Treatment for sialorrhea (excessive saliva) in people with motor neuron disease/amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Motor neuron disease (MND), also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is a progressive neurodegenerative condition that may cause dysphagia, as well as limb weakness, dysarthria, emotional lability, and respiratory failure. Since normal salivary production is 0.5 L to 1.5 L daily, loss of salivary clearance due to dysphagia leads to salivary pooling and sialorrhea, often resulting in distress and inconvenience to people with MND. This is an update of a review first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of treatments for sialorrhea in MND, including medications, radiotherapy and surgery. SEARCH METHODS: On 27 August 2021, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomized trials and contacted trial authors as needed. We contacted known experts in the field to identify further published and unpublished papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, including cross-over trials, on any intervention for sialorrhea and related symptoms, compared with each other, placebo or no intervention, in people with ALS/MND. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four RCTs involving 110 participants with MND who were described as having intractable sialorrhea or bulbar dysfunction. A well-designed study of botulinum toxin B compared to placebo injected into the parotid and submandibular glands of 20 participants showed that botulinum toxin B may produce participant-reported improvement in sialorrhea, but the confidence interval (CI) was also consistent with no effect. Six of nine participants in the botulinum group and two of nine participants in the placebo group reported improvement (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 11.08; 1 RCT; 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). An objective measure indicated that botulinum toxin B probably reduced saliva production (in mL/5 min) at eight weeks compared to placebo (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.07; 18 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Botulinum toxin B may have little to no effect on quality of life, measured on the Schedule for Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life direct weighting scale (SEIQoL-DW; 0-100, higher values indicate better quality of life) (MD -2.50, 95% CI -17.34 to 12.34; 1 RCT; 17 participants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of adverse events may be similar with botulinum toxin B and placebo (20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trialists did not consider any serious events to be related to treatment. A randomized pilot study of botulinum toxin A or radiotherapy in 20 participants, which was at high risk of bias, provided very low-certainty evidence on the primary outcome of the Drool Rating Scale (DRS; range 8 to 39 points, higher scores indicate worse drooling) at 12 weeks (effect size -4.8, 95% CI -10.59 to 0.92; P = 0.09; 1 RCT; 16 participants). Quality of life was not measured. Evidence for adverse events, measured immediately after treatment (RR 7.00, 95% CI 1.04 to 46.95; 20 participants), and after four weeks (when two people in each group had viscous saliva) was also very uncertain. A phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over study of 20 mg dextromethorphan hydrobromide and 10 mg quinidine sulfate (DMQ) found that DMQ may produce a participant-reported improvement in sialorrhea, indicated by a slight improvement (decrease) in mean scores for the primary outcome, the Center for Neurologic Study Bulbar Function Scale (CNS-BFS). Mean total CNS-BFS (range 21 (no symptoms) to 112 (maximum symptoms)) was 53.45 (standard error (SE) 1.07) for the DMQ treatment period and 59.31 (SE 1.10) for the placebo period (mean difference) MD -5.85, 95% CI -8.77 to -2.93) with a slight decrease in the CNS-BFS sialorrhea subscale score (range 7 (no symptoms) to 35 (maximum symptoms)) compared to placebo (MD -1.52, 95% CI -2.52 to -0.52) (1 RCT; 60 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The trial did not report an objective measure of saliva production or measure quality of life. The study was at an unclear risk of bias. Adverse events were similar to other trials of DMQ, and may occur at a similar rate as placebo (moderate-certainty evidence, 60 participants), with the most common side effects being constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and dizziness. Nausea and diarrhea on DMQ treatment resulted in one withdrawal. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study of scopolamine (hyoscine), administered using a skin patch, involved 10 randomized participants, of whom eight provided efficacy data. The participants were unrepresentative of clinic cohorts under routine clinical care as they had feeding tubes and tracheostomy ventilation, and the study was at high risk of bias. The trial provided very low-certainty evidence on sialorrhea in the short term (7 days' treatment, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Scelerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) saliva item (P = 0.572)), and the amount of saliva production in the short term, as indicated by the weight of a cotton roll (P = 0.674), or daily oral suction volume (P = 0.69). Quality of life was not measured. Adverse events evidence was also very uncertain. One person treated with scopolamine had a dry mouth and one died of aspiration pneumonia considered unrelated to treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some low-certainty or moderate-certainty evidence for the use of botulinum toxin B injections to salivary glands and moderate-certainty evidence for the use of oral dextromethorphan with quinidine (DMQ) for the treatment of sialorrhea in MND. Evidence on radiotherapy versus botulinum toxin A injections, and scopolamine patches is too uncertain for any conclusions to be drawn. Further research is required on treatments for sialorrhea. Data are needed on the problem of sialorrhea in MND and its measurement, both by participant self-report measures and objective tests. These will allow the development of better RCTs.

Immunoglobulin for multifocal motor neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with no objective loss of sensation. It may cause prolonged periods of disability. Treatment options for MMN are few. People with MMN do not usually respond to steroids or plasma exchange. Uncontrolled studies have suggested a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005, with an amendment in 2007. We updated the review to incorporate new evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulin in people with MMN. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 20 April 2021: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs examining the effects of any dose of IVIg and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) in people with definite or probable MMN for inclusion in the review. Eligible studies had to have measured at least one of the following outcomes: disability, muscle strength, or electrophysiological conduction block. We used studies that reported the frequency of adverse effects to assess safety. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the literature searches to identify potentially relevant trials, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: Six cross-over RCTs including a total of 90 participants were suitable for inclusion in the review. Five RCTs compared IVIg to placebo, and one compared IVIg to SCIg. Four of the trials comparing IVIg versus placebo involved IVIg-naive participants (induction treatment). In the other two trials, participants were known IVIg responders receiving maintencance IVIg at baseline and were then randomised to maintenance treatment with IVIg or placebo in one trial, and IVIg or SCIg in the other. Risk of bias was variable in the included studies, with three studies at high risk of bias in at least one risk of bias domain. IVIg versus placebo (induction treatment): three RCTs including IVIg-naive participants reported a disability measure. Disability improved in seven out of 18 (39%) participants after IVIg treatment and in two out of 18 (11%) participants after placebo (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 10.12; 3 RCTs, 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants with an improvement in disability at 12 months was not reported. Strength improved in 21 out of 27 (78%) IVIg-naive participants treated with IVIg and one out of 27 (4%) participants who received placebo (RR 11.00, 95% CI 2.86 to 42.25; 3 RCTs, 27 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg treatment may increase the proportion of people with resolution of at least one conduction block; however, the results were also consistent with no effect (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 51.70; 4 RCTs, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg versus placebo (maintenance treatment): a trial that included participants on maintenance IVIg treatment reported an increase in disability in 17 out of 42 (40%) people switching to placebo and seven out of 42 (17%) remaining on IVIg (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.24; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and a decrease in grip strength in 20 out of 42 (48%) participants after a switch to placebo treatment compared to four out of 42 (10%) remaining on IVIg (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.54; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events, IVIg versus placebo (induction or maintenance): four trials comparing IVIg and placebo reported adverse events, of which data from two studies could be meta-analysed. Transient side effects were reported in 71% of IVIg-treated participants versus 4.8% of placebo-treated participants in these studies. The pooled RR for the development of side effects was 10.33 (95% CI 2.15 to 49.77; 2 RCTs, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was only one serious side effect (pulmonary embolism) during IVIg treatment. IVIg versus SCIg (maintenance treatment): the trial that compared continuation of IVIg maintenance versus SCIg maintenance did not measure disability. The evidence was very uncertain for muscle strength (standardised mean difference 0.08, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the number of people with side effects attributable to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence from three small RCTs shows that IVIg may improve muscle strength in people with MMN, and low-certainty evidence indicates that it may improve disability; the estimate of the magnitude of improvement of disability has wide CIs and needs further studies to secure its significance. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, it is probable that most IVIg responders deteriorate in disability and muscle strength after IVIg withdrawal. SCIg might be an alternative treatment to IVIg, but the evidence is very uncertain. More research is needed to identify people in whom IVIg withdrawal is possible and to confirm efficacy of SCIg as an alternative maintenance treatment.

Pharmacological treatment other than corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin, but not corticosteroids, are beneficial in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The efficacy of other pharmacological agents is unknown. This review was first published in 2011 and previously updated in 2013, and 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological agents other than plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids for GBS. SEARCH METHODS: On 28 October 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for treatments for GBS. We also searched clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of acute GBS (within four weeks from onset) of all types and degrees of severity, and in individuals of all ages. We discarded trials that investigated only corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange. We included other pharmacological treatments or combinations of treatments compared with no treatment, placebo or another treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We found six trials of five different interventions eligible for inclusion in this review. The trials were conducted in hospitals in Canada, China, Germany, Japan and the UK, and included 151 participants in total. All trials randomised participants aged 16 years and older (mean or median age in the trials ranged from 36 to 57 years in the intervention groups and 34 to 60 years in the control groups) with severe GBS, defined by the inability to walk unaided. One trial also randomised patients with mild GBS who were still able to walk unaided. We identified two new trials at this update.The primary outcome measure for this review was improvement in disability grade four weeks after randomisation. Four of six trials had a high risk of bias in at least one respect. We assessed all evidence for the outcome mean improvement in disability grade as very low certainty, which means that we were unable to draw any conclusions from the data. One RCT with 19 participants compared interferon beta-1a (IFNb-1a) and placebo. It is uncertain whether IFNb-1a improves disability after four weeks (mean difference (MD) -0.1; 95% CI -1.58 to 1.38; very low-certainty evidence). A trial with 10 participants compared brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BNDF) and placebo. It is uncertain whether BDNF improves disability after four weeks (MD 0.75; 95% CI -1.14 to 2.64; very low-certainty evidence). A trial with 37 participants compared cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) filtration and plasma exchange. It is uncertain whether CSF filtration improves disability after four weeks (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.62 to 0.66; very low-certainty evidence). One trial that compared the Chinese herbal medicine tripterygium polyglycoside with corticosteroids with 43 participants did not report the risk ratio (RR) for an improvement by one or more disability grade after four weeks, but did report improvement after eight weeks. It is uncertain whether tripterygium polyglycoside improves disability after eight weeks (RR 1.47; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.11; very low-certainty evidence). We performed a meta-analysis of two trials comparing eculizumab and placebo with 41 participants. It is uncertain whether eculizumab improves disability after four weeks (MD -0.23; 95% CI -1.79 to 1.34; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were uncommon in each of the trials and evidence was graded as either low or very low. It is uncertain whether serious adverse events were more common with IFNb-1a versus placebo (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.72; 19 participants), BNDF versus placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.54; 10 participants) or CSF filtration versus plasma exchange (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.25; 37 participants). The trial of tripterygium polyglycoside did not report serious adverse events. There may be no clear difference in the number of serious adverse events after eculizumab compared to placebo (RR 1.90, 0.34 to 10.50; 41 participants). We found no clinically important differences in any of the outcome measures selected for this review in any of the six trials. However, sample sizes were small and therefore clinically important benefit or harm cannot be excluded. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All six RCTs were too small to exclude clinically important benefit or harm from the assessed interventions. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for all interventions and outcomes.

Barriers to the registration and conduct of Cochrane systematic reviews of traditional East Asian medicine therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Traditional East Asian medicine (TEAM) is widely used in Asia and increasingly in the West. Systematic reviews (SRs) are the best summaries of the potential benefits or harms of interventions, and Cochrane is a leading international SR organization. Cochrane perspectives on the barriers to the initiation and completion of Cochrane SRs of TEAM therapies were solicited. METHODS: Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) were identified from the online listing of CRGs at cochrane.org and a link to an online survey was e-mailed to the primary contact for each CRG. RESULTS: Forty-eight responses were received on behalf of 49/53 (92%) CRGs. Most CRGs had experience producing TEAM reviews, primarily in acupuncture or herbal medicine. The main barriers to taking on a new TEAM review were difficulty in understanding and assessing the intervention, and the low priority of TEAM topics. Problems with the quality and accessibility of randomized trials in TEAM were cited as a major concern. CRGs suggested that the quality and accessibility of randomized trials should be improved, that the methodological and language expertise of authors should be enhanced, and that further peer review expertise should be made available to CRGs. CONCLUSIONS: TEAM topics are covered in Cochrane reviews but are often considered low-priority. This survey highlights Cochrane concerns about the quality of the underlying evidence base and the training of the author teams as barriers to successful SR completion. Specific approaches are proposed to increase the number of TEAM reviews and address the limitations of TEAM research processes within Cochrane.

Mechanical ventilation for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease.

BACKGROUND: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease, is a fatal neurodegenerative disease. Neuromuscular respiratory failure is the most common cause of death, which usually occurs within two to five years of the disease onset. Supporting respiratory function with mechanical ventilation may improve survival and quality of life. This is the second update of a review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of mechanical ventilation (tracheostomy-assisted ventilation and non-invasive ventilation (NIV)) on survival, functional measures of disease progression, and quality of life in ALS, and to evaluate adverse events related to the intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and AMED on 30 January 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving non-invasive or tracheostomy-assisted ventilation in participants with a clinical diagnosis of ALS, independent of the reported outcomes. We included comparisons with no intervention or the best standard care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For the original review, four review authors independently selected studies for assessment. Two review authors reviewed searches for this update. All review authors independently extracted data from the full text of selected studies and assessed the risk of bias in studies that met the inclusion criteria. We attempted to obtain missing data where possible. We planned to collect adverse event data from the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: For the original Cochrane Review, the review authors identified two RCTs involving 54 participants with ALS receiving NIV. There were no new RCTs or quasi-RCTs at the first update. One new RCT was identified in the second update but was excluded for the reasons outlined below.Incomplete data were available for one published study comparing early and late initiation of NIV (13 participants). We contacted the trial authors, who were not able to provide the missing data. The conclusions of the review were therefore based on a single study of 41 participants comparing NIV with standard care. Lack of (or uncertain) blinding represented a risk of bias for participant- and clinician-assessed outcomes such as quality of life, but it was otherwise a well-conducted study with a low risk of bias.The study provided moderate-quality evidence that overall median survival was significantly different between the group treated with NIV and the standard care group. The median survival in the NIV group was 48 days longer (219 days compared to 171 days for the standard care group (estimated 95% confidence interval 12 to 91 days, P = 0.0062)). This survival benefit was accompanied by an enhanced quality of life. On subgroup analysis, in the subgroup with normal to moderately impaired bulbar function (20 participants), median survival was 205 days longer (216 days in the NIV group versus 11 days in the standard care group, P = 0.0059), and quality of life measures were better than with standard care (low-quality evidence). In the participants with poor bulbar function (21 participants), NIV did not prolong survival or improve quality of life, although there was significant improvement in the mean symptoms domain of the Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index by some measures. Neither trial reported clinical data on intervention-related adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence from a single RCT of NIV in 41 participants suggests that it significantly prolongs survival, and low-quality evidence indicates that it improves or maintains quality of life in people with ALS. Survival and quality of life were significantly improved in the subgroup of people with better bulbar function, but not in those with severe bulbar impairment. Adverse effects related to NIV should be systematically reported, as at present there is little information on this subject. More RCT evidence to support the use of NIV in ALS will be difficult to generate, as not offering NIV to the control group is no longer ethically justifiable. Future studies should examine the benefits of early intervention with NIV and establish the most appropriate timing for initiating NIV in order to obtain its maximum benefit. The effect of adding cough augmentation techniques to NIV also needs to be investigated in an RCT. Future studies should examine the health economics of NIV. Access to NIV remains restricted in many parts of the world, including Europe and North America. We need to understand the factors, personal and socioeconomic, that determine access to NIV.

Immunomodulatory treatment other than corticosteroids, immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a disease that causes progressive or relapsing and remitting weakness and numbness. It is probably caused by an autoimmune process. Immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory drugs would be expected to be beneficial. This review was first published in 2003 and has been updated most recently in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive agents other than corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and plasma exchange in CIDP. SEARCH METHODS: On 24 May 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and LILACS for completed trials, and clinical trial registers for ongoing trials. We contacted the authors of the trials identified and other disease experts seeking other published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised and quasi-randomised trials of all immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, ciclosporin, mycophenolate mofetil, and rituximab, and all immunomodulatory agents, such as interferon (IFN) alfa and IFN beta, in participants fulfilling standard diagnostic criteria for CIDP. We included all comparisons of these agents with placebo, another treatment, or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We wanted to measure the change in disability after one year as our primary outcome. Our secondary outcomes were change in disability after four or more weeks (from randomisation); change in impairment after at least one year; change in maximum motor nerve conduction velocity and compound muscle action potential amplitude after one year; and for participants who were receiving corticosteroids or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), the amount of this medication given during at least one year after randomisation. Participants with one or more serious adverse events during the first year was also a secondary outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials fulfilled the selection criteria: one of azathioprine (27 participants), two of IFN beta-1a (77 participants in total) and one of methotrexate (60 participants). The risk of bias was considered low in the trials of IFN beta-1a and methotrexate but high in the trial of azathioprine. None of the trials showed significant benefit in any of the outcomes selected by their authors. The results of the outcomes which approximated most closely to the primary outcome for this review were as follows.In the azathioprine trial there was a median improvement in the Neuropathy Impairment Scale (scale range 0 to 280) after nine months of 29 points (range 49 points worse to 84 points better) in the azathioprine and prednisone treated participants compared with 30 points worse (range 20 points worse to 104 points better) in the prednisone alone group. There were no reports of adverse events.In a cross-over trial of IFN beta-1a with 20 participants, the treatment periods were 12 weeks. The median improvement in the Guy's Neurological Disability Scale (range 1 to 10) was 0.5 grades (interquartile range (IQR) 1.8 grades better to zero grade change) in the IFN beta-1a treatment period and 0.5 grades (IQR 1.8 grades better to 1.0 grade worse) in the placebo treatment period. There were no serious adverse events in either treatment period.In a parallel group trial of IFN beta-1a with 67 participants, none of the outcomes for this review was available. The trial design involved withdrawal from ongoing IVIg treatment. The primary outcome used by the trial authors was total IVIg dose administered from week 16 to week 32 in the placebo group compared with the IFN beta-1a groups. This was slightly but not significantly lower in the combined IFN beta-1a groups (1.20 g/kg) compared with the placebo group (1.34 g/kg, P = 0.75). There were four participants in the IFN beta-1a group and none in the placebo group with one or more serious adverse events, risk ratio (RR) 4.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 80.05).The methotrexate trial had a similar design involving withdrawal from ongoing corticosteroid or IVIg treatment. At the end of the trial (approximately 40 weeks) there was no significant difference in the change in the Overall Neuropathy Limitations Scale, a disability scale (scale range 0 to 12), the median change being 0 (IQR -1 to 0) in the methotrexate group and 0 (IQR -0.75 to 0) in the placebo group. These changes in disability might have been confounded by the reduction in corticosteroid or IVIg dose required by the protocol. There were three participants in the methotrexate group and one in the placebo with one or more serious adverse events, RR 3.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 32.23). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence from randomised trials does not show significant benefit from azathioprine or interferon beta-1a and moderate-quality evidence from one randomised trial does not show significant benefit from a relatively low dose of methotrexate for the treatment of CIDP. None of the trials was large enough to rule out small or moderate benefit. The evidence from observational studies is insufficient to avoid the need for randomised controlled trials to discover whether these drugs are beneficial. Future trials should have improved designs, more sensitive outcome measures relevant to people with CIDP, and longer treatment durations.

Pharmacological treatment other than corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin, but not corticosteroids, are beneficial in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). The efficacy of other pharmacological agents is unknown. This review was first published in 2011 and updated in 2013 and 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological agents other than plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids for GBS. SEARCH METHODS: On 18 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for treatments for GBS. We also searched clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of acute GBS (within four weeks from onset) of all types and degrees of severity, and in individuals of all ages. We discarded trials that investigated only corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange. We included other pharmacological treatments or combinations of treatments compared with no treatment, placebo or another treatment. We also identified a number of non-randomised studies during the search, the results of which we considered in the Discussion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new trials during this update of the review. In previous versions of this review we identified only very low quality evidence for four different interventions published in four studies. Each study had a high risk of bias in at least one respect. One RCT with 19 participants comparing interferon beta-1a and placebo showed no clinically important difference in any outcome between groups. Another with 10 participants comparing brain-derived neurotrophic factor and placebo showed no clinically important difference in any outcome between groups. A third with 37 participants comparing cerebrospinal fluid filtration and plasma exchange also showed no clinically important difference in any outcome between groups. In a fourth with 43 participants, the risk ratio for an improvement by one or more disability grade after eight weeks was greater with the Chinese herbal medicine tripterygium polyglycoside than with corticosteroids (risk ratio 1.47; 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.11); other outcomes in this trial showed no difference. Serious adverse events were uncommon with each of these treatments and in the control groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the evidence was very low. Three small RCTs, comparing interferon beta-1a or brain-derived neurotrophic factor with placebo, and cerebrospinal fluid filtration with plasma exchange, showed no significant benefit or harm for any of the interventions. A fourth small trial showed that the Chinese herbal medicine, tripterygium polyglycoside, hastened recovery in people with GBS to a greater extent than corticosteroids, but this result needs confirmation. We were unable to draw any useful conclusions from the few observational studies we identified.

Corticosteroids for Guillain-Barré syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves, which corticosteroids would be expected to benefit. OBJECTIVES: To examine the ability of corticosteroids to hasten recovery and reduce the long-term morbidity from GBS. SEARCH METHODS: On 12 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of any form of corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone versus placebo or supportive care alone in GBS. Our primary outcome was change in disability grade on a seven-point scale after four weeks. Secondary outcomes included time from randomisation until recovery of unaided walking, time from randomisation until discontinuation of ventilation (for those ventilated), death, death or disability (inability to walk without aid) after 12 months, relapse, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors used standard methods expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: The review authors discovered no new trials in the new searches in June 2009, November 2011, or January 2016. Six trials with 587 participants provided data for the primary outcome. According to moderate quality evidence, the disability grade change after four weeks in the corticosteroid groups was not significantly different from that in the control groups, mean difference (MD) 0.36 less improvement (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.16 more to 0.88 less improvement). In four trials of oral corticosteroids with 120 participants in total, there was very low quality evidence of less improvement after four weeks with corticosteroids than without corticosteroids, MD 0.82 disability grades less improvement (95% CI 0.17 to 1.47 grades less). In two trials with a combined total of 467 participants, there was moderate quality evidence of no significant difference of a disability grade more improvement after four weeks with intravenous corticosteroids (MD 0.17, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.39). According to moderate quality evidence, there was also no significant difference between the corticosteroid treated and control groups for improvement by one or more grades after four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.24) or for death or disability after one year (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.5). We found high quality evidence that the occurrence of diabetes was more common (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.12) and hypertension less common (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41) in the corticosteroid-treated participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: According to moderate quality evidence, corticosteroids given alone do not significantly hasten recovery from GBS or affect the long-term outcome. According to very low quality evidence, oral corticosteroids delay recovery. Diabetes requiring insulin was more common and hypertension less common with corticosteroids based on high quality evidence.

Pharmacological treatments for Friedreich ataxia.

BACKGROUND: Friedreich ataxia is a rare inherited autosomal recessive neurological disorder, characterised initially by unsteadiness in standing and walking, slowly progressing to wheelchair dependency usually in the late teens or early twenties. It is associated with slurred speech, scoliosis, and pes cavus. Heart abnormalities cause premature death in 60% of people with the disorder. There is no easily defined clinical or biochemical marker and no known treatment. This is the second update of a review first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for Friedreich ataxia. SEARCH METHODS: On 29 February 2016 we searched The Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL Plus. On 7 March 2016 we searched ORPHANET and TRIP. We also checked clinical trials registers for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of pharmacological treatments (including vitamins) in people with genetically-confirmed Friedreich ataxia. The primary outcome was change in a validated Friedreich ataxia neurological score after 12 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in cardiac status as measured by magnetic resonance imaging or echocardiography, quality of life, mild and serious adverse events, and survival. We excluded trials of duration shorter than 12 months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors selected trials and two review authors extracted data. We obtained missing data from the two RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. We collected adverse event data from included studies. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified more than 12 studies that used antioxidants in the treatment of Friedreich ataxia, but only two small RCTs, with a combined total of 72 participants, both fulfilled the selection criteria for this review and published results. One of these trials compared idebenone with placebo, the other compared high-dose versus low-dose coenzyme Q10 and vitamin E (the trialists considered the low-dose medication to be the placebo). We identified two other completed RCTs, which remain unpublished; the interventions in these trials were pioglitazone (40 participants) and idebenone (232 participants). Other RCTs were of insufficient duration for inclusion.In the included studies, the primary outcome specified for the review, change in a validated Friedreich ataxia rating score, was measured using the International Co-operative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS). The results did not reveal any significant difference between the antioxidant-treated and the placebo groups (mean difference 0.79 points, 95% confidence interval -1.97 to 3.55 points; low-quality evidence).The published included studies did not assess the first secondary outcome, change in cardiac status as measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Both studies reported changes in cardiac measurements assessed by echocardiogram. The ejection fraction was not measured in the larger of the included studies (44 participants). In the smaller study (28 participants), it was normal at baseline and did not change with treatment. End-diastolic interventricular septal thickness showed a small decrease in the smaller of the two included studies. In the larger included study, there was no decrease, showing significant heterogeneity in the study results; our overall assessment of the quality of evidence for this outcome was very low. Left ventricular mass (LVM) was only available for the smaller RCT, which showed a significant decrease. The relevance of this change is unclear and the quality of evidence low.There were no deaths related to the treatment with antioxidants. We considered the published included studies at low risk of bias in six of seven domains assessed. One unpublished included RCT, a year-long study using idebenone (232 participants), published an interim report in May 2010 stating that the study reached neither its primary endpoint, which was change in the ICARS score, nor a key cardiological secondary endpoint, but data were not available for verification and analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence from two small, published, randomised controlled trials neither support nor refute an effect from antioxidants (idebenone, or a combination of coenzyme Q10 and vitamin E) on the neurological status of people with Friedreich ataxia, measured with a validated neurological rating scale. A large unpublished study of idebenone that reportedly failed to meet neurological or key cardiological endpoints, and a trial of pioglitazone remain unpublished, but on publication will very likely influence quality assessments and conclusions. A single study of idebenone provided low-quality evidence for a decrease in LVM, which is of uncertain clinical significance but of potential importance that needs to be clarified. According to low-quality evidence, serious and non-serious adverse events were rare in both antioxidant and placebo groups. No non-antioxidant agents have been investigated in RCTs of 12 months' duration.

Corticosteroids for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

BACKGROUND: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common muscular dystrophy of childhood. Untreated, this incurable disease, which has an X-linked recessive inheritance, is characterised by muscle wasting and loss of walking ability, leading to complete wheelchair dependence by 13 years of age. Prolongation of walking is a major aim of treatment. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicates that corticosteroids significantly improve muscle strength and function in boys with DMD in the short term (six months), and strength at two years (two-year data on function are very limited). Corticosteroids, now part of care recommendations for DMD, are largely in routine use, although questions remain over their ability to prolong walking, when to start treatment, longer-term balance of benefits versus harms, and choice of corticosteroid or regimen.We have extended the scope of this updated review to include comparisons of different corticosteroids and dosing regimens. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of corticosteroids on prolongation of walking ability, muscle strength, functional ability, and quality of life in DMD; to address the question of whether benefit is maintained over the longer term (more than two years); to assess adverse events; and to compare efficacy and adverse effects of different corticosteroid preparations and regimens. SEARCH METHODS: On 16 February 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We wrote to authors of published studies and other experts. We checked references in identified trials, handsearched journal abstracts, and searched trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered RCTs or quasi-RCTs of corticosteroids (e.g. prednisone, prednisolone, and deflazacort) given for a minimum of three months to patients with a definite DMD diagnosis. We considered comparisons of different corticosteroids, regimens, and corticosteroids versus placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 studies (667 participants) and two new ongoing studies for inclusion. Six RCTs were newly included at this update and important non-randomised cohort studies have also been published. Some important studies remain unpublished and not all published studies provide complete outcome data. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: one two-year deflazacort RCT (n = 28) used prolongation of ambulation as an outcome measure but data were not adequate for drawing conclusions. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: meta-analyses showed that corticosteroids (0.75 mg/kg/day prednisone or prednisolone) improved muscle strength and function versus placebo over six months (moderate quality evidence from up to four RCTs). Evidence from single trials showed 0.75 mg/kg/day superior to 0.3 mg/kg/day on most strength and function measures, with little evidence of further benefit at 1.5 mg/kg/day. Improvements were seen in time taken to rise from the floor (Gowers' time), timed walk, four-stair climbing time, ability to lift weights, leg function grade, and forced vital capacity. One new RCT (n = 66), reported better strength, function and quality of life with daily 0.75 mg/kg/day prednisone at 12 months. One RCT (n = 28) showed that deflazacort stabilised muscle strength versus placebo at two years, but timed function test results were too imprecise for conclusions to be drawn.One double-blind RCT (n = 64), largely at low risk of bias, compared daily prednisone (0.75 mg/kg/day) with weekend-only prednisone (5 mg/kg/weekend day), finding no overall difference in muscle strength and function over 12 months (moderate to low quality evidence). Two small RCTs (n = 52) compared daily prednisone 0.75 mg/kg/day with daily deflazacort 0.9 mg/kg/day, but study methods limited our ability to compare muscle strength or function. ADVERSE EFFECTS: excessive weight gain, behavioural abnormalities, cushingoid appearance, and excessive hair growth were all previously shown to be more common with corticosteroids than placebo; we assessed the quality of evidence (for behavioural changes and weight gain) as moderate. Hair growth and cushingoid features were more frequent at 0.75 mg/kg/day than 0.3 mg/kg/day prednisone. Comparing daily versus weekend-only prednisone, both groups gained weight with no clear difference in body mass index (BMI) or in behavioural changes (low quality evidence for both outcomes, one study); the weekend-only group had a greater linear increase in height. Very low quality evidence suggested less weight gain with deflazacort than with prednisone at 12 months, and no difference in behavioural abnormalities. Data are insufficient to assess the risk of fractures or cataracts for any comparison.Non-randomised studies support RCT evidence in showing improved functional benefit from corticosteroids. These studies suggest sustained benefit for up to 66 months. Adverse effects were common, although generally manageable. According to a large comparative longitudinal study of daily or intermittent (10 days on, 10 days off) corticosteroid for a mean period of four years, a daily regimen prolongs ambulation and improves functional scores over the age of seven, but with a greater frequency of side effects than an intermittent regimen. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence from RCTs indicates that corticosteroid therapy in DMD improves muscle strength and function in the short term (twelve months), and strength up to two years. On the basis of the evidence available for strength and function outcomes, our confidence in the effect estimate for the efficacy of a 0.75 mg/kg/day dose of prednisone or above is fairly secure. There is no evidence other than from non-randomised trials to establish the effect of corticosteroids on prolongation of walking. In the short term, adverse effects were significantly more common with corticosteroids than placebo, but not clinically severe. A weekend-only prednisone regimen is as effective as daily prednisone in the short term (12 months), according to low to moderate quality evidence from a single trial, with no clear difference in BMI (low quality evidence). Very low quality evidence indicates that deflazacort causes less weight gain than prednisone after a year's treatment. We cannot evaluate long-term benefits and hazards of corticosteroid treatment or intermittent regimens from published RCTs. Non-randomised studies support the conclusions of functional benefits, but also identify clinically significant adverse effects of long-term treatment, and a possible divergence of efficacy in daily and weekend-only regimens in the longer term. These benefits and adverse effects have implications for future research and clinical practice.

Endoscopic and Open Release Similarly Safe for the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Endoscopic Release of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (ECTR) is a minimal invasive approach for the treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. There is scepticism regarding the safety of this technique, based on the assumption that this is a rather "blind" procedure and on the high number of severe complications that have been reported in the literature. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether there is evidence supporting a higher risk after ECTR in comparison to the conventional open release. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2013), the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (November 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, issue 11 in The Cochrane Library). We hand-searched reference lists of included studies. We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials (e.g. study using alternation, date of birth, or case record number) that compare any ECTR with any OCTR technique. Safety was assessed by the incidence of major, minor and total number of complications, recurrences, and re-operations.The total time needed before return to work or to return to daily activities was also assessed. We synthesized data using a random-effects meta-analysis in STATA. We conducted a sensitivity analysis for rare events using binomial likelihood. We judged the conclusiveness of meta-analysis calculating the conditional power of meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: ECTR is associated with less time off work or with daily activities. The assessment of major complications, reoperations and recurrence of symptoms does not favor either of the interventions. There is an uncertain advantage of ECTR with respect to total minor complications (more transient paresthesia but fewer skin-related complications). Future studies are unlikely to alter these findings because of the rarity of the outcome. The effect of a learning curve might be responsible for reduced recurrences and reoperations with ECTR in studies that are more recent, although formal statistical analysis failed to provide evidence for such an association. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Quinine for muscle cramps.

BACKGROUND: Muscle cramps can occur anywhere and for many reasons. Quinine has been used to treat cramps of all causes. However, controversy continues about its efficacy and safety. This review was first published in 2010 and searches were updated in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of quinine-based agents in treating muscle cramps. SEARCH METHODS: On 27 October 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We searched reference lists of articles up to 2014. We also searched for ongoing trials in November 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of people of all ages with muscle cramps in any location and of any cause, treated with quinine or its derivatives. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. For comparisons including more than one trial, we assessed the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 23 trials with a total of 1586 participants. Fifty-eight per cent of these participants were from five unpublished studies. Quinine was compared to placebo (20 trials, n = 1140), vitamin E (four trials, n = 543), a quinine-vitamin E combination (three trials, n = 510), a quinine-theophylline combination (one trial, n = 77), and xylocaine injections into the gastrocnemius muscle (one trial, n = 24). The most commonly used quinine dosage was 300 mg/day (range 200 to 500 mg). We found no new trials for inclusion when searches were updated in 2014.The risk of bias in the trials varied considerably. All 23 trials claimed to be randomised, but only a minority described randomisation and allocation concealment adequately.Compared to placebo, quinine significantly reduced cramp number over two weeks by 28%, cramp intensity by 10%, and cramp days by 20%. Cramp duration was not significantly affected.A significantly greater number of people suffered minor adverse events on quinine than placebo (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0% to 6%), mainly gastrointestinal symptoms. Overdoses of quinine have been reported elsewhere to cause potentially fatal adverse effects, but in the included trials there was no significant difference in major adverse events compared with placebo (RD 0%, 95% CI -1% to 2%). One participant suffered from thrombocytopenia (0.12% risk) on quinine.A quinine-vitamin E combination, vitamin E alone, and xylocaine injections into gastrocnemius were not significantly different to quinine across all outcomes, including adverse effects. Based on a single trial comparison, quinine alone was significantly less effective than a quinine-theophylline combination but with no significant differences in adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence that quinine (200 mg to 500 mg daily) significantly reduces cramp number and cramp days and moderate quality evidence that quinine reduces cramp intensity. There is moderate quality evidence that with use up to 60 days, the incidence of serious adverse events is not significantly greater than for placebo in the identified trials, but because serious adverse events can be rarely fatal, in some countries prescription of quinine is severely restricted.Evidence from single trials suggests that theophylline combined with quinine improves cramps more than quinine alone, and the effects of xylocaine injections into gastrocnemius are not significantly different to quinine across all outcomes. Low or moderate quality evidence shows no significant difference between quinine and vitamin E or quinine and quinine-vitamin E mixture. Further research into these alternatives, as well other pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, is thus warranted.There is no evidence to judge optimal dosage or duration of quinine treatment. Further studies using different dosages and measurement of serum quinine levels will allow a therapeutic range to be defined for muscle cramp. Because serious adverse events are not common, large population studies are required to more accurately inform incidence. Longer lengths of follow-up in future trials will help determine the duration of action following cessation of quinine as well as long-term adverse events. The search for new therapies, pharmacological and nonpharmacological, should continue and further trials should compare vitamin E, quinine-vitamin E combination, and quinine-theophylline mixture with quinine.

Treatment for inclusion body myositis.

BACKGROUND: Inclusion body myositis (IBM) is a late-onset inflammatory muscle disease (myopathy) associated with progressive proximal and distal limb muscle atrophy and weakness. Treatment options have attempted to target inflammatory and atrophic features of this condition (for example with immunosuppressive and immunomodulating drugs, anabolic steroids, and antioxidant treatments), although as yet there is no known effective treatment for reversing or minimising the progression of inclusion body myositis. In this review we have considered the benefits, adverse effects, and costs of treatment in targeting cardinal effects of the condition, namely muscle atrophy, weakness, and functional impairment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of treatment for IBM. SEARCH METHODS: On 7 October 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Additionally in November 2014 we searched clinical trials registries for ongoing or completed but unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised or quasi-randomised trials, including cross-over trials, of treatment for IBM in adults compared to placebo or any other treatment for inclusion in the review. We specifically excluded people with familial IBM and hereditary inclusion body myopathy, but we included people who had connective tissue and autoimmune diseases associated with IBM, which may or may not be identified in trials. We did not include studies of exercise therapy or dysphagia management, which are topics of other Cochrane systematic reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 10 trials (249 participants) using different treatment regimens. Seven of the 10 trials assessed single agents, and 3 assessed combined agents. Many of the studies did not present adequate data for the reporting of the primary outcome of the review, which was the percentage change in muscle strength score at six months. Pooled data from two trials of interferon beta-1a (n = 58) identified no important difference in normalised manual muscle strength sum scores from baseline to six months (mean difference (MD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.03) between IFN beta-1a and placebo (moderate-quality evidence). A single trial of methotrexate (MTX) (n = 44) provided moderate-quality evidence that MTX did not arrest or slow disease progression, based on reported percentage change in manual muscle strength sum scores at 12 months. None of the fully published trials were adequately powered to detect a treatment effect. We assessed six of the nine fully published trials as providing very low-quality evidence in relation to the primary outcome measure. Three trials (n = 78) compared intravenous immunoglobulin (combined in one trial with prednisone) to a placebo, but we were unable to perform meta-analysis because of variations in study analysis and presentation of trial data, with no access to the primary data for re-analysis. Other comparisons were also reported in single trials. An open trial of anti-T lymphocyte immunoglobulin (ATG) combined with MTX versus MTX provided very low-quality evidence in favour of the combined therapy, based on percentage change in quantitative muscle strength sum scores at 12 months (MD 12.50%, 95% CI 2.43 to 22.57). Data from trials of oxandrolone versus placebo, azathioprine (AZA) combined with MTX versus MTX, and arimoclomol versus placebo did not allow us to report either normalised or percentage change in muscle strength sum scores. A complete analysis of the effects of arimoclomol is pending data publication. Studies of simvastatin and bimagrumab (BYM338) are ongoing. All analysed trials reported adverse events. Only 1 of the 10 trials interpreted these for statistical significance. None of the trials included prespecified criteria for significant adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trials of interferon beta-1a and MTX provided moderate-quality evidence of having no effect on the progression of IBM. Overall trial design limitations including risk of bias, low numbers of participants, and short duration make it difficult to say whether or not any of the drug treatments included in this review were effective. An open trial of ATG combined with MTX versus MTX provided very low-quality evidence in favour of the combined therapy based on the percentage change data given. We were unable to draw conclusions from trials of IVIg, oxandrolone, and AZA plus MTX versus MTX. We need more randomised controlled trials that are larger, of longer duration, and that use fully validated, standardised, and responsive outcome measures.

ANTECEDENTES: La miositis por cuerpos de inclusión (MCI) es una enfermedad muscular inflamatoria (miopatía) de aparición tardía asociada con atrofia muscular y debilidad progresivas de los miembros proximales y distales. Las opciones de tratamiento se han intentado dirigir a las características inflamatorias y atróficas de esta afección (por ejemplo, con fármacos inmunosupresores e inmunomoduladores, esteroides anabólicos y tratamientos antioxidantes), aunque hasta ahora no hay un tratamiento eficaz conocido para la reversión o la reducción de la progresión de la miositis por cuerpos de inclusión. En esta revisión se han considerado los efectos beneficiosos, los efectos adversos y los costos del tratamiento dirigido a los efectos fundamentales de la afección, a saber, la atrofia muscular, la debilidad y el deterioro funcional. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos del tratamiento para la MCI. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: El 7 octubre 2014, se hicieron búsquedas en el registro especializado del Grupo Cochrane de Enfermedades Neuromusculares (Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group), en el Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (CENTRAL), MEDLINE y en EMBASE. Además, en noviembre 2014 se realizaron búsquedas de ensayos en curso o terminadas pero no publicados en los registros de ensayos clínicos. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se consideraron para inclusión en la revisión los ensayos aleatorios o cuasialeatorios, incluidos los ensayos cruzados (crossover), del tratamiento para la MCI en adultos en comparación con placebo u otro tratamiento. Se excluyeron específicamente los pacientes con MCI familiar y miopatía por cuerpos de inclusión hereditaria, pero se incluyeron los pacientes con enfermedades del tejido conjuntivo y autoinmunitarias asociadas con MCI, que pueden o no identificarse en los ensayos. No se incluyeron los estudios de terapia con ejercicios o tratamiento de la disfagia, que son los temas de otras revisiones sistemáticas Cochrane. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se utilizaron procedimientos metodológicos Cochrane estándar. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: La revisión incluyó diez ensayos (249 participantes) que utilizaron diferentes regímenes de tratamiento. Siete de los diez ensayos evaluaron agentes únicos y tres evaluaron agentes combinados. Muchos de los estudios no presentaron datos suficientes para el informe del resultado primario de la revisión, que fue el cambio porcentual en la puntuación de fuerza muscular a los seis meses. Los datos agrupados de dos ensayos de interferón beta­1a (n = 58) no identificaron diferencias importantes en las puntuaciones normalizadas de la suma de la fuerza muscular manual desde el inicio hasta los seis meses (diferencia de medias [DM] ­0,06; IC del 95%: ­0,15 a 0,03) entre IFN beta­1a y placebo (pruebas de calidad moderada). Un único ensayo de metotrexato (MTX) (n = 44) proporcionó pruebas de calidad moderada de que el MTX no detuvo ni enlenteció la progresión de la enfermedad, sobre la base del cambio porcentual informado en las puntuaciones de la suma de la fuerza muscular manual a los 12 meses. Ninguno de los ensayos publicados completamente tuvo poder estadístico suficiente para detectar un efecto del tratamiento. Se consideró que seis de los nueve ensayos publicados completamente aportaron pruebas de calidad muy baja con respecto a la medida de resultado primaria. Tres ensayos (n = 78) compararon la inmunoglobulina intravenosa (combinada en un ensayo con prednisona) con placebo, pero no fue posible realizar el metanálisis debido a las variaciones en el análisis de los estudios y a la presentación de los datos del ensayo, sin acceso a los datos primarios para el reanálisis. Otras comparaciones también se informaron en ensayos individuales. Un ensayo abierto de inmunoglobulina anti­linfocitos T (IgAT) combinada con MTX versus MTX proporcionó pruebas de calidad muy baja a favor del tratamiento combinado, sobre la base del cambio porcentual en las puntuaciones cuantitativas de la suma de la fuerza muscular a los 12 meses (DM 12,50%; IC del 95%: 2,43 a 22,57). Los datos de los ensayos de oxandrolona versus placebo, azatioprina (AZA) combinada con MTX versus MTX y arimoclomol versus placebo no permitieron informar sobre el cambio porcentual o normalizado en las puntuaciones de la suma de la fuerza muscular. Un análisis completo de los efectos del arimoclomol está pendiente de la publicación de los datos. Están en curso estudios de simvastatina y bimagrumab (BYM338). Todos los ensayos analizados informaron eventos adversos. Solamente uno de los diez ensayos interpretó la significación estadística de los eventos adversos. Ninguno de los ensayos incluyó criterios preespecificados para los eventos adversos significativos. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Los ensayos de interferón beta­1a y MTX proporcionaron pruebas de calidad moderada de que no tienen efectos sobre la progresión de la MCI. Las limitaciones generales del diseño de los ensayos, que incluyen el riesgo de sesgo, los escasos números de participantes y la corta duración, hacen difícil determinar si alguno de los tratamientos farmacológicos incluidos en esta revisión fue eficaz. Un ensayo abierto de ATG combinada con MTX versus MTX aportó pruebas de calidad muy baja a favor del tratamiento combinado sobre la base de los datos de cambio porcentual facilitados. No fue posible establecer conclusiones de los ensayos de IgIV, oxandrolona y AZA más MTX versus MTX. Se necesitan más ensayos controlados aleatorios de mayor tamaño, con una duración más prolongada y que utilicen medidas de resultado completamente validadas, estandarizadas y de interés.