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.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical interventions for Takayasu arteritis: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Takayasu arteritis (TA) is a rare systemic vasculitis that affects large vessels often resistant to treatment and associated with high morbidity and mortality. Treatment is defied by the relapsing nature of the disease and frequent adverse effects of corticosteroids and immunosuppressors, rendering failure of treatment in a significant portion of patients. Considering the low quantity and quality of published studies focusing on treatment of TA, synthesis and critical assessment of the available evidence is fundamental to establish recommendations for clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of clinical interventions for TA. METHODS: Systematic review conducted in accordance to recommendations stated in the Cochrane Handbook, with inclusion of all comparative studies focusing on any type of clinical intervention for TA. RESULTS: Five comparative studies were included (one randomised clinical trial, two non-randomised clinical trials, and two historical cohorts) totalling 342 patients, aiming at the assessment of effectiveness of corticosteroids, immunosuppressors, biologics and other types of pharmacological treatment for distinct clinical presentations of TA. The quality of studies, assessed by the use of instruments developed specifically for each study design, was considered low. Data scarcity and clinical heterogeneity prevented quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). CONCLUSION: Despite an extensive literature search, few comparative studies with small sample sizes were retrieved. The quality of these studies was considered low, preventing recommendations on effectiveness and safety of the studied interventions for clinical practice. Until new comparative studies with more robust sample sizes are conducted, treatment of TA should be guided individually taking into account the severity of disease and the availability of treatment options.

Primary outcomes and characteristics of clinical trial registries (up to October 2021) on COVID-19 vaccines.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the general and primary outcome-related characteristics of clinical trials protocols on COVID-19 vaccines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A meta-research study. A search for clinical trial protocols on COVID-19 vaccines was conducted on the ClinicalTrials.gov platform. We considered all protocols of comparative trials registered up to October 26, 2021. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-two trials were analysed. The median expected trial duration was 445 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 225), and the median target sample size was 420 participants (IQR = 1638). A retrospective registry (after the start date) was observed for 42.55% of the trials. Randomization procedures were planned by 84.75% and full-blinding procedures by 34.75% of the 282 trials. Most trials were labelled as active or still recruiting, and 14 trials (5%) were completed. None of the 14 trials labelled as completed on our search date had results available. Industry funding was reported by 198 trials (70.2%). Most studies declared more than one primary outcome, usually a safety or immunogenicity outcome, and 59 studies (20.9%) had at least one primary efficacy outcome. The description of the primary efficacy outcomes was limited in most cases, referred to as a non-specified 'efficacy' outcome (18.6%) or described as 'COVID-19 cases' (32.2%). CONCLUSION: the primary outcomes of clinical trials on COVID-19 vaccines are poorly described, and the registers provide insufficient information about them. The registry was retrospectively fulfilled for many trials, which may lead to bias and research waste. Outcomes were generically described and did not provide transparent information for replication in practice, further trials or meta-analyses.