Efficacy and safety of hemodialysis strategies for pregnant women with chronic kidney disease: Systematic review.

Pregnancy in chronic kidney disease (CKD) women is relatively rare, and the less risky choice of hemodialysis is unknown. The objective of this systematic review was to identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of hemodialysis strategies for pregnant CKD women. Sensitive search strategies were applied to six databases without data or language restrictions. Comparative (randomized and non-randomized) studies were prioritized. Two reviewers independently selected, extracted, and critically evaluated data from studies. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the ROBINS-I tool, considering the study design (non-randomized comparative observational studies). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. From 7210 references identified, six retrospective cohort studies were included (576 women). The effects of intensive hemodialysis (over 20 h/week) are uncertain for maternal and neonatal mortality (Peto odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.26-2.80), miscarriage (Peto OR 0, 38; 95% CI 0.12-1.23), stillbirths (Peto OR 0, 56; 95% CI 0.13-2.31), preterm birth (Peto OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.33-2.28), low birth weight (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.20-2.50) and congenital anomalies rates. The certainty of the evidence was very low due to studies methodological limitations and effect estimates imprecision. The uncertainty about intensive versus conventional hemodialysis effects for pregnant women with CKD and the imprecision in the estimated effects precludes any recommendation. The strategy choice must consider treatment availability, costs, and maternal social aspects until future studies provide more reliable evidence. PROSPERO CRD42021259237.

Alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune, T-cell-dependent, inflammatory, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, with an unpredictable course. Current MS therapies focus on treating and preventing exacerbations, and avoiding the progression of disability. At present, there is no treatment that is capable of safely and effectively reaching these objectives. Clinical trials suggest that alemtuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, could be a promising option for MS. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of alemtuzumab alone or associated with other treatments in people with any form of MS. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 21 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with any subtype of MS comparing alemtuzumab alone or associated with other medications versus placebo; another active drug; or alemtuzumab in another dose, regimen, or duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our co-primary outcomes were 1. relapse-free survival, 2. sustained disease progression, and 3. number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event. Our secondary outcomes were 4. participants free of clinical disability, 5. quality of life, 6. change in disability, 7. fatigue, 8. new or enlarging lesions on resonance imaging, and 9. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs (1713 participants) comparing intravenous alemtuzumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for relapsing-remitting MS. Participants were treatment-naive (two studies) or had experienced at least one relapse after interferon or glatiramer (one study). Alemtuzumab was given at doses of 12 mg/day or 24 mg/day for five days at months 0 and 12, or 24 mg/day for three days at months 12 and 24. Participants in the interferon beta-1a group received 44 µg three times weekly. Alemtuzumab 12 mg: 1. may improve relapse-free survival at 36 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18 to 0.53; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 2. may improve sustained disease progression-free survival at 36 months (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.56; 1 study, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence); 3. may make little to no difference on the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event at 36 months (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02; 1 study, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence), although the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event was high with both drugs; 4. may slightly reduce disability at 36 months (mean difference [MD] -0.70, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.36; 1 study, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding the risk of dropouts at 36 months (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.14; 1 study, 224 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Alemtuzumab 24 mg: 1. may improve relapse-free survival at 36 months (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 2. may improve sustained disease progression-free survival at 36 months (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.69; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 3. may make little to no difference on the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event at 36 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 1 study, 215 participants; low-certainty evidence), although the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event was high with both drugs; 4. may slightly reduce disability at 36 months (MD -0.83, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.50; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 5. may reduce the risk of dropouts at 36 months (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.57; 1 study, 215 participants; low-certainty evidence). For quality of life, fatigue, and participants free of clinical disease activity, the studies either did not consider these outcomes or they used different measuring tools to those planned in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with interferon beta-1a, alemtuzumab may improve relapse-free survival and sustained disease progression-free survival, and make little to no difference on the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event for people with relapsing-remitting MS at 36 months. The certainty of the evidence for these results was very low to low.

Erythromycin prior to endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Upper endoscopy is the definitive treatment for upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH). However, up to 13% of people who undergo upper endoscopy will have incomplete visualisation of the gastric mucosa at presentation. Erythromycin acts as a motilin receptor agonist in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract and increases gastric emptying, which may lead to better quality of visualisation and improved treatment effectiveness. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of erythromycin in UGIH. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of erythromycin before endoscopy in adults with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, compared with any other treatment or no treatment/placebo. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 15 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated erythromycin before endoscopy compared to any other treatment or no treatment/placebo before endoscopy in adults with acute UGIH. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. UGIH-related mortality and 2. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. visualisation of gastric mucosa, 3. non-serious adverse events, 4. rebleeding, 5. blood transfusion, and 5. rescue invasive intervention. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with 878 participants. The mean age ranged from 53.13 years to 64.5 years, and most participants were men (72.3%). One RCT included only non-variceal haemorrhage, one included only variceal haemorrhage, and eight included both aetiologies. We defined short-term outcomes as those occurring within one week of initial endoscopy. Erythromycin versus placebo Three RCTs (255 participants) compared erythromycin with placebo. There were no UGIH-related deaths. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with placebo on serious adverse events (risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.02; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), all-cause mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), and rebleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.90; 2 studies, 195 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin may improve gastric mucosa visualisation (mean difference (MD) 3.63 points on 16-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 2.20 to 5.05; higher MD means better visualisation; 2 studies, 195 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin may also result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion (MD -0.44 standard units of blood, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.01; 3 studies, 255 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage Six RCTs (408 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage compared with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.03; 3 studies, 238 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48 points on 10-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.85; higher SMD means better visualisation; 3 studies, 170 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 6 studies, 408 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.02; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (MD -1.85 standard units of blood, 95% CI -4.34 to 0.64; 3 studies, 180 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin versus nasogastric tube lavage Four RCTs (287 participants) compared erythromycin with nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.79; 2 studies, 198 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD -0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.13; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.49; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (median 2 standard units of blood, interquartile range 0 to 4 in both groups; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage One RCT (30 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage on all the reported outcomes (serious adverse events, visualisation of gastric mucosa, non-serious adverse events, and blood transfusion). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unsure if erythromycin before endoscopy in people with UGIH has any clinical benefits or harms. However, erythromycin compared with placebo may improve gastric mucosa visualisation and result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population. RESULTS: Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills. CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies. Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

CAR-T cell therapy for patients with hematological malignancies. A systematic review.

Hematological malignancies represent defying clinical conditions, with high levels of morbidity and mortality, particularly considering patients who manifest multiple refractory diseases. Recently, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy has emerged as a potential treatment option for relapsed/refractory B cell malignancies, which have motivated the Food and Drug Administration approval of a series of products based on this technique. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of CAR-T cell therapy for patients with hematological malignancies. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the electronic databases (CENTRAL, Embase, LILACS, and MEDLINE), clinical trials register platforms (Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP), and grey literature (OpenGrey). The Cochrane Handbook for Reviews of Interventions was used for developing the review and the PRISMA Statement for manuscript reporting. The protocol was prospectively published in PROSPERO database (CRD42020181047). After the selection process, seven RCTs were included, three of which with available outcome results. The available results are from studies assessing axicabtagene, lisocabtagene, and tisagenlecleucel for patients with B cell lymphoma, and the certainty of evidence ranged from very low to low for survival and progression-related outcome and for safety outcomes. Additionally, four randomized controlled trials comparing CAR-T cell therapy to the standard treatment for various types of relapsed/refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and multiple myeloma included in this systematic review still did not have available outcome data. The results of this review may be used to guide clinical practice but evidence concerning the safety and efficacy of CAR-T Cell therapy for hematological malignancies is still immature to recommend its application outside of clinical trials or compassionate use context for advanced and terminal cases. It is expected the results of the referred comparative studies will provide further elements to subsidize the broader application of this immunotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of therapeutic use of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogs: Overview of systematic reviews.

The debate on the use of cannabinoids for therapeutic purposes is constantly on the rise. This overview aimed to map the evidence on the therapeutic effects of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogs. Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized trials were identified through a comprehensive search in several databases, and their methodological quality were evaluated with AMSTAR-2. The results for main outcomes are presented, prioritizing those from updated and better quality SRs. Finally, 68 SRs, addressing 37 different health conditions, were included. The methodological quality was high for eight SRs. The evidence certainty (GRADE) for the effects of cannabinoids is not high for any of the outcomes identified. Evidence certainty was moderate for the following: (a) cannabidiol appears to be beneficial for quality of life but increases the risk of adverse events in ulcerative colitis; (b) cannabinoids in general appear to have no clinically important benefit for chronic non-oncologic pain, spasticity-related pain in multiple sclerosis, or for acute post-operative pain; (c) cannabinoids in general appear to have a benefit in reducing chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. For all other outcomes from remaining comparisons, the evidence certainty was low, very low, or not evaluated, which prevents recommendations for or against their routine use.

Color alteration with ceramic veneers according to the tooth type and preparation step: A clinical analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Achieving accurate tooth color is important in esthetic dental treatments; however, clinical studies evaluating how ceramic veneer procedures affect color alterations are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the color alteration during treatment with ceramic veneers and to correlate these changes with the tooth treated and veneer thickness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten patients who underwent esthetic treatment were enrolled as participants. Color analysis with the VITA spectrophotometer was performed at baseline, after tooth preparation, immediately after cementation (Final 1), and after 6 to 12 months of follow-up (Final 2). Data of L∗, a∗, b∗, shade guide unit (SGU), ΔEab, ΔE00, and variation in SGU (ΔSGU) were obtained. Thickness of the veneer was also recorded. Each participant was considered as a statistical block, and the mean results for each tooth (maxillary central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines) were presented. Data were evaluated by the mixed model for repeated measures and Tukey-Kramer post hoc test (L∗, a∗, b∗), generalized linear models (thickness, ΔEab, ΔE00, SGU), Friedman test (ΔSGU), and the Pearson test was used to correlate veneer thickness and color change (ΔEab, ΔE00, ΔSGU) (α=.05). RESULTS: Among the teeth treated, no differences were found in ceramic thicknesses. The mean thickness was 1.03 mm for central incisors, 0.96 for lateral incisors, and 0.89 for canines. The b∗ values increased significantly after preparation and decreased after cementation (P<.001). For ΔEab, ΔE00, and ΔSGU, there was no statistically significant difference between the types of tooth at each respective time of analysis (P>.05). Regardless of the tooth, a decrease in the SGU score was detected after cementation (P=.015). After tooth preparation, there was significant correlation (P<.05) between ceramic thickness and ΔSGU (r=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ceramic veneers resulted in color change, mainly with respect to the b∗ axis (yellow), producing objective differences in the ΔE analysis. Although ceramic thickness correlated with the VITA scale change (ΔSGU) after tooth wear or preparation, ceramic thickness did not differ among tooth types and did not correlate with changes in color parameters after cementation. (P>.05).

Colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune response. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory medicine and is thought to improve disease outcomes in COVID-19 through a wide range of anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Patients and healthcare systems need more and better treatment options for COVID-19 and a thorough understanding of the current body of evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of Colchicine as a treatment option for COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard care alone in any setting, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 21 May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials evaluating colchicine for the treatment of people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating the prophylactic effects of colchicine for people without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to assess bias in included studies and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following prioritised outcome categories considering people with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, worsening and improvement of clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events and for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease: all-cause mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, duration to symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs with 11,525 hospitalised participants (8002 male) and one RCT with 4488 (2067 male) non-hospitalised participants. Mean age of people treated in hospital was about 64 years, and was 55 years in the study with non-hospitalised participants. Further, we identified 17 ongoing studies and 11 studies completed or terminated, but without published results. Colchicine plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo) Treatment of hospitalised people with moderate to severe COVID-19 All-cause mortality: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to 28 days compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 11,445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Worsening of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in worsening of clinical status assessed as new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death compared to standard care alone (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 10,916 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in improvement of clinical status, assessed as number of participants discharged alive up to day 28 without clinical deterioration or death compared to standard care alone (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; 1 RCT, 11,340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.78; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine plus standard care on serious adverse events compared to standard care alone (0 events observed in 1 RCT of 105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment of non-hospitalised people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 All-cause mortality: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality at 28 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.62; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; low-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital or death within 28 days: colchicine probably slightly reduces the need for hospitalisation or death within 28 days compared to placebo (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Symptom resolution: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo . Results are from one RCT reporting treatment-related events only in 4412 participants (low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: colchicine probably slightly reduces serious adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 4412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Colchicine versus another active treatment (e.g. corticosteroids, anti-viral drugs, monoclonal antibodies) No studies evaluated this comparison. Different formulations, doses, or schedules of colchicine No studies assessed this. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, in people hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 the use of colchicine probably has little to no influence on mortality or clinical progression in comparison to placebo or standard care alone. We do not know whether colchicine increases the risk of (serious) adverse events. We are uncertain about the evidence of the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. However, colchicine probably results in a slight reduction of hospital admissions or deaths within 28 days, and the rate of serious adverse events compared with placebo. None of the studies reported data on quality of life or compared the benefits and harms of colchicine versus other drugs, or different dosages of colchicine. We identified 17 ongoing and 11 completed but not published RCTs, which we expect to incorporate in future versions of this review as their results become available. Editorial note: due to the living approach of this work, we monitor newly published results of RCTs on colchicine on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.

Frequency, signs and symptoms, and criteria adopted for long COVID-19: A systematic review.

AIMS: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarise the best available evidence on the frequency of long COVID-19 (post-acute COVID-19 syndrome), its clinical manifestations, and the criteria used for diagnosis. METHODS: Systematic review conducted with a comprehensive search including formal databases, COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 data sources, grey literature, and manual search. We considered for inclusion clinical trials, observational longitudinal comparative and non-comparative studies, cross-sectional, before-and-after, and case series. We assessed the methodological quality by specific tools based on the study designs. We presented the results as a narrative synthesis regarding the frequency and duration of long COVID-19, signs and symptoms, criteria used for diagnosis, and potential risk factors. RESULTS: We included 25 observational studies with moderate to high methodological quality, considering 5440 participants. The frequency of long COVID-19 ranged from 4.7% to 80%, and the most prevalent signs/symptoms were chest pain (up to 89%), fatigue (up to 65%), dyspnea (up to 61%), and cough and sputum production (up to 59%). Temporal criteria used to define long COVID-19 varied from 3 to 24 weeks after acute phase or hospital discharge. Potentially associated risk factors were old age, female sex, severe clinical status, a high number of comorbidities, hospital admission, and oxygen supplementation at the acute phase. However, limitations related to study designs added uncertainty to this finding. None of the studies assessed the duration of signs/symptoms. CONCLUSION: The frequency of long COVID-19 reached up to 80% over the studies included and occurred between 3 and 24 weeks after acute phase or hospital discharge. Chest pain, fatigue, dyspnea, and cough were the most reported clinical manifestations attributed to the condition. Based on these systematic review findings, there is an urgent need to understand this emerging, complex and challenging medical condition. Proposals for diagnostic criteria and standard terminology are welcome.

The diagnostic performance of MRI signs to distinguish Pectoralis major tendon avulsions from Myotendinous injuries.

BACKGROUND: Management of pectoralis major (PM) injuries is largely determined by the anatomic location of the injury, with tendon avulsions from the humerus requiring surgery while myotendinous (MT) injuries are typically managed non-operatively. Because physical examination cannot reliably make this distinction, MRI is often used for staging. However, correct classification can also be difficult with MRI where there is extensive soft tissue edema and distorted anatomy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic performance of primary and secondary MRI signs of PM injury for distinguishing tendon avulsions from MT injuries in a selected sample of patients that underwent surgical repair using a practical interpretation algorithm. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 3 blinded observers independently assessed the MRI findings of 17 patients with PM injury (including 12 acute injuries, 4 chronic, and 1 of uncertain age) where subsequent surgery documented tendon avulsion (11) and MT injuries (6) by applying the primary MRI criteria of absent tendon at the humerus, retracted tendon stump, epicenter of edema, and the secondary finding of soft tissue edema contacting the anterior humeral cortex. Operative findings were used as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value were recorded for each finding. RESULTS: The primary MRI finding of lack of a visible tendon at the insertion (sensitivity 82-100%, specificity 100%) and the secondary finding of edema contacting the anterior humeral cortex (sensitivity 64-91%, specificity 67-100%) were both useful for the distinction of tendon avulsion from MT injury, particularly in acute injuries. The presence of a retracted tendon stump and the epicenter of edema were not reliable findings. The use of a decision tree including the secondary finding of humeral edema increased the sensitivity and specificity for 2 of the 3 observers. CONCLUSION: MRI assessment of PM injury focused on the humeral insertion of the PM tendon allows accurate distinction of tendon avulsion from MT injury. CLINICAL IMPACT: This study describes a practical approach to classifying PM injuries with MRI to distinguish injuries that require surgery from those that can potentially be managed conservatively.

Resin composite adhesion to dentin using different curing lights and adhesive systems applied under electric current.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of electric current application on the resin composite-tooth bond strength and hybrid layer of three adhesive systems light-cured by two light-curing units (LCUs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Human molar teeth were distributed into 12 groups (n=6). Three adhesive systems were used: two-step etch-and-rinse (SB2; Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE); two-step self-etch (CSE; Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray); and one-step self-etch (SBU; Single Bond Universal, 3M ESPE) applied with (50µA) and without (control; conventional application) electric current, and light-cured with different LCUs. Resin composite blocks (Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE) were produced and cut into sticks (~1mm2) for microtensile bond strength (µTBS). Fracture patterns were analyzed on stereomicroscope and classified as cohesive-dentin, cohesive-resin, adhesive, or mixed. Specimens were prepared for scanning electron microscope observation. The hybrid layer analysis was carried out using a confocal laser scanning microscopy (n=2). Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test (α=0.05). RESULTS: The electric current increased the µTBS for all adhesive systems light-cured with single-emission peak and multiple-emission peak LCUs. Both LCUs presented similar µTBS values. CSE applied under electric current showed the highest µTBS mean values. The adhesive failure pattern was more frequently observed in all groups. The electric current formed long resin tags for all adhesive systems. CONCLUSIONS: The adhesive systems applied under electric current increased the bond strength using single-emission peak and multiple-emission peak LCUs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Electric current at 50µA applied throughout the dentin is a safe mode and results in better impregnation of the adhesive systems.

In vitro efficacy of commercial and experimental proteolytic enzyme-based whitening dentifrices on enamel whitening and superficial roughness.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the whiteness index (WID ) and surface roughness (Ra) of bovine enamel after simulated tooth brushing with different commercial and experimental whitening dentifrices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cylindrical enamel bovine specimens were acid etched, stained, and divided in nine groups (n = 8): Colgate® Optic White®, Crest® Baking Soda and Peroxide, Arm and Hammer® Advanced White™ Extreme Whitening, Rembrandt® Deeply White® + Peroxide, Close up® White Attraction Natural Glow, Hinode Prowhite, and experimental dentifrice containing papain (PP), bromelain (PB), or papain and bromelain (PPB). Ra and WID were obtained initially and after 600, 1200, and 3,600 cycles of simulated tooth brushing. Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Ra was significantly influenced by both dentifrice (p = 0.043) and period of tooth-brushing simulation (p < 0.001). Except for PP and PPB, all groups showed a statistically significant increase in Ra after simulated tooth brushing. After staining and brushing, none of the materials tested increased the initial WID . CONCLUSIONS: The effect of commercial whitening dentifrices may be related to their high abrasiveness. Experimental formulations tested provided a similar effect without undesired wear of enamel. Whitening dentifrices only act through an abrasive effect rather than bleaching the tooth structures. When used, special care must be taken for avoid undesired wear of enamel. Experimental dentifrices provided similar removal of extrinsic stains without undesired abrasiveness; however, this effect may be due to the use of less aggressive abrasives in their formulations.

Photobiomodulation with low-level laser therapy for treating Achilles tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the benefits and harms of low-level laser therapy for Achilles tendinopathy. DATA SOURCES: Search strategies were conducted (from inception to February 2020) in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde e do Caribe (LILACS), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), SPORTDiscus, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO)-ICTRP and OpenGrey databases, to retrieve all randomized controlled trials that compared laser therapy with inactive/active interventions. REVIEW METHODS: This study was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of bias table. Meta-analyses were performed on dependence of homogeneity, otherwise results were reported narratively. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Four trials (119 participants) were analyzed. Laser therapy associated to eccentric exercises when compared to eccentric exercises and sham had very low to low certainty of evidence in pain and function assessment. Despite one trial favored laser therapy at two months (mean difference (MD) -2.55, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -3.87 to -1.23), the CIs did not include important differences between groups at 3 and 13 months. The function assessment showed an improvement favoring the placebo group at one month (MD 9.19, 95% CI -16.16 to -2.23) and non-significant difference between groups at 3 and 13 months. Adverse events were poorly reported but restricted to minor events related to the exercises. CONCLUSION: The certainty of evidence was low to very low, and the results are insufficient to support the routine use laser therapy for Achilles tendinopathy.

Clinical study of Maggot therapy for Fournier's gangrene.

Fournier's Gangrene is a fulminating necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum and genitalia. Standard treatment involves immediate excision of all necrotic tissue, aggressive antibiotic coverage, and supportive medical care. Still, the infection is commonly fatal or disfiguring. Wound treatment with disinfected blowfly larvae (maggot debridement therapy or MDT) has been shown to be highly effective, with multiple studies demonstrating effective debridement, disinfection, and promotion of granulation tissue. MDT also has been associated with preservation of viable tissue and minimised blood loss. This report describes a prospective clinical study of MDT for Fournier's gangrene aimed to test the hypothesis that early use of maggots could decrease the number of surgical treatments required to treat Fournier's gangrene. Subjects were provided with one initial surgical excision, followed by debridement using only medical grade Lucilia sericata larvae. Only two subjects were enrolled, both diabetic men. Intensive care and culture-directed antimicrobial coverage were administered as usual. Maggot debridement was associated with the disappearance of necrotic tissue, control of infection and granulation tissue growth. In both subjects, wounds healed without requiring further surgical resection or anatomical reconstruction. Maggot therapy decreased the number of surgical procedures that otherwise would have been necessary, and led to favourable outcomes.

Optimum roasting conditions of argan kernels (Argania spinosa L.) for the production of high-quality edible argan oil.

Roasting is an important step in the production of edible argan oils. The effect of argan kernel roasting temperature (ranging from 150 to 200 °C) and time (from 10 to 50 min), on oil yield, contents in total phenolic compounds, α- and γ-tocopherol, and oxidative stability, was researched using response surface methodology. Increases in roasting temperature and time have a significant effect on all the responses. This study showed that the optimum roasting conditions of argan kernel (indirect heat by convection) for the production of edible argan oils were 150 °C and 50 min, which allowed reaching a maximum oil yield of 32.45%. Edible argan oil, obtained under these conditions, had a content of total phenolic compounds of 78.01 mg/kg, α- and γ-tocopherol of 30.28 and 495.03 mg/kg, respectively, and an oxidative stability of 37.58 h. Furthermore, it presented olfactory notes of 'almond, dried fruits, hazelnut and waffle', with 'sweet' and 'fruity' as positive attributes, without any defect.

Effectiveness and Safety of Ozone Therapy in Dental Caries Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of ozone therapy for treating dental caries. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 8 databases, from inception to April 4, 2020 (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO, and OpenGrey). Primary outcome measures were antimicrobial effect and adverse events. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to evaluate methodological quality of included RCTs and GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. We used the Review Manager software to conduct meta-analyses. RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs comparing ozone therapy with no ozone, chlorhexidine digluconate, fissure sealants (alone and added to ozone), and fluoride. Considering primary outcomes, ozone therapy showed (a) lower reduction in the bacterial number than chlorhexidine digluconate in children (mean difference [MD]: -5.65 [-9.79 to -1.51]), but no difference was observed in adults (MD: -0.10 [-1.07 to 0.88]); (b) higher reduction in the bacterial number than sealant (MD: 12.60 [3.86-21.34]), but no difference was observed after final excavation (MD: -0.00 [-0.01 to 0.01]). Regarding safety of ozone therapy, results from individual studies presented no adverse events during or after treatment. Most of these results are imprecise and should be interpreted with caution because of clinical and methodological concerns, small sample size, and wide confidence interval, precluding to determine the real effect direction. CONCLUSION: Based on a very low certainty of evidence, there is not enough support from published RCTs to recommend the use of ozone for the treatment of dental caries. Well-conducted studies should be encouraged, measuring mainly the antimicrobial effects of ozone therapy at long term and following the recommendations of the CONSORT statement for the reporting of RCTs.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic neck pain is a highly prevalent condition, affecting 10% to 24% of the general population. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is the noninvasive, transcutaneous use of electrical stimulation to produce analgesia. It is a simple, low-cost and safe intervention used in clinical practice as an adjunct treatment for painful musculoskeletal conditions that have a considerable impact on daily activities, such as chronic neck pain. This review is a split from a Cochrane Review on electrotherapy for neck pain, published in 2013, and focuses specifically on TENS for chronic neck pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (alone or in association with other interventions) compared with sham and other clinical interventions for the treatment of chronic neck pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Back and Neck Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers to 9 November 2018. We also screened the reference lists of relevant studies to identify additional trials. There were no language, source, or publication date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults (≥ 18 years of age) with chronic neck pain (lasting > 12 weeks) that compared TENS alone or in combination with other treatments versus active or inactive treatments. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors selected the trials, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. A third review author was consulted in case of disagreements. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool (adapted by Cochrane Back and Neck), to assess the risk of bias of individual trials and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We used risk ratios (RRs) to measure treatment effects for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs with a total of 651 participants, mean age 31.7 to 55.5 years, conducted in three different countries (Turkey, Jordan and China). The length of follow-up ranged from one week to six months. Most RCTs used continuous TENS, with a frequency of 60 Hz to 100 Hz, pulse width of 40 µs to 250 µs and tolerable intensity, described as a tingling sensation without contraction, in daily sessions lasting 20 to 60 minutes. Due to heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes, we did not pool individual study data into meta-analyses. Overall, we judged most studies as being at low risk for selection bias and high risk for performance and detection bias. Based on the GRADE approach, there was very low-certainty evidence from two trials about the effects of conventional TENS when compared to sham TENS at short-term (up to 3 months after treatment) follow-up, on pain (assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.77) and the percentage of participants presenting improvement of pain (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.92). None of the included studies reported on disability or adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found very low-certainty evidence of a difference between TENS compared to sham TENS on reducing neck pain; therefore, we are unsure about the effect estimate. At present, there is insufficient evidence regarding the use of TENS in patients with chronic neck pain. Additional well-designed, -conducted and -reported RCTs are needed to reach robust conclusions.

Palliative care interventions for people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple sclerosis (MS) have complex symptoms and different types of needs. These demands include how to manage the burden of physical disability as well as how to organise daily life, restructure social roles in the family and at work, preserve personal identity and community roles, keep self-sufficiency in personal care, and how to be part of an integrated care network. Palliative care teams are trained to keep open full and competent lines of communication about symptoms and disease progression, advanced care planning, and end-of-life issues and wishes. Teams create a treatment plan for the total management of symptoms, supporting people and families on decision-making. Despite advances in research and the existence of many interventions to reduce disease activity or to slow the progression of MS, this condition remains a life-limiting disease with symptoms that impact negatively the lives of people with it and their families. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of palliative care interventions compared to usual care for people with any form of multiple sclerosis: relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), secondary-progressive MS (SPMS), primary-progressive MS (PPMS), and progressive-relapsing MS (PRMS) We also aimed to compare the effects of different palliative care interventions. SEARCH METHODS: On 31 October 2018, we conducted a literature search in the specialised register of the Cochrane MS and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Review Group, which contains trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched PsycINFO, PEDro and Opengrey. We also handsearched relevant journals and screened the reference lists of published reviews. We contacted researchers in palliative care and multiple sclerosis. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, as well as the first phase of cross-over trials. We included studies that compared palliative care interventions versus usual care. We also included studies that compared palliative care interventions versus another type of palliative interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We summarised key results and certainty of evidence in a 'Summary of Finding' table that reported outcomes at six or more months of post-intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies (146 participants) met our selection criteria. Two studies compared multidisciplinary, fast-track palliative care versus multidisciplinary standard care while on a waiting-list control, and one study compared a multidisciplinary palliative approach versus multidisciplinary standard care at different time points (12, 16, and 24 weeks). Two were RCTs with parallel design (total 94 participants) and one was a cross-over design (52 participants). The three studies assessed palliative care as a home-based intervention. One of the three studies included participants with 'neurodegenerative diseases', with MS people being a subset of the randomised population. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using Cochrane's 'Risk of Bias' tool.We found no evidence of differences between intervention and control groups in long-time follow-up (> six months post-intervention) for the following outcomes: mean change in health-related quality of life (SEIQoL - higher scores mean better quality of life; MD 4.80, 95% CI -12.32 to 21.92; participants = 62; studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.12; participants = 76; studies = 1, 22 events, low-certainty evidence) and hospital admission (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.52; participants = 76; studies = 1, 10 events, low-certainty evidence).The three included studies did not assess the following outcomes at long term follow-up (> six months post intervention): fatigue, anxiety, depression, disability, cognitive function, relapse-free survival, and sustained progression-free survival.We did not find any trial that compared different types of palliative care with each other. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of the RCTs included in this review, we are uncertain whether palliative care interventions are beneficial for people with MS. There is low- or very low-certainty evidence regarding the difference between palliative care interventions versus usual care for long-term health-related quality of life, adverse events, and hospital admission in patients with MS. For intermediate-term follow-up, we are also uncertain about the effects of palliative care for the outcomes: health-related quality of life (measured by different assessments: SEIQoL or MSIS), disability, anxiety, and depression.