Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different therapeutic strategies are available for the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), including immunomodulators, immunosuppressants and biological agents. Although each one of these therapies reduces relapse frequency and slows disability accumulation compared to no treatment, their relative benefit remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety, through network meta-analysis, of interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, daclizumab, laquinimod, azathioprine, immunoglobulins, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, diroximel fumarate, fludarabine, interferon beta 1-a and beta 1-b, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, mycophenolate mofetil, ofatumumab, ozanimod, ponesimod, rituximab, siponimod and steroids for the treatment of people with RRMS. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers were searched on 21 September 2021 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search was conducted on 8 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one or more of the available immunomodulators and immunosuppressants as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or to another active agent, in adults with RRMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We considered both direct and indirect evidence and performed data synthesis by pairwise and network meta-analysis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 50 studies involving 36,541 participants (68.6% female and 31.4% male). Median treatment duration was 24 months, and 25 (50%) studies were placebo-controlled. Considering the risk of bias, the most frequent concern was related to the role of the sponsor in the authorship of the study report or in data management and analysis, for which we judged 68% of the studies were at high risk of other bias. The other frequent concerns were performance bias (34% judged as having high risk) and attrition bias (32% judged as having high risk). Placebo was used as the common comparator for network analysis. Relapses over 12 months: data were provided in 18 studies (9310 participants). Natalizumab results in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; high-certainty evidence). Fingolimod (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; moderate-certainty evidence), daclizumab (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence), and immunoglobulins (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months. Relapses over 24 months: data were reported in 28 studies (19,869 participants). Cladribine (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; high-certainty evidence), alemtuzumab (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; high-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65; high-certainty evidence) result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Fingolimod (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.60; moderate-certainty evidence), dimethyl fumarate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence), and ponesimod (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Glatiramer acetate (RR 0.84, 95%, CI 0.76 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence) and interferon beta-1a (Avonex, Rebif) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence) probably moderately decrease people with relapses at 24 months. Relapses over 36 months findings were available from five studies (3087 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate- or high-certainty evidence compared to placebo. Disability worsening over 24 months was assessed in 31 studies (24,303 participants). Natalizumab probably results in a large reduction of disability worsening (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence) at 24 months. Disability worsening over 36 months was assessed in three studies (2684 participants) but none of the studies used placebo as the comparator. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events data were available from 43 studies (35,410 participants). Alemtuzumab probably results in a slight reduction of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence). Daclizumab (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.63; moderate-certainty evidence), fingolimod (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.57; moderate-certainty evidence), teriflunomide (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.79; moderate-certainty evidence), interferon beta-1a (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.20; moderate-certainty evidence), laquinimod (OR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.00 to 2.15; moderate-certainty evidence), natalizumab (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.05), and glatiramer acetate (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.14; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a slight increase in the number of people who discontinue treatment due to adverse events. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 35 studies (33,998 participants). There was probably a trivial reduction in SAEs amongst people with RRMS treated with interferon beta-1b as compared to placebo (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are highly confident that, compared to placebo, two-year treatment with natalizumab, cladribine, or alemtuzumab decreases relapses more than with other DMTs. We are moderately confident that a two-year treatment with natalizumab may slow disability progression. Compared to those on placebo, people with RRMS treated with most of the assessed DMTs showed a higher frequency of treatment discontinuation due to AEs: we are moderately confident that this could happen with fingolimod, teriflunomide, interferon beta-1a, laquinimod, natalizumab and daclizumab, while our certainty with other DMTs is lower. We are also moderately certain that treatment with alemtuzumab is associated with fewer discontinuations due to adverse events than placebo, and moderately certain that interferon beta-1b probably results in a slight reduction in people who experience serious adverse events, but our certainty with regard to other DMTs is lower. Insufficient evidence is available to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DMTs in a longer term than two years, and this is a relevant issue for a chronic condition like MS that develops over decades. More than half of the included studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and this may have influenced their results. Further studies should focus on direct comparison between active agents, with follow-up of at least three years, and assess other patient-relevant outcomes, such as quality of life and cognitive status, with particular focus on the impact of sex/gender on treatment effects.

Adverse effects of immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and causes significant disability after onset. Although it is accepted that immunotherapies for people with MS decrease disease activity, uncertainty regarding their relative safety remains. OBJECTIVES: To compare adverse effects of immunotherapies for people with MS or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), and to rank these treatments according to their relative risks of adverse effects through network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases and trials registers up to March 2022, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included participants 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of MS or CIS, according to any accepted diagnostic criteria, who were included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined one or more of the agents used in MS or CIS, and compared them versus placebo or another active agent. We excluded RCTs in which a drug regimen was compared with a different regimen of the same drug without another active agent or placebo as a control arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and pairwise meta-analyses. For NMAs, we used the netmeta suite of commands in R to fit random-effects NMAs assuming a common between-study variance. We used the CINeMA platform to GRADE the certainty of the body of evidence in NMAs. We considered a relative risk (RR) of 1.5 as a non-inferiority safety threshold compared to placebo. We assessed the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes within the NMA according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high. MAIN RESULTS: This NMA included 123 trials with 57,682 participants. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Reporting of SAEs was available from 84 studies including 5696 (11%) events in 51,833 (89.9%) participants out of 57,682 participants in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of SAEs, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 18 additional people would have a SAE compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that three drugs may decrease SAEs compared to placebo (relative risk [RR], 95% confidence interval [CI]): interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (0.78, 0.66 to 0.94); dimethyl fumarate (0.79, 0.67 to 0.93), and glatiramer acetate (0.84, 0.72 to 0.98). Several drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo: moderate-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.08, 0.88 to 1.31); low-certainty evidence for ocrelizumab (0.85, 0.67 to 1.07), ozanimod (0.88, 0.59 to 1.33), interferon beta-1b (0.94, 0.78 to 1.12), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (0.96, 0.80 to 1.15), natalizumab (0.97, 0.79 to 1.19), fingolimod (1.05, 0.92 to 1.20) and laquinimod (1.06, 0.83 to 1.34); very low-certainty evidence for daclizumab (0.83, 0.68 to 1.02). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the other drugs: low-certainty evidence for cladribine (1.10, 0.79 to 1.52), siponimod (1.20, 0.95 to 1.51), ofatumumab (1.26, 0.88 to 1.79) and rituximab (1.01, 0.67 to 1.52); very low-certainty evidence for immunoglobulins (1.05, 0.33 to 3.32), diroximel fumarate (1.05, 0.23 to 4.69), peg-interferon beta-1a (1.07, 0.66 to 1.74), alemtuzumab (1.16, 0.85 to 1.60), interferons (1.62, 0.21 to 12.72) and azathioprine (3.62, 0.76 to 17.19). Withdrawals due to adverse events Reporting of withdrawals due to AEs was available from 105 studies (85.4%) including 3537 (6.39%) events in 55,320 (95.9%) patients out of 57,682 patients in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of withdrawals, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 31 additional people would withdraw compared to placebo. No drug reduced withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There was very low-certainty evidence (meaning that estimates are not reliable) that two drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo, assuming an upper 95% CI RR limit of 1.5: diroximel fumarate (0.38, 0.11 to 1.27) and alemtuzumab (0.63, 0.33 to 1.19). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the following drugs: low-certainty evidence for ofatumumab (1.50, 0.87 to 2.59); very low-certainty evidence for methotrexate (0.94, 0.02 to 46.70), corticosteroids (1.05, 0.16 to 7.14), ozanimod (1.06, 0.58 to 1.93), natalizumab (1.20, 0.77 to 1.85), ocrelizumab (1.32, 0.81 to 2.14), dimethyl fumarate (1.34, 0.96 to 1.86), siponimod (1.63, 0.96 to 2.79), rituximab (1.63, 0.53 to 5.00), cladribine (1.80, 0.89 to 3.62), mitoxantrone (2.11, 0.50 to 8.87), interferons (3.47, 0.95 to 12.72), and cyclophosphamide (3.86, 0.45 to 33.50). Eleven drugs may have increased withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo: low-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.37, 1.01 to 1.85), glatiramer acetate (1.76, 1.36 to 2.26), fingolimod (1.79, 1.40 to 2.28), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (2.15, 1.58 to 2.93), daclizumab (2.19, 1.31 to 3.65) and interferon beta-1b (2.59, 1.87 to 3.77); very low-certainty evidence for laquinimod (1.42, 1.01 to 2.00), interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (1.54, 1.13 to 2.10), immunoglobulins (1.87, 1.01 to 3.45), peg-interferon beta-1a (3.46, 1.44 to 8.33) and azathioprine (6.95, 2.57 to 18.78); however, very low-certainty evidence is unreliable. Sensitivity analyses including only studies with low attrition bias, drug dose above the group median, or only patients with relapsing remitting MS or CIS, and subgroup analyses by prior disease-modifying treatments did not change these figures. Rankings No drug yielded consistent P scores in the upper quartile of the probability of being better than others for primary and secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found mostly low and very low-certainty evidence that drugs used to treat MS may not increase SAEs, but may increase withdrawals compared with placebo. The results suggest that there is no important difference in the occurrence of SAEs between first- and second-line drugs and between oral, injectable, or infused drugs, compared with placebo. Our review, along with other work in the literature, confirms poor-quality reporting of adverse events from RCTs of interventions. At the least, future studies should follow the CONSORT recommendations about reporting harm-related issues. To address adverse effects, future systematic reviews should also include non-randomized studies.

Cannabis and cannabinoids for symptomatic treatment for people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Spasticity and chronic neuropathic pain are common and serious symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These symptoms increase with disease progression and lead to worsening disability, impaired activities of daily living and quality of life. Anti-spasticity medications and analgesics are of limited benefit or poorly tolerated. Cannabinoids may reduce spasticity and pain in people with MS. Demand for symptomatic treatment with cannabinoids is high. A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and harms of these drugs is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess benefit and harms of cannabinoids, including synthetic, or herbal and plant-derived cannabinoids, for reducing symptoms for adults with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to December 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCO host), LILACS, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial register, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines databank. We hand searched citation lists of included studies and relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised parallel or cross-over trials (RCTs) evaluating any cannabinoid (including herbal Cannabis, Cannabis flowers, plant-based cannabinoids, or synthetic cannabinoids) irrespective of dose, route, frequency, or duration of use for adults with MS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool for parallel RCTs and crossover trials. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: reduction of 30% in the spasticity Numeric Rating Scale, pain relief of 50% or greater in the Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, much or very much improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) (tolerability), serious adverse events (SAEs), nervous system disorders, psychiatric disorders, physical dependence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs with 3763 participants of whom 2290 received cannabinoids. Age ranged from 18 to 60 years, and between 50% and 88% participants across the studies were female.  The included studies were 3 to 48 weeks long and compared nabiximols, an oromucosal spray with a plant derived equal (1:1) combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (13 studies), synthetic cannabinoids mimicking THC (7 studies), an oral THC extract of Cannabis sativa (2 studies), inhaled herbal Cannabis (1 study) against placebo. One study compared dronabinol, THC extract of Cannabis sativa and placebo, one compared inhaled herbal Cannabis, dronabinol and placebo. We identified eight ongoing studies. Critical outcomes • Spasticity: nabiximols probably increases the number of people who report an important reduction of perceived severity of spasticity compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 4.04; 5 RCTs, 1143 participants; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect was 216 more people (95% CI 99 more to 332 more) per 1000 reporting benefit with cannabinoids than with placebo. • Chronic neuropathic pain: we found only one small trial that measured the number of participants reporting substantial pain relief with a synthetic cannabinoid compared with placebo (OR 4.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 16.17; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cannabinoids reduce chronic neuropathic pain intensity. • Treatment discontinuation due to AEs: cannabinoids may increase slightly the number of participants who discontinue treatment compared with placebo (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.84; 21 studies, 3110 participants; I² = 17%; low-certainty evidence); the absolute effect is 39 more people (95% CI 15 more to 76 more) per 1000 people. Important outcomes • PGIC: cannabinoids probably increase the number of people who report 'very much' or 'much' improvement in health status compared with placebo (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.36; 8 studies, 1215 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect is 113 more people (95% CI 57 more to 175 more) per 1000 people reporting improvement. • HRQoL: cannabinoids may have little to no effect on HRQoL (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.02; 8 studies, 1942 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • SAEs: cannabinoids may result in little to no difference in the number of participants who have SAEs compared with placebo (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.99; 20 studies, 3124 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • AEs of the nervous system: cannabinoids may increase nervous system disorders compared with placebo (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.44; 7 studies, 1154 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence); • Psychiatric disorders: cannabinoids may increase psychiatric disorders compared with placebo (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.88; 6 studies, 1122 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • Drug tolerance: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cannabinoids on drug tolerance (OR 3.07, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.95; 2 studies, 458 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, nabiximols probably reduces the severity of spasticity in the short-term in people with MS. We are uncertain about the effect on chronic neurological pain and health-related quality of life. Cannabinoids may increase slightly treatment discontinuation due to AEs, nervous system and psychiatric disorders compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the effect on drug tolerance. The overall certainty of evidence is limited by short-term duration of the included studies.

Rituximab for people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common neurological cause of disability in young adults. Off-label rituximab for MS is used in most countries surveyed by the International Federation of MS, including high-income countries where on-label disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) are available.  OBJECTIVES: To assess beneficial and adverse effects of rituximab as 'first choice' and as 'switching' for adults with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registers for completed and ongoing studies on 31 January 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) comparing rituximab with placebo or another DMT for adults with MS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE for: disability worsening, relapse, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), common infections, cancer, and mortality. We conducted separate analyses for rituximab as 'first choice' or as 'switching', relapsing or progressive MS, comparison versus placebo or another DMT, and RCTs or NRSIs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies (5 RCTs, 10 NRSIs) with 16,429 participants of whom 13,143 were relapsing MS and 3286 progressive MS. The studies were one to two years long and compared rituximab as 'first choice' with placebo (1 RCT) or other DMTs (1 NRSI), rituximab as 'switching' against placebo (2 RCTs) or other DMTs (2 RCTs, 9 NRSIs). The studies were conducted worldwide; most originated from high-income countries, six from the Swedish MS register. Pharmaceutical companies funded two studies. We identified 14 ongoing studies. Rituximab as 'first choice' for relapsing MS Rituximab versus placebo: no studies met eligibility criteria for this comparison. Rituximab versus other DMTs: one NRSI compared rituximab with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, natalizumab, or fingolimod in active relapsing MS at 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in a large reduction in relapses compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (hazard ratio (HR) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.39; 335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may reduce relapses compared with dimethyl fumarate (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.00; 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.00; 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may make little or no difference on relapse compared with fingolimod (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.69; 137 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no deaths over 24 months. The study did not measure disability worsening, SAEs, HRQoL, and common infections. Rituximab as 'first choice' for progressive MS One RCT compared rituximab with placebo in primary progressive MS at 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in little to no difference in the number of participants who have disability worsening compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.11; 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may result in little to no difference in recurrence of relapses (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.99; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), SAEs (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), common infections (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.73; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), cancer (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.59; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), and mortality (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.77; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure HRQoL. Rituximab versus other DMTs: no studies met eligibility criteria for this comparison. Rituximab as 'switching' for relapsing MS  One RCT compared rituximab with placebo in relapsing MS at 12 months' follow-up. Rituximab may decrease recurrence of relapses compared with placebo (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.93; 104 participants; low-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to placebo on SAEs (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.92; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), common infections (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.24; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), cancer (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.15; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and mortality (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.15; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure disability worsening and HRQoL.  Five NRSIs compared rituximab with other DMTs in relapsing MS at 24 months' follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to interferon beta or glatiramer acetate on disability worsening (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.42; 1 NRSI, 853 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Rituximab likely results in a large reduction in relapses compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 NRSI, 1383 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and fingolimod (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32; 1 NRSI, 256 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to natalizumab on relapses (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.0; 1 NRSI, 153 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Rituximab likely increases slightly common infections compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.62; 1 NRSI, 5477 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and compared with natalizumab (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.32; 2 NRSIs, 5001 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may increase slightly common infections compared with fingolimod (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.77; 3 NRSIs, 5187 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may make little or no difference compared with ocrelizumab (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.40; 1 NRSI, 472 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab on mortality compared with fingolimod (OR 5.59, 95% CI 0.22 to 139.89; 1 NRSI, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (OR 6.66, 95% CI 0.27 to 166.58; 1 NRSI, 153 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The included studies did not measure SAEs, HRQoL, and cancer. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For preventing relapses in relapsing MS, rituximab as 'first choice' and as 'switching' may compare favourably with a wide range of approved DMTs. A protective effect of rituximab against disability worsening is uncertain. There is limited information to determine the effect of rituximab for progressive MS.  The evidence is uncertain about the effect of rituximab on SAEs. They are relatively rare in people with MS, thus difficult to study, and they were not well reported in studies. There is an increased risk of common infections with rituximab, but absolute risk is small.  Rituximab is widely used as off-label treatment in people with MS; however, randomised evidence is weak. In the absence of randomised evidence, remaining uncertainties on beneficial and adverse effects of rituximab for MS might be clarified by making real-world data available.

Clinical presentation of young people (10-24 years old) with brain tumors: results from the international MOBI-Kids study.

INTRODUCTION: We used data from MOBI-Kids, a 14-country international collaborative case-control study of brain tumors (BTs), to study clinical characteristics of the tumors in older children (10 years or older), adolescents and young adults (up to the age of 24). METHODS: Information from clinical records was obtained for 899 BT cases, including signs and symptoms, symptom onset, diagnosis date, tumor type and location. RESULTS: Overall, 64% of all tumors were low-grade, 76% were neuroepithelial tumors and 62% gliomas. There were more males than females among neuroepithelial and embryonal tumor cases, but more females with meningeal tumors. The most frequent locations were cerebellum (22%) and frontal (16%) lobe. The most frequent symptom was headaches (60%), overall, as well as for gliomas, embryonal and 'non-neuroepithelial' tumors; it was convulsions/seizures for neuroepithelial tumors other than glioma, and visual signs and symptoms for meningiomas. A cluster analysis showed that headaches and nausea/vomiting was the only combination of symptoms that exceeded a cutoff of 50%, with a joint occurrence of 67%. Overall, the median time from first symptom to diagnosis was 1.42 months (IQR 0.53-4.80); it exceeded 1 year in 12% of cases, though no particular symptom was associated with exceptionally long or short delays. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest clinical epidemiology study of BT in young people conducted so far. Many signs and symptoms were identified, dominated by headaches and nausea/vomiting. Diagnosis was generally rapid but in 12% diagnostic delay exceeded 1 year with none of the symptoms been associated with a distinctly long time until diagnosis.

Structural magnetic resonance imaging for the early diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease in people with mild cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease is the symptomatic predementia phase of Alzheimer's disease dementia, characterised by cognitive and functional impairment not severe enough to fulfil the criteria for dementia. In clinical samples, people with amnestic MCI are at high risk of developing Alzheimer's disease dementia, with annual rates of progression from MCI to Alzheimer's disease estimated at approximately 10% to 15% compared with the base incidence rates of Alzheimer's disease dementia of 1% to 2% per year. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the early diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease in people with MCI versus the clinical follow-up diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia as a reference standard (delayed verification). To investigate sources of heterogeneity in accuracy, such as the use of qualitative visual assessment or quantitative volumetric measurements, including manual or automatic (MRI) techniques, or the length of follow-up, and age of participants. MRI was evaluated as an add-on test in addition to clinical diagnosis of MCI to improve early diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease in people with MCI. SEARCH METHODS: On 29 January 2019 we searched Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement's Specialised Register and the databases, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS Previews, Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, and LILACS. We also searched the reference lists of all eligible studies identified by the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered cohort studies of any size that included prospectively recruited people of any age with a diagnosis of MCI. We included studies that compared the diagnostic test accuracy of baseline structural MRI versus the clinical follow-up diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia (delayed verification). We did not exclude studies on the basis of length of follow-up. We included studies that used either qualitative visual assessment or quantitative volumetric measurements of MRI to detect atrophy in the whole brain or in specific brain regions, such as the hippocampus, medial temporal lobe, lateral ventricles, entorhinal cortex, medial temporal gyrus, lateral temporal lobe, amygdala, and cortical grey matter. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four teams of two review authors each independently reviewed titles and abstracts of articles identified by the search strategy. Two teams of two review authors each independently assessed the selected full-text articles for eligibility, extracted data and solved disagreements by consensus. Two review authors independently assessed the quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model to fit summary ROC curves and to obtain overall measures of relative accuracy in subgroup analyses. We also used these models to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity when sufficient data sets were available. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies, published from 1999 to 2019, with 3935 participants of whom 1341 (34%) progressed to Alzheimer's disease dementia and 2594 (66%) did not. Of the participants who did not progress to Alzheimer's disease dementia, 2561 (99%) remained stable MCI and 33 (1%) progressed to other types of dementia. The median proportion of women was 53% and the mean age of participants ranged from 63 to 87 years (median 73 years). The mean length of clinical follow-up ranged from 1 to 7.6 years (median 2 years). Most studies were of poor methodological quality due to risk of bias for participant selection or the index test, or both. Most of the included studies reported data on the volume of the total hippocampus (pooled mean sensitivity 0.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.80); pooled mean specificity 0.71 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.77); 22 studies, 2209 participants). This evidence was of low certainty due to risk of bias and inconsistency. Seven studies reported data on the atrophy of the medial temporal lobe (mean sensitivity 0.64 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.73); mean specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.76); 1077 participants) and five studies on the volume of the lateral ventricles (mean sensitivity 0.57 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.65); mean specificity 0.64 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.70); 1077 participants). This evidence was of moderate certainty due to risk of bias. Four studies with 529 participants analysed the volume of the total entorhinal cortex and four studies with 424 participants analysed the volume of the whole brain. We did not estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity for the volume of these two regions because available data were sparse and heterogeneous. We could not statistically evaluate the volumes of the lateral temporal lobe, amygdala, medial temporal gyrus, or cortical grey matter assessed in small individual studies. We found no evidence of a difference between studies in the accuracy of the total hippocampal volume with regards to duration of follow-up or age of participants, but the manual MRI technique was superior to automatic techniques in mixed (mostly indirect) comparisons. We did not assess the relative accuracy of the volumes of different brain regions measured by MRI because only indirect comparisons were available, studies were heterogeneous, and the overall accuracy of all regions was moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The volume of hippocampus or medial temporal lobe, the most studied brain regions, showed low sensitivity and specificity and did not qualify structural MRI as a stand-alone add-on test for an early diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease in people with MCI. This is consistent with international guidelines, which recommend imaging to exclude non-degenerative or surgical causes of cognitive impairment and not to diagnose dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. In view of the low quality of most of the included studies, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Future research should not focus on a single biomarker, but rather on combinations of biomarkers to improve an early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia.

Vitamin D for the management of multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: This review is an update of a previously published review, "Vitamin D for the management of multiple sclerosis" (published in the Cochrane Library; 2010, Issue 12). Multiple sclerosis (MS) is characterised by inflammation, demyelination, axonal or neuronal loss, and astrocytic gliosis in the central nervous system (CNS), which can result in varying levels of disability. Some studies have provided evidence showing an association of MS with low levels of vitamin D and benefit derived from its supplementation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefit and safety of vitamin D supplementation for reducing disease activity in people with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Specialized Register up to 2 October 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist with search terms relevant to this review. We included references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and from handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books from conferences. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared vitamin D versus placebo, routine care, or low doses of vitamin D in patients with MS. Vitamin D was administered as monotherapy or in combination with calcium. Concomitant interventions were allowed if they were used equally in all trial intervention groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of studies, while another review author sorted any disagreements. We expressed treatment effects as mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes (Expanded Disability Status Scale and number of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions), as standardised MDs for health-related quality of life, as rate differences for annualised relapse rates, and as risk differences (RDs) for serious adverse events and minor adverse events, together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 RCTs enrolling 933 participants with MS; 464 were randomised to the vitamin D group, and 469 to the comparator group. Eleven trials tested vitamin D3, and one trial tested vitamin D2. Vitamin D3 had no effect on the annualised relapse rate at 52 weeks' follow-up (rate difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.07; I² = 38%; five trials; 417 participants; very low-quality evidence according to the GRADE instrument); on the Expanded Disability Status Scale at 52 weeks' follow-up (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.10; I² = 35%; five trials; 221 participants; very low-quality evidence according to GRADE); and on MRI gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions at 52 weeks' follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.48; I² = 12%; two trials; 256 participants; very low-quality evidence according to GRADE). Vitamin D3 did not increase the risk of serious adverse effects within a range of 26 to 52 weeks' follow-up (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; I² = 35%; eight trials; 621 participants; low-quality evidence according to GRADE) or minor adverse effects within a range of 26 to 96 weeks' follow-up (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06; I² = 20%; eight trials; 701 participants; low-quality evidence according to GRADE). Three studies reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using different HRQOL scales. One study reported that vitamin D improved ratings on the psychological and social components of the HRQOL scale but had no effects on the physical components. The other two studies found no effect of vitamin D on HRQOL. Two studies reported fatigue using different scales. One study (158 participants) reported that vitamin D3 reduced fatigue compared with placebo at 26 weeks' follow-up. The other study (71 participants) found no effect on fatigue at 96 weeks' follow-up. Seven studies reported on cytokine levels, four on T-lymphocyte proliferation, and one on matrix metalloproteinase levels, with no consistent pattern of change in these immunological outcomes. The randomised trials included in this review provided no data on time to first treated relapse, number of participants requiring hospitalisation owing to progression of the disease, proportion of participants who remained relapse-free, cognitive function, or psychological symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To date, very low-quality evidence suggests no benefit of vitamin D for patient-important outcomes among people with MS. Vitamin D appears to have no effect on recurrence of relapse, worsening of disability measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and MRI lesions. Effects on health-related quality of life and fatigue are unclear. Vitamin D3 at the doses and treatment durations used in the included trials appears to be safe, although available data are limited. Seven ongoing studies will likely provide further evidence that can be included in a future update of this review.

Identifying Relapses in Multiple Sclerosis Patients through Administrative Data: A Validation Study in the Lazio Region, Italy.

BACKGROUND: Relapse is frequently considered an outcome measure of disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). The objectives of this study were to identify relapse episodes in patients with MS in the Lazio region using health administrative databases and to evaluate the validity of the algorithm using patients enrolled at MS treatment centers. METHODS: MS cases were identified in the period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2009 using data from regional Health Information Systems (HIS). An algorithm based on HIS was used to identify relapse episodes, and patients recruited at MS centers were used to validate the algorithm. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) and the Cohen's kappa coefficient were calculated. RESULTS: The overall MS population identified through HIS consisted of 6,094 patients, of whom 67.1% were female and the mean age was 41.5. Among the MS patients identified by the algorithm, 2,242 attended the centers and 3,852 did not. The PPV was 58.9%, the NPV was 76.3%, and the kappa was 0.36. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed algorithm based on health administrative databases does not seem to be able to reliably detect relapses; however, it may be a helpful tool to detect healthcare utilization, and therefore to identify the worsening condition of a patient's health.

Zonisamide for essential tremor.

BACKGROUND: Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. The treatment is primarily based on pharmacological agents. Although primidone and propranolol are well established treatments in clinical practice, they can be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients, and can produce serious adverse events in a large percentage of them. For these reasons, it may be worthwhile evaluating the treatment alternatives for ET. Zonisamide has been suggested as a potentially useful agent for the treatment of ET but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect on functional abilities and the safety profile of zonisamide in adults with essential tremor (ET). SEARCH METHODS: We carried out a systematic search, without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to January 2017. We searched BIOSIS Citation Index (2000 to January 2017) for conference proceedings. We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of zonisamide versus placebo or any other treatment. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in patients presenting secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence.We used inverse variance methods for continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared differences between treatment groups as mean differences. We combined results for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel methods and obtained risk differences to compare treatment groups. We used Review Manager 5 software for data management and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We only considered one study eligible for this review (20 participants). Assessments of risk of bias for most domains were unclear or low. Adverse events were only reported in participants from the zonisamide group, making it possible that they were aware of treatment group assignment. We are uncertain as to the effects of zonisamide on motor tasks (mean difference (MD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.51 to 1.51, very low-quality evidence) and functional disabilities (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.63, very low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Three participants in the zonisamide group (30%) and two participants in the placebo group (20%) discontinued the treatment and withdrew from the study for any reason (very low-quality evidence), however the increased risk of withdrawal in the zonisamide group was statistically non-significant (risk difference (RD) 0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.48). Six participants in the zonisamide group (60%) and none of the participants in the placebo group (0%) developed adverse events (AEs), with a RD of 0.60 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.92; very low quality evidence). The most common AEs, experienced with zonisamide treatment, were headache, nausea, fatigue, sleepiness, and diarrhoea. Quality of life was not assessed in the study included. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on currently available data, there is insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of zonisamide treatment for ET.

Topiramate for essential tremor.

BACKGROUND: Essential tremor (ET) is one of the most common movement disorders. The management is primarily based on pharmacological agents and in clinical practice propranolol and primidone are considered the first-line therapy. However, these treatments can be ineffective in 25% to 55% of people and are frequently associated with serious adverse events (AEs). For these reasons, it is worthwhile evaluating other treatments for ET. Topiramate has been suggested as a potentially useful agent for the treatment of ET but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of topiramate in the treatment of ET. SEARCH METHODS: We carried out a systematic search without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2017), Embase (January 1988 to January 2017), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (1999 to January 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (1997 to January 2017) and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 2004 to January 2017). We searched BIOSIS Citation Index (2000 to January 2017) for conference proceedings. We handsearched grey literature and the reference lists of identified studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topiramate versus placebo/open control or any other treatments. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in people presenting with secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis for data synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: This review included three trials comparing topiramate to placebo (309 participants). They were all at high overall risk of bias. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. Compared to placebo, participants treated with topiramate showed a significant improvement in functional disability and an increased risk of withdrawal (risk ratio (RR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.60). There were more AEs for topiramate-treated participants, particularly paraesthesia, weight loss, appetite decrease and memory difficulty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlighted the presence of limited data and very low to low quality evidence to support the apparent efficacy and the occurrence of treatment-limiting AEs in people with ET treated with topiramate. Further research to assess topiramate efficacy and safety on ET is needed.

Treatment with disease-modifying drugs for people with a first clinical attack suggestive of multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of multiple sclerosis has changed over the last 20 years. The advent of disease-modifying drugs in the mid-1990s heralded a period of rapid progress in the understanding and management of multiple sclerosis. With the support of magnetic resonance imaging early diagnosis is possible, enabling treatment initiation at the time of the first clinical attack. As most of the disease-modifying drugs are associated with adverse events, patients and clinicians need to weigh the benefit and safety of the various early treatment options before taking informed decisions. OBJECTIVES: 1. to estimate the benefit and safety of disease-modifying drugs that have been evaluated in all studies (randomised or non-randomised) for the treatment of a first clinical attack suggestive of MS compared either with placebo or no treatment;2. to assess the relative efficacy and safety of disease-modifying drugs according to their benefit and safety;3. to estimate the benefit and safety of disease-modifying drugs that have been evaluated in all studies (randomised or non-randomised) for treatment started after a first attack ('early treatment') compared with treatment started after a second attack or at another later time point ('delayed treatment'). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, clinicaltrials.gov, the WHO trials registry, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, and searched for unpublished studies (until December 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and observational studies that evaluated one or more drugs as monotherapy in adult participants with a first clinical attack suggestive of MS. We considered evidence on alemtuzumab, azathioprine, cladribine, daclizumab, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, immunoglobulins, interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a (Rebif®, Avonex®), laquinimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, rituximab and teriflunomide. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two teams of three authors each independently selected studies and extracted data. The primary outcomes were disability-worsening, relapses, occurrence of at least one serious adverse event (AE) and withdrawing from the study or discontinuing the drug because of AEs. Time to conversion to clinically definite MS (CDMS) defined by Poser diagnostic criteria, and probability to discontinue the treatment or dropout for any reason were recorded as secondary outcomes. We synthesized study data using random-effects meta-analyses and performed indirect comparisons between drugs. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) along with relative 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes. We estimated the absolute effects only for primary outcomes. We evaluated the credibility of the evidence using the GRADE system. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 randomised trials, eight open-label extension studies (OLEs) and four cohort studies published between 2010 and 2016. The overall risk of bias was high and the reporting of AEs was scarce. The quality of the evidence associated with the results ranges from low to very low. Early treatment versus placebo during the first 24 months' follow-upThere was a small, non-significant advantage of early treatment compared with placebo in disability-worsening (6.4% fewer (13.9 fewer to 3 more) participants with disability-worsening with interferon beta-1a (Rebif®) or teriflunomide) and in relapses (10% fewer (20.3 fewer to 2.8 more) participants with relapses with teriflunomide). Early treatment was associated with 1.6% fewer participants with at least one serious AE (3 fewer to 0.2 more). Participants on early treatment were on average 4.6% times (0.3 fewer to 15.4 more) more likely to withdraw from the study due to AEs. This result was mostly driven by studies on interferon beta 1-b, glatiramer acetate and cladribine that were associated with significantly more withdrawals for AEs. Early treatment decreased the hazard of conversion to CDMS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.60). Comparing active interventions during the first 24 months' follow-upIndirect comparison of interferon beta-1a (Rebif®) with teriflunomide did not show any difference on reducing disability-worsening (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.66). We found no differences between the included drugs with respect to the hazard of conversion to CDMS. Interferon beta-1a (Rebif®) and teriflunomide were associated with fewer dropouts because of AEs compared with interferon beta-1b, cladribine and glatiramer acetate (ORs range between 0.03 and 0.29, with substantial uncertainty). Early versus delayed treatmentWe did not find evidence of differences between early and delayed treatments for disability-worsening at a maximum of five years' follow-up (3% fewer participants with early treatment (15 fewer to 11.1 more)). There was important variability across interventions; early treatment with interferon beta-1b considerably reduced the odds of participants with disability-worsening during three and five years' follow-up (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.84 and OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.89). The early treatment group had 19.6% fewer participants with relapses (26.7 fewer to 12.7 fewer) compared to late treatment at a maximum of five years' follow-up and early treatment decreased the hazard of conversion to CDMS at any follow-up up to 10 years (i.e. over five years' follow-up HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.73). We did not draw any conclusions on long-term serious AEs or discontinuation due to AEs because of inadequacies in the available data both in the included OLEs and cohort studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-quality evidence suggests a small and uncertain benefit with early treatment compared with placebo in reducing disability-worsening and relapses. The advantage of early treatment compared with delayed on disability-worsening was heterogeneous depending on the actual drug used and based on very low-quality evidence. Low-quality evidence suggests that the chances of relapse are less with early treatment compared with delayed. Early treatment reduced the hazard of conversion to CDMS compared either with placebo, no treatment or delayed treatment, both in short- and long-term follow-up. Low-quality evidence suggests that early treatment is associated with fewer participants with at least one serious AE compared with placebo. Very low-quality evidence suggests that, compared with placebo, early treatment leads to more withdrawals or treatment discontinuation due to AEs. Difference between drugs on short-term benefit and safety was uncertain because few studies and only indirect comparisons were available. Long-term safety of early treatment is uncertain because of inadequately reported or unavailable data.

Development and assessment of a website presenting evidence-based information for people with multiple sclerosis: the IN-DEEP project.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are increasingly using the Internet in the daily management of their condition. They search for high-quality information in plain language, from independent sources, based on reliable and up-to-date evidence. The Integrating and Deriving Evidence, Experiences and Preferences (IN-DEEP) project in Italy and Australia aimed to provide people with MS and family members with an online source of evidence-based information, starting from their information needs. This paper reports on the Italian project's website. METHODS: Contents, layout and wording were developed with people with MS and pilot-tested. The website was evaluated using an online 29-item questionnaire for ease of language, contents, navigation, and usefulness of information aimed at people with MS, family members and the general population. RESULTS: The website ( http://indeep.istituto-besta.it/) is structured in multiple levels of information. The first topic was interferons-ß for people with relapsing-remitting MS. In all, 433 people responded to the survey (276 people with MS, 68 family members and 89 others). The mean age was 45 years, almost 90% had a high school diploma, about 80% had relapsing-remitting MS, and the median disease duration was seven years. About 90% judged the website clear, understandable, useful, and easy to navigate. Ninety percent of people with MS and family members would recommend it to others. Sixty-two percent reported they felt confident in making decisions on interferons-ß after reading the website. CONCLUSIONS: The model was judged clear and useful. It could be adapted to other topics and diseases. Clinicians may find it useful in their relationship with patients.

Fingolimod for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Fingolimod was approved in 2010 for the treatment of patients with the relapsing-remitting (RR) form of multiple sclerosis (MS). It was designed to reduce the frequency of exacerbations and to delay disability worsening. Issues on its safety and efficacy, mainly as compared to other disease modifying drugs (DMDs), have been raised. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and benefit of fingolimod versus placebo, or other disease-modifying drugs (DMDs), in reducing disease activity in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System (CNS) Group's Specialised Trials Register and US Food and Drug Administration reports (15 February 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of fingolimod versus placebo or other approved DMDs in people with RRMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs met our selection criteria. The overall population included 5152 participants; 1621 controls and 3531 treated with fingolimod at different doses; 2061 with 0.5 mg, 1376 with 1.25 mg, and 94 with 5.0 mg daily. Among the controls, 923 participants were treated with placebo and 698 with others DMDs. The treatment duration was six months in three, 12 months in one, and 24 months in two trials. One study was at high risk of bias for blinding, three studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome reporting, and four studies were at high risk of bias for other reasons (co-authors were affiliated with the pharmaceutical company). We retrieved 10 ongoing trials; four of them have been completed.Comparing fingolimod administered at the approved dose of 0.5 mg to placebo, we found that the drug at 24 months increased the probability of being relapse-free (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.28 to 1.63); moderate quality of evidence), but it might lead to little or no difference in preventing disability progression (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; primary clinical endpoints; low quality evidence). Benefit was observed for other measures of inflammatory disease activity including clinical (annualised relapse rate): rate ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62; moderate quality evidence; and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity (gadolinium-enhancing lesions): RR of being free from (MRI) gadolinium-enhancing lesions: 1.36, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.45; low quality evidence.The mean change of MRI T2-weighted lesion load favoured fingolimod at 12 and 24 months.No significant increased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events was observed for fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo at six and 24 months. The risk of fingolimod discontinuation was significantly higher compared to placebo for the dose 1.25 mg at 24 months (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.52).No significant increased risk of discontinuation due to serious adverse events was observed for fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo at six and 24 months. A significant increased risk of discontinuation due to serious adverse events was found for fingolimod 5.0 mg (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.38) compared to placebo at six months.Comparing fingolimod 0.5 mg to intramuscular interferon beta-1a, we found moderate quality evidence that the drug at one year slightly increased the number of participants free from relapse (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.27) or from gadolinium-enhancing lesions (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19), and decreased the relapse rate (rate ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70). We did not detect any advantage for preventing disability progression (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.06; low quality evidence). We did not detect any significant difference for MRI T2-weighted lesion load change.We found a greater likelihood of participants discontinuing fingolimod, as compared to other DMDs, due to adverse events in the short-term (six months) (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.16 to 8.86), but there was no significant difference versus interferon beta-1a at 12 months (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.80; moderate quality evidence). A higher incidence of adverse events was suggestive of the lower tolerability rate of fingolimod compared to interferon-beta 1a.Quality of life was improved in participants after switching from a different DMD to fingolimod at six months, but this effect was not found compared to placebo at 24 months.All studies were sponsored by Novartis Pharma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with fingolimod compared to placebo in RRMS patients is effective in reducing inflammatory disease activity, but it may lead to little or no difference in preventing disability worsening. The risk of withdrawals due to adverse events requires careful monitoring of patients over time. The evidence on the risk/benefit profile of fingolimod compared with intramuscular interferon beta-1a was uncertain, based on a low number of head-to-head RCTs with short follow-up duration. The ongoing trial results will possibly satisfy these issues.

Pregabalin for essential tremor.

BACKGROUND: Essential tremor is one of the most common movement disorders. Treatment primarily consists of pharmacological agents. While primidone and propranolol are well-established treatments in clinical practice, they may be ineffective in 25% to 55% of patients and can produce serious adverse events in a large percentage of them. For these reasons, it is worth evaluating the treatment alternatives for essential tremor. Some specialists have suggested that pregabalin could be a potentially useful agent, but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pregabalin versus placebo or other treatment for essential tremor in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a systematic search without language restrictions to identify all relevant trials up to December 2015. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched grey literature and examined the reference lists of identified studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pregabalin versus placebo or any other treatments. We included studies in which the diagnosis of ET was made according to accepted and validated diagnostic criteria. We excluded studies conducted in patients presenting secondary forms of tremor or reporting only neurophysiological parameters to assess outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently collected and extracted data using a data collection form. We assessed the risk of bias of the body of evidence, and we used inverse variance methods to analyse continuous outcomes and measurement scales. We compared the mean difference between treatment groups, and we combined results for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel methods and risk differences We used Review Manager software for data management and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We only found one study eligible for this review (22 participants). We assessed the risk of bias for most domains as unclear. We graded the overall quality of evidence as very low. Compared to placebo, patients treated with pregabalin showed no significant improvement of motor tasks on the 36-point subscale of the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) (MD -2.15 points; 95% CI -9.16 to 4.86) or on the 32-point functional abilities subscale of the TRS (MD -0.66 points; 95% CI -2.90 to 1.58).The limited evidence showed no difference in study withdrawal (Mantel-Haenszel RD -0.09; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.30) and presentation of adverse events between pregabalin and placebo (Mantel-Haenszel RD 0.18; 95% CI -0.13 to 0.50). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of pregabalin for treating essential tremor are uncertain because the quality of the evidence is very low. One small study did not highlight any effect of this treatment; however, the high risk of bias and the lack of other studies on this topic limit further conclusion.

Online health information seeking: how people with multiple sclerosis find, assess and integrate treatment information to manage their health.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Internet is increasingly prominent as a source of health information for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). But there has been little exploration of the needs, experiences and preferences of people with MS for integrating treatment information into decision making, in the context of searching on the Internet. This was the aim of our study. DESIGN: Sixty participants (51 people with MS; nine family members) took part in a focus group or online forum. They were asked to describe how they find and assess reliable treatment information (particularly online) and how this changes over time. Thematic analysis was underpinned by a coding frame. RESULTS: Participants described that there was both too much information online and too little that applied to them. They spoke of wariness and scepticism but also empowerment. The availability of up-to-date and unbiased treatment information, including practical and lifestyle-related information, was important to many. Many participants were keen to engage in a 'research partnership' with health professionals and developed a range of strategies to enhance the trustworthiness of online information. We use the term 'self-regulation' to capture the variations in information seeking behaviour that participants described over time, as they responded to their changing information needs, their emotional state and growing expertise about MS. CONCLUSIONS: People with MS have developed a number of strategies to both find and integrate treatment information from a range of sources. Their reflections informed the development of an evidence-based consumer web site based on summaries of MS Cochrane reviews.

Association of Immunotherapies With Outcomes in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis are associated with the greatest benefit and highest risk of discontinuation due to adverse events in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis? BOTTOM LINE: Alemtuzumab, natalizumab, and fingolimod were associated with the greatest benefit with regard to relapse prevention. Their association with prevention of disability worsening was unclear. Fingolimod was associated with a high risk of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events.

The MITOS system predicts long-term survival in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: The choice of adequate proxy for long-term survival, the ultimate outcome in randomised clinical trials (RCT) assessing disease-modifying treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is a key issue. The intrinsic limitations of the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R), including non-linearity, multidimensionality and floor-effect, have emerged and its usefulness argued. The ALS Milano-Torino staging (ALS-MITOS) system was proposed as a novel tool to measure the progression of ALS and overcome these limitations. This study was performed to validate the ALS-MITOS as a 6-month proxy of survival in 200 ALS patients followed up to 18 months. METHODS: Analyses were performed on data from the recombinant human erythropoietin RCT that failed to demonstrate differences between groups for both primary and secondary outcomes. The ALS-MITOS system is composed of four key domains included in the ALSFRS-R scale (walking/self-care, swallowing, communicating and breathing), each with a threshold reflecting the loss of function in the specific ALSFRS-R subscores. Sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curves of the ALS-MITOS system stages and ALSFRS-R decline at 6 months were calculated and compared with the primary outcome (survival, tracheotomy or >23-hour non-invasive ventilation) at 12 and 18 months Predicted probabilities of the ALS-MITO system at 6 months for any event at 12 and 18 months were computed through logistic regression models. RESULTS: Disease progression from baseline to 6 months as defined by the ALS-MITOS system predicted death, tracheotomy or >23-hour non-invasive ventilation at 12 months with 82% sensitivity (95% CI 71% to 93%, n=37/45) and 63% specificity (95% CI 55% to 71%, n=92/146), and at 18 months with 71% sensitivity (95% CI 61% to 82%, n=50/70) and 68% specificity (95% CI 60% to 77%, n=76/111). The analysis of ALS-MITOS and ALSFRS-R progression at 6-month follow-up showed that the best cut-off to predict survival at 12 and 18 months was 1 for the ALS-MITOS (ie, loss of at least one function) and a decline ranging from 6 to 9 points for the ALSFRS-R. CONCLUSIONS: The ALS-MITOS system can reliably predict the course of ALS up to 18 months and can be considered a novel and valid outcome measure in RCTs.

Development and evaluation of a clinical staging system for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Staging of disease severity is useful for prognosis, decision-making and resource planning. However, no commonly used, validated staging system exists for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Our purpose was to develop an ALS staging system (ALS Milano-Torino Staging) that captures the observed progressive loss of independence and function. METHODS: Clinical milestones in ALS progression were defined by loss of independence in four key domains on the ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS): swallowing, walking/self-care, communicating and breathing. Stages were defined as follows: stage 0, functional involvement but no loss of independence on any domain; stages 1-4, number of domains in which independence was lost; and stage 5, death. Staging criteria were applied to patients enrolled in a Quality of Care in ALS (QOC) study; endpoints included function (ALSFRS), quality of life (QOL; Short Form-36) and health service costs. Between-stage transition probabilities were assessed in the QOC study and in a second clinical study of lithium carbonate in ALS. RESULTS: 70/118 (59.3%) participants in the QOC study progressed to higher stages of disease at 12 months compared with their baseline stage. Functional (ALSFRS) and QOL measures were inversely related to disease stage. Health service costs were directly related to increasing disease stages from 0 to 4 (p<0.001). Probabilities for transitioning from a given stage at baseline in both studies were usually greatest for the next highest stage. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed ALS Milano-Torino Staging system correlates well with assessments of function, QOL and health service costs. Further studies are warranted to validate this system.

Erythropoietin in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, phase III study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). METHODS: Patients with probable laboratory-supported, probable or definite ALS were enrolled by 25 Italian centres and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous rhEPO 40,000 IU or placebo fortnightly as add-on treatment to riluzole 100 mg daily for 12 months. The primary composite outcome was survival, tracheotomy or >23 h non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Secondary outcomes were ALSFRS-R, slow vital capacity (sVC) and quality of life (ALSAQ-40) decline. Tolerability was evaluated analysing adverse events (AEs) causing withdrawal. The randomisation sequence was computer-generated by blocks, stratified by centre, disease severity (ALSFRS-R cut-off score of 33) and onset (spinal or bulbar). The main outcome analysis was performed in all randomised patients and by intention-to-treat for the entire population and patients stratified by severity and onset. The study is registered, EudraCT 2009-016066-91. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 208 patients, of whom 5 (1 rhEPO and 4 placebo) withdrew consent and 3 (placebo) became ineligible (retinal thrombosis, respiratory insufficiency, SOD1 mutation) before receiving treatment; 103 receiving rhEPO and 97 placebo were eligible for analysis. At 12 months, the annualised rate of death (rhEPO 0.11, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.20; placebo: 0.08, CI 0.04 to 0.17), tracheotomy or >23 h NIV (rhEPO 0.16, CI 0.10 to 0.27; placebo 0.18, CI 0.11 to 0.30) did not differ between groups, also after stratification by onset and ALSFRS-R at baseline. Withdrawal due to AE was 16.5% in rhEPO and 8.3% in placebo. No differences were found for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: RhEPO 40,000 IU fortnightly did not change the course of ALS.