METHODS: To guide clinical practice in the Asian region, the Asian Clinical Expert Group on Neurocognitive Disorders compiled evidence-based consensus recommendations regarding the use of EGb 761® in neurocognitive disorders with/without cerebrovascular disease.
RESULTS: Key randomized trials and robust meta-analyses have demonstrated significant improvement in cognitive function, neuropsychiatric symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life with EGb 761® versus placebo in patients with mild-to-moderate dementia. In those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), EGb 761® has also demonstrated significant symptomatic improvement versus placebo. World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry guidelines list EGb 761® with the same strength of evidence as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists e.g. memantine (Grade 3 recommendation; Level B evidence). Only EGb 761® had Level B evidence in improving cognition, behaviour, and ADL in both AD and vascular dementia patients. Safety analyses show EGb 761® to have a positive risk-benefit profile. While concerns have been raised regarding a possible increased bleeding risk, several randomized trials and two meta-analyses have not supported this association.
CONCLUSIONS: The Expert Group foresee an important role for EGb 761® , used alone or as an add-on therapy, in the treatment of MCI and dementias, particularly when patients do not derive benefit from acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or NMDA antagonists. EGb 761® should be used in alignment with local clinical practice guidelines.
METHODS: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis including articles published in the SID, MagIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, Cochrane, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched systematically to find articles published from 2006 to March 2019. Heterogeneity index was determined using the Cochran's test (Qc) and I2. Considering heterogeneity of studies, the random effects model was used to estimate the standardized difference of mean score for depression. Subsequently, the level of depression reduction in Iran and worldwide in the intervention group before and after the testwas measured.
RESULTS: A total of 19 articles met the inclusion criteria, and were therefore selected for this systematic review and meta-analysis. The sample size of the intervention group in the selected studies was 1948. According to the meta-analysis results, the mean depression score in the intervention group was 26.4 ± 5.6 and 18.4 ± 2.6 before and after intervention respectively, indicating the reducing effect of methadone on depression, and this difference was statistically significant (P drug treatment plan.