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

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

Alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis.

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

Efficacy and safety of electrical stimulation in the treatment of neurogenic bladder dysfunction in myelomeningocele-Systematic review of randomized clinical trials.

AIMS: The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate and synthesize the effects (benefits and harms) of electrical stimulation (EE), alone or in association with other interventions, compared with sham and other interventions, for the treatment of neurogenic bladder dysfunction in myelomeningocele. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following the methodological recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020200425). A search was performed in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, LILACS, and PEDro. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed any EE in children diagnosed with myelomeningocele and neurogenic bladder and/or urinary incontinence were included and reported. RESULTS: When comparing EE versus sham groups, some estimated effects showed a wide confidence interval, probably due to the small sample size of the included studies. This indicates an imprecision in these findings. Regarding the safety of this intervention and safety of the lower urinary tract, no adverse events resulting from EE were reported. All the included studies have evaluated the efficacy of EE compared with sham, but different EE parameters and electrode positions among studies make it impossible to perform a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low certainty evidence, the findings of this systematic review suggested no difference between EE and sham to improve urinary incontinence in children with myelomeningocele. However, the small sample size and the imprecision arising from the wide confidence intervals must be considered. Future RCTs following a rigorous methodology, as recommended by the CONSORT statement, should be conducted to support the use of this intervention in clinical practice.

Colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19.

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

COVID-19 in a temporal relation to the onset of multiple sclerosis.

Neurological complications of COVID-19 have been described. We present the case of a 27-year-old woman who developed COVID-19 in April 2020. She continued to present anosmia and ageusia eight months later. Six months after contracting COVID-19, she developed dysesthesia, hypoesthesia and hyperreflexia. Her magnetic resonance imaging showed demyelinating lesions, of which two were enhanced by gadolinium. She was positive for oligoclonal bands in her spinal fluid. This patient developed multiple sclerosis with a temporal relationship to COVID-19. We believe that SARS-CoV-2 led to her autoimmune disease through a virus-induced neuroimmunopathological condition.

How to prepare a systematic review and meta-analysis: the methodological approach

Abstract Aim: This article aimed to provide to the authors a summary of the methodological approach to prepare a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The instructions were established to support authors in preparing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, according to the required recommendations. Conclusion: The researchers should keep in mind that conduct a systematic review involves rigorous methodological criteria to identify and synthesize all relevant studies on a given topic defined a priori.

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

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

Palliative care interventions for people with multiple sclerosis.

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

N-acetylcysteine as an adjuvant therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication.

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) is one of the most common pathogens to establish and cause infection in human beings, affecting about 50% of the world's population. Prevalence may be as high as 83% in Latin American countries and as low as 17% in North America. Approximately 20% of infected people will manifest disease; people at high risk include those who live in low- and middle-income countries with poor sanitary conditions, since the mechanism of transmission seems to be oral-oral or faecal-oral (mostly during infancy). There are several antibiotic regimens to treat the infection, but antibiotic resistance is growing around the world. New adjuvant drugs - such as probiotics, statins, curcumin, and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) - are being tested to enhance eradication rates.N-acetylcysteine can destabilise the biofilm structure; it also has synergic action with antibiotics, and bactericidal effects. In addition, NAC has antioxidant properties, and has a primary mucolytic effect by reducing the thickness of the gastric mucus layer, both of which may exert beneficial adjuvant effects on H pylori eradication. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of N-acetylcysteine as an adjuvant therapy to antibiotics for Helicobacter pylori eradication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2018), Embase (1988 to April 2018), CINAHL (1982 to April 2018), LILACS (1982 to April 2018), grey literature databases and trials registries. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant studies. We screened 726 articles and assessed 18 for eligibility. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any antibiotic regimen plus NAC, in adults infected with H pylori. To be included, trials had to use a control consisting of the same antibiotic regimen with or without placebo. Outcomes of interest were eradication rates, and gastrointestinal, toxic, and allergic adverse events. Reporting of the primary outcomes listed here was not an inclusion criterion for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data and completed the 'Risk of bias' assessments. A third review author independently confirmed the 'Risk of bias' assessments. We used Review Manager 5 software for data analysis. We contacted study authors if there was missing information. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (with a total of 559 participants) in this review. The studies recruited outpatients aged between 17 and 76 years who were referred to endoscopy centres in several different countries. The certainty of evidence was reduced for most outcomes due to the poor methodological quality of included studies; issues mainly related to the generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, and blinding (this last domain related specifically to adverse outcomes).We are uncertain whether the addition of NAC to antibiotics improves H pylori eradication rates, compared with the addition of placebo or no NAC (38.8% versus 49.1%, risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.08; participants = 559; studies = eight; very low-certainty evidence). A post-hoc sensitivity analysis, in which we removed studies that tested antibiotic regimens no longer recommended in clinical practice, showed that the addition of NAC may improve eradication rates compared to control (27.2% versus 37.6%, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94; participants = 397; published studies = five).We are uncertain whether NAC is associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared to control (23.9% versus 18.9%, RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.85; participants = 336; studies = five; very low-certaintyevidence), or allergic adverse events (2% versus 0%, RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.32 to 27.74; participants = 336; studies = five; very low-certainty evidence). There were no reports of toxic adverse events amongst included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether the addition of NAC to antibiotics improves H pylori eradication rates compared with the addition of placebo or no NAC. Due to the clinical, statistical and methodological heterogeneity found in included studies, and the uncertainty observed when analysing therapy subgroups, any possible beneficial effect of NAC should be regarded cautiously.We are uncertain whether NAC is associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal or allergic adverse events compared with placebo or no NAC. There were no reports of toxic adverse events amongst the included studies.Further large, well-designed, randomised clinical studies should be conducted, with good reporting standards and appropriate collection of efficacy and safety outcomes, especially for current recommended antibiotic regimens.

Oral isotretinoin for acne.

BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris, a chronic inflammatory disease of the pilosebaceous unit associated with socialisation and mental health problems, may affect more than 80% of teenagers. Isotretinoin is the only drug that targets all primary causal factors of acne; however, it may cause adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy and safety of oral isotretinoin for acne vulgaris. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to July 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and LILACS. We updated this search in March 2018, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We also searched five trial registries, checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for further references to relevant trials, and handsearched dermatology conference proceedings. A separate search for adverse effects of oral isotretinoin was undertaken in MEDLINE and Embase up to September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of oral isotretinoin in participants with clinically diagnosed acne compared against placebo, any other systemic or topical active therapy, and itself in different formulation, doses, regimens, or course duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 RCTs, involving 3836 participants (12 to 55 years) with mild to severe acne. There were twice as many male participants as females.Most studies were undertaken in Asia, Europe, and North America. Outcomes were generally measured between eight to 32 weeks (mean 19.7 weeks) of therapy.Assessed comparisons included oral isotretinoin versus placebo or other treatments such as antibiotics. In addition, different doses, regimens, or formulations of oral isotretinoin were assessed, as well as oral isotretinoin with the addition of topical agents.Pharmaceutical companies funded 12 included trials. All, except three studies, had high risk of bias in at least one domain.Oral isotretinoin compared with oral antibiotics plus topical agentsThese studies included participants with moderate or severe acne and assessed outcomes immediately after 20 to 24 weeks of treatment (short-term). Three studies (400 participants) showed isotretinoin makes no difference in terms of decreasing trial investigator-assessed inflammatory lesion count (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06), with only one serious adverse effect found, which was Stevens-Johnson syndrome in the isotretinoin group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.98). However, we are uncertain about these results as they were based on very low-quality evidence.Isotretinoin may slightly improve (by 15%) acne severity, assessed by physician's global evaluation (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.32; 351 participants; 2 studies), but resulted in more less serious adverse effects (67% higher risk) (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.98; 351 participants; 2 studies), such as dry lips/skin, cheilitis, vomiting, nausea (both outcomes, low-quality evidence).Different doses/therapeutic regimens of oral isotretinoinFor our primary efficacy outcome, we found three RCTs, but heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. One study (154 participants) reported 79%, 80% and 84% decrease in total inflammatory lesion count after 20 weeks of 0.05, 0.1, or 0.2 mg/kg/d of oral isotretinoin for severe acne (low-quality evidence). Another trial (150 participants, severe acne) compared 0.1, 0.5, and 1 mg/kg/d oral isotretinoin for 20 weeks and, respectively, 58%, 80% and 90% of participants achieved 95% decrease in total inflammatory lesion count. One RCT, of participants with moderate acne, compared isotretinoin for 24 weeks at (a) continuous low dose (0.25 to 0.4 mg/kg/day), (b) continuous conventional dose (0.5 to 0.7 mg/kg/day), and (c) intermittent regimen (0.5 to 0.7 mg/kg/day, for one week in a month). Continuous low dose (MD 3.72 lesions; 95% CI 2.13 to 5.31; 40 participants; one study) and conventional dose (MD 3.87 lesions; 95% CI 2.31 to 5.43; 40 participants; one study) had a greater decrease in inflammatory lesion counts compared to intermittent treatment (all outcomes, low-quality evidence).Fourteen RCTs (906 participants, severe and moderate acne) reported that no serious adverse events were observed when comparing different doses/therapeutic regimens of oral isotretinoin during treatment (from 12 to 32 weeks) or follow-up after end of treatment (up to 48 weeks). Thirteen RCTs (858 participants) analysed frequency of less serious adverse effects, which included skin dryness, hair loss, and itching, but heterogeneity regarding the assessment of the outcome precluded data pooling; hence, there is uncertainty about the results (low- to very-low quality evidence, where assessed).Improvement in acne severity, assessed by physician's global evaluation, was not measured for this comparison.None of the included RCTs reported birth defects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was low-quality for most assessed outcomes.We are unsure if isotretinoin improves acne severity compared with standard oral antibiotic and topical treatment when assessed by a decrease in total inflammatory lesion count, but it may slightly improve physician-assessed acne severity. Only one serious adverse event was reported in the isotretinoin group, which means we are uncertain of the risk of serious adverse effects; however, isotretinoin may result in more minor adverse effects.Heterogeneity in the studies comparing different regimens, doses, or formulations of oral isotretinoin meant we were unable to undertake meta-analysis. Daily treatment may be more effective than treatment for one week each month. None of the studies in this comparison reported serious adverse effects, or measured improvement in acne severity assessed by physician's global evaluation. We are uncertain if there is a difference in number of minor adverse effects, such as skin dryness, between doses/regimens.Evidence quality was lessened due to imprecision and attrition bias. Further studies should ensure clearly reported long- and short-term standardised assessment of improvement in total inflammatory lesion counts, participant-reported outcomes, and full safety accounts. Oral isotretinoin for acne that has not responded to oral antibiotics plus topical agents needs further assessment, as well as different dose/regimens of oral isotretinoin in acne of all severities.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for patellofemoral pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Patellofemoral pain syndrome, now generally referred to as patellofemoral pain (PFP), is one of the most common orthopaedic disorders, characterised by pain in the anterior or retropatellar knee region. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been proposed generally as a complementary treatment, associated with other interventions such as exercise, or as a single treatment to increase muscle force, reduce knee pain, and improve function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for people with patellofemoral pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, AMED, LILACS, trial registers, conference abstracts, and reference lists. We carried out the search in May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled clinical trials that evaluated the use of NMES for people with PFP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed the process of study selection, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment in duplicate. The primary outcomes were knee pain, knee function, and adverse events. The timing of outcome measurements was up to three months (short term), three to 12 months (medium term), and 12 months and above from trial entry (long term). We calculated risk ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences or standardised mean differences for continuous data. Where appropriate, we pooled data using the fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight randomised clinical trials, reporting results for 345 participants with PFP. The mean ages of trial populations ranged from 25 to 43 years, and the majority (53% to 100%) of participants were female. There was a wide duration of symptoms, with the minimum duration of symptoms for trial inclusion ranging from one to six months. In addition to the study inclusion criteria, studies varied widely in the characteristics of the NMES and its application, and associated co-interventions. We assessed all trials as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, particularly blinding and incomplete outcome data. The results of a laboratory-based trial reporting knee pain immediately after a single 15-minute session of NMES are not reported here as these are of questionable clinical relevance. The seven remaining trials provided evidence for three comparisons. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE, for all primary outcomes for all comparisons as very low, thus we are very unsure of the findings.Four studies compared NMES plus exercise versus exercise alone. Patellar taping was applied as well as exercise to all participants of one study, and patellar taping and ice were also applied in another study. Each trial tested a different multiple-session NMES programme. Pooled data from three studies (118 participants) provided very low-quality evidence that NMES is associated with reduced pain at the end of treatment (ranging from 3 to 12 weeks): mean difference -1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.23 to -1.02; visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10; higher scores = worse pain. However, this result may not be clinically relevant since the minimal clinically important difference for VAS during activities (1.5 to 2.0, out of 10 points) lies within the 95% CI. We found very low-quality evidence from pooled data from two trials of little effect of NMES on knee function, as measured by two knee function rating systems. We found inconclusive and very low-quality evidence from one trial (29 participants) of little effect of NMES on pain and function at one-year follow-up. None of the four trials reported on adverse effects of treatment.One study (94 participants) compared NMES, applied four hours per day on a daily basis for four weeks, with two types of exercises (isometric and isokinetic). The study did not report on knee pain or adverse events. The study provided very low-quality evidence of no important difference between the two groups in knee function at the end of the four-week treatment. Of note is the potentially onerous NMES schedule in this study, which does not correspond to that typically used in clinical practice.Two studies compared different types of NMES. Simultaneously delivered high-low frequencies NMES was compared with sequentially delivered high-low frequencies NMES in one trial (14 participants) and with fixed frequency NMES in the second trial (64 participants). The studies provided very low-quality evidence of no important differences at the end of the six-week treatment programme between the simultaneous frequencies NMES and the two other NMES programmes in overall knee pain, knee function, or in quadriceps fatigue (an adverse event). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found insufficient and inconclusive evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform on the role of NMES for treating people with PFP in current clinical practice. The very low-quality evidence available means that we are uncertain whether or not a multiple-session programme of NMES combined with exercise over several weeks versus exercise alone results in clinically important differences in knee pain and function at the end of the treatment period or at one year. There were no data on adverse effects such as muscle fatigue and discomfort. High-quality randomised clinical trials are needed to inform on the use of NMES for people with PFP. However, professional and stakeholder consensus is required on prioritisation of the research questions for interventions for treating people with PFP, including on the NMES treatment protocol for trials testing NMES.