Immune-related serious adverse events with immune checkpoint inhibitors: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment, though uncertainty exists regarding their immune-related safety. The objective of this study was to assess the comparative safety profile (odds ratio) of ICIs and estimate the absolute rate of immune-related serious adverse events (irSAEs) in cancer patients undergoing treatment with ICIs. METHODS: We searched for randomized trials till February 2021, including all ICIs for all cancers. Primary outcome was overall irSAEs, and secondary outcomes were pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, hypophysitis, myocarditis, nephritis, and pancreatitis. We conducted Bayesian network meta-analyses, estimated absolute rates and ranked treatments according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). RESULTS: We included 96 trials (52,811 participants, median age 62 years). Risk of bias was high in most trials. Most cancers were non-small cell lung cancer (28 trials) and melanoma (15 trials). The worst-ranked ICI was ipilimumab (SUCRA 14%; event rate 848/10,000 patients) while the best-ranked ICI was atezolizumab (SUCRA 82%; event rate 119/10,000 patients). CONCLUSION: Each ICI showed a unique safety profile, with certain events more frequently observed with specific ICIs, which should be considered when managing cancer patients.

An MDS Evidence-Based Review on Treatments for Huntington's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Huntington's disease (HD) is a rare neurodegenerative disorder with protean clinical manifestations. Its management is challenging, consisting mainly of off-label treatments. OBJECTIVES: The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society commissioned a task force to review and evaluate the evidence of available therapies for HD gene expansion carriers. METHODS: We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Eligible randomized controlled trials were identified via an electronic search of the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. All eligible trials that evaluated one or more of 33 predetermined clinical questions were included. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A framework was adapted to allow for efficacy and safety conclusions to be drawn from the balance between the GRADE level of evidence and the importance of the benefit/harm of the intervention. RESULTS: Twenty-two eligible studies involving 17 interventions were included, providing data to address 8 clinical questions. These data supported a likely effect of deutetrabenazine on motor impairment, chorea, and dystonia and of tetrabenazine on chorea. The data did not support a disease-modifying effect for premanifest and manifest HD. There was no eligible evidence to support the use of specific treatments for depression, psychosis, irritability, apathy, or suicidality. Similarly, no evidence was eligible to support the use of physiotherapy, occupational therapy, exercise, dietary, or surgical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Data for therapeutic interventions in HD are limited and support only the use of VMAT2 inhibitors for specific motor symptoms. © 2021 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Analysis of clinical and methodological characteristics of early COVID-19 treatment clinical trials: so much work, so many lost opportunities.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage on, and clinical research has been promoted worldwide. We aimed to assess the clinical and methodological characteristics of treatment clinical trials that have been set forth as an early response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: First, we reviewed all registered clinical trials on COVID-19. The World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform and national trial registries were searched for COVID-19 trials through April 19th, 2020. For each record, independent researchers extracted interventions, participants, and methodological characteristics. Second, on September 14th, 2020 we evaluated the recruitment status and availability of the results of COVID-19 treatment trials previously identified. RESULTS: In April 2020, a total of 580 trials evaluating COVID-19 treatment were registered. Reporting quality was poor (core participant information was missing in 24.1 to 92.7%). Between 54.0 and 93.8% of the trials did not plan to include older people or those with a higher baseline risk. Most studies were randomised (67.9%), single-centre (58.3%), non-industry-funded (81.1%), to be conducted in China (47.6%), with a median duration of 184 days and a median sample size of 100 participants. Core endpoints (mortality, clinical status, and hospitalization length) were planned to be assessed in 5.2 to 13.1% of the trials. Five months later, 66 trials (11.4%) were reported as "Completed", and only 46 (7.9%) had public results available. One hundred forty-four of 580 trials (24.8%) either had the status "Not yet recruiting" or "Suspended", and 18 (3.1%) trials were prematurely stopped ("Terminated" or "Withdrawn") The number of completed trials and trials with results are much lower than anticipated, considering the planned follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our results raise concerns about the success of the initial global research effort on COVID-19 treatment. The clinical and methodological characteristics of early COVID-19 treatment trials limit their capability to produce clear answers to critical questions in the shortest possible time.

Botulinum toxin type A versus anticholinergics for cervical dystonia.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia and is a highly disabling movement disorder, characterised by involuntary, usually painful, head posturing. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line therapy for this condition. Before BtA, anticholinergics were the most widely accepted treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus anticholinergic drugs in adults with cervical dystonia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register to June 2003, screened reference lists of articles and conference proceedings to September 2018, and searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase, with no language restrictions, to July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised trials (RCTs) of BtA versus anticholinergic drugs in adults with cervical dystonia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias and quality of the evidence. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third review author. If enough data had been available, we were to perform meta-analyses using a random-effects model for the comparison of BtA versus anticholinergic drugs to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The primary efficacy outcome was improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included one RCT of moderate overall risk of bias (as multiple domains were at unclear risk of bias), which included 66 BtA-naive participants with cervical dystonia. Two doses of BtA (Dysport; week 0 and 8; mean dose 262 to 292 U) were compared with daily trihexyphenidyl (up to 24 mg daily). The trial was sponsored by the BtA producer. BtA reduced cervical dystonia severity by an average of 2.5 points (95% CI 0.68 to 4.32) on the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) severity subscale 12 weeks after injection, compared to trihexyphenidyl. More participants reported adverse events in the trihexyphenidyl treatment group (76 events), compared with the BtA group (31 events); however, the difference in dropouts due to adverse events was inconclusive between groups. There was a decreased risk of dry mouth, and memory problems with BtA, but the differences were inconclusive between groups for the other reported side effects (blurred vision, dizziness, depression, fatigue, pain at injection site, dysphagia, and neck weakness). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-certainty evidence that BtA is more effective, better tolerated, and safer than trihexyphenidyl. We found no information on a dose-response relationship with BtA, differences between BtA formulations or different anticholinergics, the utility of electromyography-guided injections, or the duration of treatment effect.

GLP-1 receptor agonists for Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive disorder characterised by both motor and non-motor problems. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, licensed for treatment of type 2 diabetes, work by stimulating GLP-1 receptors in the pancreas, which triggers the release of insulin. GLP-1 receptors have been found in the brain. Insulin signalling in the brain plays a key role in neuronal metabolism and repair and in synaptic efficacy, but insulin signalling is desensitised in the brain of people with PD. Researchers are exploring the neuroprotective effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in neurodegenerative disorders such as PD. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists for Parkinson's disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group trials register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; and Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries, and we handsearched conference abstracts. The most recent search was run on 25 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with PD that compared GLP-1 receptor agonists with conventional PD treatment, placebo, or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE. We resolved discrepancies between the two data extractors by consultation with a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: Through our searches, we retrieved 99 unique records, of which two met our inclusion criteria. One double-blind study of exenatide versus placebo randomised 62 participants, who self-administered exenatide or placebo for 48 weeks and were followed up at 60 weeks after a 12-week washout. One single-blind study of exenatide versus no additional treatment randomised 45 participants; participants in the intervention group self-administered exenatide for 12 months, and all participants were followed up at 14 months and 24 months following absence of exenatide for 2 months and 12 months, respectively. These trials had low risk of bias, except risk of performance bias was high for Aviles-Olmos 2013. Exenatide versus placebo Primary outcomes We found low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide improves motor impairment as assessed by the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III in the off-medication state (mean difference (MD) -3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.11 to -0.09). The difference in scores was slightly greater when scores were adjusted for baseline severity of the condition (as reported by study authors) (MD -3.5, 95% CI -6.7 to -0.3), exceeding the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). We found low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide has little or no effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as assessed by the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ)-39 Summary Index (SI) (MD -1.80, 95% CI -6.95 to 3.35), the EuroQol scale measuring health status in five dimensions (EQ5D) (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.16), or the EQ5D visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD 5.00, 95% CI -3.42 to 13.42). Eight serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded, but all were considered unrelated to the intervention. Low-certainty evidence suggests that exenatide has little or no effect on weight loss (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.76). Exenatide versus no treatment Primary outcomes at 14 months We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide improves motor impairment as assessed by MDS-UPDRS Part III off medication (MD -4.50, 95% CI -8.64 to -0.36), exceeding the MCID. We are uncertain whether exenatide improves HRQoL as assessed by the PDQ-39 SI (MD 3.50, 95% CI -2.75 to 9.75; very low-quality evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide has little or no effect on the number of SAEs (RR 1.60, 95% 0.40 to 6.32). We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide may lead to weight loss (MD -2.40 kg, 95% CI -4.56 to -0.24). Primary outcomes at 24 months We found evidence as reported by study authors to suggest that exenatide improves motor impairment as measured by MDS-UPDRS Part III off medication (MD 5.6 points, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.0). Exenatide may not improve HRQoL as assessed by the PDQ-39 SI (P = 0.682) and may not result in weight loss (MD 0.1 kg, 95% CI 3.0 to 2.8). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low- or very low-certainty evidence suggests that exenatide may improve motor impairment for people with PD. The difference in motor impairment observed between groups may persist for some time following cessation of exenatide. This raises the possibility that exenatide may have a disease-modifying effect. SAEs were unlikely to be related to treatment. The effectiveness of exenatide for improving HRQoL, non-motor outcomes, ADLs, and psychological outcomes is unclear. Ongoing studies are assessing other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for cervical dystonia.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia, and is a highly disabling movement disorder, characterised by involuntary, usually painful, head posturing. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line therapy for this condition. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus placebo, in people with cervical dystonia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles, and conference proceedings in July 2020. All elements of the search, with no language restrictions, were last run in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with cervical dystonia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third review author. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model, for the comparison of BtA versus placebo, to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We performed preplanned subgroup analyses according to BtA dose used, the BtA formulation used, and the use (or not) of guidance for BtA injections. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs, with moderate, overall risk of bias, that included 1144 participants with cervical dystonia. Seven studies excluded participants with poorer responses to BtA treatment, therefore, including an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from this therapy. Only one trial was independently funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single BtA treatment session, using doses from 150 U to 500 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), 120 U to 240 U of incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), and 250 U to 1000 U of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport). BtA resulted in a moderate to large improvement from the participant's baseline clinical status, assessed by the investigators, with a mean reduction of 8.09 points in the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS total score) at week four after injection (95% CI 6.22 to 9.96; I² = 0%) compared to placebo. This corresponded, on average, to a 18.4% improvement from baseline. The mean difference (MD) in TWSTRS pain subscore at week four was 2.11 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.83; I² = 0%) compared to placebo. Overall, both participants and clinicians reported an improvement of subjective clinical status. It was unclear if dropouts due to adverse events differed (risk ratio (RR) 2.51; 95% CI 0.42 to 14.94; I² = 0%) However, BtA treatment increased the risk of experiencing an adverse event (R) 1.23; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.43; I² = 28%). Neck weakness (14%; RR 3.40; 95% CI 1.19 to 9.71; I² = 15%), dysphagia (11%; RR 3.19; 95% CI 1.79 to 5.70; I² = 0%), and diffuse weakness or tiredness (8%; RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.95; I² = 0%) were the most common treatment-related adverse events. Treatment with BtA resulted in a decreased risk of dropouts. We have moderate certainty in the evidence across all of the aforementioned outcomes, with the exception of subjective assessment and tolerability, in which we have high confidence in the evidence. We found no evidence supporting the existence of a clear dose-response relationship between BtA and improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment, a destinction between BtA formulations, or a variation with use of EMG-guided injection for efficacy outcomes. Due to clinical heterogeneity, we did not pool health-related quality of life data, duration of clinical effect, or the development of secondary non-responsiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are moderately certain in the evidence that a single BtA treatment session resulted in a clinically relevant reduction of cervical dystonia-specific impairment, and pain, and highly certain that it is well tolerated, compared with placebo. There is moderate-certainty evidence that people treated with BtA are at an increased risk of developing adverse events, most notably, dysphagia, neckweakness and diffuse weakness or tiredness. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtA injection cycles. There is no evidence from RCTs to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, the usefulness of guidance techniques for injection, the impact on quality of life, or the duration of treatment effect.

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for blepharospasm.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Blepharospasm is the second most common form of focal dystonia. It is a disabling disorder, characterised by chronic, intermittent or persistent, involuntary eyelid closure, due to spasmodic contractions of the orbicularis oculi muscles. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line of therapy for this condition. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus placebo in people with blepharospasm. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of included articles, and conference proceedings. We ran all elements of the search, with no language restrictions, in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with blepharospasm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus, or by consulting a third review author. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model, for the comparison of BtA versus placebo, to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We did not carry out any prespecified subgroup analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs, assessed at low to moderate overall risk of bias, which randomised 313 participants with blepharospasm. Two studies excluded participants with poorer prior responses to BtA treatment, therefore, they included an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from this therapy. All trials were industry-funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single BtA treatment session. BtA resulted in a moderate to large improvement in blepharospasm-specific severity, with a reduction of 0.93 points on the Jankovic Rating Scale (JRS) severity subscale at four to six weeks after injection (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.25; I² = 9%) compared to placebo. BtA was also resulted in a moderate to large improvement in blepharospasm-specific disability and blepharospasm-specific involuntary movements at four to six weeks after injection (disability: 0.69 JRS disability subscale points, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.19; I² = 74%; blepharospasm-specific involuntary movements: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.79, 0.31 to 1.27; I² = 58%) compared to placebo. BtA did not show a risk of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.60; I² = 0%). However, BtA increased the risk of vision complaints and eyelid ptosis (vision complaints: RR 5.73, 95% CI 1.79 to 18.36; I² = 51%; eyelid ptosis: RR 4.02, 95% CI 1.61 to 10.00; I² = 39%). There was no distinction between BtA and placebo in the number of participants who dropped out of the trial. A single trial estimated the duration of effects to be 10.6 weeks (range 6.1 to 19.1). We found no evidence supporting the existence of a clear dose-response relationship with BtA. We found no data reporting the impact of BtA on health-related quality of life, or the development of secondary non-responsiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are moderately certain that a single BtA treatment resulted in a clinically relevant reduction of blepharospasm-specific severity and disability, and have low certainty that it is well tolerated, when compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that people treated with BtA are not at an increased risk of developing adverse events, though BtA treatment likely increases the risk of visual complaints and eyelid ptosis. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtA injection cycles. There is no evidence from RCTs to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, or the impact on quality of life.

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for hemifacial spasm.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review, first published in 2005. Hemifacial spasm (HFS) is characterised by unilateral, involuntary contractions of the muscles innervated by the facial nerve. It is a chronic disorder, and spontaneous recovery is very rare. The two treatments routinely available are microvascular decompression and intramuscular injections with botulinum toxin type A (BtA). OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus placebo in people with HFS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles, and conference proceedings in July 2020. We ran the electronic database search, with no language restrictions, in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with HFS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed records. We planned to select included studies, extract data using a paper pro forma, and evaluate the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus, or by consulting a third review author. We planned to perform meta-analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was HFS-specific improvement. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We found no parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing BtA and placebo in HFS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any randomised trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A in people with hemifacial spasm, so we are unable to draw any conclusions. Observational data show a strong association between BtA treatment and symptom improvement, and a favourable safety profile. While it is unlikely that future placebo-controlled RCTs will evaluate absolute efficacy and safety, they should address relevant questions for both people with HFS (such as long-term effects, quality of life, and other patient-reported outcomes), and clinicians (such as relative effectiveness of different BtA formulations and schemes of treatment) to better guide clinical practice.).

Deep brain stimulation for dystonia.

BACKGROUND: Dystonia is a painful and disabling disorder, characterised by painful, involuntary posturing of the affected body region(s). Deep brain stimulation is an intervention typically reserved for severe and drug-refractory cases, although uncertainty exists regarding its efficacy, safety, and tolerability. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of deep brain stimulation (DBS) versus placebo, sham intervention, or best medical care, including botulinum toxin and resective or lesional surgery, in adults with dystonia. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by searching the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, four clinical trial registries, four grey literature databases, and reference lists of included articles. We ran the last search of all elements of the search strategy, with no language restrictions, on 29 May 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DBS with sham stimulation, best medical care, or placebo in adults with dystonia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data onto a standardised (or prespecified) data extraction form, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third review author. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model, to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence with GRADE methods. The primary efficacy outcome was symptom improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale, and the primary safety outcome was adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs, enrolling a total of 102 participants. Both trials evaluated the effect of DBS on the internal globus pallidus nucleus, and assessed outcomes after three and six months of stimulation. One of the studies included participants with generalised and segmental dystonia; the other included participants with focal (cervical) dystonia. We assessed both studies at high risk for performance and for-profit bias. One study was retrospectively registered with a clinical trial register, we judged the second at high risk of detection bias.Low-quality evidence suggests that DBS of the internal globus pallidus nucleus may improve overall cervical dystonia-related symptoms (mean difference (MD) 9.8 units, 95% CI 3.52 to 16.08 units; 1 RCT, 59 participants), cervical dystonia-related functional capacity (MD 3.8 units, 95% CI 1.41 to 6.19; 1 RCT, 61 participants), and mood at three months (MD 3.1 units, 95% CI 0.73 to 5.47; 1 RCT, 61 participants).Low-quality evidence suggests that In people with cervical dystonia, DBS may slightly improve the overall clinical status (MD 2.3 units, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.45; 1 RCT, 61 participants). We are uncertain whether DBS improves quality of life in cervical dystonia (MD 3 units, 95% CI -7.71 to 13.71; 1 RCT, 57 participants; very low-quality evidence), or emotional state (MD 2.4 units, 95% CI -6.2 to 11.00; 1 RCT, 56 participants; very low-quality evidence).Low-quality evidence suggests that DBS of the internal globus pallidus nucleus may improve generalised or segmental dystonia-related symptoms (MD 14.4 units, 95% CI 8.0 to 20.8; 1 RCT, 40 participants), overall clinical status (MD 3.5 units, 95% CI 2.33 to 4.67; 1 RCT, 37 participants), physical functioning-related quality of life (MD 6.3 units, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.54; 1 RCT, 33 participants), and overall dystonia-related functional capacity at three months (MD 3.1 units, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.48; 1 RCT, 39 participants). We are uncertain whether DBS improves physical functioning-related quality of life (MD 5.0 units, 95% CI -2.14 to 12.14, 1 RCT, 33 participants; very low-quality evidence), or mental health-related quality of life (MD -4.6 units, 95% CI -11.26 to 2.06; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence) in generalised or segmental dystonia.We pooled outcomes related to safety and tolerability, since both trials used the same intervention and comparison. We found very low-quality evidence of inconclusive results for risk of adverse events (relative risk (RR) 1.58, 95% 0.98 to 2.54; 2 RCTs, 102 participants), and tolerability (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.16 to 21.57; 2 RCTs,102 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: DBS of the internal globus pallidus nucleus may reduce symptom severity and improve functional capacity in adults with cervical, segmental or generalised moderate to severe dystonia (low-quality evidence), and may improve quality of life in adults with generalised or segmental dystonia (low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether the procedure improves quality of life in cervical dystonia (very low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the safety and tolerability of the procedure in adults with either cervical and generalised, or segmental dystonia (very-low quality evidence).We could draw no conclusions for other populations with dystonia (i.e. children and adolescents, and adults with other types of dystonia), or for other DBS protocols (i.e. other target nuclei or stimulation paradigms). Further research is needed to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of DBS of the internal globus pallidus nucleus.

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for cervical dystonia.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia and is a highly disabling movement disorder characterised by involuntary, usually painful, head posturing. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line therapy for this condition. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of botulinum toxin type A (BtA) versus placebo in people with cervical dystonia. SEARCH METHODS: To identify studies for this review we searched Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings. All elements of the search, with no language restrictions, were run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with cervical dystonia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third review author. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model for the comparison of BtA versus placebo to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). In addition, we performed preplanned subgroup analyses according to BtA dose used, the BtA formulation used, and the use or not of guidance for BtA injection. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs of moderate overall risk of bias, including 1010 participants with cervical dystonia. Six studies excluded participants with poorer responses to BtA treatment, therefore including an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from this therapy. Only one trial was independently funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single BtA treatment session, using doses from 150 U to 236 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), 120 U to 240 U of incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), and 250 U to 1000 U of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport).BtA was associated with a moderate-to-large improvement in the participant's baseline clinical status as assessed by investigators, with reduction of 8.06 points in the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS total score) at week 4 after injection (95% CI 6.08 to 10.05; I2 = 0%) compared to placebo, corresponding on average to a 18.7% improvement from baseline. The mean difference (MD) in TWSTRS pain subscore at week 4 was 2.11 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.83; I2 = 0%). Overall, both participants and clinicians reported an improvement of subjective clinical status. There were no differences between groups regarding withdrawals due to adverse events. However, BtA treatment was associated with an increased risk of experiencing an adverse event (risk ratio (RR) 1.19; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.36; I2 = 16%). Dysphagia (9%) and diffuse weakness/tiredness (10%) were the most common treatment-related adverse events (dysphagia: RR 3.04; 95% CI 1.68 to 5.50; I2 = 0%; diffuse weakness/tiredness: RR 1.78; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.94; I2 = 0%). Treatment with BtA was associated with a decreased risk of participants withdrawing from trials. We have moderate certainty in the evidence across all of the aforementioned outcomes.We found no evidence supporting the existence of a clear dose-response relationship with BtA, nor a difference between BtA formulations, nor a difference with use of EMG-guided injection.Due to clinical heterogeneity, we did not pool data regarding health-related quality of life, duration of clinical effect, or the development of secondary non-responsiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have moderate certainty in the evidence that a single BtA treatment session is associated with a significant and clinically relevant reduction of cervical dystonia-specific impairment, including severity, disability, and pain, and that it is well tolerated, when compared with placebo. There is also moderate certainty in the evidence that people treated with BtA are at an increased risk of developing adverse events, most notably dysphagia and diffuse weakness. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtA injection cycles. There is no evidence from RCTs to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, usefulness of guidance techniques for injection, the impact on quality of life, or the duration of treatment effect.

Botulinum toxin type A versus botulinum toxin type B for cervical dystonia.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia and is a disabling disorder characterised by painful involuntary head posturing. There are two available formulations of botulinum toxin, with botulinum toxin type A (BtA) usually considered the first line therapy for this condition. Botulinum toxin type B (BtB) is an alternative option, with no compelling theoretical reason why it might not be as- or even more effective - than BtA. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of botulinum toxin type A (BtA) versus botulinum toxin type B (BtB) in people with cervical dystonia. SEARCH METHODS: To identify studies for this review we searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings. All elements of the search, with no language restrictions, were last run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BtA versus BtB in adults with cervical dystonia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third author. We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model, for the comparison BtA versus BtB to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). No prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale, and the primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs, all new to this update, of very low to low methodological quality, with a total of 270 participants.Two studies exclusively enrolled participants with a known positive response to BtA treatment. This raises concerns of population enrichment, with a higher probability of benefit from BtA treatment. None of the trials were free of for-profit bias, nor did they provide information regarding registered study protocols. All trials evaluated the effect of a single Bt treatment session, and not repeated treatment sessions, using doses from 100 U to 250 U of BtA (all onabotulinumtoxinA, or Botox, formulations) and 5000 U to 10,000 U of BtB (rimabotulinumtoxinB, or Myobloc/Neurobloc).We found no difference between the two types of botulinum toxin in terms of overall efficacy, with a mean difference of -1.44 (95% CI -3.58 to 0.70) points lower on the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) for BtB-treated participants, measured at two to four weeks after injection. The proportion of participants with adverse events was also not different between BtA and BtB (BtB versus BtA risk ratio (RR) 1.40; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.96). However, when compared to BtA, treatment with BtB was associated with an increased risk of one adverse events of special interest, namely treatment-related sore throat/dry mouth (BtB versus BtA RR of 4.39; 95% CI 2.43 to 7.91). Treatment-related dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) was not different between BtA and BtB (RR 2.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 10.41). The two types of botulinum toxin were otherwise clinically non-distinguishable in all the remaining outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The previous version of this review did not include any trials, since these were still ongoing at the time. Therefore, with this update we are able to change the conclusions of this review. There is low quality evidence that a single treatment session of BtA (specifically onabotulinumtoxinA) and a single treatment session of BtB (rimabotulinumtoxinB) are equally effective and safe in the treatment of adults with certain types of cervical dystonia. Treatment with BtB appears to present an increased risk of sore throat/dry mouth, compared to BtA. Overall, there is no clinical evidence from these single-treatment trials to support or contest the preferential use of one form of botulinum toxin over the other.

Botulinum toxin type B for cervical dystonia.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated in 2009 (no change in conclusions). Cervical dystonia is a frequent and disabling disorder characterised by painful involuntary head posturing. Botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is usually considered the first line therapy for this condition, although botulinum toxin type B (BtB) is an alternative option. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of botulinum toxin type B (BtB) versus placebo in people with cervical dystonia. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies for inclusion in the review using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings, last run in October 2015. We ran the search from 1977 to 2015. The search was unrestricted by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtB versus placebo in adults with cervical dystonia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third author. We performed one meta-analysis for the comparison BtB versus placebo. We used random-effects models when there was heterogeneity and fixed-effect models when there was no heterogeneity. In addition, we performed pre-specified subgroup analyses according to BtB doses and BtA previous clinical responsiveness. The primary efficacy outcome was overall improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale. The primary safety outcome was the number of participants with any adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs of moderate overall methodological quality, including 441 participants with cervical dystonia. Three studies excluded participants known to have poorer response to Bt treatment, therefore including an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from Bt treatment. None of the trials were independently funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single Bt treatment session using doses between 2500 U and 10,000 U. BtB was associated with an improvement of 14.7% (95% CI 9.8% to 19.5) in the patients' baseline clinical status as assessed by investigators, with reduction of 6.8 points in the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS-total score) at week 4 after injection (95% CI 4.54 to 9.01). Mean difference (MD) in TWSTRS-pain score at week 4 was 2.20 (95% CI 1.25 to 3.15). Overall, both participants and clinicians reported an improvement of subjective clinical status. There were no differences between groups in the withdrawals rate due to adverse events or in the proportion of participants with adverse events. However, BtB-treated patients had a 7.65 (95% CI 2.75 to 21.32) and a 6.78 (95% CI 2.42 to 19.05) increased risk of treatment-related dry mouth and dysphagia, respectively. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was low to moderate for most outcomes. All tested dosages were efficacious against placebo without clear-cut evidence of a dose-response gradient. However, duration of effect (time until return to baseline TWSTRS-total score) and risk of dry mouth and dysphagia were greater in the subgroup of participants treated with higher BtB doses. Subgroup analysis showed a higher improvement with BtB among BtA-non-responsive participants, although there were no differences in the effect size between the BtA-responsive and non-responsive subgroups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A single BtB-treatment session is associated with a significant and clinically relevant reduction of cervical dystonia impairment including severity, disability and pain, and is well tolerated, when compared with placebo. However, BtB-treated patients are at an increased risk of dry mouth and dysphagia. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtB injection cycles. There are no RCT data to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, usefulness of guidance techniques for injection, and impact on quality of life.

Safety of Fibrinogen Concentrate in Non-Trauma and Non-Obstetric Adult Patients during Perioperative Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Low fibrinogen levels are associated with an increased risk of perioperative bleeding. However, there is an ongoing debate over the ideal treatment threshold, the benefits of prophylactic supplementation with fibrinogen concentrate, and the best source of fibrinogen. While fibrinogen concentrate supplementation is being widely used to treat bleeding related to acquired haemostatic deficiencies, there is a lack of evidence regarding its dosage, effectiveness, and safety. This systematic review provides an up-to-date summary of the relationship between fibrinogen concentrate supplementation and safety measures in the perioperative care of non-trauma, non-obstetric adult patients. Methods: A comprehensive online search was conducted on PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis encompasses ten studies involving 1391 patients. There was a decreased risk of total thromboembolic events in patients treated with fibrinogen compared to the control (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.98, I2 = 0%). In addition, when fibrinogen was used prophylactically, it resulted in shorter ICU stays (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.64 to -0.36), when set against its therapeutic use. A sensitivity analysis on cardiovascular surgery studies did not reveal any statistically significant difference. Conclusions: The use of fibrinogen concentrate in the perioperative care of non-trauma and non-obstetric adult patients may lead to potential benefits.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive oral therapy in Parkinson's disease with motor complications: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: The aim of this manuscript is to review the evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors (COMT-Is), dopamine receptor agonists (DRAs) and monoamine-oxidase B inhibitors (MAOB-Is) as adjunctive treatment to levodopa in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) experiencing motor complications. Methods: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and Embase to identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimal follow-up of at least 4 weeks published in English between 1980 and 2021. RCTs were included if either a COMT-I, DRA or MAOB-I was evaluated as an adjunctive therapy to levodopa in patients with PD experiencing motor complications and dyskinesia. The main outcomes included daily off-medication time, motor and non-motor examination scales, and adverse events including dyskinesia. Results: 74 RCTs reporting on 18 693 patients were included. All three studied drug classes decreased daily off-medication time compared with placebo (COMT-Is mean -0.8 hours (95% CI -1.0 to -0.6), DRAs -1.1 hours (95% CI -1.4 to -0.8), MAOB-Is -0.9 hours (95% CI -1.2 to -0.6)). Safety analysis showed an increased risk of dyskinesia for all three drug classes (COMT-Is OR 3.3 (95% CI 2.7 to 4.0), DRAs 3.0 (95% CI 2.5 to 3.5), MAOB-Is 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.2)). According to surface under the cumulative ranking curve scores, pramipexole IR was associated with the most favourable benefit-risk profile. Conclusions: COMT-Is, DRAs and MAOB-Is effectively reduce motor complications and increase incidence of dyskinesia. In the network meta-analysis, adjunctive use of DRAs appeared most effective.

Frequency and Characteristics of Psychosis in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psychotic symptoms are highly frequent in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients and are associated with poor prognosis. They include hallucinations, delusions, and minor psychotic phenomena, including sense of presence, passage hallucinations, and illusions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of psychosis in PD patients. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies reporting the frequency of psychosis, hallucinations, and delusions in PD. RESULTS: Electronic database search wielded 3536 articles, an additional 91 were identified through citation chaining. Of these, 163 were fully inspected, 57 removed, and 106 included as relevant for neuropsychiatric events frequency, with 32 meeting our inclusion criteria (psychosis and/or specific psychotic phenomena). The pooled frequency of psychosis was 20.7% (95% CI 14.5 to 28.6; I2 = 94%, 15 studies; combined n = 2919). None of the pre-defined meta-regressions or subgroup analyses were statistically significant or helped explain the statistical heterogeneity. The pooled frequency of any form of hallucination was 21.6% (95% CI 14.7 to 30.6; I2 = 95%; 18 studies; combined n = 3161). Duration of PD at baseline and mean baseline Hoehn & Yahr stage helped explain the statistical heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of hallucinations. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, around a fifth of PD patients experience psychosis or hallucinations. The risk of developing hallucinations is likely moderated by the disease duration, Hoehn & Yahr stage, and the cognitive status.

Frequency of Depressive Disorders in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are recognized as a common neuropsychiatric disorder of Parkinson's disease (PD). Reported frequencies vary widely among studies and depend on the diagnostic criteria, the methods of ascertainment used, and the population sampled. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the frequency of depressive disorders in PD and to investigate the relationship with PD clinical variables. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (community-based, prospective and retrospective cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies) reporting the frequency of depressive disorders in PD patients. RESULTS: Electronic database search wielded 3,536 articles; an additional 91 were identified through citation chaining. 163 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 49 met the inclusion criteria for our analysis. The pooled frequency of depressive disorders was 30.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.6 to 36.2; I2 = 95%; 49 studies; combined n = 10,039). The pooled frequency of major depressive disorder was 14.0% (95% CI 10.5 to 18.5; I2 = 88%; 23 studies; combined n = 5,218). Subgroup/meta-regression analyses were conducted to investigate the relationship between frequency and study inclusion criteria, methodology used for diagnosis, and study design. We found a statistically significant correlation between study design and depressive disorders frequency (ranging from 8% in the community-based study to 44% in the retrospective studies) and a statistically significant positive correlation between mean baseline PD duration and major depressive disorder frequency. CONCLUSION: The current meta-analysis found a global frequency of depressive disorders of 30.7% and major depressive disorder of 14.0%. Study design influenced the frequency of depressive disorders in PD. Mean baseline PD duration and major depressive disorder frequency were positively correlated.

Once- versus Twice-Daily Aspirin in Patients at High Risk of Thrombotic Events: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is a frequently used antiplatelet agent, although some individuals have reduced antiplatelet responses on ASA, with recurrent ischemic events. It has been proposed that shortening the ASA dosing interval may overcome the time-dependent renewal of the drug target, leading to a greater antiplatelet effect. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy of once- versus twice-daily ASA in conditions with increased platelet turnover. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase databases for RCTs assessing once- versus twice-daily ASA. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised by two independent reviewers, and were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and serum thromboxane B2 (TxB2). Other pharmacodynamic measures were retrieved as secondary outcomes. Results were reported as mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included, enrolling 379 participants overall. None of the studies reported clinical outcomes. Pooled results showed that compared with once-daily ASA, twice-daily ASA was associated with a decrease in mean TxB2 of 1.42 ng/mL (95% CI - 2.71 to - 0.13; I2 = 66%). We found no differences in subgroup analyses based on disease subtype, trial blinding, or trial design. A greater antiplatelet activity of the twice-daily regimen was also found when using PFA-100-ADP methods, although not when using the VerifyNow, LTA-AA, and multiplate methods. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily ASA was associated with a greater antiplatelet effect compared with standard once-daily ASA.

The impact of influenza vaccination in patients with cardiovascular disease: An overview of systematic reviews.

Whether influenza vaccination can play a prognostic role in patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease (coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure, stroke, peripheral artery disease (PAD)) is still not completely well-established. We conducted this overview of systematic reviews (SR) evaluating the effects of influenza vaccination in secondary prevention of CV disease. An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE (to November 2019). Eligibility criteria included SR evaluating the effect of influenza vaccination in patients with CV disease. The risk of bias of the included systematic reviews was evaluated using the ROBIS tool. All-cause mortality, CV mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations were evaluated. Whenever required, data were recalculated through a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled data for the patients at secondary CV prevention. The search process yielded four SR: two in CAD, one in heart failure and one in stroke. There were no SR evaluating the vaccine in PAD. The risk of bias was unclear (2 SR) and high (2 SR). Influenza vaccination in patients with CAD showed a risk reduction in all-cause mortality (data recalculated), cardiovascular mortality and MACE, particularly in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. In patients with heart failure, vaccination was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality. There was a non-significant trend in recurrent stroke risk reduction in patients with previous stroke. The available evidence suggests that influenza vaccination was associated with a protective effect in CAD and HF patients. However, these results need to be clarified with higher quality evidence studies.

Parkinson's Disease Drug Development Since 1999: A Story of Repurposing and Relative Success.

BACKGROUND: A global overview of drug development programs in Parkinson's disease over the last few decades is lacking, while such programs are challenging given the multifaceted and heterogeneous nature of the disease. OBJECTIVE: To indirectly assess drug development programs in Parkinson's disease, exploring some factors associated with compound attrition at different trial phases. METHODS: We assessed all Parkinson's disease trials in the WHO trials portal, from inception (1999) to September 2019. Independent authors selected trials and extracted data. The success rate was the number of compounds that progressed to the next drug development phase divided by the number of compounds in that phase. RESULTS: Overall, 357 trials (studying 152 compounds) fulfilled our inclusion criteria, with 62 (17.3%) phase 1 trials, 135 (37.8%) phase 2 trials, 85 (23.8%) phase 3 trials, and 53 (14.8%) phase 4 trials. The success rate was 42.4% from phase 2 to 3. Original compounds received regulatory approval by the FDA in 21.4% of cases, compared with 6.7% of repurposed compounds, representing an overall success rate of 14.9%. We found 172 trials (48.2%) conducted for repurposing previously licensed compounds. These figures were approximately the same regarding approval by the EMA. Most compounds were approved to treat parkinsonism and motor fluctuations. CONCLUSION: We found a moderate-to-high success rate in all phases of drug development. This was largely based on the success of original compounds, despite almost half of the identified trials attempting compound repurposing.