Enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase for mucopolysaccharidosis type II (Hunter syndrome).

BACKGROUND: Mucopolysaccharidosis II, also known as Hunter syndrome, is a rare, X-linked disease caused by a deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme iduronate-2-sulfatase, which catalyses a step in the catabolism of glycosaminoglycans. The glycosaminoglycans accumulate within tissues affecting multiple organs and physiologic systems. The clinical manifestations include neurologic involvement, severe airways obstruction, skeletal deformities and cardiomyopathy. The disease has a variable age of onset and variable rate of progression. In those with severe disease, death usually occurs in the second decade of life, whereas those individuals with less severe disease may survive into adulthood. Enzyme replacement therapy with intravenous infusions of idursulfase has emerged as a new treatment for mucopolysaccharidosis type II. This is an update of a previously published version of this review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase compared to other interventions, placebo or no intervention, for treating mucopolysaccharidosis type II. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register (date of last search 23 November 2015).We also searched Embase, PubMed and the Literature Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) (date of last search 28 November 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase compared to no intervention, placebo or other options (e.g. behavioral strategies, transplantation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality of papers and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: One study (96 male participants) met the inclusion criteria, although the primary outcome of this review - z score for height and weight, was not assessed in the study. This trial was considered to be of overall good quality. Following 53 weeks of treatment, participants in the weekly idursulfase 0.5 mg/kg group demonstrated a significant improvement rate compared with placebo for the primary outcome: distance walked in six minutes on the basis of the sum of ranks of change from baseline, mean difference 37.00 (95% confidence interval 6.52 to 67.48). The every-other-week idursulfase 0.5 mg/kg group also showed an improvement, which was not significant compared with placebo, mean difference 23.00 (95% confidence interval -4.49 to 50.49). After 53 weeks, there was no statistical significance difference in per cent predicted forced vital capacity between the three groups and absolute forced vital capacity was significantly increased from baseline in the weekly dosing group compared to placebo, mean difference 0.16 (95% confidence interval CI 0.05 to 0.27). No difference was observed between the every-other-week idursulfase 0.5 mg/kg group and placebo.In addition, liver and spleen volumes and urine glycosaminoglycan excretion were significantly reduced from baseline by both idursulfase dosing regimens. Idursulfase was generally well tolerated, but infusion reactions did occur. Idursulfase antibodies were detected in 31.7% of participants at the end of the study and they were related to a smaller reduction in urine glycosaminoglycan levels. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence is limited. While the randomised clinical trial identified was considered to be of good quality, it failed to describe important outcomes. It has been demonstrated that enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase is effective in relation to functional capacity (distance walked in six minutes and forced vital capacity), liver and spleen volumes and urine glycosaminoglycan excretion in people with mucopolysaccharidosis type II compared with placebo. There is no available evidence in the included study and in the literature on outcomes such as improvement in growth, sleep apnoea, cardiac function, quality of life and mortality. More studies are needed to obtain more information on the long-term effectiveness and safety of enzyme replacement therapy.

Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery.

BACKGROUND: Incontinence after prostatectomy for benign or malignant disease is a well-known and often a feared outcome. Although small degrees of incidental incontinence may go virtually unnoticed, larger degrees of incontinence can have a major impact on a man's quality of life.Conceptually, post-prostatectomy incontinence may be caused by sphincter malfunction or bladder dysfunction, or both. Most men with post-prostatectomy incontinence (60% to 100%) have stress urinary incontinence, which is involuntary urinary leakage on effort or exertion, or on sneezing or coughing. This may be due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency and may be treated with surgery for optimal management of incontinence. Detrusor dysfunction is more common after surgery for benign prostatic disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of surgical treatment for urinary incontinence related to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery for:- men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) - transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), photo vaporisation of the prostate, laser enucleation of the prostate or open prostatectomy - and- men with prostate cancer - radical prostatectomy (retropubic, perineal, laparoscopic, or robotic). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 31 March 2014); MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2014); EMBASE (January 1988 to April 2014); and LILACS (January 1982 to April 2014). We handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings. We contacted investigators to locate studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that include surgical treatments of urinary incontinence after prostate surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality of papers, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Only one study with 45 participants met the inclusion criteria. Men were divided in two sub-groups (minimal or total incontinence) and each group was randomised to artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) implantation or Macroplastique injection. Follow-up ranged from six to 120 months. In the trial as a whole, the men treated with AUS were more likely to be dry (18/20, 82%) than those who had the injectable treatment (11/23, 46%) (odds ratio (OR) 5.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 25.10). However, this effect was only statistically significant for the men with more severe ('total') incontinence (OR 8.89, 95% CI 1.40 to 56.57) and the CIs were wide. There were more severe complications in the group undergoing AUS, and the costs were higher. AUS implantation was complicated in 5/22 (23%) men: the implant had to be removed from one man because of infection and in one man due to the erosion of the cuff, in one man the pump was changed due to mechanical failure, in one man there was migration to the intraperitoneal region, and one man experienced scrotal erosion. In the injectable group, 3/23 (13%) men had a complication: one man treated with Macroplastique injection had to be catheterised because of urinary retention and two men developed urinary tract infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence available at present was of very low quality because we identified only one small randomised clinical trial. Although the result was favourable for the implantation of AUS in the group with severe incontinence, this result should be considered with caution due to the small sample size and uncertain methodological quality of the study found.

Enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase for mucopolysaccharidosis type II (Hunter syndrome).

BACKGROUND: Mucopolysaccharidosis II, also known as Hunter syndrome, is a rare, X-linked disease caused by a deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme iduronate-2-sulfatase, which catalyses a step in the catabolism of glycosaminoglycans. The glycosaminoglycans accumulate within tissues affecting multiple organs and physiologic systems. The clinical manifestations include neurologic involvement, severe airways obstruction, skeletal deformities and cardiomyopathy. The disease has a variable age of onset and variable rate of progression. In those with severe disease, death usually occurs in the second decade of life, whereas those patients with less severe disease may survive into adulthood. Enzyme replacement therapy with intravenous infusions of idursulfase has emerged as a new treatment for mucopolysaccharidosis type II. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase compared to other interventions, placebo or no intervention, for treating mucopolysaccharidosis type II. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register (date of last search 22 July 2013).We also searched EMBASE, PubMed and the Literature Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) (date of last search 09 July 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase compared to no intervention, placebo or other options (e.g. behavioral strategies, transplantation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality of papers and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: One study (96 patients) met the inclusion criteria, although the primary outcome of this review - z score for height and weight, was not assessed in the study. This trial was considered to be of overall good quality. Following 53 weeks of treatment, patients in the weekly idursulfase 0.5 mg/kg group demonstrated a significant improvement rate compared with placebo for the primary outcome: distance walked in six minutes on the basis of the sum of ranks of change from baseline, mean difference 37.00 (95% confidence interval 6.52 to 67.48). The every-other-week idursulfase 0.5 mg/kg group also showed an improvement, which was not significant compared with placebo, mean difference 23.00 (95% confidence interval -4.49 to 50.49). After 53 weeks, there was no statistical significance difference in per cent predicted forced vital capacity between the three groups and absolute forced vital capacity was significantly increased from baseline in the weekly dosing group compared to placebo, mean difference 0.16 (95% confidence interval CI 0.05 to 0.27). No difference was observed between the every-other-week idursulfase 0.5 mg/kg group and placebo.In addition, liver and spleen volumes and urine glycosaminoglycan excretion were significantly reduced from baseline by both idursulfase dosing regimens. Idursulfase was generally well tolerated, but infusion reactions did occur. Idursulfase antibodies were detected in 31.7% of patients at the end of the study and they were related to a smaller reduction in urine glycosaminoglycan levels. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence is limited. While the randomised clinical trial identified was considered to be of good quality, it failed to describe important outcomes. It has been demonstrated that enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase is effective in relation to functional capacity (distance walked in six minutes and forced vital capacity), liver and spleen volumes and urine glycosaminoglycan excretion in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type II compared with placebo. There is no available evidence in the included study and in the literature on outcomes such as improvement in growth, sleep apnoea, cardiac function, quality of life and mortality. More studies are needed to obtain more information on the long-term effectiveness and safety of enzyme replacement therapy.

Urinary catheter policies for long-term bladder drainage.

BACKGROUND: People requiring long-term bladder draining commonly experience catheter-associated urinary tract infection and other problems. OBJECTIVES: To determine if certain catheter policies are better than others in terms of effectiveness, complications, quality of life and cost-effectiveness in long-term catheterised adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 28 September 2011). Additionally, we examined all reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing catheter policies (route of insertion and use of antibiotics) for long-term (more than 14 days) catheterisation in adults and children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two reviewers independently and compared. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Data were processed as described in the Cochrane Handbook. If the data in trials had not been fully reported, clarification was sought from the authors. When necessary, the incidence-density rates (IDR) and/or the incidence-density differences (IDD) within a certain time period were calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials met the inclusion criteria involving 504 patients in four cross-over and four parallel-group randomised controlled trials. Only two of the pre-stated six comparisons were addressed in these trials. Four trials compared antibiotic prophylaxis with antibiotics when clinically indicated. For patients using intermittent catheterisation, there were inconsistent findings about the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI). Only one study found a significant difference in the frequency of UTI favouring prophylaxis. For patients using indwelling urethral catheterisation, one small trial reported fewer episodes of symptomatic UTI in the prophylaxis group.Four trials compared antibiotic prophylaxis with giving antibiotics when microbiologically indicated. For patients using intermittent catheterisation, there was limited evidence that receiving antibiotics reduced the rate of bacteriuria (asymptomatic and symptomatic). There was weak evidence that prophylactic antibiotics were better in terms of fewer symptomatic bacteriuria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No eligible trials were identified that compared alternative routes of catheter insertion. The data from eight trials comparing different antibiotic policies were sparse, particularly when intermittent catheterisation was considered separately from indwelling catheterisation. Possible benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis must be balanced against possible adverse effects, such as development of antibiotic resistant bacteria. These cannot be reliably estimated from currently available trials.

Enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase for mucopolysaccharidosis type II (Hunter syndrome).

BACKGROUND: Mucopolysaccharidosis II, also known as Hunter syndrome, is a rare, X-linked disease caused by a deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme iduronate-2-sulfatase, which catalyses a step in the catabolism of glycosaminoglycans. The glycosaminoglycans accumulate within tissues affecting multiple organs and physiologic systems. The clinical manifestations include neurologic involvement, severe airways obstruction, skeletal deformities and cardiomyopathy. The disease has a variable age of onset and variable rate of progression. In those with severe disease, death usually occurs in the second decade of life, whereas those patients with less severe disease may survive into adulthood. Enzyme replacement therapy with intravenous infusions of idursulfase has emerged as a new treatment for mucopolysaccharidosis type II. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase compared to other interventions, placebo or no intervention, for treating mucopolysaccharidosis type II. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register (date of last search 01 September 2011).We also searched EMBASE, PubMed and the Literature Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) (date of last search October 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase compared to no intervention, placebo or other options (e.g. behavioral strategies, transplantation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality of papers and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: One study (96 patients) met the inclusion criteria, although the primary outcome of this review - z score for height and weight, was not assessed in the study. Following 53 weeks of treatment, patients in the weekly idursulfase 0.5 mg/kg group demonstrated a significant improvement rate compared with placebo for the primary outcome: distance walked in six minutes on the basis of the sum of ranks of change from baseline, mean difference 37.00 (95% confidence interval 6.52 to 67.48). The every-other-week idursulfase 0.5 mg/kg group also showed an improvement, which was not significant compared with placebo, mean difference 23.00 (95% confidence interval -4.49 to 50.49). After 53 weeks, there was no statistical significance difference in per cent predicted forced vital capacity between the three groups and absolute forced vital capacity was significantly increased from baseline in the weekly dosing group compared to placebo, mean difference 0.16 (95% confidence interval CI 0.05 to 0.27). No difference was observed between the every-other-week idursulfase 0.5 mg/kg group and placebo.In addition, liver and spleen volumes and urine glycosaminoglycan excretion were significantly reduced from baseline by both idursulfase dosing regimens. Idursulfase was generally well tolerated, but infusion reactions did occur. Idursulfase antibodies were detected in 31.7% of patients at the end of the study and they were related to a smaller reduction in urine glycosaminoglycan levels. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence is limited. While the randomised clinical trial identified was considered to be of good quality, it failed to describe important outcomes. It has been demonstrated that enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase is effective in relation to functional capacity (distance walked in six minutes and forced vital capacity), liver and spleen volumes and urine glycosaminoglycan excretion in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type II compared with placebo. There is no available evidence in the included study and in the literature on outcomes such as improvement in growth, sleep apnoea, cardiac function, quality of life and mortality. More studies are needed to obtain more information on the long-term effectiveness and safety of enzyme replacement therapy.

Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery.

BACKGROUND: Incontinence after prostatectomy for benign or malignant disease is a well known and often a feared outcome. Although small degrees of incidental incontinence may go virtually unnoticed, larger degrees of incontinence can have a major impact on a man's quality of life.Conceptually, postprostatectomy incontinence may be caused by sphincter malfunction and/or bladder dysfunction. The majority of men with post-prostatectomy incontinence (60 to 100%) have stress urinary incontinence, which is the complaint of involuntary urinary leakage on effort or exertion, or on sneezing or coughing. This may be due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency and may be treated with surgery for optimal management of incontinence. Detrusor dysfunction is more common after surgery for benign prostatic disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of surgical treatment for urinary incontinence related to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery for either benign LUTS secondary to BPH (transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), photo vaporization of the prostate, laser enucleation of the prostate and open prostatectomy) or radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (retropubic, perineal, laparoscopic, or robotic). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 28 June 2010), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2010), EMBASE (January 1988 to January 2010), LILACS (January 1982 to January 2010) and the reference lists of relevant articles, handsearched conference proceedings and contacted investigators to locate studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that include surgical treatments of urinary incontinence after prostate surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality of papers and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Only one study with 45 participants met the inclusion criteria. Men were divided in two subgroups (minimal or total incontinence) and each group was randomized to artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) implantation or Macroplastique injection. Follow-up ranged from six to 120 months. In the trial as a whole, the men treated with AUS were more likely to be dry (18/20, 82%) than those who had the injectable treatment (11/23, 46%) (OR 5.67, 95% CI 1.28 to 25.10). However, this effect was only statistically significant for the men with more severe ('total') incontinence (OR 8.89, 95% CI 1.40 to 56.57) and the confidence intervals were wide. There were more severe complications in the group undergoing AUS, and the costs were higher. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence available at present is limited because only one small randomised clinical trial was identified. Although the result is favourable for the implantation of AUS in the group with severe incontinence, this result should be considered with caution due to the small sample size and uncertain methodological quality of the study found.