Effectiveness of guided telerehabilitation on functional performance in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness of guided telerehabilitation on improving functional performance in community-dwelling older adults. DATA SOURCES: Articles published in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase (Ovid) from 01 January 2010 up to 17 October 2023. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies had (1) a randomised controlled trial design, (2) an average population age of 65 years or older, (3) a home-based setting and (4) evaluated the effectiveness of functional performance outcome measures. The intervention was considered telerehabilitation when guided by a healthcare professional using video, audio and/or text communication technologies with a minimum frequency of once per week. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 statement guideline was followed. Methodological quality was appraised using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 26 randomised controlled trials were included. Telerehabilitation had superior (N = 15), non-superior (N = 16) or non-inferior (N = 11) effectiveness for improving functional performance outcome measures compared to control interventions. No studies found the control intervention to be superior over telerehabilitation. Between study differences in intervention characteristics contributed to significant clinical heterogeneity. Five studies were found to present an overall 'low' risk of bias, 12 studies to present 'some' risk of bias and 9 studies to present an overall 'high' risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that telerehabilitation could be a promising alternative to in-person rehabilitation for improving functional performance in community-dwelling older adults. Additional well-designed studies with minimised bias are needed for a better understanding of effective telerehabilitation intervention strategies.

The development and acceptability of an educational and training intervention for recruiters to neonatal trials: the TRAIN project.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal or slow recruitment affects 30-50% of trials. Education and training of trial recruiters has been identified as one strategy for potentially boosting recruitment to randomised controlled trials (hereafter referred to as trials). The Training tRial recruiters, An educational INtervention (TRAIN) project was established to develop and assess the acceptability of an education and training intervention for recruiters to neonatal trials. In this paper, we report the development and acceptability of TRAIN. METHODS: TRAIN involved three sequential phases, with each phase contributing information to the subsequent phase(s). These phases were 1) evidence synthesis (systematic review of the effectiveness of training interventions and a content analysis of the format, content, and delivery of identified interventions), 2) intervention development using a Partnership (co-design/co-creation) approach, and 3) intervention acceptability assessments with recruiters to neonatal trials. RESULTS: TRAIN, accompanied by a comprehensive intervention manual, has been designed for online or in-person delivery. TRAIN can be offered to recruiters before trial recruitment begins or as refresher sessions during a trial. The intervention consists of five core learning outcomes which are addressed across three core training units. These units are the trial protocol (Unit 1, 50 min, trial-specific), understanding randomisation (Unit 2, 5 min, trial-generic) and approaching and engaging with parents (Unit 3, 70 min, trial-generic). Eleven recruiters to neonatal trials registered to attend the acceptability assessment training workshops, although only four took part. All four positively valued the training Units and resources for increasing recruiter preparedness, knowledge, and confidence. More flexibility in how the training is facilitated, however, was noted (e.g., training divided across two workshops of shorter duration). Units 2 and 3 were considered beneficial to incorporate into Good Clinical Practice Training or as part of induction training for new staff joining neonatal units. CONCLUSION: TRAIN offers a comprehensive co-produced training and education intervention for recruiters to neonatal trials. TRAIN was deemed acceptable, with minor modification, to neonatal trial recruiters. The small number of recruiters taking part in the acceptability assessment is a limitation. Scale-up of TRAIN with formal piloting and testing for effectiveness in a large cluster randomised trial is required.

Value of surgical pilot and feasibility study protocols.

BACKGROUND: RCTs in surgery are challenging owing to well established methodological issues. Well designed pilot and feasibility studies (PFS) may help overcome such issues to inform successful main trial design and conduct. This study aimed to analyse protocols of UK-funded studies to explore current use of PFS in surgery and identify areas for practice improvement. METHODS: PFS of surgical interventions funded by UK National Institute for Health Research programmes from 2005 to 2015 were identified, and original study protocols and associated publications sourced. Data extracted included study design characteristics, reasons for performing the work including perceived uncertainties around conducting a definitive main trial, and whether the studies had been published. RESULTS: Thirty-five surgical studies were identified, of which 29 were randomized, and over half (15 of 29) included additional methodological components (such as qualitative work examining recruitment, and participant surveys studying current interventions). Most studies focused on uncertainties around recruitment (32 of 35), with far fewer tackling uncertainties specific to surgery, such as intervention stability, implementation or delivery (10 of 35). Only half (19 of 35) had made their results available publicly, to date. CONCLUSION: The full potential of pretrial work to inform and optimize definitive surgical studies is not being realized.

Intralocus sexual conflict and insecticide resistance.

The BA allele of the Drosophila cytochrome P450 gene Cyp6g1 confers resistance to a range of insecticides. It is also subject to intralocus sexual conflict when introgressed into the Canton-S background, whose collection predates the widespread use of insecticides. In this genetic background, the allele confers a pleiotropic fitness benefit to females but a cost to males, and exhibits little sexual dimorphism in conferred insecticide resistance. It is unclear whether these sexually antagonistic effects also exist in current populations that have naturally evolved with insecticides, where genetic modifiers that offset male costs might be expected to evolve. Here, we explore these issues using Drosophila melanogaster caught recently from an Australian population in which the BA allele naturally segregates. While we find increased fecundity in insecticide-resistant BA females and no consistent evidence of fitness costs in males, experimental evolution indicates balancing selection at the locus. We suggest that this apparent discrepancy may be due to reduced investment in reproduction in resistant males. Our results at the population level are consistent with previous work, and suggest that individual-level fitness assays do not always capture sexually antagonistic fitness effects that emerge in a population context.

Brief Assessment of Parental Perception (BAPP): Development and validation of a new measure for assessing paediatric outcomes after bilateral cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVE: In contrast to previous clinical practice, current guidelines recommend bilateral cochlear implantation in children, resulting in a cohort of children who initially received one implant, but have subsequently had a second, contralateral implant. This study aimed to explore satisfaction and quality of life in children implanted simultaneously or sequentially. DESIGN: A novel measure of satisfaction and quality of life following paediatric bilateral cochlear implantation (the Brief Assessment of Parental Perception; BAPP) was developed and preliminary validation undertaken as part of a large, national project of bilateral implantation. Children's parents completed the measure yearly for up to three years following implantation. STUDY SAMPLE: Children from 14 UK implant centres were recruited into the study; data were available for 410 children one year post-implantation. RESULTS: The BAPP was found to have good face and convergent validity, and internal consistency. Results indicated very high levels of satisfaction with the devices, and improvements in quality of life. However there was evidence that children implanted sequentially were less willing to wear their second implant in the first two years than those children receiving simultaneous implants. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous and sequential cochlear implants have a positive impact on the quality of life of deaf children.

Enhanced relapse prevention for bipolar disorder by community mental health teams: cluster feasibility randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Relapse prevention for bipolar disorder increases time to relapse but is not available in routine practice. AIMS: To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of training community mental health teams (CMHTs) to deliver enhanced relapse prevention. METHOD: In a cluster randomised controlled trial, CMHT workers were allocated to receive 12 h training in enhanced relapse prevention to offer to people with bipolar disorder or to continue giving treatment as usual. The primary outcome was time to relapse and the secondary outcome was functioning. RESULTS: Twenty-three CMHTs and 96 service users took part. Compared with treatment as usual, enhanced relapse prevention increased median time to the next bipolar episode by 8.5 weeks (hazard ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.45-1.38). Social and occupational functioning improved with the intervention (regression coefficient 0.68, 95% CI 0.05-1.32). The clustering effect was negligible but imprecise (intracluster correlation coefficient 0.0001, 95% CI 0.0000-0.5142). CONCLUSIONS: Training care coordinators to offer enhanced relapse prevention for bipolar disorder may be a feasible effective treatment. Large-scale cluster trials are needed.

Metabolic measures 12 months after a randomised controlled trial of treatment of clozapine associated obesity and diabetes with exenatide (CODEX).

Clozapine is associated with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Glucagon-like-peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists such as exenatide can counter clozapine-associated GLP-1 dysregulation. Our 24-week randomized, controlled, open-label, pilot trial of once-weekly extended-release subcutaneous exenatide or usual care (CODEX) (n = 28), found exenatide was associated with significantly greater weight loss. We examined whether this effect was maintained at 12-months post-intervention. We followed up CODEX trial participants at 12-months post trial endpoint, collecting information on weight, BMI, waist circumference, blood pressure, fasting glucose, HbA1c, and use of metformin. The primary outcome of interest was change in weight from trial baseline to 12-months post endpoint and trial endpoint to 12-months post endpoint compared between former exenatide and usual care participants. Only HbA1c differed between baseline and 12-months post endpoint between the exenatide and control groups. From endpoint to 12-month follow up there were significantly greater increases among the former exenatide versus former usual care participants for weight, BMI, HbA1c and proportion with >5% weight gain. Stratifying results by whether participants used metformin post trial did not alter proportion with >5% weight gain. Although there were no significant differences in weight and BMI between baseline and 12-month post endpoint, there were significant increases in weight and BMI in the 12 months post endpoint for the former exenatide group. This was irrespective of metformin use and is in keeping with studies of other GLP-1RA agents. Further studies on GLP-1RAs use beyond 24 weeks for people with clozapine associated weight gain are needed.

Understanding and optimising patient and public involvement in trial oversight: an ethnographic study of eight clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Trial oversight is important for trial governance and conduct. Patients and/or lay members of the public are increasingly included in trial oversight committees, influenced by international patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake PPI in trial oversight and tokenistic PPI remains an issue. This paper explores how PPI functions in existing trial oversight committees and provides recommendations to optimise PPI in future trials. This was part of a larger study investigating the role and function of oversight committees in trials facing challenges. METHODS: Using an ethnographic study design, we observed oversight meetings of eight UK trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of their trial steering committees (TSCs) and trial management groups (TMGs) including public contributors, trial sponsors and funders. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken, with findings integrated to provide a multi-perspective account of how PPI functions in trial oversight. RESULTS: Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled oversight group members, including three public contributors. PPI was reported as beneficial in trial oversight, with public members contributing a patient voice and fulfilling a patient advocacy role. However, public contributors were not always active at oversight meetings and were sometimes felt to have a tokenistic role, with trialists reporting a lack of understanding of how to undertake PPI in trial oversight. To optimise PPI in trial oversight, the following areas were highlighted: the importance of planning effective strategies to recruit public contributors; considering the level of oversight and stage(s) of trial to include PPI; support for public contributors by the trial team between and during oversight meetings. CONCLUSIONS: We present evidence-based recommendations to inform future PPI in trial oversight. Consideration should be given at trial design stage on how to recruit and involve public contributors within trial oversight, as well as support and mentorship for both public contributors and trialists (in how to undertake PPI effectively). Findings from this study further strengthen the evidence base on facilitating meaningful PPI within clinical trials.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents in preventing bloodstream infections: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of central venous catheters (CVCs) treated with anti-infective agents in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases were searched from 1985 to August 2005. REVIEW METHODS: The systematic clinical and economic reviews were conducted according to accepted procedures. Only full economic evaluations (synthesis of costs and benefits) comparing the use of anti-infective central venous catheters (AI-CVCs) with untreated CVCs or other treated catheters were selected for inclusion in the economic review. RESULTS: A total of 32 trials met the clinical inclusion criteria. Seven different types of AI-CVC were identified, with the most frequently tested being chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine (CHSS) (externally treated), CHSS (externally and internally treated) and minocycline rifampicin (internally and externally treated). In general, the trials were of a poor quality in terms of reported methodology, microbiological relevance and control of confounding variables. The pooled result suggests a statistically significant advantage for AI-CVCs in comparison to standard catheters in reducing CRBSI [odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.60, 24 studies, I-squared = 0%, fixed effects]. Analysis by subgroups of catheters demonstrates that antibiotic-treated catheters and catheters treated internally and externally decrease CRBSI rates significantly (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.46, six studies, I-squared = 0%, fixed effects, and OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.70, nine studies, I-squared = 0%, fixed effects, respectively). Catheters treated only externally demonstrate a wider CI and non-significant effect (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.06, nine studies, I-squared = 0%, fixed effects). A treatment effect was also found for trials with an average duration of between 5 and 12 days, and for the one study with a mean duration of over 20 days. There was a statistically significant treatment effect for both femoral and jugular insertion sites and for those studies reporting a mix of insertion sites. The treatment effect was not observed in trials using exclusively subclavian insertion sites. Of the four trials that compared treated catheters, one reported a benefit of antibiotic-treated catheters over catheters treated externally with CHSS. All three sensitivity analyses testing for study design differences reported a statistically significant treatment effect. The review was limited owing to the quality of the trials included, marked differences in the definitions and methods of diagnosis of CRBSI, and inconsistent reporting of risk factors and patient population factors. Furthermore, two-thirds of trials were commercially funded. The economic performance (cost-effectiveness and potential cost-savings) of using AI-CVCs to reduce the number of CRBSIs in patients requiring a CVC was also reviewed. Results show that the use of AI-CVCs instead of standard CVCs can lead to a reduction in CRBSIs and decreased medical costs. To complement the reviews, a basic decision-analytic model was constructed to explore a range of possible scenarios for the NHS in England and Wales. Results show that for every patient who receives an AI-CVC there is an estimated cost-saving of 138.20 pounds. The multivariate sensitivity analyses estimate potentially large cost-savings, depending on the size of the population, under a wide range of cost and clinical assumptions. However, those considering the purchase of AI-CVCs should ensure that their patient populations and the important characteristics of local clinical practice are indeed similar to those described in this economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, AI-CVCs are clinically effective and relatively inexpensive and therefore their integration into clinical practice can be justified. However, the use of these anti-infective catheters without the appropriate use of other practical care initiatives will have only a limited success on the prevention of CRBSIs. Comparative trials are required to determine which, if any, of the treated catheters is the most effective. Pragmatic research related to the effectiveness of bundles of care that may reduce rates of CRBSI is also warranted.

A randomised controlled trial examining the longer-term outcomes of standard versus new antiepileptic drugs. The SANAD trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinicians' choice of one of the standard epilepsy drug treatments (carbamazepine or valproate) versus appropriate comparator new drugs. DESIGN: A clinical trial comprising two arms, one comparing new drugs in carbamazepine and the other with valproate. SETTING: A multicentre study recruiting patients with epilepsy from hospital outpatient clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with an adequately documented history of two or more clinically definite unprovoked epileptic seizures within the last year for whom treatment with a single antiepileptic drug represented the best therapeutic option. INTERVENTIONS: Arm A was carbamazepine (CBZ) versus gabapentin (GBP) versus lamotrigine (LTG) versus oxcarbazepine (OXC) versus topiramate (TPM). Arm B valproate (VPS) versus LTG versus TPM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to treatment failure (withdrawal of the randomised drug for reasons of unacceptable adverse events or inadequate seizure control or a combination of the two) and time to achieve a 12-month remission of seizures. Time from randomisation to first seizure, 24-month remission of seizures, incidence of clinically important adverse events, quality of life (QoL) outcomes and health economic outcomes were also considered. RESULTS: Arm A recruited 1721 patients (88% with symptomatic or cryptogenic partial epilepsy and 10% with unclassified epilepsy). Arm B recruited 716 patients (63% with idiopathic generalised epilepsy and 25% with unclassified epilepsy). In Arm A LTG had the lowest incidence of treatment failure and was statistically superior to all drugs for this outcome with the exception of OXC. Some 12% and 8% fewer patients experienced treatment failure on LTG than CBZ, the standard drug, at 1 and 2 years after randomisation, respectively. The superiority of LTG over CBZ was due to its better tolerability but there is satisfactory evidence indicating that LTG is not clinically inferior to CBZ for measures of its efficacy. No consistent differences in QoL outcomes were found between treatment groups. Health economic analysis supported LTG being preferred to CBZ for both cost per seizure avoided and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In Arm B for time to treatment failure, VPS, the standard drug, was preferred to both TPM and LTG, as it was the drug least likely to be associated with treatment failure for inadequate seizure control and was the preferred drug for time to achieving a 12-month remission. QoL assessments did not show any between-treatment differences. The health economic assessment supported the conclusion that VPS should remain the drug of first choice for idiopathic generalised or unclassified epilepsy, although there is a suggestion that TPM is a cost-effective alternative to VPS. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that LTG may be a clinical and cost-effective alternative to the existing standard drug treatment, CBZ, for patients diagnosed as having partial seizures. For patients with idiopathic generalised epilepsy or difficult to classify epilepsy, VPS remains the clinically most effective drug, although TPM may be a cost-effective alternative for some patients. Three new antiepileptic drugs have recently been licensed in the UK for the treatment of epilepsy (levetiracetam, zonisamide and pregabalin), therefore these drugs should be compared in a similarly designed trial.

WITHDRAWN: Artemether-lumefantrine for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria.

BACKGROUND: Artemether-lumefantrine is being recommended by the World Health Organization for treating uncomplicated malaria. It is expensive. We sought evidence of its superiority over existing treatment regimens. OBJECTIVES: To compare artemether-lumefantrine with other antimalarial drugs for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register (May 2005), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2005), EMBASE (1988 to May 2005), conference proceedings, and reference lists of articles. We contacted experts in malaria research and the pharmaceutical company that manufactures artemether-lumefantrine. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing artemether-lumefantrine administered orally with standard treatment regimens (single drug or combination). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria to potentially relevant trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Parasitaemia on day 28 (day 42 for sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and day 63 for mefloquine) was the primary outcome. Adverse event information was collected from the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials (1698 participants) tested a four dose regimen. Failure rates for artemether-lumefantrine tended to be higher (comparisons included sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, halofantrine, and mefloquine; difference statistically significant for mefloquine). When compared with chloroquine, artemether-lumefantrine was better in two studies, but the failure rate for chloroquine at these sites was over 50%. Two trials (419 participants) tested a six dose regimen against mefloquine plus artesunate. Artemether-lumefantrine was associated with higher failure rates but the studies were small. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The four dose regimen of artemether-lumefantrine seems to be less effective than most other current antimalarial regimens. The six dose regimen is largely untested. The authors are aware that some recently published trials may change the results of this review, and are preparing an update. These trials are referenced in 'Studies awaiting assessment'.

Family work in first-onset psychosis: a literature review.

Family intervention may be helpful for people with psychosis. We reviewed the literature for family intervention for people with a first-onset psychosis. There is limited and conflicting evidence of the efficacy of family intervention for this population. Definitive randomized controlled trials are required to establish the efficacy. At this time, evidence suggests that in High Expressed Emotion (EE) families, family intervention is a possible effective intervention. We suggest caution in families with Low EE as one study suggests that in Low EE families, family intervention can increase the levels of EE.

Evaluating the short-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States.

AIMS: Bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treatment targets can reduce the risk of developing diabetes-related complications. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg vs once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg as an add-on to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US by assessing the cost per patient achieving HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Percentages of patients achieving recommended targets were obtained from the LIRA-LIXI trial, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg and once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin. Annual costs were estimated from a healthcare payer perspective. An economic model was developed to evaluate the annual cost per patient achieving target (cost of control) with liraglutide 1.8 mg vs lixisenatide 20 µg for five end-points. RESULTS: Annual treatment costs were higher with liraglutide 1.8 mg than lixisenatide 20 µg, but this was offset by greater clinical efficacy, and the cost of control was lower with liraglutide 1.8 mg than lixisenatide 20 µg for all five end-points. The annual cost of control was USD 3,850, USD 11,404, USD 3,807, USD 4,299, and USD 6,901 lower for liraglutide 1.8 mg than lixisenatide 20 µg for targets of HbA1c < 7.0%, HbA1c ≤ 6.5%, HbA1c < 7.0% and no weight gain, HbA1c < 7.0% with no weight gain and no confirmed hypoglycemia, and HbA1c < 7.0% with no weight gain and systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with greater clinical efficacy than once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg, which resulted in a lower annual cost of control for HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.

Response to letter to editor: 'Comment on Arch et al., Trials. 2016;17:517'.

In October 2015 we published the paper 'Measurement of HbA1c in multicentre diabetes trials - should blood samples be tested locally or sent to a central laboratory: an agreement analysis'. Chatterjee and Pradhan have submitted a letter to the editor asking critical questions regarding the methods we used. We offer this letter in response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudract No. 2010-023792-25. Registered on 4 November 2010. ISRCTN No. ISRCTN29255275 . Registered on 12 November 2010.

Immediate versus deferred antiepileptic drug treatment for early epilepsy and single seizures: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The relative risks and benefits of starting or withholding antiepileptic drug treatment in patients with few or infrequent seizures are unclear. We sought to compare policies of immediate versus deferred treatment in such patients and to assess the effects of these policies on short-term recurrence and long-term outcomes. METHODS: We undertook an unmasked, multicentre, randomised study of immediate and deferred antiepileptic drug treatment in 1847 patients with single seizures and early epilepsy. Outcomes comprised time to first, second, and fifth seizures; time to 2-year remission; no seizures between years 1 and 3 and between years 3 and 5 after randomisation; and quality of life. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: 404 patients invited to join the trial did not consent to randomisation; 722 were subsequently assigned immediate treatment with antiepileptic drugs and 721 were assigned deferred treatment. Immediate treatment increased time to first seizure (hazard ratio 1.4 [95% CI 1.2 to 1.7]), second seizure (1.3 [1.1 to 1.6]), and first tonic-clonic seizure (1.5 [1.2 to 1.8]). It also reduced the time to achieve 2-year remission of seizures (p=0.023). At 5-years follow-up, 76% of patients in the immediate treatment group and 77% of those in the deferred treatment group were seizure free between 3 and 5 years after randomisation (difference -0.2% [95% CI -5.8% to 5.5%]). The two policies did not differ with respect to quality of life outcomes or serious complications. INTERPRETATION: Immediate antiepileptic drug treatment reduces the occurrence of seizures in the next 1-2 years, but does not affect long-term remission in individuals with single or infrequent seizures.

Insecticide-treated nets for preventing malaria in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Malaria in pregnancy is associated with adverse consequences for mother and fetus. Protection with insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) during pregnancy is widely advocated, but evidence of their benefit has been inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To compare the impact of ITNs with no nets or untreated nets on preventing malaria in pregnancy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (January 2006), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2006), EMBASE (1974 to January 2006), LILACS (1982 to January 2006), and reference lists. We also contacted researchers working in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Individual and cluster randomized controlled trials of ITNs in pregnant women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed trials for methodological quality and extracted data. Data were combined using the generic inverse variance method. MAIN RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials were identified, five of which met the inclusion criteria: four trials from sub-Saharan Africa compared ITNs with no nets, and one trial from Asia compared ITNs with untreated nets. Two trials randomized individual women and three trials randomized communities. In Africa, ITNs, compared with no nets, reduced placental malaria in all pregnancies (relative risk (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.98). They also reduced low birthweight (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.98) and stillbirths/abortions in the first to fourth pregnancy (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.97), but not in women with more than four previous pregnancies. For anaemia and clinical malaria, results tended to favour ITNs, but the effects were not significant. In Thailand, one trial randomizing individuals to ITNs or untreated nets showed a significant reduction in anaemia and stillbirths/abortions in all pregnancies but not for clinical malaria or low birthweight. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ITNs have a beneficial impact on pregnancy outcome in malaria-endemic regions of Africa when used by communities or by individual women. No further trials of ITNs in pregnancy are required in sub-Saharan Africa. Further evaluation of the potential impact of ITNs is required in areas with less intense and Plasmodium vivax transmission in Asia and Latin America.

Artemether-lumefantrine (four-dose regimen) for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends artemether-lumefantrine, an expensive drug, as a treatment for uncomplicated malaria. We sought evidence of the superiority of the four-dose regimen over existing treatments. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the four-dose regimen of artemether-lumefantrine for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (October 2005), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2005), EMBASE (1988 to October 2005), LILACS (1982 to October 2005), conference proceedings, and reference lists of articles. We also contacted experts in malaria research and the pharmaceutical company that manufactures artemether-lumefantrine. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing four doses of artemether-lumefantrine with standard treatment regimens (single drug or combination), or six doses of artemether-lumefantrine, for treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently applied inclusion criteria to potentially relevant trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data, including adverse events. Total failure by day 28 (day 42 for sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and day 63 for mefloquine) was the primary outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials (2057 participants) tested a four-dose regimen. More people tended to fail treatment with artemether-lumefantrine than with other drugs, including sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (247 participants, 1 trial), halofantrine (86 participants, 1 trial), and mefloquine (233 participants, 1 trial; difference statistically significant for mefloquine). When compared with chloroquine, artemether-lumefantrine was better in two trials (378 participants), but over 50% of the participants treated with chloroquine had total failure by day 28. Fewer people failed treatment with the six-dose regimen compared to the four-dose regimen (RR 7.71, 95% CI 2.99 to 19.88; 306 participants, 1 trial). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The four-dose regimen of artemether-lumefantrine seems to be less effective than regimens against which it has been tested. The six-dose regimen is superior to four-dose regimen.

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: The choice of an antiepileptic drug (AED) for any individual should take into account reliable information about seizure control, adverse effects and cost. Carbamazepine is the usual drug of choice for people with newly-diagnosed partial onset seizures. Lamotrigine is a relatively new AED which is licensed in many countries for use as an initial monotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To review the best evidence comparing carbamazepine and lamotrigine when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures, or generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalized seizure types. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (July 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (TheCochraneLibrary Issue 2, 2005), and MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005). No language restrictions were imposed. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, blinded or unblinded, in which children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures were randomized to monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual patient data review. Outcomes were (1) time to treatment withdrawal, (2) time to first seizure post randomization, and (3) seizure freedom at six months. Time to event data were analysed using a stratified logrank analysis with results expressed as hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI); binary data were expressed as relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). A HR or a RR greater than 1 indicated an event was more likely on lamotrigine than carbamazepine. MAIN RESULTS: Individual patient data were available for 1384 participants (100% of total randomized) from the five trials that met our inclusion criteria. The main results (HR (95% CI)) were (1) time to treatment withdrawal 0.55 (0.35 to 0.84) (random-effects), (2) time to first seizure post randomization 1.14 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.43), and (3) seizure freedom at six months RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.04). The review suggested that time to treatment withdrawal was significantly improved with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine, while time to first seizure and seizure freedom at six months favoured carbamazepine although the results were not statistically significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine was significantly less likely to be withdrawn than carbamazepine but results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. Trials were of too short a duration to measure important seizure outcomes such as time to 12 month remission. Further trials are needed in which longer-term outcome is assessed as well as measures such as psychosocial outcome and quality of life.

Systemic antibiotics versus topical treatments for chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations.

BACKGROUND: Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) causes ear discharge and impairs hearing. OBJECTIVES: To compare systemic antibiotics and topical antiseptics or antibiotics (excluding steroids) for treating chronically discharging ears with an underlying eardrum perforation (CSOM). SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane ENT Disorders Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1951 to March 2005), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2005), LILACS (January 1982 to March 2005), AMED (1985 to March 2005), CINAHL (January 1982 to March 2005), OLDMEDLINE (January 1958 to December 1965) PREMEDLINE, Metadatabase of registers of ongoing trials (mRCT), and article references. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials; any systemic versus topical treatment (excluding steroids); participants with CSOM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author assessed eligibility and quality, extracted data, entered data into RevMan; two authors provided a second assessment of titles and abstracts, and inputted where there was ambiguity. We contacted investigators for clarifications. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials (833 randomised participants; 842 analysed participants or ears). CSOM definitions and severity varied; some included mastoid cavity infections, other diagnoses, or complications. Methodological quality varied; generally poorly reported, follow-up short, handling of bilateral disease inconsistent. Topical quinolone antibiotics were better than systemic antibiotics at clearing discharge at 1-2 weeks: relative risks (RR) were, 3.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 5.49) using systemic non-quinolone antibiotics (2 trials, N = 116), and 3.18 (1.87 to 5.43) using systemic quinolone (3 trials, N = 175); or 2.75 (1.38 to 5.46) in favour of systemic plus topical quinolone over systemic quinolone alone (2 trials, N = 90). No statistically significant benefit was seen at 2-4 weeks for topical non-quinolone antibiotic (without steroids) or topical antiseptic over systemic antibiotics (mostly non-quinolones), but numbers were small: one trial tested topical non-quinolones (N = 31); two tested antiseptics (N = 152). No benefit of adding systemic to topical treatment at 1-2 weeks was detected either, although evidence was limited (three trials, N = 204). Evidence regarding safety was generally weak. Adverse events reported were generally mild, although hearing worsened by ototoxicity (damaging auditory hair cells) was seen with chloramphenicol drops (non-quinolone antibiotic). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Topical quinolone antibiotics can clear aural discharge better than systemic antibiotics; topical non-quinolone antibiotic (without steroids) or antiseptic results are less clear. Evidence regarding safety was weak. Further studies should clarify topical non-quinolones and antiseptic effectiveness, assess longer-term outcomes (for resolution, healing, hearing, or complications), and include further safety assessments, particularly to clarify the risks of ototoxicity and whether there may be fewer adverse events with topical quinolones than other topical or systemic treatments.