Metformin treatment before and during IVF or ICSI in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The use of insulin-sensitising agents, such as metformin, in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are undergoing ovulation induction or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles has been widely studied. Metformin reduces hyperinsulinaemia and suppresses the excessive ovarian production of androgens. It is suggested that as a consequence metformin could improve assisted reproductive techniques (ART) outcomes, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), pregnancy, and live birth rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin as a co-treatment during IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in achieving pregnancy or live birth in women with PCOS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, the trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 13 February 2020). SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metformin treatment with placebo or no treatment in women with PCOS who underwent IVF or ICSI treatment. TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: women of reproductive age with anovulation due to PCOS with or without co-existing infertility factors. Types of interventions: metformin administered before and during IVF or ICSI treatment. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: live birth rate, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data according to the protocol, and assessed study quality. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 13 RCTs involving a total of 1132 women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI treatments. We stratified the analysis by type of ovarian stimulation protocol used (long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-agonist) or short gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-antagonist)) to determine whether the type of stimulation used influenced the outcomes. We did not perform meta-analysis on the overall (both ovarian stimulation protocols combined) data for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per woman because of substantial heterogeneity. In the long protocol GnRH-agonist subgroup, the pooled evidence showed that we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on live birth rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.79; 6 RCTs; 651 women; I2 = 47%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 28%, the chance following metformin would be between 27% and 51%. Only one study used short protocol GnRH-antagonist and reported live birth rate. Metformin may reduce live birth rate compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 1 RCT; 153 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 43%, the chance following metformin would be between 13% and 34% (short GnRH-antagonist protocol). We found that metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.72; 11 RCTs; 1091 women; I2 = 38%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 20% risk of OHSS without metformin, the corresponding risk using metformin would be between 6% and 14%. Using long protocol GnRH-agonist stimulation, metformin may increase clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.63; 10 RCTs; 915 women; I2 = 13%; low-quality evidence). Using short protocol GnRH-antagonist, we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 9.14; 2 RCTs; 177 women; I2 = 87%; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32; 8 RCTs; 821 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Metformin may result in an increase in side effects compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 3.35, 95% CI 2.34 to 4.79; 8 RCTs; 748 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were inconsistency, risk of bias, and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review on metformin versus placebo/no treatment before or during IVF/ICSI treatment in women with PCOS found no conclusive evidence that metformin improves live birth rates. In a long GnRH-agonist protocol, we are uncertain whether metformin improves live birth rates, but metformin may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. In a short GnRH-antagonist protocol, metformin may reduce live birth rates, although we are uncertain about the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate. Metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS but may result in a higher incidence of side effects. We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman.

Pharmacological treatment for Buerger's disease.

BACKGROUND: Buerger's disease (thromboangiitis obliterans) is a non-atherosclerotic, segmental inflammatory pathology that most commonly affects the small and medium sized arteries, veins, and nerves in the upper and lower extremities. The aetiology is unknown, but involves hereditary susceptibility, tobacco exposure, immune and coagulation responses. In many cases, there is no possibility of revascularisation to improve the condition. Pharmacological treatment is an option for patients with severe complications, such as ischaemic ulcers or rest pain.This is an update of the review first published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of any pharmacological agent (intravenous or oral) compared with placebo or any other pharmacological agent in patients with Buerger's disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials register to 15 October 2019. The review authors searched LILACS, ISRCTN, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, EU Clinical Trials Register, clincialtrials.gov and the OpenGrey Database to 5 January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving pharmacological agents used in the treatment of Buerger's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, independently assessed the studies, extracted data and performed data analysis. MAIN RESULTS: No new studies were identified for this update. Five randomised controlled trials (total 602 participants) compared prostacyclin analogue with placebo, aspirin, or a prostaglandin analogue, and folic acid with placebo. No studies assessed other pharmacological agents such as cilostazol, clopidogrel and pentoxifylline or compared oral versus intravenous prostanoid. Compared with aspirin, intravenous prostacyclin analogue iloprost improved ulcer healing (risk ratio (RR) 2.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 6.11; 98 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and helped to eradicate rest pain after 28 days (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.52; 133 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), although amputation rates were similar six months after treatment (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.15; 95 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). When comparing prostacyclin (iloprost and clinprost) with prostaglandin (alprostadil) analogues, ulcer healing was similar (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.69; 89 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), as was the eradication of rest pain after 28 days (RR 1.57; 95% CI 0.72 to 3.44; 38 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), while amputation rates were not measured. Compared with placebo, the effects of oral prostacyclin analogue iloprost were similar for: healing ischaemic ulcers (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.54 to 2.29; 133 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.93; 135 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), eradication of rest pain after eight weeks (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.63; 207 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.59; 201 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and amputation rates after six months (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.56; 209 participants; 1 study, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.31; 213 participants; 1 study). When comparing folic acid with placebo in patients with Buerger's disease and hyperhomocysteinaemia, pain scores were similar, there were no new cases of amputation in either group, and ulcer healing was not assessed (very low-certainty evidence). Treatment side effects such as headaches, flushing or nausea were not associated with treatment interruptions or more serious consequences. Outcomes such as amputation-free survival, walking distance or pain-free walking distance, and ankle brachial index were not assessed by any study. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was very low to moderate, with few studies, small numbers of participants, variation in severity of disease of participants between studies and missing information (for example regarding baseline tobacco exposure). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that intravenous iloprost (prostacyclin analogue) is more effective than aspirin for eradicating rest pain and healing ischaemic ulcers in Buerger's disease, but oral iloprost is not more effective than placebo. Very low and low-certainty evidence suggests there is no clear difference between prostacyclin (iloprost and clinprost) and the prostaglandin analogue alprostadil for healing ulcers and relieving pain respectively in severe Buerger's disease. Very low-certainty evidence suggests there is no clear difference in pain scores and amputation rates between folic acid and placebo, in people with Buerger's disease and hyperhomocysteinaemia. Further well designed RCTs assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological agents (intravenous or oral) in people with Buerger's disease are needed.

Pharmacological treatment for Buerger's disease.

BACKGROUND: Buerger's disease (thromboangiitis obliterans) is a non-atherosclerotic, segmental inflammatory pathology that most commonly affects the small and medium sized arteries, veins, and nerves in the upper and lower extremities. The etiology is unknown, but involves hereditary susceptibility, tobacco exposure, immune and coagulation responses. In many cases, there is no possibility of revascularization to improve the condition. Pharmacological treatment is an option for patients with severe complications, such as ischaemic ulcers or rest pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of any pharmacological agent (intravenous or oral) compared with placebo or any other pharmacological agent in patients with Buerger's disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched their Specialised Register (last searched in April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (Issue 3, 2015). The review authors searched trial registers and the European grey literature; screened reference lists of relevant studies, and contacted study authors and major pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving pharmacological agents used in the treatment of Buerger's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, independently assessed the studies, extracted data and performed data analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials (total 602 participants) compared prostacyclin analogue with placebo, aspirin, or a prostaglandin analogue, and folic acid with placebo. No studies assessed other pharmacological agents such as cilostazol, clopidogrel and pentoxifylline or compared oral versus intravenous prostanoid.Compared with aspirin, intravenous prostacyclin analogue iloprost improved ulcer healing (risk ratio (RR) 2.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 6.11; 98 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence), and helped to eradicate rest pain after 28 days (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.52; 133 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence), although amputation rates were similar six months after treatment (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.15; 95 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence). When comparing prostacyclin (iloprost and clinprost) with prostaglandin (alprostadil) analogues, ulcer healing was similar (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.69; 89 participants; two studies; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), as was the eradication of rest pain after 28 days (RR 1.57; 95% CI 0.72 to 3.44; 38 participants; one study; low quality evidence), while amputation rates were not measured. Compared with placebo, the effects of oral prostacyclin analogue iloprost were similar for: healing ischaemic ulcers (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.54 to 2.29; 133 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.93; 135 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence), eradication of rest pain after eight weeks (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.63; 207 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.59; 201 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence), and amputation rates after six months (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.56; 209 participants; one study, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.31; 213 participants; one study). When comparing folic acid with placebo in patients with Buerger's disease and hyperhomocysteinaemia, pain scores were similar, there were no new cases of amputation in either group, and ulcer healing was not assessed (very low quality evidence).Treatment side effects such as headaches, flushing or nausea were not associated with treatment interruptions or more serious consequences. Outcomes such as amputation-free survival, walking distance or pain-free walking distance, and ankle brachial index were not assessed by any study.Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low to moderate, with few studies, small numbers of participants, variation in severity of disease of participants between studies and missing information regarding for example baseline tobacco exposure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence suggests that intravenous iloprost (prostacyclin analogue) is more effective than aspirin for eradicating rest pain and healing ischaemic ulcers in Buerger's disease, but oral iloprost is not more effective than placebo. Verylow and low quality evidence suggests there is no difference between prostacyclin (iloprost and clinprost) and the prostaglandin analogue alprostadil for healing ulcers and relieving pain respectively in severe Buerger's disease. Very-low quality evidence suggests there is no difference in pain scores and amputation rates between folic acid and placebo, in people with Buerger's disease and hyperhomocysteinaemia. High quality trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological agents (intravenous or oral) in people with Buerger's disease are needed.

Pharmacological treatment for Buerger's disease.

BACKGROUND: Buerger's disease (thromboangiitis obliterans) is a non-atherosclerotic, segmental inflammatory pathology that most commonly affects the small and medium sized arteries, veins, and nerves in the upper and lower extremities. The etiology is unknown, but involves hereditary susceptibility, tobacco exposure, immune and coagulation responses. In many cases, there is no possibility of revascularization to improve the condition. Pharmacological treatment is an option for patients with severe complications, such as ischaemic ulcers or rest pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of any pharmacological agent (intravenous or oral) compared with placebo or any other pharmacological agent in patients with Buerger's disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched their Specialised Register (last searched in April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (Issue 3, 2015). The review authors searched trial registers and the European grey literature; screened reference lists of relevant studies, and contacted study authors and major pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving pharmacological agents used in the treatment of Buerger's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, independently assessed the studies, extracted data and performed data analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials (total 602 participants) compared prostacyclin analogue with placebo, aspirin, or a prostaglandin analogue, and folic acid with placebo. No studies assessed other pharmacological agents such as cilostazol, clopidogrel and pentoxifylline or compared oral versus intravenous prostanoid.Compared with aspirin, intravenous prostacyclin analogue iloprost improved ulcer healing (risk ratio (RR) 2.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 6.11; 98 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence), and helped to eradicate rest pain after 28 days (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.52; 133 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence), although amputation rates were similar six months after treatment (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.15; 95 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence). When comparing prostacyclin (iloprost and clinprost) with prostaglandin (alprostadil) analogues, ulcer healing was similar (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.69; 89 participants; two studies; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), as was the eradication of rest pain after 28 days (RR 1.57; 95% CI 0.72 to 3.44; 38 participants; one study; low quality evidence), while amputation rates were not measured. Compared with placebo, the effects of oral prostacyclin analogue iloprost were similar for: healing ischaemic ulcers (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.54 to 2.29; 133 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.93; 135 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence), eradication of rest pain after eight weeks (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.63; 207 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.59; 201 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence), and amputation rates after six months (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.56; 209 participants; one study, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.31; 213 participants; one study). When comparing folic acid with placebo in patients with Buerger's disease and hyperhomocysteinaemia, pain scores were similar, there were no new cases of amputation in either group, and ulcer healing was not assessed (very low quality evidence).Treatment side effects such as headaches, flushing or nausea were not associated with treatment interruptions or more serious consequences. Outcomes such as amputation-free survival, walking distance or pain-free walking distance, and ankle brachial index were not assessed by any study.Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low to moderate, with few studies, small numbers of participants, variation in severity of disease of participants between studies and missing information regarding for example baseline tobacco exposure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence suggests that intravenous iloprost (prostacyclin analogue) is more effective than aspirin for eradicating rest pain and healing ischaemic ulcers in Buerger's disease, but oral iloprost is not more effective than placebo. Verylow and low quality evidence suggests there is no difference between prostacyclin (iloprost and clinprost) and the prostaglandin analogue alprostadil for healing ulcers and relieving pain respectively in severe Buerger's disease. Very-low quality evidence suggests there is no difference in pain scores and amputation rates between folic acid and placebo, in people with Buerger's disease and hyperhomocysteinaemia. High quality trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological agents (intravenous or oral) in people with Buerger's disease are needed.

Chewing gum for enhancing early recovery of bowel function after caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean sections (CS) are the most frequent major surgery in the world. A transient impairment of bowel motility is expected after CS. Although this usually resolves spontaneously within a few days, it can cause considerable discomfort, require symptomatic medication and delay hospital discharge, thus increasing costs. Chewing gum in the immediate postoperative period is a simple intervention that may be effective in enhancing recovery of bowel function in other types of abdominal surgeries. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of chewing gum to reduce the duration of postoperative ileus and to enhance postoperative recovery after a CS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 June 2016), LILACs (20 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (20 June 2016), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (20 June 2016) and the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing chewing gum versus usual care, for women in the first 24 hours after a CS. We included studies published in abstract form only.Quasi-randomised, cross-over or cluster-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias following standard Cochrane methods. We present dichotomous outcome results as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous outcome results as mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. We pooled the results of similar studies using a random-effects model in case of important heterogeneity. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 randomised trials (3149 participants) conducted in nine different countries. Seven studies (1325 women) recruited exclusively women undergoing elective CS and five studies (833 women) only included women having a primary CS. Ten studies (1731 women) used conventional feeding protocols (nil by mouth until the return of intestinal function). The gum-chewing regimen varied among studies, in relation to its initiation (immediately after CS, up to 12 hours later), duration of each session (from 15 to 60 minutes) and number of sessions per day (three to more than six). All the studies were classified as having a high risk of bias due to the nature of the intervention, women could not be blinded and most of the outcomes were self-reported.Primary outcomes of this review: for the women that chewed gum, the time to passage of first flatus was seven hours shorter than those women in the 'usual care' control group (MD -7.09 hours, 95% CI -9.27 to -4.91 hours; 2399 women; 13 studies; random-effects Tau² = 14.63, I² = 95%, very low-quality evidence). This effect was consistent in all subgroup analyses (primary and repeat CS, time spent chewing gum per day, early and conventional feeding protocols, elective and non-elective CS and time after CS when gum-chewing was initiated). The rate of ileus was on average over 60% lower in the chewing-gum group compared to the control (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.80; 1139 participants; four studies; I² = 39%, low-quality evidence). Tolerance to gum-chewing appeared to be high. Three women in one study complained about the chewing gum (but no further information was provided) and none of the studies reported adverse effects (eight studies, 925 women, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomes of this review: the time to passage of faeces occurred on average nine hours earlier in the intervention group (MD -9.22 hours, 95% CI -11.49 to -6.95 hours; 2016 participants; 11 studies; random-effects Tau² = 12.53, I² = 93%, very low-quality evidence). The average duration of hospital stay was shorter in the intervention compared to the control group (MD -0.36 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.18 days; 1489 participants; seven studies; random-effects Tau² = 0.04, I² = 92%). The first intestinal sounds were heard earlier in the intervention than in the control group (MD -4.56 hours, 95% CI -6.18 to -2.93 hours; 1729 participants; nine studies; random-effects Tau² = 5.41, I² = 96%). None of the studies assessed women's satisfaction in relation to having to chew gum. The need for analgesia or antiemetic agents did not differ between the intervention and control groups (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.13; 726 participants; three studies; random-effects Tau² = 0.79, I² = 69%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found 17 randomised controlled trials (involving 3149 women). We downgraded the quality of the evidence for time to first passage of flatus and of faeces and for adverse effects/intolerance to gum chewing because of the high risk of bias of the studies (due to lack of blinding and self-report). For time to first flatus and faeces, we downgraded the quality of the evidence further because of the high heterogeneity in these meta-analyses and the potential for publication bias based on the visual inspection of the funnel plots. The quality of the evidence for adverse effects/tolerance to gum chewing and for ileus was downgraded because of the small number of events. The quality of the evidence for ileus was further downgraded due to the unclear risk of bias for the assessors evaluating this outcome.The available evidence suggests that gum chewing in the immediate postoperative period after a CS is a well tolerated intervention that enhances early recovery of bowel function. However the overall quality of the evidence is very low to low.Further research is necessary to establish the optimal regimen of gum-chewing (initiation, number and duration of sessions per day) to enhance bowel function recovery and to assess potential adverse effects of and women's satisfaction with this intervention. New studies also need to assess the compliance of the participants to the recommended gum-chewing instructions. Future large, well designed and conducted studies, with better methodological and reporting quality, will help to inform future updates of this review and enhance the body of evidence for this intervention.

Polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation for drug-resistant epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 1% to 3% of all individuals will receive a diagnosis of epilepsy during their lives, which corresponds to approximately 50 million affected people worldwide. The real prevalence is possibly higher because epilepsy is underreported in developing countries. Although most will achieve adequate control of their disease though the use of medication, approximately 25% to 30% of all those with epilepsy are refractory to pharmacological treatment and will continue to have seizures despite the use of two or more agents in adequate dosages. Over the last decade, researchers have tested the use of polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplements for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, with inconsistent results. There have also been some concerns about the use of omega-3 PUFA compounds because they reduce platelet aggregation and could, in theory, cause bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid-EPA and docosahexanoic acid-DHA) in the control of seizures in people with refractory epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (from inception up to November 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, issue 11), MEDLINE (1948 to November 2015), EMBASE (1980 to November 2015), SCOPUS (1823 to November 2015); LILACS (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe de Informação em Ciências da Saúde) (1982 to November 2015); ClinicalTrials.gov; World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (November 2015). No language restrictions were imposed. We contacted study authors for additional and unpublished information and screened the reference lists of retrieved citations for potentially eligible studies not identified through the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised studies using PUFAs for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were involved in study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included trials. The following outcomes were assessed: seizure freedom, seizure reduction, improvement in quality of life, potential adverse effects, gastrointestinal effects, drop-out rates and changes in plasma lipid profile. Primary analyses were by intention to treat. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies were identified as potentially relevant; three fulfilled the selection criteria and were included in the review. Two placebo-controlled, double blind trials involving adult participants were conducted in developed countries, while one placebo-controlled, single blind trial involving children was conducted in a developing country (Egypt). Bromfield 2008 randomised 27 American adults to receive 2.2 g/day of omega-3 PUFAs (EPA:DHA in a 3:2 ratio) or placebo. Yuen 2005 randomised 58 people in the UK to approximately 1.7 g/day omega-3 PUFAs (1g EPA and 0.7g DHA) or placebo. Reda 2015 randomised 70 Egyptian children to receive 3 ml/day of 1200 mg fish oil (providing 0.24 g DHA and 0.36 g EPA) or placebo. The three studies recruited a total of 155 subjects (85 adults and 70 children); 78 of them (43 adults and 35 children) were randomised to PUFAs and 77 (42 adults and 35 children) to placebo. All participants were followed for up to 12 weeks. Seizure freedom was reported by only one study, with a high risk of bias, involving exclusively children. The risk estimate for this outcome was significantly higher in the children receiving PUFA compared to the control group (risk ratio (RR) 20.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.84 to 140.99, 1 study, 70 children). Similarly, PUFA supplementation was associated with a significant difference in the proportion of children with at least 50% reduction in seizure frequency (RR 33.00 95% CI 4.77 to 228.15, 1 study with a high risk of bias, 70 children). However, this effect was not observed when the data from two studies including adult participants were pooled (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.75, I² 0%, 2 studies, 78 participants, low-quality evidence). One of our three primary outcomes (adverse effects related to bleeding) was not assessed in any of the studies included in this review. There were no significant differences between the PUFA and control groups in relation to gastrointestinal effects (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.89, 2 studies, 85 participants, low-quality evidence).Supplementation with PUFA did not produce significant differences in mean frequency of seizures, quality of life or other side effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In view of the limited number of studies and small sample sizes, there is not enough evidence to support the use of PUFA supplementation in people with refractory epilepsy. More trials are needed to assess the benefits of PUFA supplementation in the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy.

Statins for aortic valve stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life.Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalisation for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis.The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.

Pharmacotherapy for sleep bruxism.

BACKGROUND: Sleep bruxism is an oral activity characterized by involuntary teeth grinding or clenching during sleep. Several forms of treatment have been proposed for this disorder, including behavioural, dental and pharmacological strategies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological therapy for the treatment of sleep bruxism compared with other drugs, no treatment or placebo. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2014), EMBASE (1980 to August 2013) and LILACS (1982 to August 2014). We identified additional reports from the reference lists of retrieved reports and from reviews on treatment of sleep bruxism. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared drugs with other drugs, no treatment or placebo in people with sleep bruxism. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors carried out data extraction and quality assessment of the included trials independently and in duplicate. We discussed discrepancies until we reached consensus. We consulted a third review author in cases of persistent disagreement. We contacted authors of primary studies when necessary. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 potentially relevant RCTs, but only seven met the inclusion criteria. All studies had a small number of participants, ranging from seven to 16 people per study and had a cross-over design. Three studies were of low risk of bias, while four were of uncertain risk. Amitriptyline (three studies), bromocriptine (one study), clonidine (one study), propranolol (one study), levodopa (Prolopa®) (one study) and tryptophan (one study) were compared with placebo. Studies evaluating bromocriptine, clonidine, propranolol and levodopa reported our primary outcome of indices of bruxism motor activity.Results were imprecise and consistent with benefit, no difference or harm. These were the specific findings for each of the drugs according to specific outcomes: 1. Amitriptyline versus placebo for masseteric electromyography (EMG) activity per minute: standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.91 to 0.34; P value = 0.37), 2. bromocriptine versus placebo for bruxism episodes per hour: mean difference (MD) 0.60 (95% CI -2.93 to 4.13), bruxism bursts per hour: MD -2.00 (95% CI -53.47 to 49.47), bruxism bursts per episode: MD 0.50 (95% CI -1.85 to 2.85) or number of episodes with grinding noise: MD 2.40 (95% CI -24.00 to 28.80), 3. clonidine versus placebo for number of bruxism episodes per hour: MD -2.41 (95% CI -4.84 to 0.02), 4. propranolol versus placebo for the number of bruxism episodes per hour: MD 1.16 (95% CI -1.89 to 4.21), 5. L-tryptophan versus placebo for masseteric EMG activity per second: SMD 0.08 (95% CI -0.90 to 1.06) and 6. levodopa versus placebo for bruxism episodes per hour of sleep: MD -1.47 (95% CI -3.64 to 0.70), for bruxism bursts per episode: MD 0.06 (95% CI -2.47 to 2.59).We combined several secondary outcomes (sleep duration, masseteric EMG activity per minute and pain intensity) in a meta-analysis for comparison of amitriptyline with placebo. The results for most comparisons were uncertain because of statistical imprecision. One study reported that clonidine reduced rapid eye movement (REM) sleep stage and increased the second stage of sleep. However, results for other sleep-related outcomes with clonidine were uncertain. Adverse effects were frequent in people who took amitriptyline (5/10 had drowsiness, difficulty awakening in the morning, insomnia or xerostomia compared with 0/10 in the placebo group), as well as in people who received propranolol (7/16 had moderate-to-severe xerostomia compare with 2/16 in the placebo group). Clonidine was associated with prolonged morning hypotension in three of 16 participants. The use of preventive medication avoided any adverse effects in people treated with levodopa and bromocriptine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for the treatment of sleep bruxism. This systematic review points to the need for more, well-designed, RCTs with larger sample sizes and adequate methods of allocation, outcome assessment and duration of follow-up. Ideally, parallel RCTs should be used in future studies to avoid the bias associated with cross-over studies. There is a need to standardize the outcomes of RCTs on treatments for sleep bruxism.

Metformin treatment before and during IVF or ICSI in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The use of insulin-sensitising agents, such as metformin, in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are undergoing ovulation induction or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles has been widely studied. Metformin reduces hyperinsulinaemia and suppresses the excessive ovarian production of androgens. As a consequence, it is suggested that metformin could improve assisted reproductive techniques (ART) outcomes, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), pregnancy and live birth rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin as a co-treatment during IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in achieving pregnancy or live birth in women with PCOS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and reference lists of articles (up to 15 October 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metformin treatment with placebo or no treatment in women with PCOS who underwent IVF or ICSI treatment. TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: women of reproductive age with anovulation due to PCOS with or without co-existing infertility factors.Types of interventions: metformin administered before and during IVF or ICSI treatment.Types of outcome measures: live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome , incidence of participant-reported side effects, serum oestradiol level on the day of trigger, serum androgen level, and fasting insulin and glucose levels. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data according to the protocol and assessed study quality. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine randomised controlled trials involving a total of 816 women with PCOS. When metformin was compared with placebo there was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in live birth rates (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.40, five RCTs, 551 women, I(2) = 52%, low-quality evidence). Our findings suggest that for a woman with a 32 % chance of achieving a live birth using placebo or other treatment, the corresponding chance using metformin treatment would be between 28% and 53%.When metformin was compared with placebo or no treatment, clinical pregnancy rates were higher in the metformin group (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.15; eight RCTs, 775 women, I(2) = 18%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 31% chance of achieving a clinical pregnancy using placebo or no treatment, the corresponding chance using metformin treatment would be between 32% and 49%.The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was lower in the metformin group (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.49, eight RCTs, 798 women, I(2) = 11%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 27% risk of having OHSS without metformin the corresponding chance using metformin treatment would be between 6% and 15%.Side effects (mostly gastrointestinal) were more common in the metformin group (OR 4.49, 95% CI 1.88 to 10.72, for RCTs, 431 women, I(2)=57%, low quality evidence)The overall quality of the evidence was moderate for the outcomes of clinical pregnancy, OHSS and miscarriage, and low for other outcomes. The main limitations in the evidence were imprecision and inconsistency. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no conclusive evidence that metformin treatment before or during ART cycles improved live birth rates in women with PCOS. However, the use of this insulin-sensitising agent increased clinical pregnancy rates and decreased the risk of OHSS.

Diacerein for osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal diseases. There is currently no consensus on what is the best treatment to improve OA symptoms and slow disease progression. Diacerein is an anthraquinone synthesised in 1980 that interferes with interleukin-1, an inflammatory mediator. It has been proposed that diacerein acts as a slow-acting, symptom-modifying and perhaps disease-structure-modifying drug for OA. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of diacerein for the treatment of adults with OA when compared with placebo and other pharmacologically active interventions (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and other symptom-modifying, slow-acting drugs) for OA. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) - The Cochrane Library, Issue 10, 2013, MEDLINE (1966 to 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2013), LILACS (1982 to 2013), and ACP Journal Club, and we handsearched reference lists of published articles. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform ( http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx) to identify ongoing trials and screened reference lists of retrieved review articles and trials to identify potentially relevant studies. All searches were up to date as of March 2013. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of published articles were contacted. We searched the websites of the regulatory agencies using the keyword 'diacerein' in November 2013. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared diacerein with placebo or another active pharmacological intervention in participants with OA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent investigators, and their results were compared. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used. The quality of evidence obtained was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three new trials (141 participants), and this updated review now includes 10 trials, totalling 2,210 participants. The most frequent risk of bias was incomplete outcome data, identified in approximately 80% of the studies. Allocation concealment and random sequence generation were unclear in 90% and 40% of the studies, respectively, because of poor reporting.Low-quality evidence from six trials (1,283 participants) indicates that diacerein has a small beneficial effect on overall pain (measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale) at three to 36 months (mean difference (MD) -8.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.62 to -1.68), which is equivalent to a 9% pain reduction in the diacerein group (95% CI -16% to -2%) compared with the placebo group. This benefit may not be clinically significant.No statistically significant differences in physical function (4 studies, 1006 participants) were noted between the diacerein and placebo groups (Lequesne impairment index, 0 to 24 points) (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.28).Low-quality evidence from two trials (616 participants) on slowing of joint space narrowing (a decrease greater than 0.50 mm) in the knee or hip favoured diacerein over placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99), with an absolute risk difference of -6% (95% CI -15% to 2%) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 14 (95% CI 8 to 203). Analysis of the knee joint alone (1 study, 170 participants) did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.74).None of the trials of diacerein versus placebo measured quality of life. According to one trial (161 participants), which compared diacerein versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the quality of life of participants in the two groups (as assessed by the Short Form (SF)-36 health survey questionnaire (0 to 800 sum score)) did not differ significantly (MD -40.70, 95% CI -85.20 to 3.80).Low-quality evidence from seven trials showed significantly more adverse events in the diacerein group compared with the placebo group after two to 36 months, mainly diarrhoea (RR 3.52, 95% CI 2.42 to 5.11), with an absolute risk increase of 24% (95% CI 12% to 35%), and a number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 7).No statistically significant differences in participant withdrawal due to adverse events were seen at two to 36 months for diacerein compared with placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.01).A search of regulatory websites found a recommendation from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) that the marketing authorization of diacerein should be suspended across Europe because of harms (particularly the risk of severe diarrhoea and potentially harmful effects on the liver) outweighing benefits. However, this guidance is not final as the PRAC recommendation will be re-examined. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, the strength of evidence for effectiveness outcomes was low to moderate. We confirmed that symptomatic benefit provided by diacerein in terms of pain reduction is minimal. The small benefit derived in terms of joint space narrowing is of questionable clinical relevance and was observed only for OA of the hip. With respect to adverse effects of diacerein, diarrhoea was most frequent. Given the recent guidance issued by the EMA recommending suspension of diacerein in Europe, the EMA website should be consulted for further recommendations regarding the use of diacerein.

Interventions for treating traumatised permanent front teeth: luxated (dislodged) teeth.

BACKGROUND: Dental trauma is common especially in children and young adults. One group of dento-alveolar injuries is classified as luxation. This group includes a subgroup of severe injuries where the tooth is displaced from its original position. These injuries are classified further by the direction in which the tooth has been displaced, namely: intrusion, extrusion and lateral luxation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of a range of interventions for treating displaced luxated permanent front teeth. SEARCH METHODS: Search strategies were developed for MEDLINE via OVID and revised appropriately for the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 20 August 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 8), MEDLINE via OVID (1966 to August 2012), EMBASE via Elsevier (1974 to August 2012), and LILACS via BIREME (1982 to August 2012). Dissertations, Theses and Abstracts were searched as were reference lists from articles. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of treatment interventions for displaced luxated permanent front teeth. Included trials had to have a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently and in duplicate assessed the eligibility of all reports identified in the searches. Authors were contacted for additional information where required. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials were found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no randomised or quasi-randomised trials of interventions to treat displaced luxated permanent front teeth. Current clinical guidelines are based on available information from case series studies and expert opinions. Randomised controlled trials in this area of dental trauma are required to robustly identify the benefits of different treatment strategies.

Depot versus daily administration of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary down regulation in assisted reproduction cycles.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) is commonly used to switch off (down regulate) the pituitary gland and thus suppress ovarian activity in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Other fertility drugs (gonadotrophins) are then used to stimulate ovulation in a controlled manner. Among the various types of pituitary down regulation protocols in use, the long protocol achieves the best clinical pregnancy rate. The long protocol requires GnRHa administration until suppression of ovarian activity occurs, within approximately 14 days. GnRHa can be used either as daily low-dose injections or through a single injection containing higher doses of the drug (depot). It is unclear which of these two forms of administration is best, and whether single depot administration may require higher doses of gonadotrophins. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of a single depot dose of GHRHa versus daily GnRHa doses in women undergoing IVF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched July 2012), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2012), EMBASE (1980 to July 2012) and LILACS (1982 to July 2012). We also screened the reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing depot and daily administration of GnRHa for long protocols in IVF treatment cycles in couples with any cause of infertility, using various methods of ovarian stimulation. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Other outcomes included number of oocytes retrieved, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, number of gonadotrophin (FSH) units used for ovarian stimulation, duration of gonadotrophin treatment, cost and patient convenience. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) per woman randomised. Where appropriate, we pooled studies. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 1811 participants), 12 (n = 1366 participants) of which were suitable for meta-analysis. No significant heterogeneity was detected.There were no significant differences between depot GnRHa and daily GnRHa in live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.31, seven studies, 873 women), but substantial differences could not be ruled out. Thus for a woman with a 24% chance of achieving a live birth or ongoing pregnancy using daily GnRHa injections, the corresponding chance using GnRHa depot would be between 18% and 29%.There was no significant difference between the groups in clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.23, 11 studies, 1259 women). For a woman with a 30% chance of achieving clinical pregnancy using daily GnRHa injections, the corresponding chance using GnRHa depot would be between 25% and 35%.There was no significant difference between the groups in the rate of severe OHSS (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.42, five studies, 570 women), but substantial differences could not be ruled out. For a woman with a 3% chance of severe OHSS using daily GnRHa injections, the corresponding risk using GnRHa depot would be between 1% and 6%.Compared to women using daily GnRHa, those on depot administration required significantly more gonadotrophin units for ovarian stimulation (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.43, 11 studies, 1143 women) and a significantly longer duration of gonadotrophin use (mean difference (MD) 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84, 10 studies, 1033 women).Study quality was unclear due to poor reporting. Only four studies reported live births as an outcome and only five described adequate methods for concealment of allocation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a significant difference between depot and daily GnRHa use for pituitary down regulation in IVF cycles using the long protocol, but substantial differences could not be ruled out. Since depot GnRHa requires more gonadotrophins and a longer duration of use, it may increase the overall costs of IVF treatment.

Metformin treatment before and during in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: summary of a Cochrane review.

In women with polycystic ovary syndrome, metformin treatment before or during assisted reproductive technology cycles increases clinical pregnancy rates and decreases the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. However, there is no conclusive evidence of a benefit in live birth rates.

Induction chemotherapy prior to surgery with or without postoperative radiotherapy for oral cavity cancer patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Locoregionally advanced oral cavity cancers are aggressive tumours with high risk of relapse after definitive treatment. This study was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of induction chemotherapy prior to surgery for untreated oral cavity cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Only prospective phase III randomised studies comparing induction chemotherapy followed by surgery with or without postoperative radiotherapy (Chemo Group) compared with surgery with or without postoperative radiotherapy (Control Group) were eligible. Two of the authors independently selected and assessed the studies regarding eligibility criteria and risk of bias. RESULTS: Two studies were selected. A total of 451 patients were randomly assigned to Chemo Group (n=226) versus Control Group (n=225). Most patients had tumours at clinical stages III/IV (89.1%). Both trials were classified as having low risk of bias. No significant overall benefit in favour of induction chemotherapy was found regarding loco-regional recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival. A subgroup analysis of individual data from cN2 patients showed statistically significant overall survival benefit in favour of induction chemotherapy. The included studies did not directly compare toxicity between the groups and no statistical analysis was performed regarding safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available studies, induction chemotherapy when administered before surgery with curative intent did not improve clinical outcomes in locoregionally advanced oral cavity cancer patients. Clinically assessed N2 patients might benefit from induction chemotherapy.

Efetividade das escovas manual e elétrica utilizadas por cuidadores em crianças com paralisia cerebral / Effectiveness of manual and electric toothbrushes used in children with cerebral palsy by caregivers

Este estudo objetivou avaliar a efetividade das escovas manual (Colgate«) e elétrica (Colgate Actibrush«) na redução da placa bacteriana em 14 crianças com paralisia cerebral institucionalizadas, de 2 a 7 anos, em 4 situações: pré e pós-escovação manual e, após o intervalo médio de uma semana, pré e pós-escovação elétrica. As escovações foram realizadas pelos cuidadores. A média do Índice de Greene e Vermillion Simplificado (escores) foi obtida nas 4 situações através da evidenciação da placa, em todos os pacientes. Os resultados foram submetidos às análises estatísticas (Wilcoxon e Mann-Whitney). Ambas as escovações mostraram redução significativa no índice de placa bacteriana, mas não houve diferenças estatisticamente significantes entre os dois tipos. Observou-se uma preferência pela escova elétrica por parte dos cuidadores.