [2, 3]. Loss of LC neurons has been correlated with cognitive decline in different neurodegenerative diseases [4–6]. Idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder, primarily characterized by bradykinesia, rigidity, and tremor [7]. It results from the degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra caused by the accumulation of misfolded α-synuclein into Lewy neurites and Lewy bodies [7]. Interestingly, cognitive decline coarises with motor symptoms in idiopathic PD [8]. Several other clinical features throughout the different stages of idiopathic PD have been attributed to the central and peripheral norepinephrine imbalance [9]. Some of these features include autonomic and olfactory deficits, depression, and sleep disturbances along with emotional disorders [10].

Similar to other neurodegenerative diseases, loss of LC neurons has been found in idiopathic PD [11, 12]. Neuronal loss in LC correlates not only with the stage of idiopathic PD pathology [13, 14] but also with the cognitive decline [15–17]. However, as compared to the other neurodegenerative diseases, neuronal loss in LC in idiopathic PD is more extensive resulting in a widespread degeneration of the noradrenergic axons arising from it. A decline in the noradrenergic function of LC can lead to a wide array of symptoms depending upon the projection target and its function, e.g., while there is an alteration in dopamine release from both the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area, the clinical manifestations could be completely different. The substantia nigra-related dopamine deficiency can lead to PD but that in the ventral tegmental area would affect attention. The attention-executive function-working memory system is likely to involve the prefrontal cortex, whereas semantic memory is largely dependent on the hippocampal circuitry [18, 19]. Evidence suggests that in idiopathic PD, α-synuclein accumulation in LC happens earlier than in substantia nigra [11, 20, 21]. This puts LC in a critical position in the early stages of idiopathic PD, making it a potential target for treatment [22].

Norepinephrine (NE) has an important role in attention. The prefrontal cortex and parietal cortex-mediated attention systems are under strict modulation of NE. The spiking pattern of LC determines arousal state and alertness, while the depletion of NE in the forebrain leads to a lack of attention and cognitive deficit [23]. Several treatment strategies have been tried to treat cognitive impairment involving the noradrenergic system in idiopathic PD. Adrenoceptor subtype-specific agonists and antagonists [24–27], norepinephrine precursors [28–30], and both selective and nonselective norepinephrine transporter (NET) inhibitors [31–34] have been used with varied results. Atomoxetine is a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor working mainly on the norepinephrine transporters at the noradrenergic axon terminals throughout the brain [35]. It is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Atomoxetine has minimal effects on other neuromodulator receptors [36], thus qualifying as a perfect candidate for teasing out norepinephrine-specific effects in ameliorating mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in idiopathic PD. As noradrenergic axons extensively and variably innervate several areas of the brain, systemic administration of any drug manipulating it will have a mixed effect on the functions depending on the dose and area of the brain involved in that particular function [37]. This can explain why different neurocognitive functions exhibit variable effects following the administration of the same norepinephrine-modulating drug [32, 38]. The picture gets more complicated in a disease state like idiopathic PD, where more than one neuromodulatory system is affected and mutual metamodulatory effect on one system or another cannot be ruled out [9, 39].

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) outlines six key neurocognitive domains, namely, executive function, perceptual-motor function, language, learning and memory, social cognition, and complex attention [19]. Neurocognitive deficit in one domain or the other should be ascribed to different brain regions and circuitries. It is to be mentioned that complex attention holds particular importance in idiopathic PD. Attention is the behavioral and cognitive process of selectively concentrating on a discrete aspect of information, whether deemed subjective or objective while ignoring other perceivable information. As per DSM-5, complex attention involves sustained attention, divided attention, selective attention, and information processing speed. Interestingly, the concentration of norepinephrine metabolite in the cerebrospinal fluid correlates well with attention and reaction time-dependent scores in idiopathic PD patients [27]. This leads to a possibility that atomoxetine may compensate for the noradrenergic deficits and improve complex attention in idiopathic PD patients.

In parallel, from a clinical point of view, it is important to understand the differential effects of noradrenergic modulation by atomoxetine on different neurocognitive domains. Multiple trials have demonstrated the beneficial effects of atomoxetine on cognitive functions, including attention, in adults with ADHD [40]. However, it is not very clear whether these beneficial effects can be extrapolated to a neurodegenerative disorder, such as idiopathic PD. Hence, this meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of atomoxetine on complex attention and other neurocognitive domains in idiopathic PD.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The study protocol can be accessed in PROSPERO (CRD42018106560). Completed and published interventional trials investigating the effects of atomoxetine on cognitive functions in idiopathic PD were included. The inclusion criteria were as follows: interventional studies that included patients of age ≥18 years of either gender, diagnosed with idiopathic PD, and patients who had received atomoxetine of any dose for at least 8 weeks, and any domain of cognitive function was reported using any scale irrespective of statistical significance. The exclusion criteria were initiation or change in dose of any confounding comedication after initiating treatment with atomoxetine. The primary outcome of the study was the change in clinical score in any individual domain of cognitive function (DSM-5) [19]. Other reported neuropsychiatric assessments apart from cognitive functions were excluded from the analysis.

2.2. Search Strategy

MEDLINE/PubMed, IndMED, and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Methodology Register) were searched until 28 November 2019. The search terms used in various combinations were “atomoxetine,” “cognition,” “cognitive therapy,” “cognitive function,” “idiopathic Parkinson’s disease,” “iPD,” “Parkinson’s disease,” “PD,” “neurodegenerative disease,” “mild cognitive impairment,” and “MCI.” These search terms were adapted for use with different bibliographic databases in combination with database-specific filters for studies, if available. The search strategy was used to obtain titles and abstracts of relevant studies in the English language, and they were independently screened by two authors, who subsequently retrieved abstracts, and if necessary, the full text of articles to determine suitability. Disagreement resolution was done with a third author.

2.3. Data Extraction and Management

The data extraction was carried out independently by two authors using a preformatted data extraction spreadsheet. No assumptions or simplifications were made during data extraction. The included studies were assessed for risk of bias by two authors independently. Categorization of the individual study reported test scales of cognitive functions into each of the six DSM-5¹⁹ delimited domains was performed by an experienced psychiatrist as reported in the literature [41–45]. In case of ambiguity regarding the fitness of a scale to any particular domain of cognitive function defined by DSM-5 [19], the corresponding data were excluded. The data obtained by using scales estimating the global cognitive function were analyzed separately. The direction of scoring in each scale was considered in the analysis. A random-effects model was used to ensure the robustness of the model across various population and susceptibility to outliers. Meta-analysis was performed wherever adequate data were available. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d), the standardized mean difference in the scores of each cognitive domain, were compared in the patients using a random-effects model using MetaXL version 5.3 (© EpiGear International Pvt. Ltd.).

Attrition bias due to the amount, nature, or handling of incomplete outcome data was investigated. Attrition rate in terms of dropouts, loss to follow-up, and withdrawals were investigated. Issues of missing data and imputation methods were also critically appraised [46]. Heterogeneity was analyzed using χ2 test on n − 1 degrees of freedom, with an α error of 5% used for statistical significance and with an i² test [47, 48]. The i² values of 25%, 50%, and 75% corresponded to low, medium, and high levels of heterogeneity, respectively. Effect sizes of <0.2 were considered small, 0.2–0.8 were considered medium, and >0.8 were considered large [49].

3. Results

A total of 125 studies were screened, and three studies [32, 38, 50] were included in the final analyses (Figure 1). Out of these three studies, two were double-blind randomized control trials and one was an open-label single-arm trial. Two of these three studies were of moderate to high quality (Supplementary Figure 1). Two studies [32, 38, 50] included PD patients with MCI. The demographic details and cognitive measurements of the included studies are enumerated in Table 1. For a change in complex attention, the estimated effect size was small and nonsignificant (0.16 (95% CI: −0.09, 0.42) (i² = 23%, ), n = 42) (Figure 2). For a change in executive function, only one study [50] was included and the estimated effect size was medium but nonsignificant (−0.30 (95% CI: −0.62, 0.02), n = 30), although a trend of deterioration with atomoxetine was found (Supplementary Figure 2). For changes in perceptual-motor function (visuospatial perception), language (expressive language/confrontation naming), and social cognition (Neuropsychological Assessment Battery: Judgement), only one study [50] was included and the estimated effect sizes were small and medium, but nonsignificant (−0.06 (95% CI: −0.78, 0.65), n = 30; −0.12 (95% CI: −0.83, 0.60), n = 30; and 0.28 (95% CI: −0.44, 0.99), n = 30, respectively). For a change in learning and memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised Recognition Discrimination score), only one study [38] was included and the estimated effect size was small and nonsignificant (0.90 (95% CI: 0.06, 1.74), n = 12). For a change in global cognitive function (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)) in PD without MCI, only one study [32] was included and the estimated effect size was large and significant (1.21 (95% CI: 0.64, 1.79), n = 55).

4. Discussion

We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of atomoxetine on complex attention and other individual cognitive domains in idiopathic PD. We found that atomoxetine does not improve complex attention. It does not have a significant effect on other domains of cognitive function as well. Rather, a trend of deteriorating effect of atomoxetine was observed on executive function, although the results were not statistically significant. In the included studies, the patients received standard-of-care treatment, including dopaminergic drugs, and atomoxetine was used as an adjunctive agent.

A recently published systematic review [51] has efficiently summarized the effects of atomoxetine in idiopathic PD-related executive function. The authors have identified an improvement following atomoxetine administration. But such results need to be interpreted with caution. A majority (4 out of 7) of the included studies used a single dose of atomoxetine. In a chronic progressive neurodegenerative disorder, single-dose trials may lack relevance. In contrast, our study has included a minimum of 8 weeks’ duration of atomoxetine administration, and further, we have evaluated the effects of atomoxetine on specific neurocognitive domains.

Although the main use and popularity of atomoxetine are generally attributed to the alleviation of ADHD, thereby rendering cognitive enhancement [52], it is understandable that the functions of atomoxetine are critically dependent on norepinephrine dynamics and noradrenergic receptor status, which can vary from disease to disease. The effects of atomoxetine on a specific disease depend on the affected brain area, its noradrenergic innervation, and the distribution of the adrenoceptors. Without these considerations, any generalization in terms of predicting the effects of atomoxetine across different diseases may go erroneous. Atomoxetine has been proven beneficial in ADHD; however, our results show that it does not improve complex attention in PD. Moreover, a trend of worsening executive function, which is also a prefrontal cortex- (PFC-) dependent function, was observed in PD patients receiving atomoxetine. This indicates that disease-specific noradrenergic pathophysiology will determine the outcome of atomoxetine treatment.

Atomoxetine prevents the reuptake of norepinephrine, thereby increasing its availability in the extracellular space for a long duration. PET studies suggest that NET deficiency occurs in PD [53] but not in ADHD [54]. Hence, in PD, atomoxetine has less amount of substrate to bind leading to a suboptimal availability of NE around the degenerating axons. In general, NE has a low affinity for α1 and a high affinity for α2 adrenoceptors. Thus, at a lower concentration of NE, α2 is preferentially more activated than α1²³. Interestingly, the compensatory upregulation of α1 adrenoceptors and downregulation of α2 adrenoceptors have been reported in the brain in PD [55]. In general, α1 and α2 adrenoceptors have contrasting effects on PFC functioning. An increased α1 adrenoceptor stimulation is known to impair PFC functioning [23, 56, 57], whereas in contrast, increased α2 adrenoceptor functioning improves PFC function [23, 58]. Similarly, it has been reported that α2 antagonists can deteriorate the PFC function [59, 60]. Thus, in PD, even a suboptimal increase in the extracellular NE availability may render no effect or worsening effect due to a shifted receptor balance to increased α1 : α2 ratio. To the best of our knowledge, such a shift in the adrenoceptor ratio or noradrenergic degeneration has not been reported in ADHD. This explains why atomoxetine may remain ineffective in PD-MCI, but not in ADHD.

This may also explain why PD patients without MCI may have beneficial effects from atomoxetine. A smaller subset of PD patients does not develop MCI [61]. In the study by Weintraub et al. [32, 38, 50], the global cognitive function, as tested by MMSE, was significantly improved with a large effect size following atomoxetine treatment in PD patients without MCI. At the earliest stage of noradrenergic axon degeneration, there could still be sufficient NET left for atomoxetine to bind. Further, compensatory adrenoceptor upregulation and downregulation might not occur that early. Thus, early intervention with atomoxetine can be beneficial in PD to prevent MCI and later dementia; however, this warrants further investigations. Besides, the fact that the frontal/executive function is not covered by MMSE emphasizes the variable role of noradrenergic intervention on the different cognitive functions [62, 63]. The inability of MMSE to sensitively identify MCI in PD should be given importance. Future studies in this field might be benefitted by using an alternative test, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), instead of MMSE [64].

Our study has certain limitations. We could retrieve only three studies fulfilling the eligibility criteria, and as a result, the sample size was relatively small. The study designs also varied. Next, we could not assess the effects of atomoxetine on each domain of cognitive function due to the lack of data. Further, all the three included studies did not uniformly report data on the specific cognitive domains, and for some of the outcomes, we could include only one study. The dose and duration of atomoxetine varied. The sensitivity of the outcome measures could also be affected by the patient heterogeneity at baseline and differences in the assessment scales. [65].

5. Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to demonstrate that in idiopathic PD with MCI, atomoxetine does not improve complex attention, contrary to the general notion in the field. Still, long-term randomized controlled trials in a large pool of patients are necessary to further elucidate the role of atomoxetine on cognitive functions in idiopathic PD.

Data Availability

All data are included in the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this article.

Authors’ Contributions

AG and SD have contributed equally. AG has conceptualized the review; AG, SD, SS, and PK have drafted the study protocol; SD and AG were involved with literature search and study selection; SKB, SS, and PK were involved in disagreement resolution and finalization of the included studies; SD and AG have extracted data from the studies; SD performed the risk of bias analyses; SD has performed the analyses; AG, SD, SKB, KR, SS, PK, and NSN have interpreted the analyses; AG, SD, SKB, KR, and SS have drafted the review; SS, PK, and NSN have provided expert inputs and updated the final review.

Acknowledgments

Publication charges were covered by the Memorial University Libraries through institutional open access membership. The authors are thankful to Dr. Qi Yuan from the Faculty of Medicine, Biomedical Sciences (Neuroscience), Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada, for providing valuable support.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Figure 1: risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study. Supplementary Figure 2: forest plot showing the change in executive function (DSM-5). (Supplementary Materials)

References

S. L. Foote, F. E. Bloom, and G. Aston-Jones, “Nucleus locus ceruleus: new evidence of anatomical and physiological specificity,” Physiological Reviews, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 844–914, 1983.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. A. Mejias-Aponte, C. Drouin, and G. Aston-Jones, “Adrenergic and noradrenergic innervation of the midbrain ventral tegmental area and retrorubral field: prominent inputs from medullary homeostatic centers,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 3613–3626, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Samuels and E. Szabadi, “Functional neuroanatomy of the noradrenergic locus coeruleus: its roles in the regulation of arousal and autonomic function part I: principles of functional organisation,” Current Neuropharmacology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 235–253, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Mavridis, A.-D. Degryse, A. J. Lategan, M. R. Marien, and F. C. Colpaert, “Effects of locus coeruleus lesions on parkinsonian signs, striatal dopamine and substantia nigra cell loss after 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine in monkeys: a possible role for the locus coeruleus in the progression of Parkinson’s disease,” Neuroscience, vol. 41, no. 2-3, pp. 507–523, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Wilson, S. Nag, P. A. Boyle et al., “Neural reserve, neuronal density in the locus ceruleus, and cognitive decline,” Neurology, vol. 80, no. 13, pp. 1202–1208, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Gesi, P. Soldani, F. S. Giorgi, A. Santinami, I. Bonaccorsi, and F. Fornai, “The role of the locus coeruleus in the development of Parkinson’s disease,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 655–668, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. R. Mhyre, J. T. Boyd, R. W. Hamill, and K. A. Maguire-Zeiss, “Parkinson’ disease,” Protein Aggregation and Fibrillogenesis in Cerebral and Systemic Amyloid Disease, vol. 65, pp. 389–455, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Meireles and J. Massano, “Cognitive impairment and dementia in Parkinson’s disease: clinical features, diagnosis, and management,” Frontiers in Neurology, vol. 3, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. E Alexander, “Biology of Parkinson’s disease: pathogenesis and pathophysiology of a multisystem neurodegenerative disorder,” Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 259–280, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Halliday, A. Lees, and M. Stern, “Milestones in Parkinson’s disease-clinical and pathologic features,” Movement Disorders, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1015–1021, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. C. German, K. F. Manaye, C. L. White et al., “Disease-specific patterns of locus coeruleus cell loss,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 667–676, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Del Tredici, U. Rüb, R. A. I. De Vos, J. R. E. Bohl, and H. Braak, “Where does Parkinson disease pathology begin in the brain?” Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 413–426, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. W. Dickson, H. Braak, J. E. Duda et al., “Neuropathological assessment of Parkinson’s disease: refining the diagnostic criteria,” The Lancet Neurology, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 1150–1157, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Braak, K. D. Tredici, U. Rüb, R. A. I. de Vos, E. N. H. Jansen Steur, and E. Braak, “Staging of brain pathology related to sporadic Parkinson’s disease,” Neurobiology of Aging, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 197–211, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. M. Zweig, J. E. Cardillo, M. Cohen, S. Giere, and J. C. Hedreen, “The locus ceruleus and dementia in Parkinson’s disease,” Neurology, vol. 43, no. 5, p. 986, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Del Tredici and H. Braak, “Dysfunction of the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system and related circuitry in Parkinson’s disease-related dementia,” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, vol. 84, no. 7, pp. 774–783, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Chan-Palay and E. Asan, “Alterations in catecholamine neurons of the locus coeruleus in senile dementia of the Alzheimer type and in Parkinson’s disease with and without dementia and depression,” The Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 287, no. 3, pp. 373–392, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Espay, P. A. LeWitt, and H. Kaufmann, “Norepinephrine deficiency in Parkinson’s disease: the case for noradrenergic enhancement,” Movement Disorders, vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 1710–1719, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. S. Sachdev, D. Blacker, D. G. Blazer et al., “Classifying neurocognitive disorders: the DSM-5 approach,” Nature Reviews Neurology, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 634–642, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Rüb, K. Del Tredici, C. Schultz et al., “Parkinson’s disease: the thalamic components of the limbic loop are severely impaired by α-synuclein immunopositive inclusion body pathology,” Neurobiology of Aging, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 245–254, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. S. Rommelfanger and D. Weinshenker, “Norepinephrine: the redheaded stepchild of Parkinson’s disease,” Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 177–190, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. U. Isaias, A. Marzegan, G. Pezzoli et al., “A role for locus coeruleus in Parkinson tremor,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 5, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. P. Ramos and A. F. T. Arnsten, “Adrenergic pharmacology and cognition: focus on the prefrontal cortex,” Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 523–536, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D Harland and M. J Brown, “Effects of acute and chronic administration of idazoxan on blood pressure and plasma catecholamine concentrations of rats,” The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, vol. 245, no. 1, pp. 265–273, 1988.
View at: Google Scholar
O. Rascol, I. Arnulf, H. Peyro-Saint Paul et al., “Idazoxan, an alpha-2 antagonist, and L-DOPA-induced dyskinesias in patients with Parkinson’s disease,” Movement Disorders, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 708–713, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. L. Foster, R. P. Newman, P. A. LeWitt, M. M. Gillespie, T. A. Larsen, and T. N. Chase, “Peripheral beta-adrenergic blockade treatment of parkinsonian tremor,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 505–508, 1984.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Cash, T. Dennis, R. L’Heureux, R. Raisman, F. Javoy-Agid, and B. Scatton, “Parkinson’s disease and dementia: norepinephrine and dopamine in locus ceruleus,” Neurology, vol. 37, no. 1, p. 42, 1987.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Kaufmann, R. Freeman, I. Biaggioni et al., “Droxidopa for neurogenic orthostatic hypotension: a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial,” Neurology, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 328–335, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. S. Goldstein, C. Holmes, L. Sewell, S. Pechnik, and I. J. Kopin, “Effects of carbidopa and entacapone on the metabolic fate of the norepinephrine prodrug L-DOPS,” The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 66–74, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. H. Oertel, “Recent advances in treating Parkinson’s disease,” F1000Research, vol. 6, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. F. Davidson, K. Grosset, and D. Grosset, “Parkinson’s disease: the effect of L-dopa therapy on urinary free catecholamines and metabolites,” Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 364–368, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Weintraub, S. Mavandadi, E. Mamikonyan et al., “Atomoxetine for depression and other neuropsychiatric symptoms in Parkinson disease,” Neurology, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 448–455, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Pintor, E. Baillès, F. Valldeoriola, E. Tolosa, M. J. Martí, and J. de Pablo, “Response to 4-month treatment with reboxetine in Parkinson’s disease patients with a major depressive episode,” General Hospital Psychiatry, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 59–64, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. H. Richard, M. P. McDermott, R. Kurlan et al., “A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of antidepressants in Parkinson disease,” Neurology, vol. 78, no. 16, pp. 1229–1236, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Kratochvil, B. S. Vaughan, M. J. Harrington, and W. J. Burke, “Atomoxetine: a selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder,” Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 1165–1174, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Barton, “Atomoxetine: a new pharmacotherapeutic approach in the management of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder,” Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. i26–i29, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. L. Clark and B. Noudoost, “The role of prefrontal catecholamines in attention and working memory,” Frontiers in Neural Circuits, vol. 8, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Marsh, K. Biglan, M. Gerstenhaber, and J. R. Williams, “Atomoxetine for the treatment of executive dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease: a pilot open-label study,” Movement Disorders, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 277–282, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Caligiore, R. C. Helmich, M. Hallett et al., “Parkinson’s disease as a system-level disorder,” NPJ Parkinson’s Disease, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 16025, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Walker, O. Mason, D. B. Clemow, and K. A. Day, “Atomoxetine treatment in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder,” Postgraduate Medicine, vol. 127, no. 7, pp. 686–701, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Eramudugolla, M. E. Mortby, P. Sachdev, C. Meslin, R. Kumar, and K. J. Anstey, “Evaluation of a research diagnostic algorithm for DSM-5 neurocognitive disorders in a population-based cohort of older adults,” Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 15, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Grogan, C. I. Gormley, B. Rooney et al., “Differential diagnosis and comorbidity of ADHD and anxiety in adults,” British Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 99–115, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Homack, D. Lee, and C. A. Riccio, “Test review: Delis-Kaplan executive function system,” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 599–609, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Wingfield, E. A. L. Stine, C. J. Lahar, and J. S. Aberdeen, “Does the capacity of working memory change with age?” Experimental Aging Research, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 103–107, 1988.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. H. B. Benedict, D. Schretlen, L. Groninger, and J. Brandt, “Hopkins verbal learning test—revised: normative data and analysis of inter-form and test-retest reliability,” The Clinical Neuropsychologist, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 43–55, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Higgins and S. Green, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK, 2011, http://training.cochrane.org/handbook.
J. P. T. Higgins, S. G. Thompson, J. J. Deeks, and D. G. Altman, “Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses,” BMJ, vol. 327, no. 7414, pp. 557–560, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Das, S. K. Behera, A. Srinivasan et al., “Effect of metformin on exercise capacity: a meta-analysis,” Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, vol. 144, pp. 270–278, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey, NJ, USA, 1988.
V. K. Hinson, A. Delambo, J. Elm, and T. Turner, “A randomized clinical trial of atomoxetine for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease,” Movement Disorders Clinical Practice, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 416–423, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. B. Warner, A. A. Ottman, and J. N. Brown, “The role of atomoxetine for Parkinson disease-related executive dysfunction,” Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 627–631, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. R. Griffiths, J. E. Leikauf, T. W. Tsang et al., “Response inhibition and emotional cognition improved by atomoxetine in children and adolescents with ADHD: the ACTION randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Psychiatric Research, vol. 102, pp. 57–64, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Nahimi, M. Sommerauer, M. B. Kinnerup et al., “Noradrenergic deficits in Parkinson disease imaged with 11C-MeNER,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 659–664, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Vanicek, M. Spies, C. Rami-Mark et al., “The norepinephrine transporter in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder investigated with positron emission tomography,” JAMA Psychiatry, vol. 71, no. 12, pp. 1340–1349, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Cash, M. Ruberg, R. Raisman, and Y. Agid, “Adrenergic receptors in Parkinson’s disease,” Brain Research, vol. 322, no. 2, pp. 269–275, 1984.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. F. T. Arnsten, “Stress impairs prefrontal cortical function in rats and monkeys: role of dopamine D1 and norepinephrine α-1 receptor mechanisms,” Progress in Brain Research, vol. 126, pp. 183–192, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Birnbaum, K. T. Gobeske, J. Auerbach, J. R. Taylor, and A. F. T. Arnsten, “A role for norepinephrine in stress-induced cognitive deficits: α-1-adrenoceptor mediation in the prefrontal cortex,” Biological Psychiatry, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 1266–1274, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Jäkälä, J. Sirviö, M. Riekkinen et al., “Guanfacine and clonidine, alpha2-agonists, improve paired associates learning, but not delayed matching to sample, in humans,” Neuropsychopharmacology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 119–130, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B.-M. Li and Z.-T. Mei, “Delayed-response deficit induced by local injection of the α2-adrenergic antagonist yohimbine into the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in young adult monkeys,” Behavioral and Neural Biology, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 134–139, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C.-L. Ma, X.-L. Qi, J.-Y. Peng, and B.-M. Li, “Selective deficit in no-go performance induced by blockade of prefrontal cortical α2-adrenoceptorsin monkeys,” NeuroReport, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 1013–1016, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Aarsland, K. Andersen, J. P. Larsen, A. Lolk, and P. Kragh-Sørensen, “Prevalence and characteristics of dementia in Parkinson disease,” Archives of Neurology, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 387–392, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. Woodford and J. George, “Cognitive assessment in the elderly: a review of clinical methods,” QJM, vol. 100, no. 8, pp. 469–484, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Carnero-Pardo, “Should the Mini‐Mental State Examination Be Retired,” Neurología, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 473–481, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kasten, N. Bruggemann, A. Schmidt et al., “Validity of the MoCA and MMSE in the detection of MCI and dementia in Parkinson disease,” Neurology, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 478-479, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Borchert, T. Rittman, L. Passamonti et al., “Atomoxetine enhances connectivity of prefrontal networks in Parkinson’s disease,” Neuropsychopharmacology, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 2171–2177, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Abhinaba Ghosh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1251

Downloads

1034

Citations